DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. In response to the amendment received on 7/21/2026:
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended and Claim 4 is cancelled.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ning WO2019/180945 (using US PG Publication 2021/0257664 as the English translation) in view of Kim KR2016-0135513.
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 10, Ning discloses a secondary battery (see e.g. paras 0127-0139, meeting Claim 10) comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising compounds represented by the general formulae:
Formula 1: LiN(FSO2)2 (see claim 24 of Ning);
Formula 2: LiPF6- (a = 6 in claimed formula 2) (see para 0101);
Formula 3: (LiBF3)2O or LiBF3OLi present in an amount of 0.1mass% to 20 mass% (also meeting Claims 2 and 3) (paras 0025-0026, 0052).
See entire disclosure and especially paras 0020-0028, 0048, 0052, 0101-0105, 0127-0139, examples 9 and 10 and para 0165, and claim 24 of Ning).
Ning does not specifically recite these three components used in a specific embodiment together, but teaches that e.g. LiPF6 (compound 2) is used with both claimed species of compound 3 (see examples 9 and 10 and para 0165) and the inorganic and organic salts such as LiPF6 and the claimed species of compound 3 (paras 0101-0103) can be used in mixtures of two or more, which would result in a combination of claimed compounds 1, 2, and 3. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Ning does not specifically disclose wherein a concentration of the compound represented by general formula (1) in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution is 0.01 M or more. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium secondary battery non-aqueous electrolyte design, Kim discloses that an electrolyte containing e.g. LiPF6, LiFSI, and a phosphate electrolyte additive should include a concentration of LiFSI of e.g. 0.01 M to 1.0 M with the benefit that this material forms an SEI layer which improves low-temperature output characteristics and suppress decomposition at the anode surface that can occur during high-temperature cycle operation and prevents oxidation reactions of the electrolyte and that this concentration range is optimized to provide the needed benefit while preventing excessive side reactions occurring during charge/discharge that can lead to swelling (see e.g. paras 0027-0028, 0039-0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the electrolyte of Ning such that the LiFSI (the compound of general formula (1)) has a concentration of 0.01 M or more because Kim teaches that in a similar composition, this concentration which provides the needed benefits of improving low-temperature output characteristics and suppression of decomposition at the anode surface that can occur during high-temperature cycle operation and prevention of oxidation reactions of the electrolyte, while preventing excessive side reactions occurring during charge/discharge that can lead to swelling. The disclosed range falls within, and therefore anticipates, the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 5-8, Ning discloses the claimed electrolyte salts as described in the rejection of Claim 1, above, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Ning does not specifically disclose where a mole ratio of a concentration of the compound represented by general formula (1) to a concentration of the compound represented by general formula (2) is from 1:25 to 5:1 (as in Claim 5) or from 1:120 to 1:25 (as in Claim 6) or from 5:1 to 12:1 (as in Claim 7) or from 1:120 to 12:1 (as in Claim 8). However, Ning teaches to optimize the amount of boron-containing salt (para 0052) and to optimize the amount of imide salt (para 0104-0105), and the skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application to carry out experimentation to determine the best amounts to use for the species in the electrolyte solution of Ning since Ning teaches this optimization and would have been capable at arriving at values in the claimed ratios. There appears to be no criticality in the claimed ranges because these ranges span from “almost all compound (1) to “almost all compound (2)”.
Regarding Claim 9, the solution of Claim 1 further comprises a fluorine-containing carbonate compound, e.g. fluoroethylene carbonate (para 0088) or fluoromethylvinylene or fluorovinylene carbonate (para 0091).
6. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ning WO2019/180945 (using US PG Publication 2021/0257664 as the English translation) in view of Kim KR2016-0135513, as applied to Claim 10, and further in view of Hong US PG Publication 2014/0370358.
Regarding Claim 11, Ning modified by Kim discloses the claimed battery as described in the rejection of Claim 10, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Ning teaches the use of a separator (para 0127) but fails to specifically disclose wherein the separator has at least one surface coated with inorganic particles. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium ion secondary batteries, Hong teaches that a separator can be coated with a layer of inorganic particles in order to form a high heat resistance polymer separator that can improve efficiency and capacity of the battery (see e.g. at least abstract and para 0141). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to coat the separator of Ning and Kim with a layer of inorganic particles on at least one surface because Hong teaches that this forms a high heat resistance polymer separator that can improve efficiency and capacity of the battery.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejection above.
Conclusion
8. 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 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights