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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2023, 11/1/2024 and 4/24/2026 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 10/16/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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. Claim(s) 1-8 and 14-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (CN 110176630 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20190198924 A1) and Ren et al (US 20230007900 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Wen discloses an electrolyte suitable for use in a lithium ion battery comprising an electrolyte. Wen teaches that electrolyte comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive [Abstract; paragraph 0046-0047, 0050, 0068, 0091, 0096, 0112-0115, 0184]. Wen remains silent about the additive formula as claimed and an Ag salt in the electrolyte. However, Kim discloses an electrolyte solution for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive, wherein the additive comprises (which discloses the Cs+ cation):
PNG
media_image1.png
90
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which reads on the recited Chemical Formula 1 [paragraph 0023-0024, 0026, 0036]. It is known in the art to utilize Ag salt such as AgF in order to inhibit the reaction of positive electrode active substances and electrolytes, suppress the phenomenon of sudden reduction in battery capacity and the added amount of the metal fluoride accounts for 0-30%, preferably 0.8-15% of the total weight of the additive [paragraph 0121]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches that the first compound is present in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 3.0 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery [paragraph 0032].
Regarding claim 5, Wen teaches that the Ag salt comprises AgF [paragraph 0121].
Regarding claim 6, Wen teaches that the Ag salt is present in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 10.0 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery [paragraph 0121].
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches that the first compound is present in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 3.0 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery [paragraph 0032]. And Wen teaches that the Ag salt is present in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 10.0 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery [paragraph 0121].
Regarding claims 8 and 14-16, Wen teaches that the electrolyte comprises a fluorinated ketone is represented by Chemical Formula
PNG
media_image2.png
180
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R10 and R11 are each independently selected from C1 to C20 fluoroalkyl [paragraph 0088-0092].
Regarding claim 17, Wen teaches that the fluorinated ketone is represented by Chemical Formula
PNG
media_image3.png
228
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[paragraph 0177].
Regarding claim 18, Wen teaches that the fluorinated ketone is about 1.0 wt% to about 10.0 wt% in amount based on a total weight of the electrolyte [paragraph 0093].
Regarding claims 19-20, Wen teaches that the fluorinated ketone is about 1.0 wt% to about 10.0 wt% in amount based on a total weight of the electrolyte [paragraph 0093]. And Ren teaches that the Ag salt is about 0-30%, preferably 0.8-15% of the total weight of the additive [paragraph 0121].
Regarding claim 21, Wen teaches that the electrolyte further comprises one or more other additives, and the one or more other additives comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) [paragraph 0043].
Regarding claims 22-23, Wen teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material; a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material; a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and the electrolyte of claim 1 [paragraph 0113 -0158]. Since the battery of Wen is similar to the claimed battery, it is expected that
the negative electrode would have a density of greater than or equal to about 1.6 g/cc.
9. Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al (CN 110176630 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20190198924 A1) and Ren et al (US 20230007900 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Segawa et al (US 20060068283 A1).
Regarding claims 9-13, Wen remains silent about the fluorinated ketone represented by a formula as claimed. However, Segawa teaches a non-aqueous electrolytic solution comprising a fluorinated ketone represented by a formula
PNG
media_image4.png
178
444
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein Rf1 and Rf2 each independently represents a fluorinated aliphatic group, or Rf1 and Rf2 together form a cyclic group, Q represents a fluorinated or non-fluorinated alkylene group or a bond, and n represents 0 or 1.
Segawa teaches that the fluorinated ketone exhibits effective properties of flame resistance, non-combustibility, and self-extinguishing fire characteristics. In addition, it provides an effective electrolytic solutions for electrochemical energy devices [Abstract; paragraph 0003-0011, 0019-0023; claim 1-3].
It is within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan to provide R values with different fluoroalkylene groups and atoms and would have been obvious.
Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
10. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
11. Claims 1-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 13-22 of copending Application No. 18304217 (reference application). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter in the instant patent application encompasses the claimed subject matter as recited in the ‘986 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights