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
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites subject matter not taught or suggested by Minami, specifically that the sealed container contains both a gas phase part and a liquid phase part, with the liquid phase part containing the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, and that the volume ratio of the gas phase part to the liquid phase part is 5% or more.
Applicant further argues that Minami does not identify a gas phase part within battery T1 and does not describe or suggest a gas-phase-to-liquid-phase volume relationship. Applicant contends that any unfilled space within a battery would ordinarily be avoided or minimized rather than intentionally selected to satisfy the claimed ratio.
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
As explained above, the rejection does not rely merely upon an unsupported assumption that every sealed battery necessarily contains the presently claimed gas phase. Rather, Minami itself teaches carbon dioxide associated with the non-aqueous electrolyte and gaseous material retained within the sealed container ([0051]). Minami also teaches the liquid non-aqueous electrolyte solution. When gaseous material and liquid electrolyte are retained together within the finite internal volume of the sealed container, the gaseous material occupies the portion of the internal volume not occupied by the liquid electrolyte. The resulting arrangement therefore includes a gas-containing portion and a liquid-containing portion.
Applicant's argument that Minami does not expressly state a numerical gas-phase-to-liquid-phase volume ratio of 5% or more is acknowledged. The rejection, however, is based on obviousness rather than anticipation.
The relative volume of the gas phase and liquid phase is determined by the amount of electrolyte introduced into the container relative to the available internal volume. A person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Minami's teaching of retaining gaseous material together with liquid electrolyte would necessarily select an electrolyte fill amount and thereby determine the available volume for the gaseous material. Providing a gas volume equal to at least 5% of the liquid volume would have represented a predictable selection of the relative volumes of known components within the sealed container rather than a change in the basic operating principle of Minami.
Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed lower limit of 5% produces an unexpected result relative to ratios below 5%, or that a criticality exists at the recited 5% boundary sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. Nor does the argument that battery void space generally may be minimized establish that a person of ordinary skill would have been discouraged from providing sufficient internal volume to accommodate the gaseous component expressly contemplated by Minami.
Accordingly, Applicant's amendment does not overcome the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant states that the amendments render the previous rejections moot and that the claims therefore appear allowable. For the reasons discussed above, this argument is not persuasive. The newly recited gas phase part, liquid phase part, and minimum volume ratio do not patentably distinguish claim 1 from the teachings of Minami because Minami teaches retention of gaseous material in a sealed container containing liquid non-aqueous electrolyte, and selection of the relative gas and liquid volumes, including a gas-to-liquid volume ratio of at least 5%, would have been an obvious selection of the relative amounts of the known phases to obtain predictable results.
The rejections of dependent claims 2–7 are therefore maintained for the reasons set forth above, and the rejection of claim 8 over Minami in view of Kubota is likewise maintained.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al. (US 2008/0220331 A1), hereinafter Minami.
Regarding claim 1, Minami teaches a method for storing a non-aqueous electrolyte solution containing a lithium salt in a sealed container (Abstract), wherein at least one of carbon dioxide (CO₂) or carbon monoxide (CO) occupies a gas phase part in the sealed container ([0051]).
Minami therefore teaches the claimed storage of a lithium-salt-containing non-aqueous electrolyte solution in a sealed container and the presence of carbon dioxide and/or carbon monoxide associated with the gaseous portion of the sealed container.
Although Minami does not expressly quantify the concentration of carbon dioxide and/or carbon monoxide in the gas phase as 10% or more, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select or adjust the concentration of the carbon dioxide and/or carbon monoxide in the gas phase to 10% or more as a matter of routine optimization of the amount of gas retained in the sealed container.
The concentration of the retained gas represents a variable affecting the gaseous environment within the sealed container. Selection of a particular concentration within the gas phase would have involved no more than adjustment of a known operating parameter to obtain predictable storage characteristics.
Claim 1 has been amended to further recite that:
the sealed container contains both a gas phase part and a liquid phase part;
the liquid phase part contains the non-aqueous electrolyte solution; and
a volume ratio of the gas phase part to the liquid phase part is 5% or more.
Minami teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as the liquid material contained within the sealed battery container and further teaches retained gaseous material, including carbon dioxide, in the sealed container ([0051]). Thus, Minami's sealed container containing the liquid non-aqueous electrolyte solution and retained gas necessarily includes respective liquid and gaseous portions when the retained gas is present above the liquid electrolyte.
Minami does not expressly state that the volume ratio of the gas phase part to the liquid phase part is 5% or more. However, the relative volumes occupied by liquid electrolyte and gas in a sealed container are directly determined by the amount of liquid introduced into the container relative to the internal volume of the container. Thus, once Minami teaches a sealed container containing both liquid electrolyte and retained gas, the relative volume of the gas-containing space is a result of the ordinary selection of electrolyte fill volume and available internal container volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide sufficient unfilled internal volume to accommodate the retained gaseous component taught by Minami, including selecting a gas-phase-to-liquid-phase volume ratio of at least 5%, because such selection would have amounted to choosing the relative amounts of two known phases within a finite sealed container according to the desired amount of electrolyte and retained gas. A ratio of 5% merely establishes a lower boundary for the amount of gas-containing space and would have produced the predictable result of providing space within the sealed container for the gaseous component taught by Minami.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the electrolyte fill amount and/or internal free volume of Minami such that the gas phase part occupies a volume equal to at least 5% of the volume occupied by the liquid phase part, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Minami teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Although Minami does not explicitly disclose that a positive pressure is maintained inside the sealed container, such a condition logically follows when gas is retained within a sealed container. A sealed container containing generated or retained gases, such as carbon dioxide and/or carbon monoxide ([0051], carbon dioxide dissolved in the nonaqueous electrolyte), would necessarily maintain an internal pressure greater than ambient pressure in at least normal operating conditions. Further, maintaining positive internal pressure would have been an obvious design consideration to ensure structural integrity, and prevention of outside air or moisture to ingress into the system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to maintain a positive pressure inside the sealed container of Minami as an inherent and predictable result of retaining gas within the sealed battery enclosure, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Minami teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Although Minami does not explicitly disclose that the internal pressure is maintained at 1.1 atm or more, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to adjust the internal pressure to 1.1 atm or more as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Since Minami already teaches retaining gas within a sealed container ([0051]), the resulting internal pressure would logically follow to be above atmospheric pressure depending on the amount of retained gas in operating condition. Selecting a pressure at or above 1.1 atm would have merely involved optimizing known operating parameters to achieve predictable results such as suppression of external air ingress.
Regarding claim 4, Minami teaches the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Minami further teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solvent contains a carbonate solvent ([0020], cyclic carbonates).
Regarding claim 5, Minami teaches the limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
Minami further teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution contains at least one of carbon dioxide (CO₂), carbon monoxide (CO), a bicarbonate ion (HCO₃⁻), or a carbonate ion dissolved in an amount of 20 ppm by mass or more ([0020], [0051]).
Specifically, Minami teaches that "an amount of carbon dioxide dissolved was 0.48% by weight" ([0051]), corresponding to 4800 ppm by weight and therefore exceeding the claimed lower limit of 20 ppm by mass. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select an amount within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 6, Minami teaches the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Minami further teaches that the lithium salt contains a sulfonylimide compound represented by the general formula: LiN(R¹SO₂) (R²SO₂), wherein R¹ and R² are identical or different from each other and each represents a fluorine atom, an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, or a fluoroalkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms ([0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Minami teaches the limitations of claim 6, as stated above. Minami further teaches the lithium salt further contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a compound represented by the general formula (2), a compound represented by the general formula (3), and LiAsF6,
LiPFa (CmF2m+l)6--a (2) (where 0 ≤ a ≤ 6 and 1 ≤ m ≤ 4),
LiBFb (CnF2n+1 )4--b (3) (where 0 ≤ b ≤ 4 and 1 ≤ n ≤ 4) ([0056]).
Specifically, Minami teaches LiPF6 which is equivalent to the claimed species LiPFa(CmF2m+l)6--a when a = 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami in view of Kubota et al. (US 20170033402 A1), hereinafter Kubota.
Regarding claim 8, Minami teaches the limitations of claim 6 as stated above.
Minami does not expressly teach that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution further contains a compound represented by general formula (4): M¹POcFd, where M¹ represents an alkali metal element, 1 ≤ c ≤ 3, and 1 ≤ d ≤ 3. Kubota teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution containing a fluorophosphate compound within the scope of the claimed formula, including lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO₂F₂) (Examples 3–8, Table 5). LiPO₂F₂ corresponds to the claimed species M¹POcFd where M¹ is Li, c = 2, and d = 2.
Minami and Kubota are analogous art because both concern non-aqueous electrolyte solutions for batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Minami to further include the lithium difluorophosphate taught by Kubota in order to improve chemical stability of the electrolyte solution, suppress undesirable reactions, and thereby obtain improved battery characteristics, as taught by Kubota ([0124]), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights