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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/08/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim(US20190356021A1, previously cited) in view of Liew (US20220045368A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lim discloses a lithium secondary battery comprises a positive electrode, a separator, a negative electrode and an electrolyte solution(¶[0094]) and the charge capacity of the battery is at least 4.45 V(¶[0122]), but does not disclose wherein the electrolyte solution comprises at least 80% of a eutectic mixture of succinonitrile and lithium salt based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution.
Liew, related to lithium ion secondary batteries, teaches an electrolyte solution containing at least 80% eutectic mixture of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) and succinonitrile(¶[0041], see the quantity of zinc and water in addition to the eutectic mixture is less than 20% by weight of the total electrolyte given the molecular weights of the materials).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the 80% eutectic mixture in the electrolyte as taught by Liew in the battery of Lin would result in no gas is generated during the charging/discharging and therefore improved safety.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have used the 80% eutectic mixture in the electrolyte as taught by Liew in the battery of Lin to provide no gas is generated during the charging/discharging and therefore improved safety.
Furthermore, the claim recites intended use limitations of the material having a discharge capacity retention is 80%or more after 79 cycles when charge and discharge are repeated in the range of 2.5 V to 4.25 V at a constant current of 0.1 C. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, in this case the structure may be charged at constant current up to at least 4.25 V(¶[0122]). See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. These limitations will be treated alongside structural limitations for compact prosecution.
Regarding claim 15, Lim discloses a lithium secondary battery according to claim 14. The claim recites intended use limitations including wherein a cell volume increase rate measured after the lithium secondary battery was stored at 60° C. for 2 weeks is 10% or less. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, in this case the battery of modified Lin meets all the structure described in claim 14/15. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. These limitations will be treated alongside structural limitations for compact prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights