DETAILED ACTION
This Office action restarts the 3-month response period.
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 .
Specification
Applicant’s amendment made to the specification as filed on 8/12/2026 has been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 21-29, and 34-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2014/0113202 A1).
With respect to claims 21 and 39, Sun teaches a liquid electrolyte composition for an electrochemical cell, comprising the following components:
(A) sulfur dioxide (para. [0106]) – Sun et al. teaches wherein sulfur dioxide can be used as a solvent additive, among other additives; therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to choose sulfur dioxide as the solvent additive of choice in order to provide a lower cost option; and
(B) at least one salt, wherein the salt (para. [0109]) comprises an anionic complex having at least one bidentate ligand and the salt corresponds to Formula (I), Formula (II) [para. [0095] formula (10c) reads on instant Formula (II)], or Formula (III), and combinations thereof,
wherein
M is a metal/(lithium) (para. [0031]) cation selected from the group consisting of the alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, and metals of group 12 of the periodic table;
m is 1 or 2;
Z is a central ion/(boron) (para. [0095]) selected from the group consisting of elements of group 2 to 16 of the periodic table, and lanthanides;
A₁ to A12 each represent a coordination element that bonds to the central ion Z, wherein A1 to A12 are (oxygen) (as in formula (10c)) - each independently selected from the group consisting of elements of group 15 and 16 of the periodic table;
R₁ and R₂ each represent a monovalent and terminal radical and are independently selected from the group consisting of a fluorine-substituted hydrocarbon radical, triflyl radical, triflate radical, and fluorosulfonate radical; and
L¹ to L⁶ each independently represent an aliphatic or aromatic bridging group, wherein the bridging group forms a five- to eight-membered ring with the central ion Z and with two coordination elements bonded to the central ion Z and the bridging group (as illustrated in formula (10c)), and wherein the ring comprises a sequence of 2 to 5 carbon atoms (as illustrated in formula (10c)).
With respect to claim 22, Sun teaches wherein the metal cation M is lithium and the component (B) is a lithium salt (para. [0031]).
With respect to claim 23, Sun teaches wherein the central ion is selected from the group consisting of B (as illustrated in formula (10c)), Al, Ga, In, P, Ti, Nb, Zn, V and La.
With respect to claim 24, Sun teaches wherein at least one coordination element comprises oxygen (as illustrated in formula (10c)).
With respect to claim 25, Sun teaches wherein the salt corresponds to Formula (I), wherein R₁ and R₂ each independently comprise a hydrocarbon radical selected from the group consisting of C1-C₈ alkyl, C2-C10 alkenyl, C2-C10 alkinyl, C₆-C₁₂ cycloalkyl and C₆-C₁₂ aryl, and wherein the hydrocarbon radical is at least partly fluorine-substituted (as illustrated in Figure 1).
With respect to claim 26, Sun teaches wherein the ring comprises a continuous sequence of 2 to 5 carbon atoms (as illustrated in formula (10c)).
With respect to claim 27, Sun teaches wherein the ring comprises a sequence of 2 to 5 carbon atoms interrupted by a heteroatom (as illustrated in formula (10c)).
With respect to claim 28, Sun teaches wherein the ring comprises at least one carbonyl group selected from the group consisting of an imide group, carboxylic acid ester group, carboxylate group, ketone group (para. [0025]), carboxylic anhydride group, carbonic acid ester group, and carbamate ester group.
With respect to claim 29, Sun teaches wherein L¹ to L⁶ each independently comprise a linear, branched or cyclic, saturated, fluorine-substituted hydrocarbon skeleton, and wherein the hydrocarbon skeleton comprises 3 to 16 carbon atoms, and the hydrocarbon skeleton being at least partly fluorine-substituted (as illustrated in formula (10c)).
With respect to claim 34, Sun teaches wherein the salt
of the component (B) is a salt of Formula (XXI) / (Formula (I)) (para. [0007]-[0008] – R1 & R2 are alkoxyl groups -OR) wherein Z is a central ion selected from the group consisting of aluminum and boron (as illustrated).
With respect to claim 35, Sun teaches wherein the component (B) of the liquid electrolyte composition comprises at least
one lithium salt of Formula (XXII)/(para. [0095] formula (10c)), and
wherein the lithium salt is selected from the group consisting of
B(O₂C₂(CF₃)₄)₂ (LiBPFPB) of Formula (XXIV) (para. [0069] and [0072], [0109]),
Al(O2C2(CF₃)4CF₂)₂ (LiOTA) of Formula (XXV),
(XXV) Al(O2C3(CF3)6)2 (LiHTTDA) of Formula (XXVI),
CF₃ (XXVI) and combinations thereof.
With respect to claim 36, Sun teaches wherein the
liquid electrolyte composition comprises the component (B) in a concentration of 0.1 to 3 M (para. [0112]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.01 to 15 mol/L, based on the total volume of the liquid electrolyte composition – it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to try CF.sub.3 various concentrations in order to optimize performance and cost.
With respect to claim 37, Sun teaches wherein the liquid electrolyte composition comprises at least one further additive in an amount of 0-10 wt.%, based on the total weight of the liquid electrolyte composition, and
wherein the further additive is selected from the group consisting of vinylene
carbonate (VC), 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC) (para. [0106]), lithium hexafluorophosphate, cis-4,5-difluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (cDFEC), 4-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3-dioxolan-2-one, bis-(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), bis-(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), and combinations thereof – Sun et al. contains 0 wt.% of the recited “at least one further additive”, which reads on the instantly claimed range of 0-10 wt. %.
With respect to claim 38, Sun discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the liquid electrolyte composition comprises at least one further additive in an amount of 0.1-2 wt.%, based on the total weight of the liquid electrolyte composition (graph plotting charge/discharge capacities and coulombic efficiencies of the NG||Li half cells using 1.0M LiPF₆/PC (para. [0012]) - which falls within the instantly claimed range of a concentration of 0.01-15 mol/L, based on the total volume of the liquid electrolyte, wherein the salt is a lithium salt selected from the group consisting of the compounds of Formulas (IV-XX), Formulas
(XXIV-XXVI), and combinations thereof (para. [0069] and [0072], [0095], [0109]); and the liquid electrolyte composition further comprises:
(C) 0-10 wt.% of at least one additive, wherein the additive is selected from the group
consisting of vinylene carbonate (VC), 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC), lithium
hexafluorophosphate, cis-4,5-difluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (cDFEC), 4-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3- dioxolan-2-one, bis-(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), bis-(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), and combinations thereof, bis-(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), and combinations thereof, based on the total weight of the liquid electrolyte composition – Sun et al. contains 0 wt.% of the recited “at least one additive”, which reads on the instantly claimed range of 0-10 wt. %.
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US20140113202), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Xu (US
20120276445).
With respect to claims 30-33, Sun discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the component (B) of the liquid electrolyte composition comprises at least one lithium salt of Formula (II) (para. [0095] – Formula 10(c)) but fails to teach wherein the lithium salt is selected from the group consisting of the formulas of instant claims 30-33, respectively.
Xu teaches an electrolyte solution incorporating a purified lithium borate salt in
concentrations of from about 0.01 M to about 2.0 M is provided; and wherein the purified lithium borate salt comprises a boron core coordinated by four (4) ligands; further comprising LiBOB, LiDFOB, LiBF.sub.4, LiBMB or LiBPFPB, and mixtures thereof [0013] in order to provide an electrolyte that delivers superior performances that include negligible irreversible capacity upon cell formation, low impedance on both cathode and anode, and excellent stability when operated at high temperatures (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the electrolyte of Sun comprise a lithium salt selected from the group consisting of formulas recited in instant claims 30-33, respectively, as taught by Xu, in order to provide an electrolyte that delivers superior performances that include negligible irreversible capacity upon cell formation, low impedance on both cathode and anode, and excellent stability when operated at high temperatures.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sun et al. (US20140113202), as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210135291).
With respect to claim 40, Sun discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the electrochemical cell is a lithium-ion cell, and the liquid electrolyte composition further comprises:
(C) 2 wt.% LiPF₆/PC (para. [0013]), which touches the instantly claimed range of 0.1-2 wt.% of lithium hexafluorophosphate and 0.1-2 wt.% of 4-fluoro-1,3-
dioxolan-2-one (FEC), each based on the total weight of the liquid electrolyte composition - graph plotting charge/discharge capacities and
coulombic efficiencies of the NG||Li half cells using 1.0M LiPF₆/PC with 2 wt %
[0013]), wherein the further additive is selected from the group consisting of vinylene
carbonate (VC) (The invention is also directed to electrolyte compositions in
which an ionic liquid of the general formula Y+X- or Y+Z- is admixed with a non-
ionic solvent additive, such as vinylene carbonate (VC) [0009]).
Sun fails to teach wherein the component (B) of the liquid electrolyte composition has a salt of Formula (XXV) in a concentration of 0.5-2 mol/L, based on the total volume of the liquid electrolyte composition.
Kim teaches an electrolyte wherein lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) salt is dissolved at a concentration of 1.2 mol/L in a mixed solvent [0270], which falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.5-2 mol/L; wherein the electrolyte composition according to Clause 4 comprises a fluorinated cyclic carbonate selected from 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one [0335]; wherein the fluorinated cyclic carbonate is present in the electrolyte composition in an amount ranging from 0.5% to 10% [0336], which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 0.5-2 in order to improve the electrochemical performance at high operating voltages [0001].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the liquid electrolyte composition of Sun et al. comprise a salt of Formula (XXV) in a concentration of 0.5-2 mol/L, based on the total volume of the liquid electrolyte composition, as taught by Kim, in order to improve the electrochemical performance at high operating voltages.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-26, 29-30, and 34-40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-18, 21-22, 25-26 of copending Application No. 18/580,245. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to instant claims 21, 23-24 and 39, claims 11 and 13-16 of the copending application above encompass instant claims 21, 23-24 and 39.
With respect to instant claim 22, claim 17 of the copending application above encompasses instant claim 22.
With respect to instant claim 25, claims 11 and 16 of the copending application above encompass instant claim 25.
With respect to instant claim 26, claim 15 of the copending application above encompasses instant claim 26.
With respect to instant claim 29, claims 12 and 16 of the copending application above encompass instant claim 29.
With respect to instant claim 30, claim 17, formula IV, of the copending application above encompasses formula V of instant claim 30.
With respect to instant claim 34, claim 25 of the copending application above encompasses instant claim 34.
With respect to instant claim 35, claim 11 of the copending application above encompasses instant claim 35.
With respect to instant claim 36, claim 18 of the copending application above encompasses instant claim 36.
With respect to instant claim 37, claim 21 of the copending application above encompasses instant claim 37.
With respect to instant claim 38, claim 22 of the copending application above encompasses instant claim 38.
With respect to instant claim 40, claim 26 of the copending application above encompasses instant claim 26.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 9/14/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights