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
The amendments as filed 06/24/2026 have been entered. They overcome the 102 rejection, but do not overcome the 103 rejection as previously set forth in non final office action mailed 03/25/2026; new grounds of rejection are set forth below.
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 1-4, 6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20180375089-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Gosner’ in view of (US-20210098829-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Rustomji’
Regarding Claim 1,
Gosner teaches an electrolyte for use in a secondary battery, a partially halogenated saturated polyalkene (Gosner, “By polymerizing fluorinated alkenes such as 1,1-difluoroethylene it is advantageously possible to constitute on the particles an artificial SEI layer made of a fluorinated polymer, for example one based on polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdf). Such polymers can advantageously form a gel, for instance in the context of assembly of a cell and/or battery, in the presence of at least one electrolyte solvent, for example at least one liquid organic carbonate, such as ethylene carbonate (EC) and/or ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) and/or dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and/or diethyl carbonate (DEC), or of at least one liquid electrolyte”, see [0130]) the electrolyte in combination with a C2-C4 alkene substituted with a halogen atom or a partially halogenated saturated polyalkene (Gosner, “for example at least one alkene, for instance ethene, such as 1,1-difluoroethene (1,1-difluoroethylene, vinylidene fluoride) and/or tetrafluoroethylene (TFE)”, see [0062]).
Gosner does not teach both C2-C4 alkene substituted with a halogen atom and a partially halogenated saturated polyalkene (Rustomji, “Disclosed here are additives that may be used in liquefied gas electrolytes to improve salt solubility, electrolyte conductivity, and voltage stability. In some embodiments, the additives are used in combination with fluoromethane or difluoromethane as a primary solvent and lithium based salts. In some embodiments, other liquefied gas solvents such as fluoromethane, difluoromethane, trifluoromethane, fluoroethane, tetrafluoroethane, pentafluoroethane, 1,1-difluoroethane, 1,2-difluoroethane,”, see [0035]).
Rustomjii teaches C2-C4 alkene substituted with a halogen atom
Rustomji teaches that a concentration of C2-C4 alkene substituted with a halogen atom improves solubility and conductivity (Rustomji, “Disclosed here are additives that may be used in liquefied gas electrolytes to improve salt solubility, electrolyte conductivity, and voltage stability. In some embodiments, the additives are used in combination with fluoromethane or difluoromethane as a primary solvent and lithium based salts. In some embodiments, other liquefied gas solvents such as fluoromethane, difluoromethane, trifluoromethane, fluoroethane, tetrafluoroethane, pentafluoroethane, 1,1-difluoroethane, 1,2-difluoroethane,”, see [0035]).
Gosner and Rustomji are analogous as they are both of the same field of electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte as taught in Gosner with additive as taught in Rustomji in order to improve solubility and conductivity .
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Gosner teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the C2-C4 alkene substituted with a halogen atom comprises one or more of the compounds represented by Formula 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
94
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R11 and R13 are each independently selected from a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, substituted or unsubstituted C1-C2 alkyl, and a number of carbon atoms in R11 to R13 adds up to 0,1, or 2; optionally the halogen atoms comprises a fluorine atom or chlorine atom; and optionally R11 to R13 are each independently selected from a hydrogen atom, a fluorine atom, or CF3 (Gosner, “for example at least one alkene, for instance ethene, such as 1,1-difluoroethene (1,1-difluoroethylene, vinylidene fluoride) and/or tetrafluoroethylene (TFE)”, see [0062]).
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Gosner teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1 , wherein, the C2-C4 alkene substituted with a halogen atom comprises one or more compounds represented by Formulas (I-1) to (I-5) (Gosner, “for example at least one alkene, for instance ethene, such as 1,1-difluoroethene (1,1-difluoroethylene, vinylidene fluoride) and/or tetrafluoroethylene (TFE)”, see [0062]),
PNG
media_image2.png
208
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Gosner teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein, the C2-C4 alkene substituted with a halogen atom has a mass percentage b that satisfies 0.05%≤a≤10%, and optionally 0.1%≤a≤1%, by weight of the electrolyte (Rustomji, “In some embodiments, the amount of the additive is less than… about 1% by weight based on the total weight of the liquefied gas electrolyte.”, see [0035]).
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Gosner teaches the electrolyte according to any one of claims 1 to 5, wherein, the partially halogenated saturated polyolefin comprises one or more of the structural unit represented by Formulas (II-1) to (II-5), and the partially halogenated saturated polyolefin comprises at least one structural unit of a partially fluorinated alkene (Gosner, “By polymerizing fluorinated alkenes such as 1,1-difluoroethylene it is advantageously possible to constitute on the particles an artificial SEI layer made of a fluorinated polymer, for example one based on polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdf).”, see [0130])(PVDF is the first structure below);
PNG
media_image3.png
244
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Gosner teaches a secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode plate; a negative electrode plate; a separator arranged between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate; and the electrolyte according to claim 1; optionally, the positive electrode plate comprises a lithium element and/or a sodium element(Rustomji, “Two battery coin cells composed of a lithium metal anode and a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide (NMC622) cathode were assembled. The first cell used an Electrolyte 1 having 1.0 M LiTFSI and 1.0 M 2-methyl tetrahydrofuran in CH3F:CO2 in a molar ratio of 9:1.”, see [0047]).
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Gosner does not teach a battery module, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the battery in order to make a module, as an obvious matter of duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144 (VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Gosner does not teach a battery pack, comprising the battery module according to claim 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the module in order to make a battery pack, as an obvious matter of duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144 (VI)(B)).
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Gosner teaches an electrical device, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 9 (Rustomji, “Embodiments of the present disclosure relate to chemical formulations, electrolyte compositions, electrochemical devices of use thereof, and methods of use thereof.”, see [0006]).
Claims 5,7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20180375089-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Gosner’ in view of (US-20210098829-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Rustomji’ in view of (WO-2015016189-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Toshihiko’
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Gosner teaches the electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the partially halogenated saturated polyolefin comprises one or more of a structural unit represented by Formula II, and the partially halogenated saturated polyolefin comprises at least one structural unit of a partially halogenated alkene ,
PNG
media_image4.png
100
214
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R21 to R24 are each independently selected from a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, or a linear or branched C1-C8 alkyl substituted or unsubstituted with a halogen atom; optionally, the halogen atom comprises a fluorine atom or a chlorine atom; and optionally, R21 to R24 are each independently selected from a hydrogen atom, a fluorine atom, or -CF3 (Gosner, “By polymerizing fluorinated alkenes such as 1,1-difluoroethylene it is advantageously possible to constitute on the particles an artificial SEI layer made of a fluorinated polymer, for example one based on polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdf).”, see [0130])(PVDF corresponds to the first structure as mentioned above)
Modified Gosner does not teach total polymerization degree m that satisfies 1 < m≤220, and m is a positive integer; optionally, 4 <m≤220.
Toshihiko teaches total polymerization degree m that satisfies 1 < m≤220, and m is a positive integer; optionally, 4 <m≤220 (Toshihiko, “, a polymer compound having a weight average molecular weight of 500 or more, and a nonaqueous solvent An electrolytic solution for a secondary battery, wherein the polymer compound is dissolved in a liquid in an amount of 0.1% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less.”, see pg. 1)(Toshihiko, “wherein the polymer compound is selected from the group consisting of polyacrylonitrile, poly (meth) acrylate, polyvinylidene fluoride, polysiloxane and polyalkylene”, see pg. 1)(The examiner notes that degree of polymerization is molecular weight/ monomer molar mass, considering that the monomer for PVDF is 64.03 g/mol, the degree of polymerization is 500/64.03= 7.81)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 7.81 or more broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1 to 220. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Toshihiko teaches that this molecular weight allows for solubility in the electrolyte (Toshihiko, “The weight average molecular weight of the polymer compound is preferably 500 or more... By setting the molecular weight of the polymer compound to the upper limit value or less, the solubility in the electrolytic solution is improved and deterioration of the battery performance can be suppressed. Moreover, flame retardance can be improved and it is preferable by setting it as the said lower limit or more.”, pg. 5).
Gosner and Toshihiko are analogous as they are both of the same field of polymers and electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer as taught in Gosner to have the molecular weight as taught in Toshiko, in order to improve the solubility in the electrolyte and improve the stability.
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Gosner does not teach wherein, the partially halogenated saturated polyolefin has a weight average molecular weight of less than or equal to 10000Da; and optionally, the partially halogenated saturated polyolefin has a weight average molecular weight of 200Da to 10000Da.
Toshihiko teaches wherein, the partially halogenated saturated polyolefin has a weight average molecular weight of less than or equal to 10000Da; and optionally, the partially halogenated saturated polyolefin has a weight average molecular weight of 200Da to 10000Da (Toshihiko, “, a polymer compound having a weight average molecular weight of 500 or more, and a nonaqueous solvent An electrolytic solution for a secondary battery, wherein the polymer compound is dissolved in a liquid in an amount of 0.1% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less.”, see pg. 1)(Toshihiko, “wherein the polymer compound is selected from the group consisting of polyacrylonitrile, poly (meth) acrylate, polyvinylidene fluoride, polysiloxane and polyalkylene”, see pg. 1)
Toshihiko teaches that this molecular weight allows for solubility in the electrolyte (Toshihiko, “The weight average molecular weight of the polymer compound is preferably 500 or more... By setting the molecular weight of the polymer compound to the upper limit value or less, the solubility in the electrolytic solution is improved and deterioration of the battery performance can be suppressed. Moreover, flame retardance can be improved and it is preferable by setting it as the said lower limit or more.”, pg. 5).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 500 or more broadly overlaps the claimed range of 200 to 10,000. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Gosner and Toshihiko are analogous as they are both of the same field of polymers and electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer as taught in Modified Gosner to have the molecular weight as taught in Toshiko, in order to improve the solubility in the electrolyte and improve the stability.
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Gosner does not teach the electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein, the partially halogenated saturated polyolefin has a mass percentage b that satisfies 0.05%≤a≤10%, optionally, 0.1%≤a≤1%, by weight of the electrolyte.
Toshihiko teaches wherein, wherein, the partially halogenated saturated polyolefin has a mass percentage b that satisfies 0.05%≤a≤10%, optionally, 0.1%≤a≤1%, by weight of the electrolyte.
(Toshihiko, “An electrolytic solution for a secondary battery, wherein the polymer compound is dissolved in a liquid in an amount of 0.1% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less”, see pg. 1)(Toshihiko, “wherein the polymer compound is selected from the group consisting of polyacrylonitrile, poly (meth) acrylate, polyvinylidene fluoride, polysiloxane and polyalkylene”, see pg. 1)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.1 to 20% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 to 10 %. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Toshihiko teaches that this percentage allows for optimal fluidity of the solution (Toshihiko, “Regarding the lower limit side, it is 0.1 mass% or more, and more preferably 1 mass% or more. Good fluidity of the electrolytic solution can be maintained by blending the polymer compound at the upper limit or less.”, pg. 5).
Modified Gosner and Toshihiko are analogous as they are both of the same field of polymers and electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer as taught in Modified Gosner to have the percentage in the electrolyte as taught in Toshiko, in order to improve the fluidity of the electrolyte solution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 6, the applicant argues:
“However, Gosner does not teach an electrolyte comprising a C2-C4 alkene substituted with a halogen atom and a partially halogenated saturated polyalkene. Gosner does not disclose or suggest the claimed electrolyte.”
However, this is partially convincing. The examiner agrees that Gosner does not teach both compounds and, therefore, the applicant overcomes the 102 rejection. However, it would have been obvious to add the compound in addition to Gosner in view of Rustomji and the benefits of the compounds as outlined 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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights