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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 7-8 have been newly added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/26/2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This Action has been made final.
Status of Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 29 May 2026
All rejections from the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, new grounds of rejection have been set forth below as necessitated by Applicant’s argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. (US 20240105996 A1), hereinafter Mizuno.
Regarding claim 1, Mizuno teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte solution used in an electricity storage device, the components being:
an electrolyte salt that is a fluorine-containing lithium salt ([0017] LiN(FSO2)2);
a nonaqueous solvent that is carbonate ([0165]);
and a scavenger that captures fluorine ions,
wherein
the scavenger is trimethylsilyl trifluoroacetate ([0017], [0069]-[0072]), which corresponds to the claimed formula [Chemical 1]:
PNG
media_image1.png
110
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is any of an alkyl group, an alkenyl group, or a phenyl group with 1 carbon atom (falls within claimed range of less than or equal to 6 carbon atoms) and in which at least one hydrogen atom is substituted with halogen; and R2,R3, and R4 are methyl groups (See structure of trimethylsilyl trifluoroacetate below).
PNG
media_image2.png
292
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mizuno does not specifically teach that the nonaqueous electrolyte solution consists of these components.
However, it would have been obvious to obtain such an electrolyte because the reference teaches all the components. Mizuno teaches of a non-aqueous electrolyte solution containing: as an electrolyte, LiN(FSO2)2 (sulfonylimide compound); and as an additive, a carbon atom-containing compound represented by the general formula (4): C(═O)(R5)(OR6) [0017]. The electrolyte can also contain other components, such as a dissolved carbon molecule, but this is optional [0017]. If the electrolyte contains only these components, then the limitation of a nonaqueous electrolyte solution consisting of the claimed materials is met.
Regarding claim 2, Mizuno teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1, wherein in the general formula (1), R2,R3, and R4 are each a methyl group ([0072], see structure above).
Regarding claim 3, Mizuno teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1, wherein in the general formula (1), R1 contains at least one halogen atom ([0072] see structure above).
Regarding claim 4, Mizuno teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1, wherein the scavenger is trimethylsilyl trifluoroacetate [0072].
Regarding claim 5, Mizuno teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1, wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte solution contains the scavenger in 0.1M or more.
Mizuno states that the nonaqueous electrolyte solution comprises of 0.01% by mass or more of the scavenger [0143]. Assuming that the scavenger compound is trimethylsilyl trifluoroacetate and the electrolyte solution is ethyl carbonate, the range of around 1.4% or more by mass of the scavenger relative to 100% by mass of the electrolytic solution overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1M or more of the scavenger.
0.014
g
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
i
l
y
l
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
1
g
e
t
h
y
l
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
*
1
m
o
l
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
i
l
y
l
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
186.2
g
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
i
l
y
l
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
*
1.32
g
e
t
h
y
l
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
1
c
m
3
*
1
c
m
3
0.001
L
≈
0.1
M
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior a rt" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Mizuno teaches an electricity storage device comprising: an electrode body; the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1, a case housing the electrode body and the nonaqueous electrolyte solution [0240].
Regarding claim 7, Mizuno teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1, wherein a concentration of the scavenger in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution is 2 M or more and 10 M or less.
Mizuno states that the nonaqueous electrolyte solution comprises of 0.01% by mass or more of the scavenger [0143]. Assuming that the scavenger compound is trimethylsilyl trifluoroacetate and the electrolyte solution is ethyl carbonate, the range of around 28% or more by mass of the scavenger relative to 100% by mass of the electrolytic solution overlaps with the claimed range of 2 M or more and 10 M or less of the scavenger.
0.28
g
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
i
l
y
l
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
1
g
e
t
h
y
l
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
*
1
m
o
l
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
i
l
y
l
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
186.2
g
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
i
l
y
l
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
*
1.32
g
e
t
h
y
l
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
1
c
m
3
*
1
c
m
3
0.001
L
≈
2
M
Regarding claim 8, Mizuno teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1, wherein a concentration of the scavenger in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution is 5 M or more and 10 M or less.
Mizuno states that the nonaqueous electrolyte solution comprises of 0.01% by mass or more of the scavenger [0143]. Assuming that the scavenger compound is trimethylsilyl trifluoroacetate and the electrolyte solution is ethyl carbonate, the range of around 71% or more by mass of the scavenger relative to 100% by mass of the electrolytic solution overlaps with the claimed range of 5 M or more or 10 M or less of the scavenger.
0.71
g
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
i
l
y
l
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
1
g
e
t
h
y
l
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
*
1
m
o
l
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
i
l
y
l
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
186.2
g
t
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
s
i
l
y
l
t
r
i
f
l
u
o
r
o
a
c
e
t
a
t
e
*
1.32
g
e
t
h
y
l
c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
e
1
c
m
3
*
1
c
m
3
0.001
L
≈
5
M
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 103 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 Mizuno et al. as set forth 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 YVONNE WEI whose telephone number is (571)270-0870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Friday 7:30am-4pm.
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.
/YVONNE WEI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights