DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 2023/0327210 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and Remarks filed on 07 May 2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection dated 09 February 2026 (hereinafter "NFOA") have been entered and fully considered, respectively. Claims 16-19 are new and claims 1, 9-10, and 15 have been amended. As such, claims 1-19 are pending and under consideration on the merits.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the objection to claim 9 previously set forth in the NFOA.
The objection to claim 9 previously set forth in the NFOA is withdrawn due to the present claim amendments, and the Examiner thanks Applicant for correction of the issue.
Applicant argues on Page 9 of the Remarks, directed towards the disqualification of reference Li under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C), used for the rejection of claims 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103, that Li was published after the present application’s priority date and the subject matter disclosed in Li and the claimed invention were commonly owned by Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. no later than the effective filing date of the present application, therefore pursuant to 35 U.S.C 102(b)(2)(C), Li is excepted as prior art.
Examiner acknowledges and agrees with the statement set forth by Applicant on Page 9 of the Remarks, and therefore any claim rejection under U.S.C. 103 as obvious over/including Li is hereby withdrawn.
Additionally, the amendments to claims 10 and 15 do not introduce subject matter which was not previously considered by the Examiner. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL, and accordingly all claim rejections under U.S.C. 103 are hereby withdrawn; MPEP 706.07(a).
New grounds of rejection are set forth below, made in view of newly cited prior art identified as a result of additional search and consideration completed by the undersigned Examiner.
Applicant argues on Pages 11-12 of the Remarks that Kim is entirely silent regarding how the functional groups of Formula 1 are arranged to create a molecule with the amended claim 1 limitations of asymmetrical polar/non-polar ends. Additionally argued, is that Kim does not teach engineering an organic solvent to act as a physical, surfactant-like barrier. Furthermore, Applicant argues on Page 12 of the Remarks, that each of Saito, Kubo, and Sakuma do not teach or suggest the features of amended claim 1.
However, Applicant's arguments are moot, as the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over/including Kim, Saito, Kubo, and/or Sakuma previously set forth in the NFOA is overcome and hereby withdrawn as a result of ¶5-5c above.
New grounds of rejection are set forth below, made in view of newly cited prior art identified as a result of additional search and consideration completed by the undersigned Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality:
Regarding claim 15, “comprising a housing, an electronic component, and a battery that are accommodated in the housing” constitutes improper grammar, which hinders the readability of the claims. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “comprising a housing, further comprising an electronic component[[,]] and a battery that are accommodated in the housing.” Support for this suggested amendment can be seen in Applicant's Specification ¶0071.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 recite the relative term "low-polar" that renders the claims indefinite. The claimed “non-polar” and “low-polar” ends are selected from the same group of species, therefore, it is unclear how any one or more of the species may be non-polar or low-polar. Additionally, the term "low-polar" is not quantitatively defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Moreover, the word “or” before “low-polar” indicates that the overall limitation of “or low-polar” is optional. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination on the merits, the claim limitation “non-polar or low-polar” is interpreted as instead reciting “
Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-19 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claims 1, 10, and 15, and therefore include, and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (EP 1088814 A1, herein English machine translation is utilized for citations as noted and the original copy is utilized for citations as noted; “Schmidt”).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt discloses an electrochemical cell electrolyte [English machine translation, 0025, 0027, 0037] including a flame-resistant solvent additive (a non-aqueous organic solvent, the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a first organic solvent and/or a second organic solvent) [English machine translation, 0001, 0010, 0012, 0016, 0026] mixed with another solvent(s), of which is, inter alia vinylene carbonate (VC), and a salt (electrolyte salt), of which is, inter alia LiPF6 [English machine translation, 0020, 0024, 0028, 0035, 0038, 0041], thereby reading on the claimed battery electrolyte solution limitation of claim 1. The flame-resistant solvent additive is a fluorinated sulfonamide [English machine translation, 0001, 0008, 0010] represented by formula (I) [English machine translation, 0001, 0014, 0026, 0028; Original copy, Pages 2-3].
Formula (I): X-(CYZ)m-SO2N(CR1R2R3)2
wherein, X is H, F, Cl, CnF2n-1, or (SO2)kN(CR1R2R3)2
Y is H, F, or Cl
Z is H, F, or Cl,
R1, R2, R3 is H and/or alkyl, fluoroalkyl, or cycloalkyl
m is 0-9, and if X=H, m≠0
n is 1-9
k is 0, if m=0 and k=1, or if m=1-9 [Original copy, Pages 2-3].
Schmidt formula (I) reads on the claimed first organic solvent is a substituted sulfonamide compound containing one polar end and one non-polar or low-polar end, wherein the non-polar or low-polar end of the first organic solvent is selected from one of fluoroalkyl, fluoroalkoxy, fluoroalkenyl, fluoroalkenyloxy, fluoroaryl, and fluoroaryloxy, and the polar end of the first organic solvent comprises a sulfinamide or sulfonamide end linked to substituents separately selected from one of alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, alkenyloxy, aryl, and aryloxy.
Schmidt exemplifies the electrolyte comprising N,N-dimethyltrifluoromethylsulfonamide as the flame-resistant solvent additive compound represented by formula (I) [English machine translation, 0041, 0051-0053], of which additionally reads on the claimed first organic solvent is a substituted sulfonamide compound containing one polar end and one non-polar or low-polar end, wherein the non-polar or low-polar end of the first organic solvent is selected from one of fluoroalkyl, fluoroalkoxy, fluoroalkenyl, fluoroalkenyloxy, fluoroaryl, and fluoroaryloxy, and the polar end of the first organic solvent comprises a sulfinamide or sulfonamide end linked to substituents separately selected from one of alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, alkenyloxy, aryl, and aryloxy.
The proportion of compounds of formula (I) in the solvent mixture is between 1-100%, preferably between 10-50% [English machine translation, 0016, 0035], wherein the preferable range is within the claimed mass content percent range, 10% to 90%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the number of carbon atoms in each of the fluoroalkyl, of which is reasonably encompassed by/disclosed as the X-(CYZ)m group in Schmidt formula (I) above, and the alkyl, of which is reasonably encompassed by/disclosed as the (CR1R2R3)2 group in Schmidt formula (I) above, overlap with, and read on the claimed number of carbon atoms in their corresponding substituent, thereby rendering the claimed carbon atom ranges obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
It is noted with emphasis that claim 1, upon which claim 2 is directly dependent, recites the non-polar or low-polar end of the first organic solvent is selected from one of fluoroalkyl, fluoroalkoxy, fluoroalkenyl, fluoroalkenyloxy, fluoroaryl, and fluoroaryloxy, and the polar end substituents are separately selected from one of alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, alkenyloxy, aryl, and aryloxy, thereby only requiring one from each of the groups. Therefore, only one from each of the groups needs to read on the claimed number of carbon atoms range defined by claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the proportion of compounds of formula (I) in the solvent mixture is preferably between 10-50% [English machine translation, 0016, 0035], of which overlaps with the claimed mass content percent range, 20% to 50%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Schmidt further discloses that the flame-resistant solvent additive in the electrolyte represented by formula (I) is further mixed with solvents including, inter alia ethylene carbonate (EC) [English machine translation, 0016-0017, 0035], of which reads on the claimed limitation, a co-solvent comprising, inter alia a carbonate ester-based solvent.
Regarding claim 5, in view of the rejection of claim 4 above, Schmidt discloses that the proportion of compounds of formula (I) in the solvent mixture is preferably between 10-50% , therefore, the ratio of the other solvents included in the solvent mixture to the proportion of compounds of formula (I), through calculation, would be between 50-90%, of which overlaps with the claimed mass ratio, from 1:80 to 8:1, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the additive defined by claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the electrolyte salt defined by claim 7. The electrolyte salt is LiPF6 (a lithium salt) [English machine translation, 0020, 0024, 0028, 0035, 0038],
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 above reads on each and every limitation defined by claim 7. The electrolyte salt is LiPF6 (MPF6, wherein M is Li, Na, or K) [English machine translation, 0020, 0024, 0028, 0035, 0038],
Regarding claim 9, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Schmidt exemplifies use of LiPF6 at a molar concentration of 1.0 mol/L [English machine translation, 0041, 0051-0053], of which is within the claimed range, 0.1 mol/L to 8.0 mol/L, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt discloses an electrochemical cell is, inter alia secondary lithium batteries (a secondary battery) [English machine translation, 0012, 0027] comprising a cathode (a positive electrode) and anode (a negative electrode), with a separator (a separator) and a non-aqueous electrochemical cell electrolyte disposed therebetween [English machine translation, 0003, 0007, 0012, 0014-0016, 0025, 0027].
The electrochemical cell electrolyte [English machine translation, 0027, 0037] includes a flame-resistant solvent additive [English machine translation, 0001, 0008, 0010, 0012, 0016, 0026] mixed with another solvent(s), of which is, inter alia vinylene carbonate (VC), and a salt, of which is, inter alia LiPF6 [English machine translation, 0020, 0024, 0028, 0035, 0038], thereby reading on the claimed battery electrolyte solution limitation of claim 1. The flame-resistant solvent additive is a fluorinated sulfonamide [English machine translation, 0001, 0008, 0010] represented by formula (I) [English machine translation, 0001, 0014, 0026, 0028; Original copy, Pages 2-3].
Formula (I): X-(CYZ)m-SO2N(CR1R2R3)2
wherein, X is H, F, Cl, CnF2n-1, or (SO2)kN(CR1R2R3)2
Y is H, F, or Cl
Z is H, F, or Cl,
R1, R2, R3 is H and/or alkyl, fluoroalkyl, or cycloalkyl
m is 0-9, and if X=H, m≠0
n is 1-9
k is 0, if m=0 and k=1, or if m=1-9 [Original copy, Pages 2-3].
Schmidt formula (I) reads on the claimed first organic solvent is a substituted sulfonamide compound containing one polar end and one non-polar or low-polar end, wherein the non-polar or low-polar end of the first organic solvent is selected from one of fluoroalkyl, fluoroalkoxy, fluoroalkenyl, fluoroalkenyloxy, fluoroaryl, and fluoroaryloxy, and the polar end of the first organic solvent comprises a sulfinamide or sulfonamide end linked to substituents separately selected from one of alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, alkenyloxy, aryl, and aryloxy.
The proportion of compounds of formula (I) in the solvent mixture is between 1-100%, preferably between 10-50% [English machine translation, 0016, 0035], of which is within the claimed mass content percent range, 10% to 90%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the rejection of claim 10 above, Schmidt further discloses that the anode material includes, inter alia tin (a tin-based negative electrode) [English machine translation, 0003, 0025].
It is noted that claim 11 recites the limitation where the negative electrode comprises one or more of a list of types of negative electrodes, thereby only requiring one of the recited types of negative electrodes defined by claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 above reads on the tin-based negative electrode defined by claim 12 – the anode material includes tin (tin) [English machine translation, 0025].
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 above reads on the secondary battery defined by claim 13, wherein claim 11 does not necessarily require a lithium alloy, see ¶40 above.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 above reads on the secondary battery defined by claim 11.
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt, in view of Senoue et al. (US 2014/0065450 A1; “Senoue”).
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt discloses an electrochemical cell is, inter alia secondary lithium batteries [English machine translation, 0012, 0027] for use in mobile applications (a terminal), including mobile phones and electric vehicles [English machine translation, 0002]. The secondary lithium battery comprises a cathode and anode, with a separator and a non-aqueous electrochemical cell electrolyte disposed therebetween [English machine translation, 0003, 0007, 0012, 0014-0016, 0025, 0027].
The electrochemical cell electrolyte [English machine translation, 0027, 0037] includes a flame-resistant solvent additive [English machine translation, 0001, 0008, 0010, 0012, 0016, 0026] mixed with another solvent(s), of which is, inter alia vinylene carbonate (VC), and a salt, of which is, inter alia LiPF6 [English machine translation, 0020, 0024, 0028, 0035, 0038], thereby reading on the claimed battery electrolyte solution limitation of claim 1. The flame-resistant solvent additive is a fluorinated sulfonamide [English machine translation, 0001, 0008, 0010] represented by formula (I) [English machine translation, 0001, 0014, 0026, 0028; Original copy, Pages 2-3].
Formula (I): X-(CYZ)m-SO2N(CR1R2R3)2
wherein, X is H, F, Cl, CnF2n-1, or (SO2)kN(CR1R2R3)2
Y is H, F, or Cl
Z is H, F, or Cl,
R1, R2, R3 is H and/or alkyl, fluoroalkyl, or cycloalkyl
m is 0-9, and if X=H, m≠0
n is 1-9
k is 0, if m=0 and k=1, or if m=1-9 [Original copy, Pages 2-3].
Schmidt formula (I) reads on the claimed first organic solvent is a substituted sulfonamide compound containing one polar end and one non-polar or low-polar end, wherein the non-polar or low-polar end of the first organic solvent is selected from one of fluoroalkyl, fluoroalkoxy, fluoroalkenyl, fluoroalkenyloxy, fluoroaryl, and fluoroaryloxy, and the polar end of the first organic solvent comprises a sulfinamide or sulfonamide end linked to substituents separately selected from one of alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, alkenyloxy, aryl, and aryloxy.
The proportion of compounds of formula (I) in the solvent mixture is between 1-100%, preferably between 10-50% [English machine translation, 0016, 0035], of which is within the claimed mass content percent range, 10% to 90%, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Schmidt is silent regarding the terminal/mobile applications including electric vehicles comprises a housing, further comprising an electronic component and a battery that are accommodated in the housing, wherein the battery supplies power to the electronic component and the battery comprises a secondary battery.
Senoue is directed to a secondary battery for an electric vehicle [Abstract, 0002, 0013, FIG. 10]. Senoue teaches the electric vehicle [0200-0205, FIG. 10], includes a housing (a housing) [element 73, 0201, FIG. 10], of which accommodates a control section (an electronic component) [element 74, 0201, 0204] and an electric power source (a battery) [element 76, 0201-0205], wherein the electric power source includes one or more secondary batteries (the battery comprises a secondary battery) [0204]. The electric power source supplies electric power (supplies power) to the control section [0202-0205, FIG. 10].
Schmidt and Senoue each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – secondary battery for mobile applications including an electric vehicle. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell/secondary lithium battery of Schmidt for use in an electric vehicle, so that it is accommodated inside a housing, along with a control section like that of Senoue, wherein the electrochemical cell/secondary lithium battery of Schmidt supplies electric power to the control section. Doing so would allow for the control section to control operations of the whole electric vehicle [Senoue, 0204].
Regarding claim 16, in view of the rejection of claim 15 above, Schmidt further discloses that the anode material includes, inter alia tin (a tin-based negative electrode) [English machine translation, 0025].
It is noted that claim 16 recites the limitation where the negative electrode comprises one or more of a list of types of negative electrodes, thereby only requiring one of the recited types of negative electrodes defined by claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 above reads on the tin-based negative electrode defined by claim 17 – the anode material includes tin (tin) [English machine translation, 0025].
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 above reads on the secondary battery defined by claim 18, wherein claim 16 does not necessarily require a lithium alloy, see ¶54 above.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 16 above reads on the secondary battery defined by claim 19.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Ji et al., US 2021/0328256 A1 – teaches a substituted sulfonamide compound general formula, which may be fluorinated [general sulfonamide structure (IV), 0051], as an electrolyte additive to reduce gases in Li-ion batteries [0051].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights