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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 6/22/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US Pub No. 2018/0316054) in view of Kajiwara (US Pub No. 2014/0038041)
Regarding Claim 1, Matsushita et al. teaches an electrolyte for a nonaqueous secondary battery [Fig. 2, 0087, 0015],
the nonaqueous secondary battery comprising a lithium-free transition metal
sulfide as a cathode active material [0171, molybdenum sulfide],
the electrolyte comprising
an organic solvent containing a chain carbonate compound [ethyl methyl carbonate, 0057]
lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) [0173], and
an additive [vinylene carbonate, 0173].
Matsushita et al. is silent on a composition represented by the formula M1Sx, wherein M1 represent one or more transition metals, and x is 2.1 to 10.
Kajiwara et al. teaches the use of MoS3 as an active cathode material that can occlude and release lithium ions [0074].
Since Matsushita et al. teaches the use of a active cathode material made of molybdenum sulfide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace molybdenum sulfide of Matsushita et al. with the MoS3 of Kajiwara et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional cathode active material in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Matsushita teaches wherein the additive is at least one member selected from the group consisting of vinylene carbonate (VC) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) [see rejection of claim 1, 0173]
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Matsushita et al. is silent on wherein the content of the chain carbonate compound is two to four times the content of the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) on a molar ratio basis.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the electrolyte, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the electrolyte changed, the precise parameters of the electrolyte would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the content of the chain carbonate compound is two to four times the content of the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) on a molar ratio basis.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the electrolyte to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Matsushita et al. is silent on wherein the content of the additive is 2.5 wt% to 10 wt% based on the total amount of the electrolyte taken as 100 wt%.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the electrolyte, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the electrolyte changed, the precise parameters of the electrolyte would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the content of the additive is 2.5 wt% to 10 wt% based on the total amount of the electrolyte taken as 100 wt%.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the electrolyte to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Matsushita teaches wherein the chain carbonate compound is at least one member selected from the group consisting of dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) [see rejection of claim 1, 0057].
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Matsushita teaches wherein the lithium-free transition metal sulfide is at least one member selected from the group consisting of vanadium sulfides and molybdenum sulfides [see rejection of claim 1, 0171].
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Matsushita teaches which is a lithium-ion secondary battery [Fig. 2, 0087, 0015].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Matsushita et al. teaches wherein x is 3 [see rejection of claim 1, MoO3].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-9 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.
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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights