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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one claim limitation that does not use the word “means”, but is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. In claim 19, “output component”, will be interpreted as an output shaft, and equivalents thereof (Applicant’s published application, paragraph 54).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (Jung-Gu Han et al., “Interfacial Architectures Derived by LithiumDifluoro(bisoxalato) Phosphate for Lithium-Rich Cathodes with Superior Cycling Stability and Rate Capability”, ChemElectroChem 2017, Volume 4, pages 56-65).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches an electrolyte formulation for a battery (page 1, column 2) the electrolyte formulation comprising: a lithium salt in a carbonate-based solution (pg. 8, col. 2, lines 7-9) and lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount of 1 part by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation (pg. 8, col. 2, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1, wherein the lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate is present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount of 1 part by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation (pg. 8, col. 2, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 3, Han teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1, wherein the lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate is present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount of 1 part by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation (pg. 8, col. 2, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 4, Han teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1, wherein the lithium salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate; and wherein the lithium salt is present in an amount of 1.3 M of the carbonate-based solution (pg. 8, col. 2, lines 7-9).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Han teaches the limitations of these claims, see analysis for claim 4 above. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 14, Han teaches a battery comprising: an anode; a cathode; and an electrolyte formulation including (pg. 1, col. 1, lines 10-13; col. 2, lines 25-27): a lithium salt in a carbonate-based solution (pg. 8, col. 2, lines 7-9) and lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount of 1 part by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation (pg. 8, col. 2, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 17, Han teaches the battery of claim 14, wherein the lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate is present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount of 1 part by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation (pg. 8, col. 2, lines 11-13); and wherein the lithium salt includes lithium hexafluorophosphate present in an amount of 1.3 M of the carbonate-based solution (pg. 8, col. 2, lines 7-9).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasoe (US 2015/0229002 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the examiner notes that the following alternative rejection is made to encompass more embodiments within the claimed range. Kawasoe teaches an electrolyte formulation for a battery (Abstract), the electrolyte formulation comprising: a lithium salt in a carbonate-based solution (paragraphs 20-21); and lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate is present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount from 0.1/(1+0.3) = 0.076 part by weight to 4/(1+0.05) = 3.8 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation, which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraphs 9, 11, and 26). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, the examiner notes that the following alternative rejection is made to encompass more embodiments within the claimed range. Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1, wherein the lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate is present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount from 0.1/(1+0.3) = 0.076 part by weight to 4/(1+0.05) = 3.8 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation, which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraphs 9, 11, and 26). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, the examiner notes that the following alternative rejection is made to encompass more embodiments within the claimed range. Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1, wherein the lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate is present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount from 0.1/(1+0.3) = 0.076 part by weight to 4/(1+0.05) = 3.8 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation, which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraphs 9, 11, and 26). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, the examiner notes that the following alternative rejection is made to encompass more embodiments. Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1 as described above, where in the lithium salt is selected from the group consisting of lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, and lithium perchlorate (paragraph 20); and wherein the lithium salt is present in an amount of 1 mol/L of the carbonate-based solution, which falls within the claimed range (paragraph 37).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1 as described above, and all the limitations, see analysis for claim 4 above. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 14, the examiner notes that the following alternative rejection is made to encompass more embodiments within the claimed range. Kawasoe teaches a battery comprising: an anode; a cathode; and an electrolyte formulation (paragraphs 25, 29, and 31) including: a lithium salt in a carbonate-based solution (paragraphs 20-21); and lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount from 0.1/(1+0.3) = 0.076 part by weight to 4/(1+0.05) = 3.8 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation, which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraphs 9, 11, and 26). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Kawasoe teaches the battery of claim 14, wherein the anode is a graphite- and/or silicon-based anode, and wherein the graphite- and/or silicon-based anode includes the material selected from the group consisting of silicon, silicon monoxide and graphite (paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 16, Kawasoe teaches the battery of claim 14, wherein the cathode is a nickel-based cathode, and wherein the nickel-based cathode is a mixture including a lithium-iron-phosphate mixture (paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 17, the examiner notes that the following alternative rejection is made to encompass more embodiments within the claimed range. Kawasoe teaches the battery of claim 14, wherein the lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount from 0.1/(1+0.3) = 0.076 part by weight to 4/(1+0.05) = 3.8 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation, which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraphs 9, 11, and 26). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Kawasoe also teaches wherein the lithium salt includes lithium hexafluorophosphate present in an amount of 1 mol/L of the carbonate-based solution, which falls within the claimed range (paragraph 37).
Claims 7-8, 10, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasoe as applied to claims 1-6 and 14-17 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2023/0006255 A1) and Chen (WO 2024/011616 A1, referencing US 2024/0372145 A1 as an English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 7, Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach wherein the carbonate-based solution includes two solvents selected from the group consisting of dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate and propylene carbonate; and wherein the two solvents are present in a mixing ratio of from 1:99 to 99:1.
However, in related art Lee teaches wherein the carbonate-based solution includes one or more of dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, vinylene carbonate and propylene carbonate (paragraphs 73-75, and 80), and wherein the ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate may be present between 5 vol. % and 95 vol. % based on the total volume of the solvent (paragraph 78-80). For example, a mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) results in a mass ratio range of 6.1:93.9 to 95.9:4.1 where the ratio is EC:DMC. The density of EC was taken to be 1321 g/L, and the density of DMC was taken to be 1069 g/L. These ranges overlap with the claimed range. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. In related art Chen explains that balancing the ratio of the cyclic carbonate to the linear carbonate directly affects the conductivity of the electrolytic solution and the migration rate of lithium ions, thereby allowing for the improvement of the cycle performance of the battery (paragraph 24). Lee also notes that the solvent may be any appropriate solvent typically used in this technical field (paragraph 73). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to select a suitable ratio to achieve a desired cycle performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrolyte formulation of Kawasoe with the claimed composition because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select known suitable carbonate solvents or because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a ratio of carbonates in the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve suitable cycle performance in accordance with the teachings of Chen and Lee.
Regarding claim 8, Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach the limitation of this claim. However, Lee teaches this limitation, see analysis for claim 7 above. Claim 8 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 10, Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach the limitation of this claim. However, Lee teaches this limitation, see analysis for claim 7 above. Claim 10 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 12, Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 3, and wherein the lithium salt includes lithium hexafluorophosphate present in an amount of 1 mol/L of the carbonate-based solution (paragraph 37), but fails to teach wherein the carbonate-based solution includes ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate present in a ratio of 3 parts ethylene carbonate to 7 parts dimethyl carbonate. However, Lee teaches this limitation, see analysis for claim 7 above. Claim 12 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 18, Kawasoe teaches the battery of claim 17 as described above, but fails to teach the limitation of this claim. However, Lee teaches where in the carbonate-based solution includes ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate present in a ratio ranging from 2 parts ethylene carbonate to 9 parts dimethyl carbonate to 6 parts ethylene carbonate to 9 parts dimethyl carbonate, see analysis for claim 7 above. Claim 18 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claims 7-8, 10, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claims 1-6, 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Lee and Chen.
Regarding claims 7-8, 10, 12 and 18, Lee and Chen are applied as above in the rejection of claims 7-8, 10, 12, and 18.
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasoe as applied to claims 1-6 and 14-17 above, and further in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 9, Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach wherein the carbonate-based solution includes fluoroethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate present in a ratio ranging from 1 part fluoroethylene carbonate to 9 parts diethyl carbonate to 4 parts fluoroethylene carbonate to 9 parts diethyl carbonate.
However, Chen teaches a carbonate-based solution including fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) with a mass percent ratio DEC/FEC being between 1 and 10, where DEC/FEC represents the mass percent of DEC divided by the mass percent of FEC (paragraphs 23 and 25). This range overlaps with the claimed range. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Chen explains that balancing the ratio of the cyclic carbonate to the linear carbonate directly affects the conductivity of the electrolytic solution and the migration rate of lithium ions, thereby allowing for the improvement of the cycle performance of the battery (paragraph 24). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to select a suitable ratio to achieve a desired cycle performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrolyte formulation of Kawasoe with the claimed composition because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a ratio of carbonates in the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve suitable cycle performance in accordance with the teachings of Chen.
Regarding claim 11, Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 1 as described above, but fails to teach the limitation of this claim. Chen teaches this limitation, see analysis for claim 9 above. Claim 11 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 13, Kawasoe teaches the electrolyte formulation of claim 3 as described above, and wherein the lithium salt includes lithium hexafluorophosphate present in an amount of 1 mol/L of the carbonate-based solution (paragraph 37), but fails to teach wherein the carbonate-based solution includes fluoroethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate present in a ratio of 1 part fluoroethylene carbonate to 4 parts diethyl carbonate. However, Chen teaches this limitation, see analysis for claim 9 above. Claim 13 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han as applied to claims 1-6, 14 and 17 above, and further in view of Chen.
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 13, Chen is applied as above in the rejection of claims 9, 11, and 13.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (US 2018/0316054 A1) in view of Kawasoe.
Regarding claim 19, Matsushita teaches a device, an electric vehicle, that includes a front wheel shaft and a rear wheel shaft connected to the differential device and transmission, wherein the transmission is supplied with a driving force from a lithium-ion secondary battery (paragraphs 128-133). As noted above under the “Claim Interpretation” heading, the output component has been interpreted as an output shaft, and equivalents therefore. Matsushita also teaches the battery including an anode; a cathode; and an electrolyte formulation (paragraphs 11-15) including: a lithium salt in a carbonate-based solution (paragraph 86) but fails to teach lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount from 0.1 part by weight to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation.
However, in related art Kawasoe teaches lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount from 0.1/(1+0.3) = 0.076 part by weight to 4/(1+0.05) = 3.8 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation, which falls within the claimed range (paragraphs 9, 11, and 26). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Kawasoe notes that the inclusion of this compound allows for the formation of a strong protective film that can suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte solution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the battery of Matsushita with the phosphate additive in the claimed range because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the noted characteristics in accordance with the teachings of Kawasoe.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita, in view Kawasoe as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Lee and Chen.
Regarding claim 20, Matsushita in view of Kawasoe teaches the device of claim 19 as described above, and Kawasoe teaches wherein the lithium difluoro(bisoxalato) phosphate is present in the electrolyte formulation in an amount from 0.1/(1+0.3) = 0.076 part by weight to 4/(1+0.05) = 3.8 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte formulation, which overlaps with the claimed range (paragraphs 9, 11, and 26). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Kawasoe also teaches wherein the lithium salt includes lithium hexafluorophosphate present in an amount of 1 mol/L of the carbonate-based solution, which falls within the claimed range (paragraph 37). Kawasoe fails to teach wherein the carbonate-based solution includes either: ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate present in a ratio ranging from 2 parts ethylene carbonate to 9 parts dimethyl carbonate to 6 parts ethylene carbonate to 9 parts dimethyl carbonate; or fluoroethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate present in a ratio ranging from 1 part fluoroethylene carbonate to 9 parts diethyl carbonate to 4 parts ethylene carbonate to 9 parts diethyl carbonate.
However, Lee teaches wherein the solution includes ethylene carbonate present in amount between 5 vol. % and 95 vol. % based on the total volume of the solvent, and dimethyl carbonate present in an amount between 5 vol. % and 95 vol. % based on the total volume of the solvent (paragraphs 78-80). For example, a mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) results in a mass ratio range of approximately 6:94 to 96:4 where the ratio is EC:DMC. The ranges overlap with the claimed range. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. Chen explains that balancing the ratio of the cyclic carbonate to the linear carbonate directly affects the conductivity of the electrolytic solution and the migration rate of lithium ions, thereby allowing for the improvement of the cycle performance of the battery (paragraph 24). Lee also notes that the solvent may be any appropriate solvent typically used in this technical field (paragraph 73). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to select a suitable ratio to achieve a desired cycle performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrolyte formulation of Kawasoe with the claimed composition because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select known suitable carbonate solvents or because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a ratio of carbonates in the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve suitable cycle performance in accordance with the teachings of Chen and Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENAD NAKDALI whose telephone number is (571)270-3286. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 AM - 4:00 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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights