CTNF 18/289,932 CTNF 76027 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The pending claims are claims 1-12. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 20220223911 . Regarding claim 1, Kim et al., teaches electrolyte solution (0010; 0031) comprising: a lithium salt (0013; 0031); a first solvent (0014; 0034); and a second solvent (“mixed organic solvent”; 0043) (0044-0046; 0051), wherein when Lewis basicities (0007; 0022; 0031; 0064). Kim et al., does not teach Kamlet-Taft parameters of the first solvent and the second solvent are represented by ß1 and ß ₂ , respectively, the ß ₁ is 0.40 or more, and the ß ₂ is 0.20 or less. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 2, Kim et al., teaches wherein a volume ratio of the first solvent and the second solvent is 1:1 to 1:3 (1:4 to 2:3; 0046). Regarding claim 3, Kim et al., does not teach wherein a difference (ß ₁ - ß ₂ ) between the ß ₁ and the ß ₂ is 0.30 or more. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 4, Kim et al., teaches wherein the first solvent comprises one or more species selected from the group consisting of an ether-based solvent (0050-0051), an ester-based solvent (0047-0050), a linear carbonate-based solvent (0043; 0045-0048), a cyclic carbonate- based solvent (0043-0047). Regarding claim 5, Kim et al., does not teach wherein the ß ₂ is -0.25 to 0.20. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 6, Kim et al., does not teach comprising a solvent having ET value of 0.15 or more, which represents a polarizability of a solvent, of the Kamlet-Taft parameters of the second solvent. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 7, Kim et al., does not teach wherein the second solvent has a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level of more than - -1.0 eV to less than 0 eV. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 8, Kim et al., teaches wherein the second solvent comprises one or more species selected from the group consisting of 1,2- difluorobenzene (0084; 0120), and fluorobenzene (0084; 0120). Regarding claim 9, Kim et al., teaches wherein the second solvent is a non-fluorinated solvent (0043-0052). Regarding claim 10, Kim et al., teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises one or more species selected from the group consisting of LiPF ₆ ( 0007; 0009; 0120 ) , LiAsF ₆ (0039) , LiFSI (0039; 0120), LiTFSI (0039), LiCF ₃ SO ₃ ( 0039 ) , LiN(CF ₃ SO ₂ ) ₂ (0039), LiBF ₄ (0039), LiBF ₆ (0039), LiSbF6 (0039), LiN(C ₂ F ₅ SO ₂ ) ₂ (0039). Regarding claim 11, Kim et al., teaches wherein the electrolyte solution comprises 1 to 8 mol of the lithium salt based on a total volume of the first solvent and the second solvent (0039-0041). Regarding claim 12, Kim et al., teaches secondary battery (abstract) comprising: an anode (negative electrode) (0021-0022); a cathode (positive electrode) (0021-0022); a separator (0021; 0091) interposed between the cathode and the anode (0021; 0091); and an electrolyte solution (0010-0012), wherein the electrolyte solution comprises: a lithium salt (0010; 0013); a first solvent (0043-0044); and a second solvent (mixed organic solvent; 0043) (0043-0044; 0046), and wherein when Lewis basicities (0022; 0031; 0064). Kim does not teach Lewis basicities of Kamlet-Taft parameters of the first solvent and the second solvent are represented by ß ₁ and ß ₂ , respectively, the ß ₁ is 0.40 or more, and the ß ₂ is 0.20 or less. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Scrosati et al., US 20140127575 (Scrosati et al., KR 1020140058177) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm. 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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. ANGELA J. MARTIN Examiner Art Unit 1727 /ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/289,932 Page 2 Art Unit: 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/289,932 Page 3 Art Unit: 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/289,932 Page 4 Art Unit: 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/289,932 Page 5 Art Unit: 1727 Application/Control Number: 18/289,932 Page 6 Art Unit: 1727
Prosecution Insights