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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11-12-2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12-18-2025 is 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
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(s) 1-4 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114464885 A hereinafter Chou in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0388884 hereinafter Kawakami.
Regarding Claim 1, Chou teaches a flame-retardant sodium-ion battery electrolyte (paragraph 4), the electrolyte comprising: trimethyl phosphate [TMP]; vinylene carbonate; bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether [BTFE] and (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)phosphate [TTFP] (paragraphs 4-11 and Examples 1-4).
Chou further teaches that the electrolyte comprises ester solvent and mixture solvent (paragraph 11 describes a mixing ratio including 1:9 to 4:1).
Chou teaches that the electrolyte comprises trimethyl phosphate [TMP] but does not specify tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite.
However, Kawakami teaches an electrolyte for a sodium battery (paragraph 388), the electrolyte comprises tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite (paragraph 155) and vinylene carbonate (paragraph 198). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a flame-retardant sodium-ion battery electrolyte that comprises such solvent combination as described above before the effective filing date of the claimed invention such configuration can form an organic flame-retardant electrolyte for sodium ion battery in order to improve the safety of the sodium ion battery (paragraph 4 of Chou).
In addition, the simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite for trimethyl phosphate [TMP]) is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claims 2-4, the combination teaches that the fluoroether diluent is bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether [BTFE] and characterized in that, at 25°C, the solubility of sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide in the fluoroether diluent is expected to be less than 10g (paragraphs 4-11).
Regarding Claims 7-9, the combination teaches that the electrolyte comprises tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite (paragraph 155 of Kawakami).
Regarding Claims 10-13, the combination teaches that the mixture solvent comprises a fluoroether diluent (bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether [BTFE]) and a flame retardant ((2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)phosphate [TTFP]) (paragraphs 4-11 and Examples 1-4).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination teaches that the electrolyte comprises 5% to 60% of mixture solvent (paragraphs 4-11).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination teaches that the electrolyte comprises sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (NaFSI) in an amount of 10% to 40% (paragraphs 4-11).
Regarding Claims 16-20, the combination teaches an electric apparatus comprising a sodium-ion secondary battery that includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte as described above (see Examples 1-4). In addition, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP § 2143, A).
Conclusion
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