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
Applicant has amended the claims following the restriction requirement mailed on June 23, 2026 and selected claims 22-34 with traverse. The examiner has considered the new amendment and revises the restriction requirement to correspond to the currently amended claims. Claims 1-22 and 24-35 will be examined on the merits. Claims 36-38 remain withdrawn from consideration at this current time. It is noted that withdrawn claim 38 has two references to the now cancelled claim 23, the examiner suggests amending the claim to reflect the new dependency. The restriction is considered final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6, 18-21, 24-25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sivasubramanian et al (US 2019/0006715).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, Sivasubramanian teaches an electrolyte composition comprising an electrolyte and a salt (Table 1). The electrolyte comprises the following silane of the formula (I): ([0052])
PNG
media_image1.png
104
174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This reads on formula (I) where R1 and R2 are C1 alkyl, and R3 is a C7 ether and R4 is formula (ia) where V is oxygen, e is 1, f is 1 and X is a polar group. It is noted that the proviso does not apply as R3 is selected from a C7 ether.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, given that Sivasubramanian teaches that R3 is a polyalkylene ether group, R4 does not need to be a furfuryl group. And in the structure of Example I, R4 is a polar group which is tetrahydrofuran. There are no furfuryl groups in the structure.
Regarding claims 18-20, Sivasubramanian teaches the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
104
174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the polar group is
PNG
media_image2.png
42
48
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which reads on formula (X-viii).
Regarding claim 21, Sivasubramanian teaches that the silane compound is a co-solvent (Table 1).
Regarding claim 24-25, Sivasubramanian teaches that the salt is a lithium salt such as LiPF6 (Table 1).
Regarding claim 30, Sivasubramanian teaches that the electrolyte composition is a liquid, solid or gel ([0048]-[0049]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 24 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamers et al (US 2015/0221986).
Regarding claims 1-3, 24 and 34, Hamers teaches an electrolyte composition comprising an electrolyte with the following structure
PNG
media_image3.png
60
232
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(1NM3, [0106]) and a salt such as LiTFSI and the flash point is 120 C. It is noted that the proviso does not apply.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12-13, 15-16, 22, 26-29, 31 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivasubramanian et al (US 2019/0006715).
The discussion regarding Sivasubramanian in paragraph 4 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claims 1, 12-13 and 15-16, Sivasubramanian teaches an electrolyte composition comprising an electrolyte and a salt (Table 1). The electrolyte comprises the following silane of the formula (I) (claim 11).
PNG
media_image4.png
182
198
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Claim 11).
Sivasubramanian fails to specifically exemplify the exact recited composition. However, Sivasubramanian discloses each of the components of the composition, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the electrolyte composition. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compositions suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the compositions suggested by Sivasubramanian, including the claimed composition. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Sivasubramanian to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using known components in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 22, 26-29 and 31, while the example in Table 1 does not explicitly state that the silane compound is disposed in a solvent, it teaches within the specification that solvents such as tetrahydrofuran (THF), glymes ([0040]) or polyalkylene glycol dialkyl ethers ([0040]) can be added to the composition. Sivasubramanian teaches that combinations of two or more of these solvents can be used.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the THF in the example of Table 1. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of having plasticizing effects (Sivasubramanian, [0038]).
Regarding claim 34, Sivasubramanian teaches that the composition of claim 1 can be used in an electrochemical device ([0046]).
Claim(s) 1, 7-11 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al (US 2008/0044735).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-11, Ryu teaches an electrolyte composition comprising an electrolyte and a salt ([0054]). The electrolyte is a carbosilane with the following structure
PNG
media_image5.png
178
132
media_image5.png
Greyscale
([0012])
Ryu fails to specifically exemplify the exact composition as presently recited. However, Ryu discloses each of the components of the recited composition, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the electrolyte composition. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the compounds suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the compounds suggested by Ryu, including the claimed composition. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Ryu to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would be nothing more than using known compounds in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 32-33, Ryu teaches that the silane compound is present in the amount from 1 to 15 % by weight ([0026]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
