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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05-08-2025, 05-23-2025, 08-15-2025, 10-02-2025, and 10-29-2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107785603 A hereinafter Chen in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0230770 hereinafter Oya and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0210873 hereinafter Hollenkamp.
Regarding Claims 1, 13 and 14, Chen teaches an electrolyte comprising: a solvent; an electron withdrawing compound; a performance enhancing additive; a lithium ion-transporting compound; and a selenium ether additive (paragraphs 29-32). Chen specifically teaches that the selenium ether additive is diphenyl diselenide (paragraph 30).
Additionally, Oya teaches an electrolyte (paragraph 62) comprising: a solvent (paragraph 97); an electron withdrawing compound (paragraph 106); a performance enhancing additive (paragraph 90); and a lithium ion-transporting compound (paragraph 96).
The combination does not specifically disclose that the performance enhancing additive as claimed.
However, Hollenkamp teaches an electrolyte for a secondary battery comprising a solvent and additive, wherein the additive comprises cyanamide (paragraphs 75). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such additive before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because such additive enhance charge and discharge efficiency (paragraph 32).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (see MPEP § 2143, E).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination teaches an electrolyte (paragraph 62 of Oya) comprising: a solvent that includes an ether (paragraph 97); an electron withdrawing compound (paragraph 106); a performance enhancing additive (paragraph 90); and a lithium ion-transporting compound (paragraph 96). Chen specifically teaches that the selenium ether additive is diphenyl diselenide (paragraph 30).
Regarding Claims 3-4, the combination teaches that the solvent comprises acetonitrile as described above in an amount of 75 vol% or less of the electrolyte system.
Regarding Claims 5-7, the combination teaches that the electron withdrawing compound is bis(2-fluoroethyl) ether (BFE) as described above in an amount of 75 vol% or less of the electrolyte system.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination teaches that the performance-enhancing additive comprises guanidine nitrate in an amount of 0.01 to 10% by weight (paragraphs 57, 59 of Park).
Regarding Claims 10-12, the combination teaches that the lithium ion-transporting compound comprises lithium perchlorate in an amount of 10 M or less as described above.
Regarding Clam 15, the combination teaches that the chalcogenide is diphenyl diselenide in an amount of 3.0 wt% or less as described above.
Regarding Claims 16-20, the combination teaches an electrochemical cell comprising the electrolyte system above, wherein the cell is characterized by a cylindrical, prismatic, pouch or coin configuration (paragraph 167 of Oya).
Regarding Claim 21, Chen teaches an electrolyte comprising: a solvent; an electron withdrawing compound; a performance enhancing additive; a lithium ion-transporting compound; and a selenium ether additive (paragraphs 29-32). Chen specifically teaches that the selenium ether additive is diphenyl diselenide (paragraph 30).
Additionally, Oya teaches an electrolyte (paragraph 62) comprising: a solvent (paragraph 97); an electron withdrawing compound (paragraph 106); a performance enhancing additive (paragraph 90); and a lithium ion-transporting compound (paragraph 96). Park further teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising a solvent, a fluorine-based lithium salt, and additive (paragraph 35), wherein the lithium salt is LiBOB (paragraph 55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such electrolyte combination before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Park discloses that such combination can form an electrolyte for a battery having improved charge and discharge efficiency.
The combination does not specifically disclose that the performance enhancing additive as claimed.
However, Hollenkamp teaches an electrolyte for a secondary battery comprising a solvent and additive, wherein the additive comprises cyanamide (paragraphs 75). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such additive before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because such additive enhance charge and discharge efficiency (paragraph 32).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (see MPEP § 2143, E).
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 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,438,194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to an electrolyte comprising: a solvent; an electron withdrawing compound; a lithium ion-transporting compound; and a chalcogenide.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752