DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-6 are pending in the current application.
Examiner Note
3. 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. 102 and/or 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
4. 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.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-6 are rejected 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 et al. (US 2018/0090790 A1; “Nakatsutsumi”).
10. Regarding claim 1, Nakatsutsumi discloses a lithium secondary battery [0166, Example 1] comprising a negative electrode [0157, Example 1], a separator [0157, Example 1], a nonaqueous electrolytic solution (liquid electrolyte) [0154, 0165, Example 1], and a positive electrode [0157, Example 1], of which is composed of a positive electrode active material [0143, 0152-0153, 0157, Example 1]. The nonaqueous electrolytic solution comprises a lithium salt (lithium salt), of which is, inter alia LiPF6 in a concentration of 1.0 mol/L [0154, Example 1], a linear solvent (a first solvent including a compound represented by claimed Chemical Formula 1), of which is, inter alia methyl 3,3,3-trifluoropropionate [0154, Example 1], and a cyclic solvent (a second solvent including a compound represented by claimed Chemical Formula 2), of which is, inter alia fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) [0154, Example 1], wherein the cyclic solvent and linear solvent are present in a volume ratio (cyclic:linear) of 20:80 [0154, Example 1].
11. 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 Nakatsutsumi 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], and volume ratio of said solvents [Applicant’s specification, 0056], it stands to reason that the nonaqueous electrolytic solution 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).
12. Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the liquid electrolyte defined by claim 2 – the lithium salt is LiPF6.
13. 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 of 99:1 to 1:99 (see MPEP 2131.03).
14. 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.
15. Regarding claim 5, Nakatsutsumi discloses the liquid electrolyte set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
16. Nakatsutsumi remains silent regarding the nonaqueous electrolytic solution having a self-extinguishing time (SET) of less than 20 seconds/g.
17. However, the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of Nakatsutsumi Example 1 would have been substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed liquid electrolyte in Applicant’s specification in terms of comprising:
(i) LiPF6 at a concentration of 1.0 mol/L as the lithium salt, of which corresponds to the claimed and disclosed lithium salt [Applicant’s specification 0057-0058, claim 1],
(ii) methyl 3,3,3-trifluoropropionate as the linear solvent, of which reads on the claimed and disclosed first solvent represented by claimed Chemical Formula 1 [Applicant’s specification 0046-0050, claim 1], and
(iii) FEC as the cyclic solvent, of which reads on the claimed and disclosed second solvent represented by claimed Chemical Formula 2 [Applicant’s specification 0051-0054, claim 1], wherein
(iv) the cyclic solvent and linear solvent together are in a volume ratio of 20:80, of which reads on the claimed and disclosed first and second solvent volume ratio [Applicant’s specification 0056, claims 1, 3-4],
18. Given that the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of Nakatsutsumi is identical to the claimed liquid electrolyte and substantially identical or identical to the liquid electrolyte disclosed in Applicant’s specification in terms of the foregoing elements (i)-(iv), it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of Nakatsutsumi would have necessarily exhibited a self-extinguishing time (SET) of less than 20 seconds/g, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 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).
19. 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.
20. Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected 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.
21. It is noted that the rejections set forth below rely on the general disclosure of Nakatsutsumi, in contrast to the specific embodiment of Nakatsutsumi [Example 1] above.
22. 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].
23. 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 Nakatsutsumi 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], and volume ratio of said solvents [Applicant’s specification, 0056], it stands to reason that the nonaqueous electrolytic solution 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).
24. Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the liquid electrolyte defined by claim 2 – the lithium salt is LiPF6 (see MPEP 2131.02(II)).
25. 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 of 99:1 to 1:99 (see MPEP 2131.03).
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected 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 (US 2008/0193855 A1; “McDonald”).
29. 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, the fluorinated sulfolene, trifluoroethyl acetate, 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].
30. 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 McDonald 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], and volume ratio of said solvents [Applicant’s specification, 0056], 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).
31. Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the liquid electrolyte defined by claim 2 – the lithium salt is LiPF6 (see MPEP 2131.02(II)).
32. 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 (see MPEP 2131.03).
33. 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.
34. 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.
Pertinent Art
35. The following constitutes a list of art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The art is purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
36.
I. Smart et al., US 2010/0047695 A1; is directed towards lithium-ion electrolytes containing a fluorinated co-solvent, of which is inter alia 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl butyrate, 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate, and 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl propionate [0012-0013, 0016].
II. Abe et al., US 20180277900 A1; is directed towards a lithium secondary battery containing a non-aqueous electrolytic solution [0033], and teaches 5 to 25% by volume of ethylene carbonate, 5 to 25% by volume of propylene carbonate, and 10 to 20% by volume of a fluorinated chain ester within the non-aqueous electrolytic solution [0036, 0052-0055]. The fluorinated chain ester may be, inter alia 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate [0068-0072].
III. Li et al., US 20140038059 A1; is directed towards a lithium secondary battery [0020-0025], containing a non-aqueous electrolytic solution comprising a lithium salt, a carbonate solvent, and a fluorinated compound [0024], wherein the fluorinated compound may be, inter alia 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl propionate, ethyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate, and ethyl trifluoroacetate, in an amount from 0.01 to 20 vol % [0037-0038].
IV. Zeng et al., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 26, 23229–23235; evidences that FEC is less flammable than EC and PC [Results and Discussion section].
V. Ugata et al., Chem. Mater. 2023, 35, 9, 3686–3693; evidences that methyl 3,3,3-trifluoropropionate (MTFP) exhibits flame-retardancy and/or nonflammability [Results and Discussion section].
Conclusion
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782