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
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 4/30/26. Claim 1 is amended. The rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn in light of the amendment; however, a new rejection is made over Fujii, below. Claims 1-12 are pending and are rejected finally.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0223911) in view of Fujii et al. (US 2010/0035146).
Regarding claims 1-2, Kim teaches an electrolyte for lithium-ion secondary battery, comprising:
a solvent;
a lithium salt,
and an additive composition comprising a compound of formula I, i.e. tetravinyl silane, and 1,3-propane sultone;
wherein percentage of the compound formula I in the electrolyte is a wt%, specifically 0.1 wt%, and percentage of the compound of 1,3-propane sultone is b wt%, specifically 0.5 wt% ([0120]). The examiner notes that the values of a and b of Kim meet the requirements of claim 1 since a/b = 0.2 and a+b=0.6.
Further regarding claims 1-2, Kim fails to teach Formula III.
Fujii teaches both 1,3-propane sultone and vinylethylene sulfite as film-forming additives for nonaqueous electrolyte battery solutions ([0220], [0223], [0225]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to substitute vinylethylene sulfite for 1,3-propane sultone in the electrolyte of Kim such as suggested by Fujii and the results of the substitution, i.e. providing a film-forming additive, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
Regarding claims 3-5, as is discussed above, a/b = 0.2; a+b=0.6; and b is 0.5 wt%.
With regard to claim 6, Kim teaches that the solvent is a non-protonic chain organic carbonate, i.e. ethylene carbonate:ethyl methyl carbonate ([0120]).
As for claim 7, Kim teaches that the lithium salt is lithium tetrafluoroborate, i.e. LiBF4 ([0120]).
With regard to claim 8, Kim teaches that the amount of the lithium salt and the amount of the third additive, i.e. the tetravinyl silane and 1,3-propane sultone discussed above, are result effective for producing desired effects of the electrolyte ([0040]-[0041], [0088]). The skilled artisan will easily understand that optimizing the amount of additives of an electrolyte necessarily affects the amount of solvent. The examiner finds that it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to find workable or optimum ranges for the components of the electrolyte of Kim in view of Ohashi since it has been held that it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II A
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Fujii teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrolyte ([0125]).
As for claims 10-12, Kim in view of Fujii teaches the use of the battery in an electric apparatus, or device ([0004]). The examiner finds that a battery provided in a device is necessarily provided in a pack in a module, and further notes that the claims do not limit the structure of those components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/30/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of newly amended claim(s) 1 under Kim in view of Ohashi have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fujii, above.
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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights