DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted May 29, 2024, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamanna US PG Publication 2014/0093783 in view of Lopez, Xabier “Polymer-based electrolytes for all-solid-state lithium-sulfur batteries” 2019 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341399745_Polymer-based_electrolytes_for_all-solid-state_lithium-sulfur_batteries/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoiX2RpcmVjdCJ9fQ) (hereinafter “Lopez Thesis”).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 5-8, Lamanna discloses a secondary battery (lithium-ion electrochemical cell that is cycled repeatedly, para 0050, making them secondary batteries, meeting Claim 7) comprising a positive electrode (para 0047), a negative electrode (para 0047), and an electrolytic solution including an electrolyte salt where the electrolyte salt includes e.g. LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate, para 0036, meeting Claim 6) and includes e.g. vinylene carbonate (an unsaturated cyclic carbonic acid ester, meeting Claim 5) and an imide anion represented by Formula (1)
PNG
media_image1.png
227
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
since Lamanna teaches wherein the electrolyte salt is e.g.
PNG
media_image2.png
46
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(in addition to other species listed in para 0039) where in Formula 1, R1 and R2 are CF3, R3 is a fluorinated alkyl group, and each of W, X, Y, and Z is a sulfonyl group (SO2) and wherein the electrolyte salt includes light metal e.g. lithium (meeting Claims 2 and 3) (see entire disclosure and especially paras 0029-0039). Lamanna does not specifically teach wherein R1 is a fluorine group. However, in the same field of endeavor of rechargeable lithium ion battery electrolyte design, Lopez Thesis teaches that when comparing two lithium fluorosulfonyl imide-based salts behavior in organic solvent such as DME (which is used in Lamanna, see para 0029), LiTFSI (lithium bis(trifluoromethyl sulfonyl) imide) versus LiFSI (lithium bis(fluoromethyl sulfonyl) imide), the presence in LiFSI of the more reactive FS bond in the FSI- group compared with the C-F bond in the CF3- group of TFSI- provides for improved SEI formation (see entire disclosure and especially highlighted section of p. 125). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the electrolyte salt of Lamanna such that the R1 and R2 groups are fluorine groups rather than CF3 groups since Lopez Thesis teaches that the more reactive FS bond in the FSI- group compared with the C-F bond in the CF3- group provides for improved SEI formation.
Regarding Claim 4, Lamanna modified by Lopez Thesis teaches wherein the lithium salt of Formula 1 can be present in 5 wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte (para 0035) (which includes LiPF6 and solvents) and e.g. using exemplified EC/EMC combination in 3/7 volume ratio, the skilled artisan would arrive at a weight percent of the lithium salt with respect to solvent only of about 0.1 mol lithium salt per kg of solvent. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to adjust the amount of lithium salt of formula 1 used in order to best realize the benefit of the SEI formation taught by Lopez Thesis such that the molal concentration of the lithium salt is adjusted to arrive e.g. at a higher range than what Lamanna teaches, e.g. to use 0.2 to 2.00 molal of the electrolyte salt because “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sartori DE1733948 discloses a lithium battery having Formula 1 lithium electrolyte salt having CF3 terminal groups (no F terminal groups).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights