LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/29/2024 and 9/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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)(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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arai (WO 2022/054279 A1 using US 2023/0246239 as an English language translation.).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-9, Arai et al. teach a lithium secondary battery (Abstract), comprising:
a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a nonaqueous electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity (Paragraph 0027), wherein
lithium metal deposits on the negative electrode during charging, and the lithium metal dissolves from the negative electrode during discharging (Paragraph 0029),
the nonaqueous electrolyte contains a lithium salt, and a solvent (Abstract; Example 33; Table 5),
the solvent includes
a first solvent: a chain ether containing no fluorine element (Example 33; Table 5 discloses 20 vol% dimethoxyethane,
PNG
media_image1.png
71
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which reads on chemical formula 1 of claim 5.),
a second solvent: a chain fluorinated ether having a fluorination rate of 60% or more (Example 33; Table 5 discloses TFEE, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether
PNG
media_image2.png
126
243
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which reads on chemical formula 2 and 2b of claims 6 and 7 as a=1, b=2, p=0, c=1, d=2, q2=0, g=1, h=2, r2=1. By observing the chemical structure, 7 fluorine atoms and 3 hydrogen atoms yield a fluorination rate of 70%.) and
a third solvent: a fluorinated ether having a fluorination rate of more than 0% and less than 60% (Example 33; Table 5 discloses ETFE, Ethyl 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl ether
PNG
media_image3.png
127
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
which reads on chemical formula 3 of claims 8 and 9 as j=4, i=2, s=0, t=1 and u=0. By observing the chemical structure, 4 fluorine atoms and 6 hydrogen atoms yield a fluorination rate of 40%.), and
when the number of moles of the first solvent contained in the nonaqueous electrolyte is denoted by M1, and the number of moles of the third solvent contained in the nonaqueous electrolyte is denoted by M3, a molar ratio M1/M3 of the number of moles M1 to the number of moles M3 is 0.25 or more and less than 3 (Example 33 discloses 20 vol% of dimethoxyethane. DME has a molar mass of 90.12 g/mol and a density of 0.867 g/mL. Assuming 1 L total, a volume of 200 mL. This gives a mass=200 mL*0.867 g/mL=173.4g. To calculate moles: 173.4g/(90.12g/mol) =1.924 moles DME. For 40 vol.% ETFE, ETFE has a molar mass of 146.08 g/mol and a density of 1.198 g/mL. By the same procedure, this yields 3.28 moles. Therefore, the M1/M3=1.92/3.28=0.59 which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 2, Arai et al. teach the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein when the number of moles of the second solvent contained in the nonaqueous electrolyte is denoted by M2, a molar ratio M2/M3 of the number of moles M2 to the number of moles M3 is 0.5 or more and 6 or less (Example 33 discloses 40 vol.% TFEE. TFEE has a molar mass of 200/06 g/mol and a density of 1.49 g/mL. By the same procedure above, this yields 2.98 moles. Therefore, M2/M3= 2.98/3.28 = 0.91 which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 3, Arai et al. teach the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein when the number of moles of the second solvent contained in the nonaqueous electrolyte is denoted by M2, a molar ratio M2/(M1+M3) of the number of moles M2 to a sum of the number of moles M1 and the number of moles M3 is 0.4 or more and 2 or less (Calculated mole values from Arai disclose 2.98/(1.92+3.28)=0.57 which is within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 4, Arai et al teach the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a ratio (M1+M3)/ML of a sum of the number of moles M1 and the number of moles M3 to the number of moles ML of Li ions contained in the nonaqueous electrolyte is 1.5 or more and 7 or less (Example 33; Table 5 discloses 1M LiFSI which is 1 mole of Li ions. Therefore, (1.92+3.28)/1=5.2 which is within the claimed range.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (WO 2022/054279 A1 using US 2023/0246239 as an English language translation.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umemoto et al. (JP 2006/210022 A).
Regarding claim 10, Arai et al. teach the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein the third solvent includes at least one selected from compounds represented by a following formula (3B):
PNG
media_image4.png
112
226
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(in the formula, R4 to R11 each independently represent hydrogen element, fluorine element, an alkyl group, or a fluorinated alkyl group, and at least one of R4 to R11 is fluorine element or a fluorinated alkyl group.)
Umemoto et al. disclose an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and a fluorine solvent system (Abstract). Further, a fluorine solvent used can be a cyclic organofluorine compound such as 3,3,4,4-tetrafluorotetrahydrofuran
PNG
media_image5.png
126
126
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Arai with Umemoto in order to avoid excessively high vapor pressure of the electrolyte being that the boiling point of 3,3,4,4-tetrafluorotetrahydrofuran is over 70 degrees C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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 at 571-272-1481. 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 August 27th, 2026
Prosecution Insights