DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status.
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/02/2026. Claims 1-15 were pending. Claims 5,6 have been amended. Claims 16-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are now pending. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Applicant's arguments have been considered.
Response to Amendment
Rejection to claims 5 and 6 under 35 USC 112 (2b) set forth in the Office Action from 02/02/2026 is withdrawn in response for Amendments filed on 04/02/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: However, in comparing the chain between the oxygen groups in Ansari' s chemical formulas above to the claimed formula II, Ansari also does not teach or suggest the formula II/R2 group of the present claims: CaFbHc (Formula II), wherein a is an integer from 1 to 6, b+c is an integer from 2 to 10, and if b is 0, R1 and R3 independently have no H. Specifically, within formula II, the claims require that b+c be an integer from 2-10. Thus, even when b=0, c must be at least 2, which requires the formula II/R2 group to have at least 2 hydrogens. However, in Ansari, there are no hydrogens between the oxygens in the structures shown above.”.
Examiner respectfully disagree. In the instant case, b=2 (not 0), c=0 As such, ethers of Ansari reads on claimed structures. Instant claim 1 recites fluorinated alkyl group. It is Examiner position that such limitation include perfluorinated groups of Ansari.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In other word, claim language of the independent claim 1 interpreted as follows: if b=0, R1 and R3 must be perfluoroalkyl, but id does not mean that in a case if b> 0, R1 and R3 cannot be perfluoroalkyl. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55,44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applicant argues: “Thus, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art were to consider starting from the di-ethers of Chang, said person would not have reasonably expected satisfactory capacity retention”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In other word, as stated in the previous Office Action It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the fluorinated ether of Cheng or add to the fluorinated ether of Cheng with structurally similar fluorinated ethers Ansari in order composition provide formation of uniform, stable SEI layer excellent elasticity and mechanical strength and at the same time alleviate the dissolution phenomenon of transition metal ions and decrease surface resistance on cathode side (para 15) and as such produce batteries having functional electrolytes with high voltage stability, interfacial compatibility with electrodes and safety (para 10). As such, it would correct to compare ethers from Ansari (see above ) with ethers from the instant Application. Moreover, a reference must be considered in its entirety, for it is well settled that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or specific working examples therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569,570 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,750, 192 USPQ 278,280 (CCPA 1976).
Therefore the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office Action from 02/02/2026 is maintained and provided below.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0344063 to Chang in view of US 2021/0098827 to Ansari (Ansari).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses an electrolyte composition for lithium metal batteries (Abstract), comprising: at least one fluorinated di-ether containing from 4 to 10 carbon atoms, represented by Formula I R1-O-R2-O-R3 wherein each R1 and R3 is independently a fluorinated alkyl group and R2 is optionally fluorinated alkyl group CaFbHc ( Formula II) such as HCF2CF2OCH2CH2OCF2CF2H (para 61) at least one non-fluorinated ether such as DME (para 74). and lithium salt (Abstract), wherein amount of the fluorine substituted ether represented by Formula I is greater than an amount of the non-fluorine substituted ether (Abstract), i.e. limitation “at least one fluorinated di-ether is in an amount of at least 50% by volume (vol%), based on the total volume of a) the at least one fluorinated di- ether and b) the at least one non-fluorinated ether” is met (see claims 22,23). Cheng does not expressly disclose fluorinated eithers wherein in Formula II, if b=0, R1 and R3 independently have no H.
Ansari teaches electrolytes and electrolyte additives for energy storage device (Abstract) and electrolyte composition comprising at least two electrolyte co-solvents, wherein at least one electrolyte co-solvent comprises an alkoxyethane based compound such as 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoro-1, 2-bis(trifluoromethoxy)ethane or 1,1 ,2,2-tetrafluoro-1 ,2-bis(l ,1 ,2,2,2-pentafluoroethoxy)ethane (See below, both read on claimed Formula II ):
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In combination with non-fluorinated ethers such as DME (claim 15) or 1-ethoxy-1 ,2-dimethoxyethane (para 50). Ansari teaches that such electrolyte composition provide formation of uniform, stable SEI layer excellent elasticity and mechanical strength and at the same time alleviate the dissolution phenomenon of transition metal ions and
decrease surface resistance on cathode side (para 15) and as such produce batteries having functional electrolytes with high voltage stability, interfacial compatibility with electrodes and safety (para 10).It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the fluorinated ether of Cheng or add to the fluorinated ether of Cheng with structurally similar fluorinated ethers Ansari in order composition provide formation of uniform, stable SEI layer excellent elasticity and mechanical strength and at the same time alleviate the dissolution phenomenon of transition metal ions and decrease surface resistance on cathode side (para 15) and as such produce batteries having functional electrolytes with high voltage stability, interfacial compatibility with electrodes and safety (para 10).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cheng discloses 1,1 ,2,2-tetrafluoro-1 ,2-bis(l ,1 ,2,2,2-pentafluoroethoxy)ethane (Ansari, para 50).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cheng discloses 60-80 vol % of at least one fluorinated di-ether and from 10 to 40 vol% the at least one non-fluorinated ether (Examples 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cheng discloses 1-fluoro-1,2-dimethoxyethane (F/H molar ratio 2.1, Ansari para 50).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Cheng discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Modified does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of fluorinated ethers comprises C6Fi10H4O2 and C6Fi12H2O2. However, since the criticality of using fluorinated ethers comprises C6Fi10H4O2 and C6Fi12H2O2 a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in modified Cheng (see 1,1 ,2,2-tetrafluoro-1 ,2-bis(l ,1 ,2,2,2-pentafluoroethoxy)ethane) , it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the ,1 ,2,2-tetrafluoro-1 ,2-bis(l ,1 ,2,2,2-pentafluoroethoxy)ethane as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Cheng discloses DME (Cheng, para 74).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cheng discloses LiClO4 (Cheng, para 64).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cheng discloses 7M solution of lithium salt (Cheng, Example 1). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Cheng discloses an electrolyte composition comprising fluoroethylene carbonate in the range from 0.2 wt. % to 9.0 wt.% (Ansari para 43).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Cheng discloses succinonitrile, dimethyl sulfone, ethylmethyl sulfone, diethyl sulfone, adiponitrile (Cheng para 72). In addition, Cheng teaches LiPF6 (para 64) in amount of about 5% weight (para 63).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, modified Cheng discloses a lithium metal battery comprising a negative electrode comprising lithium metal, a positive electrode (Cheng, claim 1) and polypropylene (re claim 15) separator (Cheng para 98).
Regarding claim 16, modified Cheng discloses 1-fluoro-1,2-dimethoxyethane (F/H molar ratio 2.1, Ansari para 50).
Regarding claim 17, modified Cheng discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 5 and incorporated therein. Modified does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of fluorinated ethers comprises a mixture of isomers of C6Fi10H4O2 . However, since the criticality of using fluorinated isomeric ethers comprises C6Fi10H4O2- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in modified Cheng (see 1,1 ,2,2-tetrafluoro-1 ,2-bis(l ,1 ,2,2,2-pentafluoroethoxy)ethane) , it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the ,1 ,2,2-tetrafluoro-1 ,2-bis(l ,1 ,2,2,2-pentafluoroethoxy)ethane as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, modified Cheng discloses 3.3 M solution of lithium salt (Cheng, Example 4). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 19, modified Cheng discloses wherein the fluorine containing cyclic carbonate is FEC at a concentration of about 5% or more (Ansari, claim 9).In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the amount of the fluorinated carbonate based on range of modified Cheng in order composition provide formation of uniform, stable SEI layer excellent elasticity and mechanical strength and at the same time alleviate the dissolution phenomenon of transition metal ions and decrease surface resistance on cathode side (para 15) and as such produce batteries having functional electrolytes with high voltage stability, interfacial compatibility with electrodes and safety.
Regarding claim 20, modified Cheng discloses compound above CAS 356-70-7, boiling point 104o C.
Alternatively, claims 1-9, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0344063 to Chang in view of US 2018/0115020 to Maeda ( Maeda).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses an electrolyte composition for lithium metal batteries (Abstract), comprising: at least one fluorinated di-ether containing from 4 to 10 carbon atoms, represented by Formula I R1-O-R2-O-R3 wherein each R1 and R3 is independently a fluorinated alkyl group and R2 is optionally fluorinated alkyl group CaFbHc ( Formula II) such as HCF2CF2OCH2CH2OCF2CF2H (para 61) at least one non-fluorinated ether such as DME (para 74). and lithium salt (Abstract), wherein amount of the fluorine substituted ether represented by Formula I is greater than an amount of the non-fluorine substituted ether (Abstract), i.e. limitation “at least one fluorinated di-ether is in an amount of at least 50% by volume (vol%), based on the total volume of a) the at least one fluorinated di- ether and b) the at least one non-fluorinated ether” is met (see claims 22,23). Cheng does not expressly disclose fluorinated eithers wherein in Formula II, if b=0, R1 and R3 independently have no H.
Maeda teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (Abstract) for lithium-ion battery (claim 7) comprising a hydrofluoroether compound a general formula CF3CF2CF2OCHFCF2OR1 (I) , including diether represented by Formula (2) below:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Formula 2
Maeda also teaches that the electrocyte containing compounds (I) and particularly compound (2) suppress a gas generation whereby there can be provided a lithium ion secondary battery improved in the battery characteristics and having a high energy density, and there can be provided a nonaqueous electrolyte solution and a hydrofluoroether compound suitable for the lithium ion secondary battery (para 21). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the fluorinated ether of Cheng or add to the fluorinated ether of Cheng with fluorinated ethers of Maeda in order to suppress a gas generation whereby there can be provided a lithium ion secondary battery improved in the battery characteristics and having a high energy density (para 21).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cheng discloses compound of Formula 2 above
Regarding claim 3, modified Cheng discloses 60-80 vol % of at least one fluorinated di-ether and from 10 to 40 vol% the at least one non-fluorinated ether (Examples 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cheng discloses modified Cheng discloses compound of Formula 2 above.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Cheng discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Modified does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of fluorinated ethers comprises C6Fi10H4O2 and C6Fi12H2O2. However, since the criticality of using fluorinated ethers comprises C6Fi10H4O2 and C6Fi12H2O2 a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in modified Cheng (see compound of Formula (2) above) , it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the compound of Formula (2) above as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Cheng discloses DME (Cheng, para 74).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cheng discloses LiClO4 (Cheng, para 64).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cheng discloses 7M solution of lithium salt (Cheng, Example 1). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Cheng discloses succinonitrile, dimethyl sulfone, ethylmethyl sulfone, diethyl sulfone, adiponitrile (Cheng para 72). In addition, Cheng teaches LiPF6 (para 64) in amount of about 5% weight (para 63).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, modified Cheng discloses a lithium metal battery comprising a negative electrode comprising lithium metal, a positive electrode (Cheng, claim 1) and polypropylene (re claim 15) separator (Cheng para 98).
Regarding claim 16, modified Cheng discloses modified Cheng discloses compound of Formula 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, modified Cheng discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 5 and incorporated therein. Modified does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of fluorinated ethers comprises C6Fi10H4O2 and C6Fi12H2O2. However, since the criticality of using fluorinated ethers comprises C6Fi10H4O2 and C6Fi12H2O2 a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in modified Cheng (see compound of Formula (2) above) , it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the compound of Formula (2) above as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 17
Regarding claim 18, modified Cheng discloses 3.3 M solution of lithium salt (Cheng, Example 4). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 20, modified Cheng discloses compound (2) above RN 223791-26-2, boiling point 141o C.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights