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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07-21-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the same electrolyte as claimed and does not necessarily have the claimed fire-resistance properties. Applicant further provided a declaration (see Remarks filed 07-21-2026) that purports to provide evidence that the claimed electrolyte system and that of the cited prior art (Kotato) are not the same. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kotato teaches an electrolyte that comprises a lithium salt [LiPF6] (paragraphs 69-70, which is Applicant’s claimed conductive lithium salt); and a solvent that comprises cyclic carbonates such as ethylene carbonate (paragraph 74) and compound (Ia) [i.e., carbonic esters having two ether linkages per molecule, and which is bis(2-methoxyethyl) carbonate] (paragraph 113). Examiner submits that the solvent combination is the same combination as claimed by the Applicant. Kotato further teaches that electrolyte comprises 19 weight parts of ethylene carbonate and 1 weight part of BMC (paragraph 334 [see paragraphs 85-87 for the amount of cyclic carbonate [ethylene carbonate] and paragraph 128 for the amount of BMC in the electrolyte). Examiner further submit the claimed amount is the same as Applicant’s claimed weight ratio.
Because the electrolyte recited in the cited prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims (i.e., the electrolyte comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate [LiPF6], ethylene carbonate, and bis (2-methoxyethyl) carbonate in the claimed amounts) claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01).
Examiner argues that there is a clear expectation from the disclosure of the cited prior art that the electrolyte system presented can be used in a battery and is capable of inhibiting gas generation while retaining high cycle characteristics, as well as improving continuous charging characteristics and high-temperature-storage characteristics (paragraphs 29-31 of Kotato). In addition, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant has failed to show how the claimed electrolyte is different from that of the cited prior art, and such arguments are still not persuasive for reasons made herein and of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 8-22, 39, 51-59, and 61-79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0224514 hereinafter Kotato.
Kotato teaches an electrolyte for a lithium battery (paragraphs 65-66), the electrolyte comprising: a lithium salt [LiPF6] (paragraphs 69-70); and a solvent that comprises cyclic carbonates such as ethylene carbonate (paragraph 74) and compound (Ia) [i.e., carbonic esters having two ether linkages per molecule, and which is bis(2-methoxyethyl) carbonate] (paragraph 113). Kotato further teaches that electrolyte comprises 19 weight parts of ethylene carbonate and 1 weight part of BMC (paragraph 334 [see paragraphs 85-87 for the amount of cyclic carbonate [ethylene carbonate] and paragraph 128 for the amount of BMC in the electrolyte).
MPEP § 2112.01 teaches that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Because the electrolyte recited in the cited prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims (i.e., the electrolyte comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate [LiPF6], ethylene carbonate, and bis (2-methoxyethyl) carbonate in the claimed amounts) claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Alternatively, The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, " [w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 -97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143 , E.).
Regarding Claims 2-6, Kotato teaches an electrolyte having similar boiling point, electrical conductivity, and flash point as claimed (see MPEP 2112.01 described above).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15-16, Kotato teaches that electrolyte comprises 19 weight parts of ethylene carbonate and 1 weight part of BMC (paragraph 334 [see paragraphs 85-87 for the amount of cyclic carbonate [ethylene carbonate] and paragraph 128 for the amount of BMC in the electrolyte).
Regarding Claims 9-12 and 17-20, Kotato teaches that the lithium salt includes lithium hexafluorophosphate and lithium perchlorate included in the electrolyte at a molar concentration of 0.5 to 2.0 mol/L (paragraphs 69-71).
Regarding Claims 13 and 21, Kotato n teaches that the electrolyte is substantially free of a volatile electrolyte solvent (paragraph 73).
Regarding Claims 51-54 and 67-70, Kotato teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode (cathode), a negative electrode (anode), separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraph 277 states that the lithium secondary battery is similar in configuration to that of conventional lithium secondary batteries in the art). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the lithium secondary battery has an external case enclosing the electrode assembly and electrode terminals extending exterior the case. The batteries are formed as a battery module in electric vehicles (EVs).
Regarding Claims 55-59 and 78-79, Kotato teaches an electrolyte having similar boiling point, electrical conductivity, and flash point as claimed (see MPEP 2112.01 described above).
Regarding Claims 60-61, 71 and 77, Kotato teaches that electrolyte comprises 19 weight parts of ethylene carbonate and 1 weight part of BMC (paragraph 334 [see paragraphs 85-87 for the amount of cyclic carbonate [ethylene carboabate] and paragraph 128 for the amount of BMC in the electrolyte).
Regarding Claims 62-65 and 72-75, Kotato teaches that the lithium salt includes lithium hexafluorophosphate and lithium perchlorate included in the electrolyte at a molar concentration of 0.5 to 2.0 mol/L (paragraphs 69-71).
Regarding Claims 66 and 76, Chen teaches that the electrolyte is substantially free of a volatile electrolyte solvent (paragraph 73).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights