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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received August 18, 2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection has been made below. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 9, 11-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. (US 2017/0288257) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0138547).
Regarding Claim 1, Kil et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solvent comprising 10 to 50% by weight of a cyclic carbonate based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Para. [0021]), ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate as cyclic carbonates (Para. [0069]) (i.e. c+d is between 10 and 50, overlapping with the claimed range of 32≤c+d≤50) and the linear ester which is ethyl propionate and propyl propionate (Para. [0015], [0069]) is below 90% and lower than 50% by weight based on total weight of the electrolyte (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a+b is 50 to 90 and thus overlapping with the claimed range of 20≤a+b≤50 at 50). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Kil et al. does not teach 0<c/d<1.
However, Kim et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solvent comprising ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate, wherein the weight ratio of propylene carbonate (d) to ethylene carbonate (c) is 1:0.4 to 1:0.9 (i.e. c/d = 0.4 to 0.9, reading on the claimed range of 0<c/d<1) (Para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the weight ratio of propylene carbonate to ethylene carbonate as taught by Kim et al., as such a ratio maximizes the advantages of each solvent to produce a synergistic effect such that the solvent shows significant improvement of output characteristics and capacity characteristics (Para. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kil et al. further teaches the linear ester which is ethyl propionate and propyl propionate (Para. [0015], [0069]) is below 90% and lower than 50% by weight based on total weight of the electrolyte (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a+b is 50 to 90 and thus overlapping with the claimed range of 30≤a+b≤50 at 50).
Kil et al. does not teach 0.1<c/d<0.8.
However, Kim et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solvent comprising ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate, wherein the weight ratio of propylene carbonate (d) to ethylene carbonate (c) is 1:0.4 to 1:0.9 (i.e. c/d = 0.4 to 0.9, overlapping with the claimed range of 0.1<c/d<0.8) (Para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the weight ratio of propylene carbonate to ethylene carbonate as taught by Kim et al., as such a ratio maximizes the advantages of each solvent to produce a synergistic effect such that the solvent shows significant improvement of output characteristics and capacity characteristics (Para. [0029]).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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 9, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kil et al. further teaches a lithium salt of LiBF4 (i.e. lithium tetrafluoroborate) (para. [0060]) (i.e. a boron-containing lithium salt, wherein the boron-containing lithium salt satisfies condition 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Kil et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (i.e. an electrochemical apparatus) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a polymer membrane interposed between the positive and negative electrode (i.e. separator) and an electrolyte (Para. [0028]) wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte solvent comprises 10 to 50% by weight of a cyclic carbonate based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Para. [0021]), ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate as cyclic carbonates (Para. [0069]) (i.e. c+d is between 10 and 50, overlapping with the claimed range of 32≤c+d≤50) and the linear ester which is ethyl propionate and propyl propionate (Para. [0015], [0069]) is below 90% and lower than 50% by weight based on total weight of the electrolyte (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a+b is 50 to 90 and thus overlapping with the claimed range of 20≤a+b≤50 at 50). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Kil et al. does not teach 0<c/d<1.
However, Kim et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solvent comprising ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate, wherein the weight ratio of propylene carbonate (d) to ethylene carbonate (c) is 1:0.4 to 1:0.9 (i.e. c/d = 0.4 to 0.9, reading on the claimed range of 0<c/d<1) (Para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the weight ratio of propylene carbonate to ethylene carbonate as taught by Kim et al., as such a ratio maximizes the advantages of each solvent to produce a synergistic effect such that the solvent shows significant improvement of output characteristics and capacity characteristics (Para. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Kil et al. further teaches the linear ester which is ethyl propionate and propyl propionate (Para. [0015], [0069]) is below 90% and lower than 50% by weight based on total weight of the electrolyte (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a+b is 50 to 90 and thus overlapping with the claimed range of 30≤a+b≤50 at 50).
Kil et al. does not teach 0.1<c/d<0.8.
However, Kim et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solvent comprising ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate, wherein the weight ratio of propylene carbonate (d) to ethylene carbonate (c) is 1:0.4 to 1:0.9 (i.e. c/d = 0.4 to 0.9, overlapping with the claimed range of 0.1<c/d<0.8) (Para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the weight ratio of propylene carbonate to ethylene carbonate as taught by Kim et al., as such a ratio maximizes the advantages of each solvent to produce a synergistic effect such that the solvent shows significant improvement of output characteristics and capacity characteristics (Para. [0029]).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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 19, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Kil et al. further teaches the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material (Para. [0029]) (i.e. the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material) which includes LiCoO2 (Para. [0041]) (i.e. satisfying at least condition 11 as claimed as LiCoO2 comprises Li; O and Co).
Regarding Claim 20, Kil et al. teaches a battery pack as a power source (i.e. electronic apparatus) comprising the lithium secondary battery (i.e. an electrochemical apparatus) (Para. [0062-0063]) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a polymer membrane interposed between the positive and negative electrode (i.e. separator) and an electrolyte (Para. [0028]) wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte solvent comprises 10 to 50% by weight of a cyclic carbonate based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Para. [0021]), ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate as cyclic carbonates (Para. [0069]) (i.e. c+d is between 10 and 50, overlapping with the claimed range of 32≤c+d≤50) and the linear ester which is ethyl propionate and propyl propionate (Para. [0015], [0069]) is below 90% and lower than 50% by weight based on total weight of the electrolyte (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a+b is 50 to 90 and thus overlapping with the claimed range of 20≤a+b≤50 at 50). 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Kil et al. does not teach 0<c/d<1.
However, Kim et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solvent comprising ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate, wherein the weight ratio of propylene carbonate (d) to ethylene carbonate (c) is 1:0.4 to 1:0.9 (i.e. c/d = 0.4 to 0.9, reading on the claimed range of 0<c/d<1) (Para. [0028]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the weight ratio of propylene carbonate to ethylene carbonate as taught by Kim et al., as such a ratio maximizes the advantages of each solvent to produce a synergistic effect such that the solvent shows significant improvement of output characteristics and capacity characteristics (Para. [0029]).
Claims 3, 7-8, 10, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. (US 2017/0288257) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0138547) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takiguchi et al. (US 2015/0024284).
Regarding Claim 3, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kil et al. does not teach a chain carbonate wherein based on the total mass of the electrolyte a mass percentage of chain carbonate is e% wherein 5≤e≤30.
However, Takiguchi et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolytic solution comprising a compound represented by general formula (I) (Para. [0027]) wherein the compound may have unsubstituted hydrogen group having 1-12 carbon atoms (Para. [0037]) which may be chain groups (Para. [0040]) and includes a carbonate (Para. [0042] and see Chem. 4 (a)) (i.e. a chain carbonate) wherein the proportion of the compound represented by general formula (I) is 0.1% by mass or higher and 10% by mass or less (Para. [0087]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of e% is 5≤e≤30).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of a chain carbonate as taught by Takiguchi et al. in the proportion claimed as such a compound mass ratio provides excellent safety during overcharge (Para. [0088]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kil et al. does not teach a multi-nitrile compound.
However, Takiguchi et al. teaches aids in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution such as malononitrile, succinonitrile, glutaronitrile, adiponitrile and pimelonitrile (i.e. pimelic nitrile) (Para. [0218-219]) (i.e. a multi-nitrile compound) in an amount of 0.01% by mass or higher and 8% by mass or less (i.e. within the claimed mass percentage range of 0.001% to 10% satisfying condition 4 as claimed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the multi-nitrile compounds in such a mass percentage as taught by Takiguchi et al. as such a compound would improve capacity retentivity and cycling characteristics (Para. [0220]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. and Takiguchi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explained above.
Kil et al. does not teach a multi-nitrile compound.
However, Takiguchi et al. teaches aids in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution such as malononitrile, succinonitrile, glutaronitrile, adiponitrile and pimelonitrile (i.e. pimelic nitrile) (Para. [0218-219]) (i.e. a multi-nitrile compound as claimed)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the multi-nitrile compounds as taught by Takiguchi et al. as such a compound would improve capacity retentivity and cycling characteristics (Para. [0220]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kil et al. does not teach the electrolyte further comprising an alkenyl sulfone compound.
However, Takiguchi et al. teaches the nonaqueous electrolytic solution (i.e. electrolyte) comprising aids such as 2-sulfolene (Para. [0217], pg. 18, col. 1, line 5) (i.e. further comprising an alkenyl sulfone compound, wherein the alkenyl sulfone compound satisfies (9) and (10) as 2-sulfolene reads on formula III-2 as claimed and R31-34 are each independently hydrogen) wherein the proportion is 0.01% by mass or higher and 5% by mass or less (Para. [0219]) (i.e. within the claimed range required by (8) as claimed of 0.001% to 5%).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of 2-sulfolene as taught by Takiguchi et al., as such an aid provides improved capacity retentivity after high temperature storage and improved cycling characteristics (Para. [0220]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Kil et al. does not teach a chain carbonate wherein based on the total mass of the electrolyte a mass percentage of chain carbonate is e% wherein 5≤e≤30.
However, Takiguchi et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolytic solution comprising a compound represented by general formula (I) (Para. [0027]) wherein the compound may have unsubstituted hydrogen group having 1-12 carbon atoms (Para. [0037]) which may be chain groups (Para. [0040]) and includes a carbonate (Para. [0042] and see Chem. 4 (a)) (i.e. a chain carbonate) wherein the proportion of the compound represented by general formula (I) is 0.1% by mass or higher and 10% by mass or less (Para. [0087]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of e% is 5≤e≤30).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of a chain carbonate as taught by Takiguchi et al. in the proportion claimed as such a compound mass ratio provides excellent safety during overcharge (Para. [0088]).
Regarding Claim 17, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Kil et al. does not teach a multi-nitrile compound.
However, Takiguchi et al. teaches aids in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution such as malononitrile, succinonitrile, glutaronitrile, adiponitrile and pimelonitrile (i.e. pimelic nitrile) (i.e. a multi-nitrile compound) in an amount of 0.01% by mass or higher and 8% by mass or less (i.e. within the claimed mass percentage range of 0.001% to 10% satisfying condition 4 as claimed) (Para. [0218-219]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the multi-nitrile compounds in such a mass percentage as taught by Takiguchi et al. as such a compound would improve capacity retentivity and cycling characteristics (Para. [0220]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. and Takiguchi et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 17 as explained above.
Kil et al. does not teach a multi-nitrile compound.
However, Takiguchi et al. teaches aids in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution such as malononitrile, succinonitrile, glutaronitrile, adiponitrile and pimelonitrile (i.e. pimelic nitrile) (Para. [0218-219]) (i.e. a multi-nitrile compound as claimed)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the multi-nitrile compounds as taught by Takiguchi et al. as such a compound would improve capacity retentivity and cycling characteristics (Para. [0220]).
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. (US 2017/0288257) in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0138547) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mu et al. (US 2023/0131127).
Regarding Claim 4, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kil et al. further teaches fluoroethylene carbonate (Para. [0014]).
However, Kim et al. does not teach wherein based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of fluoroethylene carbonate ranges from 0.01% to 15%
However, Mu et al. teaches an electrolyte (Para. [0007]) comprising 12.0 wt% fluoroethylene carbonate based on the total mass of the electrolyte (Para. [0013]) (i.e. further comprising fluoroethylene carbonate; wherein based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of fluoroethylene carbonate within the claimed range of from 0.01% to 15%) and combining it with an additive of lithium trifluoromethyl triethyl borate (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the fluoroethylene carbonate comprising 12.0 wt% of the electrolyte and the lithium trifluoromethyl triethyl borate as taught by Mu et al. as such electrolyte additives prolongs cycle life of a battery and improves performance of the battery (Para. [0054]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kil et al. further teaches the electrolyte contains propene sultone (Para. [0061]) (i.e. further comprising a sultone compound).
Kil et al. does not explicitly teach the sultone compound satisfies at least one of conditions (1) to (3) as claimed.
However, Mu et al. teaches the electrolyte comprises 1.5 wt% prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone (Para. [0011]) (i.e. further comprising a sultone compound wherein the sultone compound satisfies (1) a mass percentage of the sultone compound in the electrolyte within the claimed range of 0.01% to 10%) and lithium trifluoromethyl triethyl borate as additives (Para. [0007]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of propene sultone in such a mass percentage with and lithium trifluoromethyl triethyl borate as taught by Mu et al., as such an electrolyte would provide improved high-temperature performance and safety performance (Para. [0054]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kil et al. further teaches the electrolyte contains fluoroethylene carbonate and propene sultone (Para. [0061]) (i.e. further comprising fluoroethylene carbonate and a sultone compound).
Kil et al. does not teach mass percentages of the fluoroethylene carbonate and sultone compound based on a total mass of the electrolyte.
However, Mu et al. further teaches the electrolyte comprises 1.5 wt% prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone and 12.0 wt% fluoroethylene carbonate (Table 1, Example 3) (i.e. further comprising fluoroethylene carbonate and a sultone compound, wherein based on a total mass of the electrolyte a mass percentage of fluoroethylene carbonate is 12.0 wt% (i.e. W1% = 12.0) and a mass percentage of the sultone compound is 1.5 wt% (i.e. W-2% = 1.5) and W1 and W2 satisfy (i) 0.01≤ W1≤15 and 0.01≤ W2≤10, (ii) as 12+1.5=13.5 within 2≤ W1+ W2 ≤ 15 and (iii) as 12/1.5 = 8 within 1< W1/W2 ≤ 15.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of fluoroethylene carbonate and propene sultone in such a mass percentage of the total electrolyte with and lithium trifluoromethyl triethyl borate as taught by Mu et al., as such an electrolyte would provide improved high-temperature performance and safety performance and provide the synergistic effect of enabling the battery to have both high-temperature and lower-temperature performance and safety performance (Para. [0054]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Kil et al. further teaches fluoroethylene carbonate (Para. [0014]).
However, Kim et al. does not teach wherein based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of fluoroethylene carbonate ranges from 0.01% to 15%
However, Mu et al. teaches an electrolyte (Para. [0007]) comprising 12.0 wt% fluoroethylene carbonate based on the total mass of the electrolyte (Para. [0013]) (i.e. further comprising fluoroethylene carbonate; wherein based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of fluoroethylene carbonate within the claimed range of from 0.01% to 15%) and combining it with an additive of lithium trifluoromethyl triethyl borate (Para. [0054]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of the fluoroethylene carbonate comprising 12.0 wt% of the electrolyte and the lithium trifluoromethyl triethyl borate as taught by Mu et al. as such electrolyte additives prolongs cycle life of a battery and improves performance of the battery (Para. [0054]).
Regarding Claim 15, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Kil et al. further teaches the electrolyte contains propene sultone (Para. [0061]) (i.e. further comprising a sultone compound).
Kil et al. does not explicitly teach the sultone compound satisfies at least one of conditions (1) to (3) as claimed.
However, Mu et al. teaches the electrolyte comprises 1.5 wt% prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone (Para. [0011]) (i.e. further comprising a sultone compound wherein the sultone compound satisfies (1) a mass percentage of the sultone compound in the electrolyte within the claimed range of 0.01% to 10%) and lithium trifluoromethyl triethyl borate as additives (Para. [0007]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of propene sultone in such a mass percentage with and lithium trifluoromethyl triethyl borate as taught by Mu et al., as such an electrolyte would provide improved high-temperature performance and safety performance (Para. [0054]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kil et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Kil et al. further teaches the electrolyte contains fluoroethylene carbonate and propene sultone (Para. [0061]) (i.e. further comprising fluoroethylene carbonate and a sultone compound).
Kil et al. does not teach mass percentages of the fluoroethylene carbonate and sultone compound based on a total mass of the electrolyte.
However, Mu et al. further teaches the electrolyte comprises 1.5 wt% prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone and 12.0 wt% fluoroethylene carbonate (Table 1, Example 3) (i.e. further comprising fluoroethylene carbonate and a sultone compound, wherein based on a total mass of the electrolyte a mass percentage of fluoroethylene carbonate is 12.0 wt% (i.e. W1% = 12.0) and a mass percentage of the sultone compound is 1.5 wt% (i.e. W-2% = 1.5) and W1 and W2 satisfy (i) 0.01≤ W1≤15 and 0.01≤ W2≤10, (ii) as 12+1.5=13.5 within 2≤ W1+ W2 ≤ 15 and (iii) as 12/1.5 = 8 within 1< W1/W2 ≤ 15.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Kil et al. to incorporate the teaching of fluoroethylene carbonate and propene sultone in such a mass percentage of the total electrolyte with and lithium trifluoromethyl triethyl borate as taught by Mu et al., as such an electrolyte would provide improved high-temperature performance and safety performance and provide the synergistic effect of enabling the battery to have both high-temperature and lower-temperature performance and safety performance (Para. [0054]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 18, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the combination references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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 Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights