DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Applicant’s amendments submitted on 8/4/26 have been received. Claim 1 has been amended.
Election/Restrictions
3. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/15/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-5, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al. (US 2020/0161706) as cited in IDS dated 10/3/23.
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a lithium secondary battery (Fig. 4B, [0171]) comprising: a positive electrode(cathode 220, Fig. 4B, [0171]); a separator(230, Fig. 4B, [0171]); a negative electrode that is free of a negative electrode active material(anode current collector 250, Fig. 4B, [0171]); and an electrolytic solution impregnating the separator([0171]),
wherein the electrolytic solution comprises an electrolyte dissolved in a fluorine solvent represented by Chemical Formulae (1) to (4) ([0145], [0158]-[0160]),
PNG
media_image1.png
1395
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(in the formulae, each of R10 and R20 independently represents any of a C1 to C8 alkyl group, a cycloalkyl group, an aryl group, a C1 to C8 alkyl group that is fully or partially fluorinated, a cycloalkyl group that is fully or partially fluorinated, or an aryl group that is fully or partially fluorinated)([0158]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 2, Cao discloses R10 or R20 includes one or more CF3 groups([0158]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 3, Cao discloses R20 is trifluoroethyl ([0158]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 4, Cao discloses R10 is selected from a methyl group, or an ethyl group ([0160]).
Regarding claim 5, Cao discloses R10 is selected from an ethyl group that is fully or partially fluorinated, or an n-propyl group that is fully or partially fluorinated ([0159]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 11, Cao discloses the electrolytic solution further contains a fluorine solvent consisting of a compound having at least one of a monovalent group represented by Formula (A) or a monovalent group represented by Formula (B),
PNG
media_image2.png
647
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(In the formulae, a wavy line represents a bonding site in the monovalent group) ([0158]-[0159]).
Regarding claim 12, Cao discloses a total amount of the fluorine solvents is 5% by volume or more relative to an overall amount of solvent components in the electrolytic solution(volumetric ratio of the solvent A to the diluent is within a range of from 0.2 to 5 [0162]).
Regarding claim 13, Cao discloses the electrolytic solution is a non-aqueous electrolytic solution([0148]), and the solvent further contains an ether solvent as a non-fluorine solvent([0148]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 2020/0161706) as cited in IDS dated 10/3/23 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokotsuji et al. (JP2014110235A) as cited in IDS dated 10/3/23 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant.
Regarding claim 6, Cao discloses fluorinated ether compound ([0158]) but does not explicitly disclose the fluorine solvent of Chemical Formula (1) is any of fluorine solvents represented by Chemical Formulae (11) to (15),
PNG
media_image3.png
1211
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yokotsuji teaches electrolyte for rechargeable lithium ion battery and rechargeable lithium ion battery (title). Yokotsuji teaches an electrolyte solution for a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a fluorinated ether in which at least some of the hydrogen atoms are substituted with fluorine atoms (claim 1). Yokotsuji teaches 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methyl ether (claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery of Cao with the fluorine solvent of chemical formula (1) is represented by chemical formula (13) as taught by Yokotsuji as Cao discloses genus of fluorinated ether solvent. MPEP 2144.08.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 11-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights