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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 30, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification repeatedly uses the word “alkylidene” to mean “alkylene”. See, for example, [0029] of the instant specification
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and 7 use the word “alkylidene” to mean “alkylene.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and therefore include the same limitation.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be read as reciting “alkylene.”
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 uses the word “percentage” to mean “mass fraction.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 and therefore include the same limitation.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be read as reciting “mass fraction.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2019/0074538 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a battery with an electrolyte solution comprising an organic solvent (EC-PC-PP), a lithium salt (LiPF6), a nitrile substance (succinonitrile), and a compound represented by Formula 1 of the instant claim for R1=O and R2=a C3 alkylene group (propane sultone), with b=0.05 and c=0.03 (5 g of succinonitrile and 3 g of propane sultone in 100 g of electrolyte, respectively) (Lee Example 4, [0123]), each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Lee does not teach a reduced voltage amplitude during high temperature cycling. However, limitations directed to charging conditions are considered intended use limitations. Absent structural differences between a claim and a prior art material or article, a recitation of the claimed material or article’s intended use cannot alone patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 I-II, citing, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Thus, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as Lee’s is, it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 II, citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 10, Lee does not teach the claimed voltage reduction process. However, limitations directed to charging conditions are considered intended use limitations. Absent structural differences between a claim and a prior art material or article, a recitation of the claimed material or article’s intended use cannot alone patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 I-II, citing, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Thus, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as Lee’s is, it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02 II, citing In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 6, the nitrile substance is succinonitrile (Lee Example 4, [0123]).
Regarding claim 7, the Formula 1 additive is propane sultone, which has R1=O and R2=a C3 alkylene group (Lee Example 4, [0123]).
Regarding claim 8, the Formula 1 additive is 1,3-propane sultone (Lee Example 4, [0123]).
Regarding claim 9, b=0.05 (Lee Example 4, [0123]), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Lee does not explicitly disclose the claimed capacity retention and thickness change. Lee teaches that it is desirable to maximize capacity retention and minimize swelling by appropriate electrolyte selection (Lee [0092] and [0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to maximize capacity retention and minimize swelling (i.e. thickness increase) as much as possible, including to values within the ranges of the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights