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 with respect to claim(s) 21, 23-25, 28, 42 and 49-56 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of a composition comprising a first salt comprising lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide; a second salt comprising lithium hexafluorophosphate; a first solvent comprising an ester comprising 2,2,2,-trifluoroethyl butyrate (now is deleted); a second solvent comprising a cyclic carbonate comprising 4-vinyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-one and does not comprise a fluoroether (FE) solvent, a third solvent or a fourth solvent and does not comprise a first additive, in the reply filed on 9-5-2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The abstract is objected to because it does not currently describe the current amended composition.
Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
There are two claims numbered 65 and therefore the numbering of claims thereafter are incorrect and need to be renumbered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 21, 23-25, 28, 42, 49-56 and 57-65 (1st one) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In [0057 and 0062], the specification teaches that LiPF6 is considered an additive and not the 1st salt of the claimed invention. In [0071], the specification teaches that LiPF6 is included as an additional salt (119). In [0082], the specification teaches that the 1st salt includes bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) in an amount of 26-70 wt %. In [0085], the specification teaches that the 2nd salt includes LiFSI or LiBF4) in an amount of 9-35 wt % and teaches that in some embodiments, the 1st salt includes LiFSI or NaFSI and in the range of 25-35 wt % and in some embodiments, the 2nd salt includes LiBF4 in a range of 9-19 wt %. Therefore, there is no support for 10 wt% to about 19 wt% of a 1st salt including hexafluorophosphate (PF6) ions in a composition with 5-19 wt% of a 2nd salt including bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (FSI) ions.
Claims 21, 23-25, 28, 42, 49-56; 57-65 and 65-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In [0051], the specification teaches that the 1st electrolyte solvent (e.g. dimethoxyethane) DME and optionally a 2nd electrolyte solvent (e.g. ether, such as BFE) and a salt (116) including LiFSI or NaFSI) where the 1st electrolyte solvent, DME can comprise up to at least about 5 wt %... or at least about 55 wt%. In some embodiments, the 1st electrolyte solvent can make up no more than 56 wt %. Therefore, there is no support for a 1st electrolyte solvent including at least one of an alkane, a sulfoxide, water, an acetate or a sulfone, but there is support for the 1st electrolyte solvent to comprise an ether.
Claims 21, 23-25, 28, 42, 49-56; 57-65 and 65-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In [0053-0055], the specification teaches that the 2nd electrolyte solvent has included an ether or, in some embodiments, the 2nd electrolyte solvent can include dimethyl carbonate, 1, 2-dimethoxyethane, 2, 2, 2-trifluoroethyl acetate, 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl butyrate [now has been deleted from claim 25 , which is claiming what the first electrolyte solvents can be and not what the 2nd electrolyte solvent can be]. In [0056], the specification teaches that the 2nd electrolyte solvent can make up at least about 8 wt % …, or at least about 59 wt% and teaches that the 2nd electrolyte solvent can be no more than about 9 wt% of the electrolyte. Therefore, there is no support for “a 2nd electrolyte solvent including at least one of a phosphate, a propionate, an acetal, an amine, a cyanurate, an isocyanurate or a lactone.
Claims 21, 23-25, 28, 42, 49-56 and 1st claim 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support for claim 21, for a composition comprising:10-19 wt% of the 1st salt including hexafluorophosphate (PF6) ions with a 2nd salt including bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (FSI) ions in an amount of 5-19 wt % in a 1st solvent comprising 30-56 wt% of the solvents claimed in claim 21 with a 2nd solvent comprising the solvents claimed in claim 21, wherein the composition has a conductivity of at least about 10-15 mS/cm.
Claims 65-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In [0057 and 0062], the specification teaches that LiPF6 is considered an additive and not the 1st salt of the claimed invention. In [0071], the specification teaches that LiPF6 is included as an additional salt (119). In [0082], the specification teaches that the 1st salt includes bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) in an amount of 26-70 wt %. In [0085], the specification teaches that the 2nd salt includes LiFSI or LiBF4) in an amount of 9-35 wt % and teaches that in some embodiments, the 1st salt includes LiFSI or NaFSI and in the range of 25-35 wt % and in some embodiments, the 2nd salt includes LiBF4 in a range of 9-19 wt %. Therefore, there is no support for 10 wt% to about 19 wt% of a 1st salt including hexafluorophosphate (PF6) ions in a composition with a 2nd salt including bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (FSI) ions.
Claims 21, 23-25, 28, 42, 49-56; 57-65 and 65-71 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 21 is rejected because unclear what alkane solvents can be used as the 1st solvent in the composition because no alkane solvents recited in claim 25, which defined the 1st electrolyte solvents that can be used. Claim 25 is rejected because “ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate” cannot be present as the 1st electrolyte solvent because the 1st electrolyte solvent does not allow for carbonate solvents. Claim 25 is rejected because it is unclear what is meant by “tetramethylene sulfone or ethyl methyl sulfone, ethyl acetate, methyl acetate, propyl acetate, 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate”. Claim 57 is rejected because “a 1st electrolyte salt” cannot include the solvents that are claimed in claim 57. This makes the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 57 is rejected because unclear what alkane solvents can be used as the 1st solvent in the composition because no alkane solvents recited in claim 62, which defined the 1st electrolyte solvents that can be used. Claim 62 is rejected because is no antecedent basis for “wherein the first electrolyte solvent includes” in claim 57 from which the claim depends from. Claim 62 is rejected because “ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate” cannot be present as the 1st electrolyte solvent because the 1st electrolyte solvent does not allow for carbonate solvents. Claim 65 is rejected because unclear what alkane solvents can be used as the 1st solvent in the composition because no alkane solvents recited in claim 68, which defined the 1st electrolyte solvents that can be used. Claim 68 is rejected because “ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate” cannot be present as the 1st electrolyte solvent because the 1st electrolyte solvent does not allow for carbonate solvents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 65-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Du et al. (WO 2020/131648). Du et al. teaches in [0010 and 0021-0023], an electrolyte composition includes LiFSI in a solvent comprising i) ethylene carbonate and/or propylene carbonate in an amount of 5-70 wt% [a second solvent comprising a carbonate, claim 65 and specifically claim 68]; ii) an additional solvent selected from an acyclic or cyclic ester such as methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, etc. and acyclic or cyclic ether solvent in an amount of 30-70 wt% [30-56 wt% of a first solvent comprising an acetate, claim 65 and specifically claim 69] and iii) a higher molecular weight solvent in amount of less than 30 wt%. Du et al. teaches in [0017], that the LiFSI salt can be present with one or more other lithium salts such as LiPF6 in an amount of up to or less than 20 wt%, 10 wt% [teaching 10-19 wt% of a LiPF6 salt, claims 65-66] and LiFSI can be present in an amount of at least or greater than 30 wt % [teaching LiFSI salt, claims 65 and 67]. Du et al. teaches in [0037-0040], a battery comprising a cathode, an anode, a separator and an electrolyte solution. Since Du et al. teaches the same composition comprising the same first salt, the same second salt, the same first solvent and the same second solvent, then inherently the composition having a conductivity of about 10 mS/cm to about 15 mS/cm must also be obtained.
In addition, the presently claimed property of the composition having a conductivity of at least about 10-15 mS/cm would have obviously been present once the Du et al. product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977).
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 Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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, Milton Cano can be reached at 313-446-4937. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723