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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 2024/0136586 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and Remarks filed on 24 June 2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 24 March 2026 have been entered and fully considered, respectively. Claims 1-6 have been amended. As such, claims 1-6 remain pending and under consideration on the merits.
Applicant’s arguments on Pages 4-7 of the Remarks, directed to the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakatsutsumi, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakatsutsumi, and the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McDonald.
Applicant's arguments are moot, as the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakatsutsumi, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakatsutsumi, and the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McDonald previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection are overcome and hereby withdrawn as a result of the amendments to claim 1.
New grounds of rejection are set forth below, necessitated by the amendments to the claims and made in view of previously and newly cited prior art identified as a result of additional search and consideration completed by the undersigned Examiner.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakatsutsumi et al. (US 2018/0090790 A1, cited in previous action; “Nakatsutsumi”), in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0218062 A1; “Xu”).
Regarding claim 1, Nakatsutsumi discloses a lithium secondary battery [0027, 0105, 0214-0215] comprising a negative electrode [0004, 0069-0072], a separator [0069-0072], a nonaqueous electrolytic solution (liquid electrolyte) [0004, 0015, 0021-0022, 0025, 0071], and a positive electrode [0004, 0015-0018, 0069-0072], of which is composed of a positive electrode active material [0016, 0018, 0032-0045]. The nonaqueous electrolytic solution comprises a lithium salt (lithium salt), of which is, inter alia LiPF6 [0117-0119], wherein the lithium salt is in a concentration between 0.5-2.0 mol/L [0120], a linear solvent (a first solvent including a compound represented by claimed Chemical Formula 1), of which is, inter alia 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl propionate and/or ethyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate and/or methyl 3,3,3-trifluoropropionate [0109], and a cyclic solvent (a second solvent including a compound represented by claimed Chemical Formula 2), of which is, inter alia ethylene carbonate (EC) [0121-0122], and/or fluoroethylene carbonate, and/or difluoroethylene carbonate, and/or trifluoroethylene carbonate [0106], wherein the volume rate of the solvent having at least one fluoro group may be 20 vol% or more [0097], more specifically the cyclic solvent and linear solvent are present in a volume ratio (cyclic:linear) of 20:80 [0154, 0167, 0179, 0184, 0189, 0194].
Nakatsutsumi remains silent regarding an additive selected from a group consisting of ethylene sulfate (ES), lithium fluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), lithium oxalyldifluoroborate (LiODFB), and mixtures thereof.
Xu is directed towards lithium (Li)-ion batteries (LIBs) and their electrolyte [0005]. Xu teaches that the electrolyte includes a nonaqueous solvent [0006], of which comprises, inter alia propylene carbonate (PC) and/or 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate [0006] and a lithium salt, of which is, inter alia lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) [0006]. The electrolyte further includes an additive [0006], of which may be, inter alia lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) and/or ethylene sulfate (ES) [0006, 0148].
Nakatsutsumi and Xu each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – a liquid electrolyte. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of Nakatsutsumi, to include the lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) and/or ethylene sulfate (ES) additive of Xu in order to reduce cost, reduce viscosity of the electrolyte, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation at high-voltage cathodes, improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, improve wetting ability of the electrolyte, and facilitate formation of an effective solid electrolyte interface layer [Xu, 0149, 0340].
In accordance with the aforesaid modification, the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of modified Nakatsutsumi would have the lithium salt in a concentration between 0.5-2.0 mol/L, the linear solvent, of which is, inter alia 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl propionate and/or ethyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate and/or methyl 3,3,3-trifluoropropionate, the cyclic solvent of which is, inter alia ethylene carbonate (EC), wherein the cyclic solvent and linear solvent are present in a volume ratio (cyclic:linear) of 20:80, and the additive (an additive), of which is, inter alia lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) (lithium oxalyldifluoroborate (LiODFB)) and/or ethylene sulfate (ES) (ethylene sulfate (ES)).
Given that the electrolyte defined by claim 1 does not define or imply any requisite degree of flame retardancy such that any degree of retardancy reads thereon (MPEP 2111), and given that the nonaqueous (liquid) electrolyte of modified Nakatsutsumi, set forth above, is identical to or substantially identical to the claimed and disclosed liquid electrolyte in terms of the species and concentration of lithium salt [Applicant’s Specification ¶0057-0058], species of linear (first) solvent [Applicant’s Specification ¶0050], species of cyclic (second) solvent [Applicant’s Specification ¶0054-0055], volume ratio of said solvents [Applicant’s Specification ¶0056], and the additive species [Applicant’s Specification ¶0060], it stands to reason that the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of modified Nakatsutsumi would have necessarily exhibited at least some degree of flame retardancy or would have been non-flammable. See MPEP 2112(IV), (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145 and 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the liquid electrolyte defined by claim 2 – the lithium salt is LiPF6.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the liquid electrolyte defined by claim 3 – the solvent ratio (cyclic:linear) is 20:80, which is within the claimed range from 99:1 to 1:99, thereby rendering the range obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 3 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the liquid electrolyte defined by claim 4. The solvent ratio (cyclic:linear) is 20:80, which is within the claimed range from 90:10 to 10:90, thereby rendering the range obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nakatsutsumi discloses the liquid electrolyte set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Nakatsutsumi remains silent regarding the nonaqueous electrolytic solution having a self-extinguishing time (SET) of less than 20 seconds/g.
Xu further teaches that the LIBs electrolytes may be measured for flammability properties by determining the self-extinguishing time (SET) of the electrolyte [Xu, 0102]. Xu teaches that if the electrolyte does not catch flame, the SET is zero and the electrolyte is nonflammable [Xu, 0102]. Electrolytes having an SET of <6 s/g are also considered nonflammable [Xu, 0102]. If the SET is >20 s/g, the electrolyte is considered to be flammable [Xu, 0102]. When the SET is between 6-20 s/g, the electrolyte is considered to be flame retarded or have low flammability [Xu, 0102].
Nakatsutsumi and Xu each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – a liquid electrolyte. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of Nakatsutsumi, so that the SET is < 20 s/g, thereby resulting in a nonaqueous electrolytic solution that is not flammable, wherein a SET of zero indicates that the electrolyte is nonflammable, and a SET between 6-20 s/g indicates that the electrolyte is flame retarded or has low flammability [Xu, 0102].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of modified Nakatsutsumi would have an SET < 20 s/g, of which overlaps the claimed range, thereby rendering the range obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 above Is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated) and reads on the lithium secondary battery defined by claim 6.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McDonald (US 2008/0193855 A1, cited in previous action; “McDonald”), in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0218062 A1, cited above; “Xu”).
Regarding claim 1, McDonald discloses a lithium ion battery [0010, 0012-0013, 0019] capable of undergoing cell cycling [0038], is comprised of an anode [0033, FIG. 3, element 13], a separator [0033, FIG. 3, element 17], an electrolyte (liquid electrolyte) [0030, 0033, FIG. 3, element 19], and a cathode [0033, FIG. 3, element 15], of which includes a charged cathode material [0031, 0033]. The electrolyte comprises a lithium salt (lithium salt) [0019], of which is, inter alia LiPF6 [0020] (see MPEP 2131.02(II)), wherein the lithium salt is in a concentration between 0.25-1.00 M [Table II], and a solvent system [0019], of which further comprises a first aprotic solvent (a second solvent including a compound represented by claimed Chemical Formula 2) [0019, 0021] which is a lithium ion solvating solvent that is, inter alia ethylene carbonate and/or propylene carbonate [0019, 0021] and a second aprotic solvent (a first solvent including a compound represented by claimed Chemical Formula 1) [0019, 0022] which is a fluorinated solvent that is, inter alia trifluoroethyl acetate [0029], wherein the second aprotic solvent is present in the solvent system at a percentage of 20-60 vol% [0028, 0037, Table II]. Additionally, trifluoroethyl acetate, a fluorinated sulfolene, forms donor-acceptor complexes with fluorinated salts, i.e. LiPF6 , which, in turn, is soluble in fluorinated cosolvents, resulting in enhanced dissociation of the lithium salt in solution, better conductivity, and reduced flammability [0029-0030].
McDonald remains silent regarding remains silent regarding an additive selected from a group consisting of ethylene sulfate (ES), lithium fluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), lithium oxalyldifluoroborate (LiODFB), and mixtures thereof.
Xu is directed towards lithium (Li)-ion batteries (LIBs) and their electrolyte [0005]. Xu teaches that the electrolyte includes a nonaqueous solvent [0006], of which comprises, inter alia propylene carbonate (PC) and/or 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate [0006] and a lithium salt, of which is, inter alia lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) [0006]. The electrolyte further includes an additive [0006], of which may be, inter alia lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) and/or ethylene sulfate (ES) [0006, 0148].
McDonald and Xu each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – a liquid electrolyte. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of McDonald, to include the lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) and/or ethylene sulfate (ES) additive of Xu in order to reduce cost, reduce viscosity of the electrolyte, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation at high-voltage cathodes, improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, improve wetting ability of the electrolyte, and facilitate formation of an effective solid electrolyte interface layer [Xu, 0149, 0340].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the electrolyte of modified McDonald would have the lithium salt in a concentration between 0.25-1.00 M, the solvent system comprising a first aprotic solvent, which is a lithium ion solvating solvent that is, inter alia ethylene carbonate and/or propylene carbonate and a second aprotic solvent which is a fluorinated solvent that is, inter alia trifluoroethyl acetate, wherein the second aprotic solvent is present in the solvent system at a percentage of 20-60 vol%, and the additive (an additive), of which is, inter alia lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) (lithium oxalyldifluoroborate (LiODFB)) and/or ethylene sulfate (ES) (ethylene sulfate (ES)).
Given that the electrolyte defined by claim 1 does not define or imply any requisite degree of flame retardancy such that any degree of retardancy reads thereon (MPEP 2111), and given that the electrolyte of modified McDonald, set forth above, is identical to or substantially identical to the claimed and disclosed liquid electrolyte in terms of the species and concentration of lithium salt [Applicant’s Specification ¶0057-0058], species of second aprotic (first) solvent [Applicant’s Specification ¶0050], species of first aprotic (second) solvent [Applicant’s Specification ¶0054-0055], volume ratio of said solvents [Applicant’s Specification ¶0056], and the additive species [Applicant’s Specification ¶0060], it stands to reason that the electrolyte would have necessarily exhibited at least some degree of flame retardancy or would have been non-flammable. See MPEP 2112(IV), (V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145 and 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the liquid electrolyte defined by claim 2 – the lithium salt is LiPF6.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the liquid electrolyte defined by claim 3 – the second aprotic solvent is present in the solvent system at a percentage of 20-60 vol%, which is within the claimed range of 99:1 to 1:99, thereby rendering the range obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 3 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the liquid electrolyte defined by claim 4. The second aprotic solvent is present in the solvent system at a percentage of 20-60 vol%, which is within the claimed range from 90:10 to 10:90, thereby rendering the range obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, modified McDonald discloses the liquid electrolyte set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
McDonald remains silent regarding the nonaqueous electrolytic solution having a self-extinguishing time (SET) of less than 20 seconds/g.
Xu further teaches that the LIBs electrolytes may be measured for flammability properties by determining the self-extinguishing time (SET) of the electrolyte [Xu, 0102]. Xu teaches that if the electrolyte does not catch flame, the SET is zero and the electrolyte is nonflammable [Xu, 0102]. Electrolytes having an SET of <6 s/g are also considered nonflammable [Xu, 0102]. If the SET is >20 s/g, the electrolyte is considered to be flammable [Xu, 0102]. When the SET is between 6-20 s/g, the electrolyte is considered to be flame retarded or have low flammability [Xu, 0102].
McDonald and Xu each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – a liquid electrolyte. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the electrolyte of McDonald, so that the SET is < 20 s/g, thereby resulting in a nonaqueous electrolytic solution that is not flammable, wherein a SET of zero indicates that the electrolyte is nonflammable, and a SET between 6-20 s/g indicates that the electrolyte is flame retarded or has low flammability [Xu, 0102].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the electrolyte of modified McDonald would have an SET < 20 s/g, of which overlaps the claimed range, thereby rendering the range obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 above Is incorporated herein by reference (not repeated) and reads on the lithium secondary battery defined by claim 6.
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 l.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 l.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR l.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 JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights