DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the August 11th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on August 11th, 2026:
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 11-21 are newly added. Claim 7 has been cancelled.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on August 11th, 2026 with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-21 are based on the claims as amended. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on August 4th, 2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Prior Art
Liang CN112349962A (“Liang”)
Previously cited Terada WO2021015264 (“Terada”)
Tu US PG Publication 2021/0020944 (“Tu”)
Hidaka US PG Publication 2021/0399344 (“Hidaka”)
Harada US PG Publication 2021/0328267 (“Harada”)
Ge WO2021101920 (“Ge”)
Yamaguchi US PG Publication 2010/0075233 (“Yamaguchi”)
Ihara US PG Publication 2015/0140421 (“Ihara”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-6, 10-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang CN112349962A (machine translation provided, for purposes of examination US PG Publication 2022/0158246 is cited throughout) in view of Terada WO2021015264 (machine translation provided in a previous Office Action, for purposes of examination US PG Publication 2022/0271340 is cited throughout) and Tu US PG Publication 2021/0020944.
Regarding Claim 1, Liang discloses a lithium-ion battery (corresponding to the instantly claimed secondary battery) (Abstract, [0006], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a positive electrode plate ([0006]);
a negative electrode plate ([0006]); and
an electrolyte (electrolytic solution) including a lithium salt (electrolyte salt) ([0019]) and a lithium fluorophosphate such as lithium hexafluorophospate (LiPF6) ([0031]), wherein
the electrolyte salt includes an imide anion, and the imide anion is an anion represented by the formula FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F (which reads on the instant claimed Formula 1-21) ([0027]).
Liang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lithium fluorophosphate is lithium difluorophosphate1. However, Terada discloses a nonaqueous electrolytic solution including at least one electrolyte salt and a lithium fluorophosphate ([0021], [0054]-[0055], entire disclosure dependent upon). Terada teaches the use of lithium difluorophosphate improves energy density within the battery ([0054]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolytic solution of Liang such that the lithium fluorophosphate is lithium difluorophosphate in order to improve the energy density of the battery, as taught by Terada.
Liang in view of Terada fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electrolytic solution further comprises an additive. However, Tu discloses an electrolyte solution for a lithium battery (Abstract, [0133], entire disclosure dependent upon). Tu teaches the use of an organic carbonate additive within the electrolyte solution, including methylene-ethylene carbonate (MEC) in order to improve battery performance ([0081]-[0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolytic solution of Liang in view of Terada to further comprise an additive of methylene-ethylene carbonate (which reads on the instantly claimed methylene ethylene carbonate, difluoroethylene carbonate, propene sultone, cyclodisone, propanedisulfonic anhydride, hexamethylene diisocyanate, and combinations thereof) in order to improve battery performance, as taught by Tu.
1 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 2, Liang in view of Terada and Tu teaches the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 1, and Liang discloses wherein the electrolyte salt further includes a cation, and the cation includes the light metal ion lithium (Li+) ([0027]).
Regarding Claim 3, Liang in view of Terada and Tu teaches the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 2, and Liang discloses wherein the light metal ion is a lithium ion (Li+) ([0027]).
Regarding Claim 4, Liang in view of Terada and Tu teaches the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 1.
While Liang does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 0.2 moles per kilogram and less than or equal to 2 moles per kilogram2, Liang does disclose optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt within the electrolyte in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery of Liang in view of Terada and Tu by optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution, including to a value that falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.2 moles per kilogram and less than or equal to 2 moles per kilogram, in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance, as taught by Liang.
2 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 5, Liang in view of Terada and Tu teaches the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 1, and Liang discloses wherein the electrolytic solution further includes lithium hexafluorophosphate ([0031]),
the electrolyte salt includes a cation (Li+) and the imide anion ([0027]),
the lithium hexafluorophosphate includes a lithium ion (Li+) and an hexafluorophosphoric acid ion (PF6-) ([0031]), and
a ratio of a mole number of the hexafluorophosphoric acid ion in the electrolytic solution (2 mass% LiPF6, equivalent to 0.0132 mol hexafluorophosphoric acid per 100 g electrolyte) to a mole number of the imide anion in the electrolytic solution (5 mass% electrolyte salt, equivalent to 0.0441 mol imide anion per 100 g electrolyte) is 29.9 mole% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of greater than or equal to 13 mole percent to less than or equal to 6000 mole percent) (Table 2, Example 24).
While Liang does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the cation in the electrolytic solution and a content of the lithium ion in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 0.7 moles per kilogram and less than or equal to 2.2 moles per kilogram2, Liang does disclose optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt within the electrolyte in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance ([0026]) and optimizing the content of the lithium hexafluorophosphate within the electrolyte in order to prevent deterioration of the safety performance of the battery ([0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective fling date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery of Liang in view of Terada and Tu by optimizing the sum of the content of the cation and the content of the lithium ion in the electrolytic solution, including to a value that falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.7 moles per kilogram and less than or equal to 2.2 moles per kilogram, in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance and prevent deterioration of the safety performance of the battery, as taught by Liang.
2 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 6, Liang in view of Terada and Tu teaches the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 1, and Liang discloses wherein a content of the lithium fluorophosphate in the electrolytic solution is between 0 and 10% of the total mass of the electrolyte ([0031], and specifically 2 mass % (Table 2, Example 24).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since weight and mass are proportional, Liang discloses wherein a content of the lithium fluorophosphate in the electrolytic solution is 2 weight percent (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.05 weight percent and less than or equal to 3 weight percent).
Regarding Claim 8, Liang in view of Terada and Tu teaches the secondary battery according to Claim 1, and Liang discloses wherein the electrolytic solution further includes lithium hexafluorophosphate (which reads on the instantly claimed at least one of lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, or lithium bis(oxalato)borate) ([0031]).
Regarding Claim 9, Liang in view of Terada and Tu teaches the secondary battery according to Claim 1, and Liang discloses wherein the secondary battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 10, Liang discloses an electrolyte (electrolytic solution) for a lithium-ion battery (secondary battery) ([0006]), the electrolytic solution comprising:
a lithium salt (electrolyte salt) ([0006]); and
a lithium fluorophosphate such as lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) ([0031]), wherein
the electrolyte salt includes an imide anion, and the imide anion is an anion represented by the formula FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F (which reads on the instant claimed Formula 1-21) ([0027]).
Liang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lithium fluorophosphate is lithium difluorophosphate1. However, Terada discloses a nonaqueous electrolytic solution including at least one electrolyte salt and a lithium fluorophosphate ([0021], [0054]-[0055], entire disclosure dependent upon). Terada teaches the use of lithium difluorophosphate improves energy density within the battery ([0054]-[0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolytic solution of Liang such that the lithium fluorophosphate is lithium difluorophosphate in order to improve the energy density of the battery, as taught by Terada.
Liang in view of Terada fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electrolytic solution further comprises an additive. However, Tu discloses an electrolyte solution for a lithium battery (Abstract, [0133], entire disclosure dependent upon). Tu teaches the use of an organic carbonate additive within the electrolyte solution, including methylene-ethylene carbonate (MEC) in order to improve battery performance ([0081]-[0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolytic solution of Liang in view of Terada to further comprise an additive of methylene-ethylene carbonate (which reads on the instantly claimed methylene ethylene carbonate, difluoroethylene carbonate, propene sultone, cyclodisone, propanedisulfonic anhydride, hexamethylene diisocyanate, and combinations thereof) in order to improve battery performance, as taught by Tu.
1 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 11, Liang in view of Terada and Tu discloses the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Liang in view of Terada and Tu discloses wherein the additive includes methylene ethylene carbonate (Tu [0081]-[0082]).
Regarding Claim 18, Liang in view of Terada and Tu teaches the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 11, and Liang discloses wherein the electrolytic solution includes a solvent ([0019]).
While Liang does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 1 mole per kilogram and less than or equal to 2 moles per kilogram2, Liang does disclose optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt within the electrolyte in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery of Liang in view of Terada and Tu by optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution, including to a value that falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.2 moles per kilogram and less than or equal to 2 moles per kilogram, in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance, as taught by Liang.
2 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang CN112349962A in view of Terada WO2021015264 and Tu US PG Publication 2021/0020944, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Hidaka US PG Publication 2021/0399344.
Regarding Claim 12, Liang in view of Terada and Tu discloses the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 1. Liang in view of Terada and Tu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the additive includes difluoroethylene carbonate1.
However, Hidaka discloses an electrolyte solution for a lithium ion secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Hidaka teaches the use of an additive containing a fluorinated saturated cyclic carbonate such as difluoroethylene carbonate in order to reduce impairment of the characteristics of the battery ([0356]-[0358]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery of Laing in view of Terada and Tu such that the additive includes a fluorinated saturated cyclic carbonate such as difluoroethylene carbonate in order to reduce impairment of the characteristics of the battery, as taught by Hidaka.
1 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang CN112349962A in view of Terada WO2021015264 and Tu US PG Publication 2021/0020944, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Harada US PG Publication 2021/0328267.
Regarding Claim 13, Liang in view of Terada and Tu discloses the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 1. Liang in view of Terada and Tu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the additive includes propene sultone1.
However, Harada discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte solution for a secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Harada teaches the use of an additive including propene sultone in order to improve the capacity retention performance or charge-discharge cycle performance after high-temperature storage and to improve safety ([0147]-[0148]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery of Laing in view of Terada and Tu such that the additive includes propene sultone in order to improve the capacity retention performance or charge-discharge cycle performance after high-temperature storage and to improve safety, as taught by Harada.
1 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang CN112349962A in view of Terada WO2021015264 and Tu US PG Publication 2021/0020944, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Ge WO2021101920 (machine translation provided, for purposes of examination US PG Publication 2022/0416299 is cited throughout).
Regarding Claim 14, Liang in view of Terada and Tu discloses the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 1. Liang in view of Terada and Tu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the additive includes cyclodisone1.
However, Ge discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Ge teaches the use of an additive including cyclodisone ([0044]-[0045]) due to its stable characteristics ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery of Laing in view of Terada and Tu such that the additive includes cyclodisone due to its stable characteristics, as taught by Ge.
1 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 19, Liang in view of Terada, Tu, and Ge teaches the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 14, and Liang discloses wherein the electrolytic solution includes a solvent ([0019]).
While Liang does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 1 mole per kilogram and less than or equal to 2 moles per kilogram2, Liang does disclose optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt within the electrolyte in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery of Liang in view of Terada, Tu, and Ge by optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution, including to a value that falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.2 moles per kilogram and less than or equal to 2 moles per kilogram, in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance, as taught by Liang.
2 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang CN112349962A in view of Terada WO2021015264 and Tu US PG Publication 2021/0020944, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Yamaguchi US PG Publication 2010/0075233.
Regarding Claim 15, Liang in view of Terada and Tu discloses the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 1. Liang in view of Terada and Tu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the additive includes propanedisulfonic anhydride1.
However, Yamaguchi discloses an electrolytic solution for a secondary battery ([0130], entire disclosure dependent upon). Yamaguchi teaches the use of an additive including propanedisulfonic anhydride in order to enhance the chemical stability of the electrolytic solution ([0130]-[0132]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery of Laing in view of Terada and Tu such that the additive includes propanedisulfonic anhydride in order to enhance the chemical stability of the electrolytic solution, as taught by Yamaguchi.
1 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 17, Liang in view of Terada, Tu, and Yamaguchi teaches the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 15, and Liang discloses wherein the electrolytic solution includes a solvent ([0019]).
While Liang does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 1 mole per kilogram and less than or equal to 2 moles per kilogram2, Liang does disclose optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt within the electrolyte in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery of Liang in view of Terada, Tu, and Yamaguchi by optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution, including to a value that falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.2 moles per kilogram and less than or equal to 2 moles per kilogram, in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance, as taught by Liang.
2 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang CN112349962A in view of Terada WO2021015264 and Tu US PG Publication 2021/0020944, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Ihara US PG Publication 2015/0140421.
Regarding Claim 16, Liang in view of Terada and Tu discloses the instantly claimed secondary battery according to Claim 1. Liang in view of Terada and Tu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the additive includes hexamethylene diisocyanate1.
However, Ihara discloses a secondary battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolytic solution (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Ihara teaches the use of an additive within the electrolytic solution including hexamethylene diisocyanate ([0311]) to maintain high ion conductivity within the electrolyte ([0236]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the secondary battery of Laing in view of Terada and Tu such that the additive includes hexamethylene diisocyanate to maintain high ion conductivity within the electrolyte, as taught by Ihara.
1 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang CN112349962A in view of Terada WO2021015264 and Tu US PG Publication 2021/0020944, as applied to Claim 10, further in view of Yamaguchi US PG Publication 2010/0075233.
Regarding Claim 20, Liang in view of Terada and Tu discloses the instantly claimed electrolytic solution battery according to Claim 10. Liang in view of Terada and Tu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the additive includes propanedisulfonic anhydride1.
However, Yamaguchi discloses an electrolytic solution for a secondary battery ([0130], entire disclosure dependent upon). Yamaguchi teaches the use of an additive including propanedisulfonic anhydride in order to enhance the chemical stability of the electrolytic solution ([0130]-[0132]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolytic solution of Laing in view of Terada and Tu such that the additive includes propanedisulfonic anhydride in order to enhance the chemical stability of the electrolytic solution, as taught by Yamaguchi.
1 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 21 , Liang in view of Terada and Tu teaches the instantly claimed electrolytic solution according to Claim 20, and Liang discloses wherein the electrolytic solution includes a solvent ([0019]).
While Liang does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 1 mole per kilogram and less than or equal to 2 moles per kilogram2, Liang does disclose optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt within the electrolyte in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolytic solution of Liang in view of Terada and Tu by optimizing the content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolytic solution, including to a value that falls within the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.2 moles per kilogram and less than or equal to 2 moles per kilogram, in order to improve cycling performance, rate performance, and low-temperature discharge performance, as taught by Liang.
2 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights