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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
2. It is unclear in claim 31 what the Applicant means by “Each of the following molecules separately, as a new composition of matter”. It is unclear if the Applicant is claiming the separation of each compound recited, or each compound is recited as a distinct compound, or if the Applicant is claiming one or all of the compounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowable over the prior art of record.
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)(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.
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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated, or in the alternative, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Suzuki et al. (JP2011233535A).
4. Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 21, 27, 29, Suzuki teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium battery (A nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery...The nonaqueous electrolyte is configured to dissolve a lithium salt, abstract), which solution comprises i) a liquid electrolyte medium; ii) a lithium-containing salt (The nonaqueous electrolyte is configured to dissolve a lithium salt in a nonaqueous solvent 70 wt.% or more of which a total amount of a carbonate selected from the group consisting of cyclic carbonates and acyclic carbonates, abstract); and iii) at least one oxygen-containing brominated flame retardant (The non-aqueous electrolyte used for the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to the present invention is obtained by dissolving a lithium salt in a non-aqueous solvent containing an organic halide such as 2-bromoethyl acetate, page 2 last paragraph)
5. Regarding claims 10 and 22, Suzuki teaches a solution as in claim wherein the oxygen-containing brominated flame retardant is in an amount of about 9.5 wt % or more bromine relative to the total weight of the solution (The organic halide is contained in the nonaqueous solvent so as to be 0.01% by weight or more…Preferably, it is contained in an amount of 0.05 to 50% by weight, particularly 0.05 to 30% by weight, and more preferably 0.1 to 30% by weight, page 3, first paragraph).
5. Regarding claims 11 and 23, Suzuki teaches wherein the liquid electrolyte medium is ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, or a mixture thereof (Other non-aqueous solvent components used in combination with organic halides include cyclic carbonates such as conventional ethylene carbonate, page 3 second paragraph)), and/or wherein the lithium-containing salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate (A non-aqueous electrolyte is obtained by dissolving LiPF6 as a lithium salt in a non-aqueous solvent, see claims).
5. Regarding claims 12, 15, 28, Suzuki teaches comprising at least one electrochemical additive selected from: b) fluorine-containing saturated cyclic carbonates containing three to about five carbon atoms and one to about four fluorine atoms (One or more selected from fluoroethylene carbonate and 4,5-difluoroethylene carbonate, page 2 fourth paragraph)).
6. Regarding claim 14, Suzuki teaches a wherein the electrochemical additive is selected from: b) a fluorine-containing saturated cyclic carbonate in an amount of about 0.5 wt % to about 8 wt %, relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution (The amount of the cyclic carbonate halide in the non-aqueous solvent is 0.1 to 30% by weight, The cyclic carbonate halide is at least one selected from chloroethylene carbonate, 4,5-dichloroethylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate and 4,5-difluoroethylene carbonate, see claims).
7. Regarding claims 20 and 26, Suzuki teaches a nonaqueous lithium battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (A nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery accommodates an electrode assembly in which a negative electrode and a positive electrode capable of occluding and discharging lithium oppose to each other via a separator, see abstract)).
8. Regarding claim 30, Suzuki teaches wherein the components further comprise at least one electrochemical additive selected from vinylene carbonate (a nonaqueous electrolytic solution obtained by dissolving a lithium salt into a solvent containing ethylene carbonate and further blended with vinylene carbonate, page 2 third paragraph))
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 of this title, 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.
9. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PubChem, (PubChem release 2021.05.07).
9. Each of the following molecules separately, as a new composition of matter:
2,3-dibromoprop-2-en-1-yl propanoate (3-Bromo-2,3-diiodoprop-2-enyl) propanoate, PubChem, Computed by PubChem 2.1 (PubChem release 2021.05.07)).
10. Claims 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP2011233535A) in view of Yan et al. (US 20200243910).
11. Yan teaches wherein said electrolyte composition includes sodium difluoro(oxalato)borate, succinonitrile, (see claim 13) for the benefit of high energy density and excellent cycle life [0002].
12. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Suzuki with Yan’s teachings for the benefit of high energy density and excellent cycle life for the benefit of high energy density and excellent cycle life.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLATUNJI GODO whose telephone number is (571)272-3104. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 571-272-8760. 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.
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights