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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/13/26. The applicant has overcome the objection and the 35 USC 102 rejections as set forth in the previous office action. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. However, the present claims are now finally rejected over new grounds of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/10/26 was considered by the examiner.
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) 1-4, 7-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication JP 2013-239426 (heretofore JP’426) in view of Xu et al 11165097.
As to claims 1-3 and 20:
JP’426 discloses that it is known in the art to make a lithium battery comprising a cathode, an anode and an electrolyte including a lithium salt, an organic solvent, and two additives wherein a first additive is a boron-based lithium salt and a second additive includes a material having the following chemical structure wherein R1-R4 may be the same and may be alkylene, fluoroalkylene, hydrogen, alkyl, fluoroalkyl groups, wherein the second additive may be a di(2/3-butynyl) carbonate (as per substituted groups) (Abstract; 0013-0016; 0024-0028; 0101; 0077-0078; 0081-0083):
PNG
media_image1.png
172
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claims 4:
JP’426 discloses that the content of the first and second additives range from 0-5 weight % (0092; 0098; 0102; 0120).
As to claims 8:
JP’426 discloses lithium difluoro(oxalate) borate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium bis(oxalate) borate, and lithium salts such as (0050-0055):
PNG
media_image2.png
204
818
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
250
840
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
552
764
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claims 7, 9:
JP’426 discloses carbonate-based solvents such as ethylene/propylene carbonates; dimethyl/ethyl methyl/diethyl carbonates; and/or additives such as vinylene/vinylethylene carbonates, fluoroethylene carbonate in the amount of 5-25 weight % (0057; 0067; 0077).
JP’426 discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte according to the foregoing aspects. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific additive B comprising the boron-containing lithium.
As to claim 1:
Xu et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising, inter alia, lithium salt additives such as lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate in the amount of about 0.001-2 wt % (Abstract; see CLAIM 6).
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific additive B comprising the boron-containing lithium of Xu et al in the electrolyte solution of JP’426 as Xu et al teach that the specifically disclosed lithium salt can effectively improve the high temperature storage performance, cycle performance and overcharge performance of an electrochemical device such as a lithium-ion battery. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
With regard to the amount/mass percent of the Li-based salt, it is stressed that a showing that the amount of the Li-based salt is about 0.001-2 wt % is enough to realize that a reasonable and concrete prima-facie case of obviousness exists against applicant's range of 0.5-1.0 mass % as it is well settled that 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).
Claim(s) 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication CN 1322027 (heretofore CN’027) in view of Xu et al 11165097.
As to claims 1 and 20:
CN’027 discloses that it is known in the art to make a lithium battery comprising a cathode, an anode and an electrolyte including a lithium salt, an organic solvent, and two additives wherein a first additive is a boron-based lithium salt and a second additive includes a material having the following chemical structure wherein R1-R4 may be the same and may be alkylene or alkylene carbonate derived materials (Abstract; see CLAIMS 1-20):
PNG
media_image5.png
120
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
CN’027 discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte according to the foregoing aspects. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific additive B comprising the boron-containing lithium.
As to claim 1:
Xu et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising, inter alia, lithium salt additives such as lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate in the amount of about 0.001-2 wt % (Abstract; see CLAIM 6).
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific additive B comprising the boron-containing lithium of Xu et al in the electrolyte solution of CN’027 as Xu et al teach that the specifically disclosed lithium salt can effectively improve the high temperature storage performance, cycle performance and overcharge performance of an electrochemical device such as a lithium-ion battery. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
With regard to the amount/mass percent of the Li-based salt, it is stressed that a showing that the amount of the Li-based salt is about 0.001-2 wt % is enough to realize that a reasonable and concrete prima-facie case of obviousness exists against applicant's range of 0.5-1.0 mass % as it is well settled that 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).
Claim(s) 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication JP 2001-256995 (heretofore JP’995) in view of Xu et al 11165097.
As to claims 1 and 20:
JP’995 discloses that it is known in the art to make a lithium battery comprising a cathode, an anode and an electrolyte including a lithium salt, an organic solvent, and two additives wherein a first additive is a boron-based lithium salt and a second additive includes a material having the following chemical structure wherein R1-R4 may be the same and may be alkynyl and/or alkynylene carbonate derived materials (Abstract; 0016-0022; see CLAIMS 1-2):
PNG
media_image6.png
312
372
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
444
324
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
258
308
media_image8.png
Greyscale
JP’995 discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte according to the foregoing aspects. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific additive B comprising the boron-containing lithium.
As to claim 1:
Xu et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising, inter alia, lithium salt additives such as lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate in the amount of about 0.001-2 wt % (Abstract; see CLAIM 6).
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific additive B comprising the boron-containing lithium of Xu et al in the electrolyte solution of JP’995 as Xu et al teach that the specifically disclosed lithium salt can effectively improve the high temperature storage performance, cycle performance and overcharge performance of an electrochemical device such as a lithium-ion battery. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
With regard to the amount/mass percent of the Li-based salt, it is stressed that a showing that the amount of the Li-based salt is about 0.001-2 wt % is enough to realize that a reasonable and concrete prima-facie case of obviousness exists against applicant's range of 0.5-1.0 mass % as it is well settled that 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).
Claim(s) 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication JP 2002-100399 (heretofore JP’399) in view of Xu et al 11165097.
As to claims 1 and 20:
JP’399 discloses that it is known in the art to make a lithium battery comprising a cathode, an anode and an electrolyte including a lithium salt, an organic solvent, and two additives wherein a first additive is a boron-based lithium salt and a second additive includes a material having the following chemical structure wherein R1-R4 may be the same and may be alkynylene carbonate derived materials or hydrogen, aryl and/or any cycloalkyl (Abstract; 0006-0014; see CLAIMS 1-7):
PNG
media_image9.png
296
328
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
268
598
media_image10.png
Greyscale
JP’399 discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte according to the foregoing aspects. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific additive B comprising the boron-containing lithium.
As to claim 1:
Xu et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising, inter alia, lithium salt additives such as lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate in the amount of about 0.001-2 wt % (Abstract; see CLAIM 6).
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific additive B comprising the boron-containing lithium of Xu et al in the electrolyte solution of JP’399 as Xu et al teach that the specifically disclosed lithium salt can effectively improve the high temperature storage performance, cycle performance and overcharge performance of an electrochemical device such as a lithium-ion battery. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
With regard to the amount/mass percent of the Li-based salt, it is stressed that a showing that the amount of the Li-based salt is about 0.001-2 wt % is enough to realize that a reasonable and concrete prima-facie case of obviousness exists against applicant's range of 0.5-1.0 mass % as it is well settled that 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/13/26, with respect to foregoing claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, and 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 RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights