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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/26/2023, 05/14/2024, and 01/02/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species (i) in the reply filed on 04/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-3:“wherein in the general formula (I) or the general formula:” should read “wherein in the general formula (I) or the general formula (II)”.
Regarding claim 11, “wherein the the chain carbonate” should read “wherein the chain carbonate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onuki (JP 2011060464 A- as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Onuki discloses an electrolyte, comprising:
An organic solvent ([0009,0021] electrolyte comprises an organic solvent); and
One or more of a compound represented by following general formula I or general formula II (Onuki Chemical formula 1 and examples as seen below; [0009,0045-0046]);
PNG
media_image1.png
201
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein in the general formula I or the general formula II: X is O and R comprises one or more of a cyano or isocyanate group, a trimethylsilyl, a straight chain alkyl or branched chain alkyl with 2-4 carbon atoms (Figures below; chemical formula 1 and examples of the formula 1 wherein X is O and R is a straight chain alkyl or branched chain alkyl with 2-4 carbon atoms),
PNG
media_image2.png
190
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
194
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A content of the compound in the electrolyte is 0.01 wt-5 wt% ([0009] 0.0001-10 % by weight of the unsaturated cyclic acid anhydride of formulae 1-4); and
A content of ethylene carbonate in the organic solvent is less than or equal to 3 wt % ([0018] electrolytic solution has an organic solvent that can be ethylene carbonate and other carbonate materials wherein the ethylene carbonate provided can be greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 39 % by weight of the organic solvent).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 2-3, Onuki discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Onuki discloses wherein in the general formula (I) or the general formula:
X is O, and R comprises one or more of a cyano or isocyanate group, a trimethylsilyl, a straight chain alkyl or branched chain alkyl with 2-3 carbon atoms (Figures below; chemical formula 1 and examples of the formula 1 wherein X is O and R is a straight chain alkyl or branched chain alkyl with 2-3 carbon atoms),
PNG
media_image2.png
190
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
194
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4-5, Onuki discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Onuki further discloses wherein the compound comprises one or more selected from compounds A1-A12, specifically discloses formula A9 (Onuki General Formula 1 examples below, example (3)).
PNG
media_image4.png
230
348
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
194
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Onuki discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Onuki further discloses wherein a content of the compound in the electrolyte is 1-5 wt% ([0009] unsaturated cyclic acid anhydride selected from the group of general formulae 1-4 is contained in an amount of 0.0001 to 10% by weight based on the weight of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Onuki discloses all the claim limitations of claim 6. Onuki further discloses wherein a content of the compound in the electrolyte is 2-3 wt% ([0009] unsaturated cyclic acid anhydride selected from the group of general formulae 1-4 is contained in an amount of 0.0001 to 10% by weight based on the weight of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Onuki discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Onuki further discloses wherein the organic solvent is free of ethylene carbonate ([0018] electrolytic solution has an organic solvent that can be ethylene carbonate and other carbonate materials wherein the ethylene carbonate provided can be greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 39 % by weight of the organic solvent and thus when the ethylene carbonate is provided at 0 % by weight the organic solvent is free of ethylene carbonate). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Onuki discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Onuki further discloses wherein the organic solvent contains one or more selected from a chain carbonate, a cyclic carbonate other than ethylene carbonate, a carboxylate, and an ether solvent ([0018] organic solvent can contain ethylene carbonate, a fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate and a methyl carbonate, [0056-0058] specific examples of chain carbonates and cyclic carbonates used for the organic solvent).
Regarding claim 10, Onuki discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Onuki further discloses wherein the organic solvent contains the chain carbonate, and a content of the chain carbonate in the electrolyte is 40-90 wt% ([0018,0056-0057, 0061-0063] chain carbonates can be used such as methyl carbonate and similar chain carbonates can be provided between 0 and 100 wt% and preferable between 10-100%). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Onuki discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Onuki further discloses wherein the chain carbonate is selected from dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate, ethyl propyl carbonate, and trifluoroethyl methyl carbonate ([0057] examples of chain carbonates);
The cyclic carbonate other then ethylene carbonate is selected from fluoroethylene carbonate ([0058]);
The carboxylate is selected from ethyl acetate, methyl acetate ([0059] chain esters).
Examiner notes that claim 11 depends upon claim 9 in which the organic solvent contains one or more of chain carbonates, cyclic carbonates, carboxylates, and ether solvents and thus only one of the list is required to read on claim 9 and at least one material from the whole claim 11 is needed to read on claim 11. Thus claim 11 is rendered obvious through the teaching of Onuki as Onuki discloses at least one material listed for the organic solvent according to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Onuki discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Onuki further discloses wherein a content of the organic solvent in the electrolyte is 60 wt%-98wt% ([0009] electrolytic solution comprises an electrolyte and a nonaqueous organic solvent wherein the electrolyte comprises the unsaturated cyclic acid anhydride at a weight % of 0.0001 to 10 wt% with the remaining being the organic solvent of approximately 90-99.99 wt%). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 13-16, Onuki discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Onuki further discloses wherein the electrolyte of claim 1 can be used in a secondary battery, battery module, battery pack and power consuming device ([0002] electrolyte batteries can be used as power sources for mobile devices such as phones, notebook computers that reads on secondary batteries, battery modules, battery pack and a power consuming device as all of these are known in the art for using battery that contains an electrolyte).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taeda et al. (US 2017/0077552 A1)-discloses an electrolyte for a secondary battery having a fluorine containing succinic anhydride according to formulas 3-5.
Oh (KR 20070073386 A-as cited in the IDS)- discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte for use in secondary batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights