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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-18 are pending. Claims 1-18 have been rejected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S
Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0013811, hereinafter Song.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 7, 8, and 13-15 Song teaches a lithium secondary battery contains an anode and cathode and their respective active materials, a separator therebetween, and an electrolyte [0071] (instant claim 13). The electrolyte consists of a lithium salt and an organic solvent mixture made of four solvents [0012]. The first solvent contains fluorine and a sulfur, the second solvent contains a linear carbonate-based compound containing fluorine (reads on claimed second solvent), the third solvent contains a linear ester-based compound containing fluorine (reads on claimed third solvent), and the fourth solvent contains a cyclic carbonate-based compound (reads on claimed first solvent) (Abstract) (instant claim 1). The fourth cyclic carbonate-based compound is represented by Chemical Formula 4 where the X groups are each independently hydrogen, fluorine, C1-C6 alkyl, or C1-C6 alkyl fluoride [0038]. Therefore the cyclic carbonated-based solvent contains a linear ester-based solvent (instant claims 1 and 14) that includes ethylene carbonate or propylene carbonate (instant claim 15).
However, Song fails to explicitly teach the carbonate and acetate solvent having a
weight ratio of 1:0.6 to 1:1 (instant claim 1 and 8) and a combined weight percent of 3.0 wt%
to 30.0 wt% (instant claim 1), the carbonate solvent being 2.0 wt% to 20 wt% (instant claim 3),
the acetate solvent being 1.0 wt% to 18.0 wt% (instant claim 7).
Song teaches the second carbonate solvent being 80 vol% or less, the third acetate
solvent being 60 vol% or less [0050]. These solvent amounts can be ‘adjusted appropriately to
effectively prevent the degradation of lithium secondary batteries while securing a satisfactory
flame-retardant or nonflammable level’ [0049]. Therefore, the volume percent of each solvent
is an art recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the volume percents of the solvents
within the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as taught by Song. One of ordinary skill in the art
would appreciate that volume percent and weight percent are directly related because they
both represent concentrations of a solute in a solvent wherein volume percent is a function of
weight. In optimizing these volume percents, one would arrive at the claimed relationship of
ratios and weight percents, barring evidence to criticality or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 2, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1 and that the second
linear carbonate-based compound containing fluorine most preferably comprises of 2,2,2-
trifluoroethylmethyl carbonate or bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) carbonate [0062].
Regarding claim 4, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1 and that the third
linear ester-based compound containing fluorine is represented by Chemical Formula 3 where
the R groups are independently methyl or methyl fluoride and m and n are independently an
integer in a range of 0-5 [0063-0065]. This has the same structure as the claimed Formula 1
when, for Song’s Chemical Formula 3, R1 is methyl fluoride, m is 0, n is 1 and R2 is methyl.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1 and that the
third linear ester-based compound containing fluorine can be 2,2-difluoroacetate [0065].
Regarding claim 16, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 14 and that the
fourth solvent amount can be within the range of 10 vol % to 40 vol % or less, which overlaps
with overlaps with the claimed range of 10 vol% to 70 vol% of the cyclic carbonate -based
organic solvent. [0050]. In the case where the claimed ranged “overlap or lie inside ranges
disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 17, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 13 and the cathode
active material can be LiNi1-x-yCoxMnyO2 which overlaps with the first lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt based oxide listed (Claim 17, line 3).
Regarding claim 18, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 13 and an anode
active material that may consist of a graphite composite containing silicon [0078], which
corresponds with the claimed negative electrode active material containing carbon and silicon.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pre-Grant
Publication 2022/0013811, hereinafter Song, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view
of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0200051 (IDS dated 08/03/2023), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claims 9-12, Song teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1 and provides the
option of flame-retardant additives.
However, Song fails to teach the additive is specifically 1,4-dicyano-2-butene (DCB)
(reads on instant claims 9-11).
Lee teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery that
includes a lithium salt, an organic solvent, and an additive, wherein the additive includes 1,4-
dicyano-2-butene (Abstract) (instant claims 9, 10 and 11). Lee teaches that the DCB may be
included in an amount of 0.5 wt% to 3 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous
electrolyte solution [0062] which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 4.0 wt% (reads
on instant claim 12). In the case where the claimed ranged “overlap or lie inside ranges
disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use the additive of Lee in the electrolyte solution of Song
because the additive will form ‘a stable film on the surface of the positive electrode to obtain a
high effect of suppressing metal ion dissolution from the positive electrode and to suppress gas
generation that may occur during side reactions’ [0063].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-8 and 13-18, applicant argues that Song is silent on the use of a non-fluorine contained linear ester based solvent. The examiner respectfully disagrees because [0038] of Song teaches that the fourth solvent contains both a cyclic carbonate and a linear ester based solvent. Additionally, applicant argues that the non-fluorine solvent is at least 70wt%. The examiner respectfully disagrees because this is not required by the claims and additionally, the claimed weight percent is based on a total weight of the entire non-aqueous electrolyte solution which contains more than just the first, second, and third claimed solvents. Finally, the applicant argues that Song requires a fluorine-containing sulfate-based compound which is excluded by the claimed solvent. The examiner respectfully disagrees because while the claimed solvent is limited to the first, second, and third solvents, the entire electrolyte solution does not exclude this additional fluorine-containing sulfate-based compound.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
