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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Chemical Formula 1-14 and carbonate-based compound 7-1 in the reply filed on 6 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 3-9 are cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 10-16, as filed 24 December 2026, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Chemical formula 1 is not legible. Chemical formula 3 is not legible. At [0039], chemical formulas 5-1 to 5-52 are not legible. At [0064], chemical formulas 6-1 to 6-31 are not legible. At [0071] and [0252], chemical formulas 7-2 is not legible. At [0087], chemical formulas 1 is not legible. At [0113], chemical formulas 1-1 to 1-24 are not legible. At [0133] and [0230], chemical formulas 5-1 to 5-52 are not entirely legible. At [0138] and [0242], chemical formulas 6-1 to 6-31 are not entirely legible. At [0155], chemical formulas 1-1 to 1-24 are not entirely legible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 does not include the chemical structures for chemical formulas 1 to 6. For the purpose of examination, the structures as set forth in the specification at [0087-0103] will be used.
Claim 10 includes the limitation “wherein, based on 100 % by weight in total of the electrolyte, the electrolyte further comprises 0.1 to 10 % by weight of carbonate- based compounds.” In claim 1, the electrolyte already comprises organic solvents. The “0.1 to 10 % by weight of carbonate- based compounds” could be an amount of one carbonate compound, a total amount of any carbonate compound, or an additional amount of a carbonate compound. Referring to the instant example 2, ([0310-0311]) a carbonate-based mixed solvent has a volume ratio of 3:4:3 EC:EMC:DEC. Subsequently, 1% by weight of formula 7-1 is added, where 7-1 is ethylene carbonate. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim limitation is determined to include the mixed solvent of the electrolyte comprises 0.1 to 10 % by weight of a carbonate- based compound, and does not exclude the presence of other carbonate-based compounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 20170040649 A1) in view of Dever, (US 3766303).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitz teaches an electrolyte (abstract), comprising organic solvents ([0010], [0022] aprotic polar organic solvents, which may be selected from cyclic carbonates), lithium salt, ([0015] a conducting salt, [0102] preferably lithium). Schmitz discloses at [0045] the need for reduced flammability and the addition of at least one flame retardant. At [0046], organic phosphorous compounds are well known as flame retardant additives. At [0056-0063], Schmitz discloses the use of alkyl-substituted phosphites as a flame retardant. However, Schmitz does not teach or suggest the use of bis(1,3,2-dioxaphospholanyl) ether as a flame retardant additive. (Chemical Formula 1-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
108
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dever, in the field of (abstract) phosphorous compounds which may be used as flame retarding additives, discloses (col. 5 lines 10-27) the use of cyclic phosphorous anhydrides as flame retarding agents. At (col. 2 lines 67-72), Dever explicitly teaches the use of bis(1,3,2-dioxaphospholane). (Equivalent to Chemical Formula 1-14, shown below.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the bis( 1,3,2-dioxaphospholane) of Dever as one of the flame retardant additives to solve the problem of needing reduced flammability, as suggested by Schmitz, because bis( 1,3,2-dioxaphospholane) represents one of a finite number of known solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Schmitz in view of Dever discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Schmitz discloses at [0045] the need for reduced flammability and the addition of at least one flame retardant. At [0046], organic phosphorous compounds are well known as flame retardant additives. At [0091] the at least one flame retardant is most preferably in the range of 1 to 10 wt.% (falls within the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 wt%.) At [0056-0063], Schmitz discloses the use of alkyl-substituted phosphites as a flame retardant, where one example is tris(2.2.2-trifluoroethyl)phosphite, which meets the limitations of Chemical Formula 4.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the tris(2.2.2-trifluoroethyl)phosphite of Schmitz as one of the flame retardant substances, because tris(2.2.2-trifluoroethyl)phosphite represents one of a finite number of known solutions to the known problem of needing reduced flammability, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, Schmitz in view of Dever discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Schmitz further discloses wherein, based on 100 % by weight in total of the electrolyte, the electrolyte further comprises 0.1 to 10 % by weight of carbonate- based compounds. (Table 3 sample 7 discloses where the electrolyte composition includes 2 wt% vinylene carbonate, which falls within the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 11, Schmitz in view of Dever discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Schmitz further discloses wherein the carbonate-based compounds comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of compounds represented by Chemical Formula 7-1 (ethylene carbonate). (Table 3 sample 7 discloses where the organic solvents comprise ethylene carbonate (EC).)
Regarding claim 12, Schmitz in view of Dever discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Schmitz further discloses (Table 3 sample 7) wherein the organic solvents comprise ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), and dimethyl glutarate (DBE 5) where EC and DMC are candidates are within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. Examiner notes that this claim limitation does not require the organic solvents to be exclusively selected from the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 13, Schmitz in view of Dever discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Schmitz further discloses wherein the lithium salt is LiPF6, which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. (Table 1, Table 3, Table 5, Table 6: samples 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 16, all of which are 1M LiPF6)
Regarding claim 14, Schmitz in view of Dever discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Schmitz further discloses wherein, based on 100 mol% in total of the electrolyte, the electrolyte comprises 0.6 to 2 mol% of the lithium salt. (Table 1, Table 3, Table 5, Table 6: samples 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 16, all of which are 1M LiPF6)
Regarding claim 15, Schmitz in view of Dever discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Schmitz further discloses a secondary battery ([0145] battery), comprising an anode ([0150]), a cathode ([0149]), and an electrolyte ([0130-0133]), wherein the electrolyte according to claim 1. (as set forth above)
Regarding claim 16, Schmitz in view of Dever discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Schmitz further discloses wherein the secondary battery is a battery for automobiles. ([0157] “use of the inventive lithium ion battery … vehicles”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yao, X. L., et al. "Comparative study of trimethyl phosphite and trimethyl phosphate as electrolyte additives in lithium ion batteries." Journal of power sources 144.1 (2005): 170-175 (Year: 2005) Yao discloses the possible selection of trimethyl phosphite (Chemical Formula 4) as a flame-retardant electrolyte additive material, for use with carbonate based organic solvents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/2/2026
Prosecution Insights