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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 30, 2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits (with the exception of references not provided; US equivalents that have been cited are considered).
Drawings
The drawings received November 29, 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: capitalizing the “C” regarding the claim recitation (in the preamble). The lower case letter should be used. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: having a chemical formula wherein the numbers are not observed as the subscripts (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7, 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The preamble of claims 4-7, 10, 12-13 cite “any one of Claims 1” (plural claims, referring back to one claim). It is unclear and indefinite as to whether a singular dependency or multiple depend is meant. Since claims 8-9 are dependent upon claim 7 and claim 11 is dependent upon claim 10, they are rejected for the same reason.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0240896 (Zhang et al.) in view of US 2007/0003838 (Kumashiro et al.).
As to claim 1, Zhang et al. teach a lithium secondary battery (para 0063), comprising:
a positive electrode (para 0046);
a negative electrode not having a negative-electrode active material (anode-free) (para 0045); and
an electrolyte solution, wherein the electrolyte solution contains a lithium salt (lithium bis)fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI)) (para 0008).
Zhang et al. do not teach that the electrolyte solution contains a cyclic fluorine compound having a cyclic hydrocarbon skeleton in which at least one hydrogen atom is substituted with a fluorine atom.
However, Kumashiro et al. teach an electrolyte including preferably 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane (exemplification of formula 1) (para 0047-0048). The motivation for adding 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane is to improve output characteristics at low temperatures (para 0088).
As to claim 2, the combination renders the limitation obvious as Kumashiro et al. renders obvious 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane as the cyclic fluorine compound. See the rejection to claim 1 above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. (Note: Having polarity is a characteristic of the material, wherein the material taught is the same as the instant application; see fig. 3.)
As to claim 3, the combination renders the limitation (in the cyclic fluorine compound, a ratio (F/(F + H)) of a number (F) of fluorine atoms to a total number (F + H) of fluorine atoms and hydrogen atoms is 0.20 or more and 1.0 or less) obvious, as Kumashiro et al. renders obvious 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane as the cyclic fluorine compound. See the rejection to claim 1 above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. (Note: For 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane, (F/(F + H) = 7/(7+ 3) = 0.7, which lies within the claimed range of .20 or more and 1.0 or less.)
As to claim 4, the combination renders the limitation (a number of carbon atoms constituting the cyclic hydrocarbon skeleton is 4 or more and 15 or fewer) obvious, as Kumashiro et al. renders obvious 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane as the cyclic fluorine compound (the cyclic hydrocarbon skeleton is 5). See the rejection to claim 1 above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 5, Zhang et al. teach the electrolyte solution contains LiN(SO2F)2 as the lithium salt (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imidie (LiFSI)) (para 0008, 0040).
As to claim 6, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Kumashiro et al. relied upon to render obvious 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane (cyclic fluorine compound) teaches of its addition in 10% volume ratio (1/9 volume amounts as an additive with two materials is 10 volume % overall) (para 0079-0080). See the rejection to claim 1 above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. (The motivation for combining, as set forth in the rejection to claim 1 and the motivation for combining including a certain amount would be the same as set forth above.)
As to claim 7, Zhang et al. teach of the electrolyte solution further contains an ether compound not having a fluorine atom (para 0063, 0064, 0066).
As to claim 8, Zhang et al. teach the ether compound is a compound that includes 2 or more and 5 or fewer ether bonds (such as dimethoxymethane, which has 2 ether bonds) (para 0064).
As to claim 12, the combination renders the limitation (the cyclic hydrocarbon skeleton is a saturated cyclic hydrocarbon skeleton) obvious, as Kumashiro et al. renders obvious 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane as the cyclic fluorine compound. See the rejection to claim 1 above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. (Note: 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane is a saturated cyclic hydrocarbon skeleton, since only single bonds are arranged in the ring.).
As to claim 13, the combination renders the limitation (in the cyclic fluorine compound, a ratio (F/(F + H)) of a number (F) of fluorine atoms to a total number (F + H) of fluorine atoms and hydrogen atoms is 0.7 or more and 1.0 or less, and a number of carbon atoms constituting the cyclic hydrocarbon skeleton is 5 or 6) obvious, as Kumashiro et al. renders obvious 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane as the cyclic fluorine compound. See the rejection to claim 1 above for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. (Note: For 1,1,2,2,3,3,4-heptafluoro-cyclopentane, (F/(F + H) = 7/(7+ 3) = 0.7, which lies within the claimed range of .7 or more and 1.0 or less; a cyclopentane has a cyclic hydrocarbon skeleton is 5.)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Kumashiro et al., as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2017/00222277 (Okada et al.).
As to claim 9, Zhang et al. teach the use of an ether solvent (dimethoxymethane) (para 0064).
Zhang et al. do not teach a content of the ether compound is 10 vol.% or more and 70 vol.% or less based on a total amount of solvent components in the electrolyte solution.
However, Okada et al. recognize that solvents use ether compounds including dimethoxy ethane (as in Zhang et al.), such that 10% volume or more and 70% volume or less is made of ethers, and the remainder is made of auxiliary agents (para 0175, 181-0182). The motivation for having 10-70% volume of ethers is to improve ion conductivity and reduce viscosity (para 0180). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have 10-70% volume of ethers is improve ion conductivity and reduce viscosity.
As to claim 10, Zhang et al. do not teach the electrolyte solution further contains a chain-like fluorine compound having at least one of a monovalent group represented by Formula (A) or a monovalent group represented by Formula (B) (the wavy line being the bonding site of the monovalent group).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
However, Okada et al. recognize that solvents use ether compounds including dimethoxy ethane (as in Zhang et al.) and ethyl(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl)ether (fits formula (A)) in combination in any ratio (para 0175).
The substitution of one acyclic ether (recognized by Zhang et al. and Okada et al.) for a combination of acyclic ethers (including one of formula (A) or (B)) (recognized by Okada et al.) would yield the predictable result of providing an electrolyte solvent, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (as electrolyte solvents). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one acyclic ether for a combination of acyclic ethers (including one of formula (A) or (B)), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing an electrolyte solvent, wherein the substituted components and their functions were known in the art (as electrolyte solvents). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 11, the combination renders the limitation (a content of the chain-like fluorine compound is 10 vol.% or more and 85 vol.% or less based on a total amount of solvent components in the electrolyte solution), as Okada et al., relied upon to render obvious the presence of the chain-like fluorine compound teaches ether compounds including dimethoxy ethane (as in Zhang et al.) and ethyl(1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl)ether in combination in any ratio, such that 10% volume or more and 70% volume or less is made of ethers, and the remainder is made of auxiliary agents (para 0175, 181-0182). The motivation for having 10-70% volume of ethers is to improve ion conductivity and reduce viscosity (para 0180). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have 10-70% volume of ethers is improve ion conductivity and reduce viscosity. The use in any combination (as set forth above) would include overlapping amounts as claimed. “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” 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)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights