DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 2, and 4-14 are pending. Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ethyl propyl carbonate” should be amended to recite “ethylene carbonate”, because ethyl propyl carbonate is not a cyclic carbonate. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US Patent 6,482,547) in view of Kinoshita et al. (US 2019/0326644).
With regard to claims 1 and 8, Yoon et al. teach an electrolyte including 1M LiPF6 and an organic solvent of ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, and propyl acetate in a volume ration of 3:3:4 (Example 14 in column 12).
LiPF6 is a lithium salt in claim 1, and meets the limitations of claim 8 for lithium hexafluorophosphate.
Propyl acetate meets the limitations of claim 1 for a carboxylic ester.
Yoon et al. fail to teach that the electrolyte comprises an additive comprising fluorosulfonic acid lactone of Formula I in claim 1.
Kinoshita et al. teach an electrolytic solution for a lithium-ion secondary cell (abstract), and further teach that the electrolytic solution may comprise aids that can improve capacity retention characteristics and cycle characteristics after high temperature storage (par.0275). The aids include 1-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, 2-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, and 3-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone (par.0273).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include 1-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, 2-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, or 3-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone of Kinoshita et al. in the electrolytic solution of Yoon et al., in order to improve capacity retention characteristics and cycle characteristics of the battery after high temperature storage.
1-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone is a fluorosulfonic acid lactone of Formula I, wherein R3 is F, R1 and R2 are hydrogen atoms.
2-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone is a fluorosulfonic acid lactone of Formula I, wherein R1 is F, R2 and R3 are hydrogen atoms.
3-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone is a fluorosulfonic acid lactone of Formula I, wherein R2 is F, R1 and R3 are hydrogen atoms.
Kinoshita et al. further teach that the aid may preferably represent 0.2-1% by mass of the electrolytic solution (par.0279).
The amount of propyl acetate in the electrolyte is W=28.82 wt%. The examiner would like to note that the calculation of W is based on the following values for the densities: ethylene carbonate-1.321g/ml, dimethyl carbonate -1.07g/ml, and propyl acetate-0.88g/ml.
When the amount of 1-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, 2-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, or 3-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone is a=1 wt% (within the preferred range in par.0279 of Kinoshita et al.), the value 1000*a/W=34.96, and this value is within the range in claim 1.
Therefore, the electrolytic solution of Yoon modified by Kinoshita is equivalent to the electrolytic solution in claims 1 and 8 of the instant application.
With regard to claim 2, Kinoshita et al. teach that the aid, such as 1-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, 2-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, or 3-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone may preferably represents 0.2-1 wt% of the electrolytic solution (par.0273 and par.0279).
The amount of propyl acetate is 28.82 wt% of the electrolyte. This value is not within the claimed range. However, a value of 28.82 wt% is close to a value of 30 wt%, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the electrolyte of Yoon modified by Kinoshita with a content of propyl acetate of 30mass%.
(A) prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). (MPEP 2144.05.I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS).
With regard to claim 4, Kinoshita et al. teach that the aid, such as 1-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, 2-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, or 3-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone may preferably represents 0.2-1 wt% of the electrolytic solution (par.0273 and par.0279). This range is within the claimed range for the additive.
The electrolytic solvent comprises LiPF6 is an amount of 12.32 wt%, and the solvent represents 86.68 wt%. These values are within the claimed ranges.
The sum of the amounts of solvent, LiPF6, and an aid, such as 1-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, 2-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, or 3-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone is 100 wt%.
With regard to claim 5, an aid selected from 1-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, 2-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone, or 3-fluoro-1,3-propanesultone represents 100 wt% of the additive.
The amount of propyl acetate is 28.82 wt% of the electrolyte. This value is not within the claimed range. However, a value of 28.82 wt% is close to a value of 30 wt%, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the electrolyte of Yoon modified by Kinoshita with a content of propyl acetate of 30mass% (MPEP 2144.05.I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS).
With regard to claim 7, the electrolyte of Yoon modified by Kinoshita comprises ethylene carbonate, which is a cyclic carbonate. Ethylene carbonate represents 32.11 wt% of the electrolytic solution.
With regard to claim 9, Yoon et al. teach a lithium secondary cell comprising the electrolytic solution (Example 14 in column 12).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US Patent 6,482,547) in view of Kinoshita et al. (US 2019/0326644) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2014/0038062).
With regard to claim 6, Yoon modified by Kinoshita teach the electrolytic solution of claim 1 (see paragraph 5 above), but fail to teach that the electrolytic solution comprises a diisocyanate additive.
Kawakami et al. teach electrolytic solutions (par.0027). Kawakami et al. further teach that a diisocyanate compound may be used in an electrolytic solution in order to improve the durability and the storage of the battery (par.0498, par.0515).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include a diisocyanate in the electrolytic solution of Yoon modified by Kinoshita, in order to improve the durability and the storage of the battery.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US Patent 6,482,547) in view of Kinoshita et al. (US 2019/0326644) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Koduka et al. (US 2013/0285667).
With regard to claim 10, Yoon modified by Kinoshita teach the battery of claim 9 (see paragraph 5 above), but fail to teach a battery module.
However, it is well-known in the art that a plurality of lithium secondary batteries forms a battery module (see par.0027 of Koduka et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to assemble multiple lithium secondary batteries of Yoon modified by Kinoshita in a battery module.
With regard to claim 11, Koduka et al. teach that a plurality of battery modules forms a battery pack (par.0027).
With regard to claim 12, Yoon modified by Kinoshita teach the battery of claim 9 (see paragraph 4 above), but fail to teach a powered device
However, it is well-known in the art that a lithium secondary battery may power an electric vehicle (see par.0027 of Koduka et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the lithium secondary battery of Yoon modified by Kinoshita for powering an electric vehicle.
With regard to claim 13, Koduka et al. teach that the battery module is used to power an electric vehicle (par.0003). This is equivalent to the claimed powered device.
With regard to claim 14, Koduka et al. teach that the battery pack is used to power an electric vehicle (par.0003). This is equivalent to the claimed powered device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, and 4-14 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.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 113549047 A, with machine translation made of record on April 21, 2026) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burkhardt et al. (US Patent 10,673,096) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhardt et al. (US Patent 10,673,096) in view of Fukaya et al. (US 2019/0288348) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1; and
-the rejection of claims 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 113549047 A, with machine translation made of record on April 21, 2026) in view of Koduka et al. (US 2013/0285667) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 1, 2, and 4-14 are shown in paragraphs 4-7 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights