DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant amendments dated 7/8/2026, Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 13-14 are amended. Claims 5, 10, 12, and 16 are canceled. Claims 17-18 are added. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-18 are pending and examined.
Status of Application
The Applicant amendment to claim 7 is sufficient to overcome the claim objection provided in the Office Action dated 4/8/2026; thus, the objection is withdrawn. The rejections provided in the recited Office Action are modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires “a fluorinated ether” in line 16 and requires “a fluorinated ether” in line 17, making it unclear if the reference to a fluorinated ether in line 17 is the same fluorinated ether in line 16 or if an additional fluorinated ether is claimed. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is indefinite. Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 13, and 18 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, line 17 is interpreted as “the fluorinated ether”.
Correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “secondary battery according to claim 10” in lines 1-2. Claim 10 is canceled, thus, Claim 11 is indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, Claim 11 is interpreted as depending on Claim 1.
Correction is required.
Claim 14 requires “a fluorinated ether” in line 4 and requires “a fluorinated ether” in line 14, making it unclear if the reference to a fluorinated ether in line 14 is the same fluorinated ether in line 4 or if an additional fluorinated ether is claimed. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is indefinite. Claims 15 and 17 depend on claim 14 and are therefore also indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, line 14 is interpreted as “the fluorinated ether”.
Correction is required.
Claim 15 requires “an electrolyte” in line 2. Claim 15 depends on claim 14, which requires “an electrolyte” in line 2. Thus, it is unclear if the electrolyte referenced in Claim 15 is the same as the electrolyte in claim 14 or if a different electrolyte is claimed, making claim 15 indefinite. Claim 17 depends on claim 15 and is therefore also indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, Claim 15 is interpreted as “the electrolyte”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 13-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIKAWA [JP2018067501A, as provided on the IDS dated 8/21/2023, machine translation relied upon previously provided], hereinafter NISHIKAWA, and in further view of DAI et al. [DE102015111777A1, machine translation relied upon previously provided], hereinafter Dai.
Regarding claim 1, NISHIKAWA discloses a secondary battery [Nishikawa 0056 and throughout] comprising:
a sulfur electrode including sulfur as a positive electrode a sulfur electrode containing sulfur [NISHIKAWA 0017, 0024],
an electrode containing lithium as a negative electrode [NISHIKAWA 0032 NISHIKAWA teaches silicon and metallic silicon lithium alloys].
an electrolyte and a solvent [NISHIKAWA 0011 and throughout],
wherein the electrolyte includes a sulfonyl group- containing lithium salt, a lithium nitrate [NISHIKAWA 0007, 0013 and throughout, at least one of lithium bis (fluorosulfonylimide) and lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonylimide) [0007] and lithium nitrate[0013]],
and includes an additional electrolyte or does not include an additional electrolyte [This limitation is treated as an additional electrolyte is optional. Nishikawa 0041, Nishikawa teaches the lithium salt can contain other lithium salts in addition to the lithium imide and lithium nitrate described above. Nishikawa does not teach the additional salt is required, and, thus, meets both includes and does not include as claimed.],
a total content of the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt and the lithium nitrate is 0.8 mol/L or more and 2.0 mol/L or less [NISHIKAWA 0043, 0062 Examples 2-4, Table 1 While NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the mol/L, values of mol/L of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt and the lithium nitrate can be determined from the molar ratios provided by NISHIKAWA from examples 2-4, which the skilled artisan would expect to anticipate the claimed range for a given volume. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings about the molar ratio of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt to lithium nitrate [NISHIKAWA 0014, 0040], lithium salt to glyme (ether) [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], fluorinated ether to lithium salt, and fluorinated ether to glyme (ether) [NISHIKAWA 0050] demonstrate that the molar concentrations are result effective variables where the amount of each of the lithium salt, lithium nitrate, the straight-chain ether, and the fluorinated ether affects irreversible capacity/decomposition [NISHIKAWA 0013- 0014], capacity retention rate [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and the stability of the SEI layer [NISHIKAWA 0050]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine a workable range of mol/L of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt and lithium nitrate through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.],
a content of the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt is 0.1 mol/L or more [NISHIKAWA 0043, 0062 Examples 2-4, Table 1, NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the claimed range; however, values of mol/L of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt can be determined from the molar ratios provided by NISHIKAWA from examples 2-4, which the skilled artisan would expect to anticipate the claimed range for a given volume. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings about the molar ratio of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt to lithium nitrate [NISHIKAWA 0014, 0040], lithium salt to glyme (ether) [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and fluorinated ether to lithium salt [NISHIKAWA 0050] demonstrate that the molar concentrations are result effective variables where the amount of each of the lithium salt, lithium nitrate, the straight-chain ether, and the fluorinated ether affects irreversible capacity/decomposition [NISHIKAWA 0013- 0014], capacity retention rate [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and the stability of the SEI layer [NISHIKAWA 0050]. For example, if the amount of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt is too low, the capacity retention rate may be reduced [NISHIKAWA 0016]. If there is too much relative to the amount of lithium nitrate, there may be too many side reactions [NISHIKAWA 0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine a workable range of mol/L of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.
a content of the lithium nitrate is 0.1 mol/L or more [NISHIKAWA 0043, 0062 Examples 2-4, Table 1, NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the claimed range; however, values of mol/L of lithium nitrate can be determined from the molar ratios provided by NISHIKAWA from examples 2-4, which the skilled artisan would expect to anticipate the claimed range for a given volume. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings about the molar ratio of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt to lithium nitrate [NISHIKAWA 0014, 0040], lithium salt to glyme (ether) [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and fluorinated ether to lithium salt [NISHIKAWA 0050] demonstrate that the molar concentrations are result effective variables where the amount of each of the lithium salt, lithium nitrate, the straight-chain ether, and the fluorinated ether affects irreversible capacity/decomposition [NISHIKAWA 0013- 0014], capacity retention rate [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and the stability of the SEI layer [NISHIKAWA 0050]. For example, if the amount of lithium nitrate is too low, the side reactions will not be suppressed, which affects irreversible capacity [NISHIKAWA 0013]. If there is too much relative to the amount of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt, the skilled artisan would expect the capacity retention rate may be affected [NISHIKAWA 0016]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a workable range of mol/L lithium nitrate can be determined through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024) for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.]
a content of the additional electrolyte is 0 mol/L or greater in an amount that is equal to or less than a smaller amount with respect to the sulfonyl-group-containing lithium salt and the lithium nitrate [Nishikawa 0041, Nishikawa teaches the lithium salt can contain other lithium salts in addition to the lithium imide and lithium nitrate described above. Such salts may be absent, which reads on 0 mol/L or greater. Nishikawa also teaches the salts may be present but limits the composition to 10% by mass. The range taught by Nishikawa overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
and the solvent includes a straight-chain ether [NISHIKAWA 0043, 0062, Table 1 Examples 2-4 and throughout, glyme [0007] such as tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether as the claimed straight-chain ether] and a fluorinated ether [NISHIKAWA 0007, 0062, Table 1 Examples 2-4 and throughout]
a total content of the straight-chain ether and the fluorinated ether is 80 vol % or more [This claim is interpreted that 80 % by volume of the solvent is comprised of the straight-chain ether and fluorinated either, which is consistent with the instant specification [PGPub 0106-0107]. NISHIKAWA 0053, Nishikawa teaches other solvents should be 10 mol% or less. While Nishikawa does not explicitly teach the volume %, it would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to arrive at the claimed range from the teachings of Nishikawa. Further, since Nishikawa teaches 10 mol% or less that includes 0 mol%, and thus the range of Nishikawa overlaps the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Nishikawa teaches since the non-aqueous solvent is substantially composed only of glyme and fluorinated ether, side reactions can be suppressed and the volume retention rate can be further improved, which makes the volume % a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine a workable range for the volume % of fluorinated ether and straight-chain ether through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.],
a content of the fluorinated ether is 20 vol% or more and 60 vol% or less [NISHIKAWA 0050, Examples 2-4, Table 1, NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the claim range of fluorinated ether content by volume % and instead teaches the molar ratio; however, NISHIKAWA’s teachings that the molar ratio of fluorinated ether to glyme (straight-chain ether) is 1:1 to 3:1 [NISHIKAWA 0050, Table 1 examples 2-4] would be expected to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings that the molar ratio demonstrate that the molar concentration, and inherently the claimed volume %, are result effective variables where the amount of each of the fluorinated ether relative to the straight-chain ether affects the stability of the SEI layer due to side reactions [NISHIKAWA 0050]. Thus, if there is too little fluorinated ether, the side chain reactions are not sufficiently suppressed, which diminishes the stability of the SEI layer [0050]. If there is too much fluorinated ether relative to the straight-chain either, it would be expected that there would be no additional benefit and , further, the skilled artisan would expect the viscosity of the electrolyte would be affected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a workable range for the volume % of fluorinated ether relative to fluorinated ether and straight-chain either can be determined through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.
Nishikawa does not explicitly teach a lithium metal electrode as a negative electrode. DAI teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery [Dai 0002 and throughout] with a sulfur electrode for the positive electrode [DAI 0077 and throughout] and a lithium metal electrode as a negative electrode [Dai 0034 Dai teaches lithium foil.]. Dai further teaches the negative electrode can be silicon [Dai 0034], which is the same negative electrode taught by Nishikawa [Nishikawa 0032]. Thus, Dai’s teaching demonstrates that lithium metal foil is an art recognized equivalent known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06) and art recognized as suitable for a negative electrode (see MPEP 2144.07). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Dai’s lithium metal electrode as a known type of negative electrode for use in Nishikawa’s lithium-ion battery through substitution of an art recognized negative electrode for the predictable result of a negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery.
Regarding the limitation of a content of the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt is 0.1 mol/L or more, Dai teaches examples 1 and 2 each have 0.4 M LiTFSI [Dai 0072-0077] as the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt, which anticipates the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Dai’s teaching of the amount of LiTFSI as the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt in NISHIKAWA’s battery for the predictable result of a sulfur-containing secondary battery with a sufficient amount of lithium salt in the electrolyte for the required performance. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding the limitation of a content of the lithium nitrate is 0.1 mol/L or more, Dai teaches examples 1 and 2 each have 0.4 M and 0.6 M LiNO3, respectively, [Dai 0072-0077], which anticipates the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Dai’s teaching of the amount of LiNO3 salt in NISHIKAWA’s battery for the predictable result of a sulfur-containing secondary battery with a sufficient amount of lithium salt in the electrolyte for the required performance.
Further, since Dai is considered analogous art to the prior art of NISHIKAWA, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine additional teachings of Dai as provided below in NISHIKAWA’s battery for the predictable result of a sulfur-containing secondary battery with an electrolyte for the required performance.
See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein the fluorinated ether is a straight-chain or cyclic ether compound that includes a fluorine atom and an ether bond [NISHIKAWA 0045-0049, Numerous straight-chain fluorinated ethers containing a fluorine atom and ether bond are provided that obviate the claimed formula E1, which overlaps NISHIKAWA’s formula 2. Further, NISHIKAWA ‘s teaching of H (CF 2) 2 CH 2 O (CF 2) 2 H (1,1,2,2- tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether: HFE) as preferred [0049] meets the limitations./Dai 0024 Dai teaches bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether and propyl-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether, which reads on the claimed ether]. It would have been obvious to combine Dai’s teachings with NISHIKAWA for the same reasons provided in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein the fluorinated ether is at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a straight-chain ether compound represented by a general formula (E1) below and a cyclic ether compound represented by a general formula (E2) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in formula (E1) , one or both of R11 and R12 is a fluorine atom-containing monovalent hydrocarbon group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms;
R11 is a fluorine atom-containing monovalent hydrocarbon group and R12 is a monovalent hydrocarbon group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms, or R12 is a fluorine atom- containing monovalent hydrocarbon group and R11 is a monovalent hydrocarbon group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms;
R13 is a divalent hydrocarbon group having 2 to 4 carbon atoms; and p is an integer of 0 or 1
PNG
media_image2.png
80
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in formula (E2) , R14 is a fluorine atom-containing monovalent hydrocarbon group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms [NISHIKAWA 0045-0049, Numerous straight-chain fluorinated ethers containing a fluorine atom and ether bond are provided that obviate the claimed formula E1, which overlaps NISHIKAWA’s formula 2. For example, NISHIKAWA teaches fluorinated ethers CF 3 OCH 3 , CF 3 OC 2 H 5 , F (CF 2 ) 2 OCH 3 , F (CF 2 ) 2 OC 2 H 5 , and CF 3 (CF 2 ) CH 2. O (CF 2 ) CF 3 , F (CF 2 ) 3 OCH 3 , F (CF 2 ) 3 OC 2 H 5 , F (CF 2 ) 4 OCH 3 , F (CF 2 ) 4 OC 2 H 5 , F ( CF 2 ) 5 OCH 3 , F (CF 2 ) 5 OC 2 H 5 , F (CF 2 ) 8 OCH 3 , F (CF 2 ) 8 OC 2 H 5 , F (CF 2 ) 9 OCH 3 , CF 3 CH 2 OCH 3 , CF 3 CH 2 OCHF 2 , CF 3 CF 2 CH 2 OCH 3 , CF 3 CF 2 CH 2 OCHF 2 , CF 3 CF 2 CH 2 O (CF 2 ) 2 H, CF 3 CF 2 CH 2 O (CF 2) 2 F, HC 2 CH 2 OCH 3, (CF 3) (CF 2) CH 2 O (CF 2) 2 H, H (CF 2) 2 OCH 2 CH 3, H (CF 2) 2 OCH 2 CF 3, H (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 OCHF 2 , H (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 O (CF 2 ) 2 H, H (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 O (CF 2 ) 3 H, H (CF 2 ) 3 CH 2 O (CF 2) 2 H, H (CHF ) 2 CH 2 O (CF 2) 2 H, (CF 3) 2 CHOCH 3, (CF 3) 2 CHCF 2 OCH 3, CF 3 CHFCF 2 OCH 3, CF 3 CHFCF 2 OCH 2 CH 3 , CF 3 CHFCF 2 CH 2 OCHF 2 , CF 3 CHFCF 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 2 F, CF 3 CHFCF 2 OCH 2 CF 2 CF 2 H, H (CF 2 ) 4 CH 2 O (C F 2 ) 2 H, CH 3 CH 2 O (CF 2 ) 4 F, F (CF 2 ) 4 CH 2 O (CF 2 ) 2 H, H (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 OCF 2 CHFCF 3 , F (CF 2) 2 CH 2 OCF 2 CHFCF 3, H (CF 2) 4 CH 2 O (CF 2) H, CF 3 OCH 2 (CF 2) 2 F, CF 3 CHFCF 2 OCH 2 (CF 2) 3 F, CH 3 CF 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 2 F, CH 3 CF 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 3 F, CH 3 O (CF 2 ) 5 F, F (CF 2 ) 3 CH 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 3 F, F (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 2 F, H (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 2 H, CH 3 CF 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 2 H. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teaching of H (CF 2) 2 CH 2 O (CF 2) 2 H (1,1,2,2- tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether: HFE) as preferred [0049] meets the limitations./ Dai 0024 Dai teaches bis (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (F 3 C-CH 2 -O-CH 2 -CF 3 ) and / or propyl-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether (H 7 C 3 -O-CF 2 -CHF 2 ), which reads on general formula E1 and the requirements for R11, R12, and R13.]. It would have been obvious to combine Dai’s teachings with NISHIKAWA for the same reasons provided in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the secondary battery according to Claim 3, wherein the fluorine atom-containing monovalent hydrocarbon group is a hydrocarbon group represented by a general formula (F) below:
PNG
media_image3.png
68
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in formula (F), A is hydrogen atom or a fluorine atom; r1 is an integer of 0 or more and 10 or less; r2 is an integer of 0 or more and 10 or less; r3 is an integer of 0 or more and 9 or less; r1+ r2 is an integer of 1 or more and 10 or less; r1+ r2 + r3 is an integer of 1 or more and 10 or less; and difluoroethylene units related to r1, monofluoroethylene units related to r2, and ethylene units related to r3 may be arranged at random [NISHIKAWA 0045-0049, Numerous examples are provided of fluorinated ether with a monovalent hydrocarbon group represented by a general formula (F) as claimed. For example, NISHIKAWA teaches fluorinated ethers CF 3 OCH 3 , CF 3 OC 2 H 5 , F (CF 2 ) 2 OCH 3 , F (CF 2 ) 2 OC 2 H 5 , and CF 3 (CF 2 ) CH 2. O (CF 2 ) CF 3 , F (CF 2 ) 3 OCH 3 , F (CF 2 ) 3 OC 2 H 5 , F (CF 2 ) 4 OCH 3 , F (CF 2 ) 4 OC 2 H 5 , F ( CF 2 ) 5 OCH 3 , F (CF 2 ) 5 OC 2 H 5 , F (CF 2 ) 8 OCH 3 , F (CF 2 ) 8 OC 2 H 5 , F (CF 2 ) 9 OCH 3 , CF 3 CH 2 OCH 3 , CF 3 CH 2 OCHF 2 , CF 3 CF 2 CH 2 OCH 3 , CF 3 CF 2 CH 2 OCHF 2 , CF 3 CF 2 CH 2 O (CF 2 ) 2 H, CF 3 CF 2 CH 2 O (CF 2) 2 F, HC 2 CH 2 OCH 3, (CF 3) (CF 2) CH 2 O (CF 2) 2 H, H (CF 2) 2 OCH 2 CH 3, H (CF 2) 2 OCH 2 CF 3, H (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 OCHF 2 , H (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 O (CF 2 ) 2 H, H (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 O (CF 2 ) 3 H, H (CF 2 ) 3 CH 2 O (CF 2) 2 H, H (CHF ) 2 CH 2 O (CF 2) 2 H, (CF 3) 2 CHOCH 3, (CF 3) 2 CHCF 2 OCH 3, CF 3 CHFCF 2 OCH 3, CF 3 CHFCF 2 OCH 2 CH 3 , CF 3 CHFCF 2 CH 2 OCHF 2 , CF 3 CHFCF 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 2 F, CF 3 CHFCF 2 OCH 2 CF 2 CF 2 H, H (CF 2 ) 4 CH 2 O (C F 2 ) 2 H, CH 3 CH 2 O (CF 2 ) 4 F, F (CF 2 ) 4 CH 2 O (CF 2 ) 2 H, H (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 OCF 2 CHFCF 3 , F (CF 2) 2 CH 2 OCF 2 CHFCF 3, H (CF 2) 4 CH 2 O (CF 2) H, CF 3 OCH 2 (CF 2) 2 F, CF 3 CHFCF 2 OCH 2 (CF 2) 3 F, CH 3 CF 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 2 F, CH 3 CF 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 3 F, CH 3 O (CF 2 ) 5 F, F (CF 2 ) 3 CH 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 3 F, F (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 2 F, H (CF 2 ) 2 CH 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 2 H, CH 3 CF 2 OCH 2 (CF 2 ) 2 H. For an example of at least one ether meeting the limitation, CF 3 (CF 2 ) CH 2. O (CF 2 ) CF 3 , has R11 and or R12 on the left and/or right side of (-R13-O)p -where r1=2, r2=0 and r3=0; thus r1+r2=2 and r1+r2+r3=2. As NISHIKAWA does not teach specific arrangement of the fluorinated hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon groups of NISHIKAWA formula 2 :
( R 3 —O—R 4 (2) where in formula (2), R 3 is a fluorinated hydrocarbon group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms. R 4 is a hydrocarbon group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms or a fluorinated hydrocarbon group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms, R 3 is preferably a fluorinated alkyl group, more preferably a fluorinated alkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms, and still more preferably a fluorinated alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms, as R 4 , a fluorinated hydrocarbon group is preferable, a fluorinated alkyl group is more preferable, a fluorinated alkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms is more preferable, and a fluorinated alkyl group having 2 to 4 carbon atoms is still more preferable) [NISHIKAWA 0046-0049]
is required, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of NISHIKAWA is that the difluoroethylene units related to r1, monofluoroethylene units related to r2, and ethylene units related to r3 may be arranged at random, meeting the requirements of the claim./ Dai 0024 Dai teaches bis (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (F 3 C-CH 2 -O-CH 2 -CF 3 ) and / or propyl-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether (H 7 C 3 -O-CF 2 -CHF 2 ), which reads on general formula F and its requirements.]. It would have been obvious to combine Dai’s teachings with NISHIKAWA for the same reasons provided in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein the straight-chain ether is a straight-chain ether represented by a general formula (G) below:
PNG
media_image4.png
41
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in formula (G),R' and R" are each independently a hydrocarbon group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; and n is an integer of 1 or more and 10 or less [NISHIKAWA 0007, 0043, 0060, 0062 Examples 2-4, Table 1] glyme of formula 1 such as tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether where n=4 meets the limitation. Dai 0022, Dai teaches dimethoxyethane, which has the requirements of formula G.]. It would have been obvious to combine Dai’s teachings with NISHIKAWA for the same reasons provided in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt is at least one compound selected from the group consisting of a sulfonylimide lithium salt represented by a general formula (S1) below and a lithium sulfonate represented by a general formula (S2) below:
PNG
media_image5.png
120
420
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
134
399
media_image6.png
Greyscale
in formula (S1), R' are R2 are each independently a halogen atom or a halogen atom-containing hydrocarbon group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; and
in formula (S2), R3 is a halogen atom or a halogen atom- containing hydrocarbon group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms [NISHIKAWA 0038, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium bis (fluorosulfonylimide) (LiFSI: LiN (SO 2 F) 2 ), which reads on formula (S1) where R' are R2 are each independently a halogen atom, lithium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonylimide) (LiTFSI: LiN (SO 2 CF 3 ) 2 ), which reads on formula (S1) where R' are R2 are each independently a halogen atom-containing hydrocarbon group having 1 carbon atoms, LiN (SO 2 C 2 F 5 ) 2 and LiN (SO 2 CF 3 ) (SO 2 C 4 F 9 ), which reads on formula (S1) where R' and R2 are each independently a halogen atom-containing hydrocarbon group having 2 carbon atoms, and LiN (SO 2 CF 3 ) (SO 2 C 4 F 9 ), which reads on formula (S1) where R' or R2 are each independently a halogen atom-containing hydrocarbon group having 2 carbon atoms and R' or R2 are each independently a halogen atom-containing hydrocarbon group having 4 carbon atoms, meeting the claim limitations. / DAI 0023 teaches lithium bis (fluorosulfonylimide) (LiFSI: LiN (SO 2 F) 2 ), which reads on formula (S1) where R' are R2 are each independently a halogen atom, lithium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonylimide) (LiTFSI: LiN (SO 2 CF 3 ) 2 ), which reads on formula (S1) where R' are R2 are each independently a halogen atom-containing hydrocarbon group having 1 carbon atoms.]. It would have been obvious to combine Dai’s teachings with NISHIKAWA for the same reasons provided in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein a content of the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt is 0.1 mol/L or more and 1.0 mol/L or less [NISHIKAWA 0043, 0062 Examples 2-4, Table 1, NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the claimed range; however, values of mol/L of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt can be determined from the molar ratios provided by NISHIKAWA from examples 2-4, which the skilled artisan would expect to anticipate the claimed range for a given volume. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings about the molar ratio of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt to lithium nitrate [NISHIKAWA 0014, 0040], lithium salt to glyme (ether) [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and fluorinated ether to lithium salt [NISHIKAWA 0050] demonstrate that the molar concentrations are result effective variables where the amount of each of the lithium salt, lithium nitrate, the straight-chain ether, and the fluorinated ether affects irreversible capacity/decomposition [NISHIKAWA 0013- 0014], capacity retention rate [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and the stability of the SEI layer [NISHIKAWA 0050]. For example, if the amount of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt is too low, the capacity retention rate may be reduced [NISHIKAWA 0016]. If there is too much relative to the amount of lithium nitrate, there may be too many side reactions [NISHIKAWA 0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a workable range of mol/L of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt can be determined through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.
Dai teaches examples 1 and 2 each have 0.4 M LiTFSI [Dai 0072-0077] as the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt, which anticipates the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Dai’s teaching of the amount of LiTFSI as the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt in NISHIKAWA’s battery for the predictable result of a sulfur-containing secondary battery with a sufficient amount of lithium salt in the electrolyte for the required performance. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein the content of the lithium nitrate is 0.1 mol/L or more and 1.0 mol/L or less [NISHIKAWA 0043, 0062 Examples 2-4, Table 1, NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the claimed range; however, values of mol/L of lithium nitrate can be determined from the molar ratios provided by NISHIKAWA from examples 2-4, which the skilled artisan would expect to anticipate the claimed range for a given volume. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings about the molar ratio of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt to lithium nitrate [NISHIKAWA 0014, 0040], lithium salt to glyme (ether) [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and fluorinated ether to lithium salt [NISHIKAWA 0050] demonstrate that the molar concentrations are result effective variables where the amount of each of the lithium salt, lithium nitrate, the straight-chain ether, and the fluorinated ether affects irreversible capacity/decomposition [NISHIKAWA 0013- 0014], capacity retention rate [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and the stability of the SEI layer [NISHIKAWA 0050]. For example, if the amount of lithium nitrate is too low, the side reactions will not be suppressed, which affects irreversible capacity [NISHIKAWA 0013]. If there is too much relative to the amount of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt, the skilled artisan would expect the capacity retention rate may be affected [NISHIKAWA 0016]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a workable range of mol/L lithium nitrate can be determined through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.]
Dai teaches examples 1 and 2 each have 0.4 M and 0.6 M LiNO3, respectively, [Dai 0072-0077], which anticipates the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Dai’s teaching of the amount of LiNO3 salt in NISHIKAWA’s battery for the predictable result of a sulfur-containing secondary battery with a sufficient amount of lithium salt in the electrolyte for the required performance. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 13, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the secondary battery according to Claim 1, wherein the secondary battery is a lithium-ion secondary battery [NISHIKAWA 0056 and throughout/Dai 0002 and throughout]. It would have been obvious to combine Dai’s teachings with NISHIKAWA for the same reasons provided in claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 14, NISHIKAWA discloses a method for producing an electrolyte solution for a secondary battery [NISHIKAWA throughout], the method comprising
dissolving an electrolyte including a sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt and a lithium nitrate in a straight-chain ether to form a solution [NISHIKAWA 0062, In example 2 LITFSI and tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether are mixed as solution 1 and lithium nitride and tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether are mixed as solution 2.] and then
diluting the solution with a fluorinated ether to adjust a total content of the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt the lithium nitrate [NISHIKAWA 0062, In example 2, solution 1 and solution 2 are diluted with HFE [NISHIKAWA 0011].] and
the lithium nitrate to 0.8 mol/L or more and 2.0 mol/L or less to form a diluted solution [NISHIKAWA 0043, 0062-0064 Examples 2-4, Table 1 While NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the mol/L, values of mol/L of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt and the lithium nitrate can be determined from the molar ratios provided by NISHIKAWA from examples 2-4, which the skilled artisan would expect to anticipate the claimed range for a given volume. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings about the molar ratio of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt to lithium nitrate [NISHIKAWA 0014, 0040], lithium salt to glyme (ether) [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], fluorinated ether to lithium salt, and fluorinated ether to glyme (ether) [NISHIKAWA 0050] demonstrate that the molar concentrations are result effective variables where the amount of each of the lithium salt, lithium nitrate, the straight-chain ether, and the fluorinated ether affects irreversible capacity/decomposition [NISHIKAWA 0013- 0014], capacity retention rate [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and the stability of the SEI layer [NISHIKAWA 0050]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a workable range of mol/L of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt and lithium nitrate can be determined through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.],
wherein the electrolyte includes an additional electrolyte or does not include an additional electrolyte [This limitation is treated as an additional electrolyte is optional. Nishikawa 0041, Nishikawa teaches the lithium salt can contain other lithium salts in addition to the lithium imide and lithium nitrate described above. Nishikawa does not teach the additional salt is required, and, thus, meets both includes and does not include as claimed.],
a content of the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt is 0.1 mol/L or more [NISHIKAWA 0043, 0062 Examples 2-4, Table 1, NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the claimed range; however, values of mol/L of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt can be determined from the molar ratios provided by NISHIKAWA from examples 2-4, which the skilled artisan would expect to anticipate the claimed range for a given volume. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings about the molar ratio of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt to lithium nitrate [NISHIKAWA 0014, 0040], lithium salt to glyme (ether) [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and fluorinated ether to lithium salt [NISHIKAWA 0050] demonstrate that the molar concentrations are result effective variables where the amount of each of the lithium salt, lithium nitrate, the straight-chain ether, and the fluorinated ether affects irreversible capacity/decomposition [NISHIKAWA 0013- 0014], capacity retention rate [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and the stability of the SEI layer [NISHIKAWA 0050]. For example, if the amount of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt is too low, the capacity retention rate may be reduced [NISHIKAWA 0016]. If there is too much relative to the amount of lithium nitrate, there may be too many side reactions [NISHIKAWA 0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a workable range of mol/L of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt can be determined through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.
a content of the lithium nitrate is 0.1 mol/L or more [NISHIKAWA 0043, 0062 Examples 2-4, Table 1, NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the claimed range; however, values of mol/L of lithium nitrate can be determined from the molar ratios provided by NISHIKAWA from examples 2-4, which the skilled artisan would expect to anticipate the claimed range for a given volume. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings about the molar ratio of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt to lithium nitrate [NISHIKAWA 0014, 0040], lithium salt to glyme (ether) [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and fluorinated ether to lithium salt [NISHIKAWA 0050] demonstrate that the molar concentrations are result effective variables where the amount of each of the lithium salt, lithium nitrate, the straight-chain ether, and the fluorinated ether affects irreversible capacity/decomposition [NISHIKAWA 0013- 0014], capacity retention rate [NISHIKAWA 0016, 0044], and the stability of the SEI layer [NISHIKAWA 0050]. For example, if the amount of lithium nitrate is too low, the side reactions will not be suppressed, which affects irreversible capacity [NISHIKAWA 0013]. If there is too much relative to the amount of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salt, the skilled artisan would expect the capacity retention rate may be affected [NISHIKAWA 0016]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a workable range of mol/L lithium nitrate can be determined through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024) for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.]
a content of the additional electrolyte is 0 mol/L or greater in an amount that is equal to or less than a smaller amount with respect to the sulfonyl-group-containing lithium salt and the lithium nitrate [Nishikawa 0041, Nishikawa teaches the lithium salt can contain other lithium salts in addition to the lithium imide and lithium nitrate described above. Such salts may be absent, which reads on 0 mol/L or greater. Nishikawa also teaches the salts may be present but limits the composition to 10% by mass. The range taught by Nishikawa overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
a total content of the straight-chain ether and the fluorinated ether is 80 vol % or more [This claim is interpreted that 80 % by volume of the solvent is comprised of the straight-chain ether and fluorinated either, which is consistent with the instant specification [PGPub 0106-0107]. NISHIKAWA 0053, Nishikawa teaches other solvents should be 10 mol% or less. While Nishikawa does not explicitly teach the volume %, it would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan to arrive at the claimed range from the teachings of Nishikawa. Further, since Nishikawa teaches 10 mol% or less that includes 0 mol%, and thus the range of Nishikawa overlaps the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, Nishikawa teaches since the non-aqueous solvent is substantially composed only of glyme and fluorinated ether, side reactions can be suppressed and the volume retention rate can be further improved, which makes the volume % a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a workable range for the volume % of fluorinated ether and straight-chain either can be determined through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.], and
a content of the fluorinated ether is 20 vol% or more and 60 vol% or less [NISHIKAWA 0050, Examples 2-4, Table 1, NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the claim range of fluorinated ether content by volume % and instead teaches the molar ratio; however, NISHIKAWA’s teachings that the molar ratio of fluorinated ether to glyme (straight-chain ether) is 1:1 to 3:1 [NISHIKAWA 0050, Table 1 examples 2-4] would be expected to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings that the molar ratio demonstrate that the molar concentration, and inherently the claimed volume %, are result effective variables where the amount of each of the fluorinated ether relative to the straight-chain ether affects the stability of the SEI layer due to side reactions [NISHIKAWA 0050]. Thus, if there is too little fluorinated ether, the side chain reactions are not sufficiently suppressed, which diminishes the stability of the SEI layer [0050]. If there is too much fluorinated ether relative to the straight-chain either, it would be expected that there would be no additional benefit and , further, the skilled artisan would expect the viscosity of the electrolyte would be affected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a workable range for the volume % of fluorinated ether relative to fluorinated ether and straight-chain either can be determined through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.
For purpose of compact prosecution, regarding the limitation of adjusting the total content of the sulfonyl group-containing lithium salts and the lithium nitrate to the claimed range to form a diluted solution, Dai teaches an electrolyte solution for a sulfur-based lithium ion battery [Dai title and throughout], which may contain a mixture of sulfonyl group-containing lithium salts LiN (CF 3 SO 2 ) 2 (LiTFSI or lithium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide), LiN (FSO 2 ) 2 (LiFSI), LiSO 3 CF 3 and LiNO3 [Dai 0023] with and ether solvent, dimethoxyethane, [Dai 0022-0023]. Dai further explicitly teaches the combination of LiTFSI and LiNO3 , where the combined lithium salt is in the range of 0.1 M to 2 M [Dai 0023], which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Dai’s teachings of the total content of the combined lithium salts for the predictable result of method for producing an electrolyte for a secondary battery with a sufficient total content of lithium salt for the desired battery performance. See MPEP 2143 (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 15, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the method for producing an electrolyte solution according to Claim 14, wherein the electrolyte of the electrolyte solution is produced from the diluted solution [NISHIKAWA 0062-0064, Examples include providing an electrolyte for a secondary battery made with the electrolyte solution.].
Regarding Claim 17, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the method for producing an electrolyte solution according to Claim 15, wherein the fluorinated ether is added at a dilution rate of 20% or more and 60% or less [The limitation is treated as the dilution rate is the volume of the amount of fluorinated ether used in dilution relative to the total solvent after dilution, which is consistent with the instant application [PGPub 0114-0115]. [NISHIKAWA 0050, Examples 2-4, Table 1, NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the claim range of fluorinated ether dilution and instead teaches the molar ratio; however, NISHIKAWA’s teachings that the molar ratio of fluorinated ether to glyme (straight-chain ether) is 1:1 to 3:1 [NISHIKAWA 0050, Table 1 examples 2-4] would be expected to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings that the molar ratio demonstrate that the molar concentration, and inherently the claimed dilution rate, are result effective variables where the amount of each of the fluorinated ether relative to the straight-chain ether affects the stability of the SEI layer due to side reactions [NISHIKAWA 0050]. Thus, if there is too little fluorinated ether, the side chain reactions are not sufficiently suppressed, which diminishes the stability of the SEI layer [0050]. If there is too much fluorinated ether relative to the straight-chain either, it would be expected that there would be no additional benefit and , further, the skilled artisan would expect the viscosity of the electrolyte would be affected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine a workable range for the dilution rate of fluorinated ether relative to total solvent content through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.
Regarding Claim 18, modified NISHIKAWA discloses the secondary battery according to Claim 1. The limitation “wherein the fluorinated ether is added at a dilution rate of 20% or more and 60% or less” is considered a process limitation. Per MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." Thus, a product with the same composition but made with a different process other that dilution would meet the limitation. In this case, the prior art teaches the claimed ranges and teaches the electrolyte solution is made by dilution. Thus, the prior art meets the limitation of the secondary battery and the secondary battery where the electrolyte solution is formed by dilution as claimed as is described below.
Further, the limitation is treated as the dilution rate is the volume of the amount of fluorinated ether used in dilution relative to the total solvent after dilution, which is consistent with the instant application [PGPub 0114-0115]. [NISHIKAWA 0050, Examples 2-4, Table 1, NISHIKAWA does not explicitly teach the claim range of fluorinated ether dilution and instead teaches the molar ratio; however, NISHIKAWA’s teachings that the molar ratio of fluorinated ether to glyme (straight-chain ether) is 1:1 to 3:1 [NISHIKAWA 0050, Table 1 examples 2-4] would be expected to overlap the claimed range or be merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Further, NISHIKAWA’s teachings that the molar ratio demonstrate that the molar concentration, and inherently the claimed dilution rate, are result effective variables where the amount of each of the fluorinated ether relative to the straight-chain ether affects the stability of the SEI layer due to side reactions [NISHIKAWA 0050]. Thus, if there is too little fluorinated ether, the side chain reactions are not sufficiently suppressed, which diminishes the stability of the SEI layer [0050]. If there is too much fluorinated ether relative to the straight-chain either, it would be expected that there would be no additional benefit and , further, the skilled artisan would expect the viscosity of the electrolyte would be affected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine a workable range for the dilution rate of fluorinated ether relative to total solvent content through routine optimization by balancing the requirements as described above for the specific secondary battery electrode type [for example, NISHIKAWA teaches lithium composite oxides and sulfur as positive active materials (0023-0024)] for the predicted result of a secondary battery with the required performance. Routine optimization is obvious per MPEP 2144.05II.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NISHIKAWA in view of Dai, as provided in claims 1 above, and in further view of Affinito et al. [US20110177398A1], hereinafter Affinito.
Regarding Claim 11, Dai and/or modified NISHIKAWA and/or NISHIKAWA in view of Dai discloses the secondary battery according to Claim 1 but is silent to an EL/S ratio.
Affinito teaches a secondary battery with a positive electrode comprising sulfur [Affinito 0005 and throughout] wherein a ratio (EL/S ratio) of a weight of the electrolyte solution to a weight of sulfur in the positive electrode in the secondary battery is 1 or more and 10 or less [Affinito 00359, Claim 48 and throughout, Affinito teaches 3 or more and 6 or less, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Affinito’s teaching about the ratio EL/S in modified NISHIKAWA’s battery for the predictable result of a secondary battery with a sufficient amount of electrolyte to support the equilibrium of a reaction to prevent depletion of the active material and cell performance [Affinito 0200].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the objections to claim 7 in the Office Action dated 4/8/2026, as stated above, the rejection is withdrawn in view of Applicant amendments.
Regarding Applicant arguments regarding the distinction of the amended claims over the prior art, no specific arguments are presented. In view of the amended claims, the anticipation rejections in the recited Office Action are overcome and are, therefore, withdrawn. Modified obviousness rejections over the prior art of record are provided above as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments and new claims. Further, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are provided above in view of the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday 9:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights