DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the specification and claims, filed on March 27, 2024, have been entered in the above-identified application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 10, 12, 15, 21, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite because the fourth clause (“(iii) both (i) and (ii)”) is labeled “(iii)” instead of “(iv)”, which causes confusion as to whether it is a separate clause or is part of the other “(iii)” clause.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "additive" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the ‘additive’ isn’t introduced until claim 9. This rejection can be overcome by amending claim 10 to depend from claim 9, which is how the claim was interpreted when considering the potential prior art.
Claims 12, 15, 21, 22 and 25 are indefinite because these claims simply recite different compounds, but it is unclear if these are supposed to be in addition to the ‘salt’, ‘solvent’, ‘diluent’, and/or ‘additive’ in claims 1 and 9, or if they are attempting to further limit them. These rejections can be overcome by amending the respective claims to positive recite which component is being further limited; e.g. for claim 12: “… comprising LiFSI as the lithium salt; TMPa, TEPa, DMMP, or any combination thereof as the flame retardant; and TTFEPi, … thereof as the diluent.” (or similar amendments to recite “wherein the lithium salt comprises LiFSI, the flame retardant comprises …”, etc.). This is how the claim has been interpreted when considering potential prior art. The Examiner notes that the abbreviations are previously recited in prior claims and are acceptable.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 1 (from which all claims depend) requires an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt, a non-aqueous solvent comprising a flame retardant as claimed, and a diluent as claimed. The claim further requires specific flash point and solubility requirements, as recited in claim 1.
Applicants’ own prior art (e.g. Cao et al. ‘706 A1, among others) teach these limitations above (see Abstract and entire disclosure of the various Battelle Memorial Institute commonly assigned references which quality as prior art, cited herewith). However, none of these references disclose the diluent being an organic phosphate or organic phosphite or combinations thereof; e.g. Cao et al. ‘706 A1 only teach diluents being fluorinated orthoformates, while other commonly assigned references disclose fluorinated ethers as the only diluents.
While the prior art recognizes the use of organic phosphates and organic phosphites within electrolyte compositions, none of these references recognize them as “diluents”, nor have any teaching or suggestion of controlling the solubility of these ‘diluents’ vis a vis the salt and non-aqueous solvent (as required in claim 1). As such, the Examiner deems that there is insufficient specificity to ‘pick and choose’ specific compounds that must be organic phosphates or phosphites, while also meeting the claimed relative solubility requirements.
Claims 2, 10, 12, 15, 21, 22, and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights