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 Amendments
In response to the amendments received 04/07/2026:
Claims 1-9 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 9 is new.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claim 1 recites “…wherein the negative electrode, at least in a charged state, includes a lithium alloy containing magnesium, at the negative electrode, a lithium metal deposits during charge, and the lithium metal dissolves during discharge …”
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhamu et al. (US 20180233736) in view of Katou et al. (US 20150118577)
Regarding claim 1, Zhamu teaches a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (P45), wherein the negative electrode, at least in a charged state, includes a lithium alloy containing magnesium (P57-58; claim 3),
While Zhamu teaches lithium metal deposits during charge and the diffusion dissolution of lithium out during discharge at the negative electrode (P40-58), but is silent in reciting the lithium metal dissolves during discharge, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. MPEP 2112.01
Zhamu teaches the use of common electrolytes (P13.33.44), but silent in teaching the non-aqueous electrolyte contains a non-aqueous solvent and lithium ions, the non-aqueous solvent includes hydrofluoroether, and a content of the hydrofluoroether in the non-aqueous solvent is 50 vol% or more.
Katou teaches a lithium secondary battery wherein the anode material is not limited and via a specific electrolyte and cathode, the energy density and cycle characteristics are improved (P27.89). Katou teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte contains a non-aqueous solvent and lithium ions (P64-70), the non-aqueous solvent includes hydrofluoroether, and a content of the hydrofluoroether in the non-aqueous solvent is 0.1 vol% to 70 vol% to have high electrical conductivity and improved oxidation resistance (P68), overlapping the claimed range of 50 vol% or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the electrolyte and cathode of Katou with the lithium battery of Zhamu, wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte contains a non-aqueous solvent and lithium ions, the non-aqueous solvent includes hydrofluoroether, and a content of the hydrofluoroether in the non-aqueous solvent is 0.1 vol% to 70 vol%, overlapping the claimed range of 50 vol% or more to improve cycle characteristics and conductivity. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhamu in view of Katou teaches the hydrofluoroether includes a compound represented by R1—O—R2, where R1 is a fluoroalkyl group, R2 is an alkyl group or a fluoroalkyl group, at least one of R1 and R2 has at least one hydrogen atom, and a total number n of carbon atoms in R1 and R2 is 10 or less (P66), or includes 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (P65). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01 II
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhamu in view of Katou teaches R1 and R2 each independently have at least one hydrogen atom, or includes 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (P65). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01 II
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhamu in view of Katou teaches a fluorination rate of the hydrofluoroether is 30% to 80% (P67), overlapping the claimed range of 60% or more or includes 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (P65), wherein the fluorination ratio is the number of the fluorine atoms included in one fluorinated ether/the sum of the numbers of the fluorine atoms and the hydrogen atoms included in the fluorinated ether and thus over 60%. Further, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01 II
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhamu in view of Katou teaches the hydrofluoroether includes 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (P65).
Regarding claim 8, modified Zhamu teaches a content of magnesium in the lithium alloy is 0.1 mass % or more and 30 mass % or less, or 0.1-10% by weight (P57-58; claim 3), falling within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhamu in view of Katou teaches the non-aqueous solvent includes the hydrofluoroether and a fluorine-free ether (P68-69).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhamu in view of Katou as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (KR 20140038676 A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhamu in view of Katou is silent in teaching a fluorinated alcohol with a fluoroalkyl group; however, Jeon, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a lithium battery using a non-aqueous electrolyte and an anode comprising magnesium (L261-272).
Jeon teaches when a halogenated alcohol, such as 2,2,2-trifluoroethanol is added to an electrolyte the capacity and lifespan are improved and resistance decreases (L88-94.168-170.402-430).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a fluorinated alcohol represented by R—OH, where R is a fluoroalkyl group, or ,2,2-trifluoroethanol, in the battery of modified Zhamu in view of Katou to improve the capacity, as taught by Jeon. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhamu in view of Jeon teaches the fluorinated alcohol includes 2,2,2-trifluoroethanol (L88-94.168-170.402-430).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights