Patent Application 17768423 - ELECTROLYTE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND - Rejection

Patent Application 17768423 - ELECTROLYTE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND

Title: ELECTROLYTE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING SAME

Application Information

• Invention Title: ELECTROLYTE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING SAME
• Application Number: 17768423
• Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-04-12T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-04-12T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 429
• National Sub-Class: 335000
• Examiner Employee Number: 99622
• Art Unit: 1727
• Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 3

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    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 .

	Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 03/18/2025.
Claims 1, 4-5 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-18 are currently pending.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2025 have been read but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons. Applicant is 
Further, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the data Applicant is relying upon.  MPEP 716.02(d).  Specifically the instant electrolyte solution broadly requires a first solvent comprising at least one glyme-based compound while the first solvent in Examples 1 to 7 only use a single specific solvent, dimethoxyethane. The second specific solvent used in the instant electrolyte solution in a single solvent, 2-methylfuran and the third specific solvent used in the instant electrolyte solution is a single solvent, 2-methyltetrahydrofurant.  It is noted “lithium salt” is generically claimed while the results appear to exclusively rely on two specific lithium salts, LiFSI and LiNO3 and the exclusion of LiTFSI.  Applicant is reminded, “Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range.” In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).  In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972). “(Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.") MPEP 716.02(d).   

Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/18/2025.  Figure 3 of drawings are acceptable and the objection to figure 3 of the drawings are withdrawn. The amendments to figures 1-2 are acknowledged and while the office concedes that the graphs are more legible than the original submission, the objections to the drawings for figures 1-2 still stand for the following reasons:
As can be seen below in the annotated figures of the applicants’ drawings certain lines are still not distinguishable from each other. Now that the figures are clearer a few more questions and concerns are raised by the office. 
Regarding figure 1. While the legend shows 8 different examples there are 11 lines present on the graph. Are there more samples depicted in the graph that are not accounted for, or are the lines representing isotherms which may explain what appears to be the same sample having two voltages for the same capacity? 
    PNG
    media_image1.png
    926
    937
    media_image1.png
    Greyscale


Regarding figure 2. The examiner sees 5 possible lines that represent example 1 alone, as shown in the annotated figure below. 
    PNG
    media_image2.png
    858
    937
    media_image2.png
    Greyscale

Applicant must find some way to clearly convey the data represented in figures 1-2 of the drawings without submitting new matter. It is the examiner’s assumption that these charts were originally generated in color and has added the information below for the submission of color drawings, if the applicant chooses. If not, please be advised that the data needs to be submitted in a legible manner in order to be considered for the arguments for the “surprising and unexpected results” discussed above. 
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).



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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2005108724 (A), DOJO et al.
Regarding claim 1: DOJO teaches an electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery [0003], comprising- 
a first solvent comprising at least one glyme-based compound (triglyme) [0024]; 
a second solvent comprising at least one conjugated heterocyclic compound (furan) [0036]; 
a third [0014] solvent comprising at least one non-conjugated cyclic ether-based compound; and (fluorinated ethylene carbonate [0039]) fluorinated propylene carbonate and fluorinated ethylene carbonate are considered non-conjugated cyclic ether-based compounds. Alternatively, can include a tetrahydrofuran, or 1, 3-dioxolane [0036]
lithium salt [0019].
While DOJO does not disclose an example with all three solvents; DOJO does state that the first solvent and the second solvent can each contain multiple solvents therefore envisioning an electrolytic solution with three solvents.   DOJO also teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery in which a reversible charge/discharge reaction is performed, good cycle performance and charge/discharge efficiency can be obtained, and high capacity and high energy density can be achieved [0013].
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the three solvents in to a solution because a good cycle performance and charge/discharge efficiency can be obtained. 
Furthermore, “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).

Regarding the amended limitations added to claim 1 that were originally presented in now canceled claim 2: DOJO [0035] teaches that the first solvent is greater than 50%, in the instant application the first and second solvents are equivalent to the first solvent in DOJO. The third solvent of the instant application is equivalent to the second solvent taught by DOJO. Therefore, the third solvent would be greater than 5%.
It has been held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is critical evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).

Regarding claim 3: The electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the at least one conjugated heterocyclic compound is a 4 to 15 membered cyclic compound comprising an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom (tetrahydrofuran [0036]).

Regarding claim 4 :  DOJO teaches an electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the at least one conjugated heterocyclic compound consisting of a conjugated cyclic ether-based compound in the form of tetrahydrofuran [0036],

Regarding claim 5: DOJO teaches furan [0036].

Regarding claim 8: The electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery consisting of tetrahydrofuran [0036].

Regarding claim 9: The electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery consisting of dimethoxyethane [0037].

Regarding claim 10: The electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery wherein the lithium salt is LiBF4 [0045].

Regarding claim  14:  The electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte solution is suitable for use in a lithium-sulfur battery [0014].

Regarding claim 15: A lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0014]; and the electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (figure 1, 4 -separator is between the electrodes).

DOJO [0030] discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a negative electrode, a positive electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte.  

Regarding claim 16: The lithium secondary battery according to claim 15, wherein the lithium secondary battery is a lithium-sulfur battery [0014].

Regarding claim 17 and 18: The lithium-sulfur secondary battery according to claim 16, would be expected to inherently exhibit all the claimed limitations, since the electrolyte comprises the three solvents claimed in claim 1.

When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.

Claims 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2005108724 (A), DOJO et al, in view of US 20050175904 A1, GORKOVENKO.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, DOJO discloses the solvent with the addition of furan but not a thiophene based compound to the electrolytic solution.
GORKOVENKO discloses a lithium sulfur battery and teaches the addition to the electrolyte a furan or methylthiophene [0034].  
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to replace the furan of DOJO with the 2-methylthiophene of GORKOVENKO because GORKOVENKO teaches these are art equivalents for solvents in lithium sulfur batteries.  The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B).

Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2005108724 (A), DOJO et al, in view of US 20190051940 A1; PARK et al.
Regarding claim 11: DOJO teaches the electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 10 with a lithium salt of LiB4 [0045].
DOJO does not teach the lithium salt comprises LiFSI and lithium nitrate.
PARK discloses a lithium sulfur battery [0064] teaches LiFSI [0053] and Lithium Nitrate [0019].
Park teaches that LiFSI is particularly favored when used in polymer batteries [0053] and has lower corrosiveness and problems such as current collector corrosiveness that used to occur when using LiTFSI as a liquid electrolyte lithium salt may be improved.
PARK [0030] also teaches an electrolyte of the present disclosure is capable of increasing lithium electrode stability by forming a solid membrane on the lithium surface, and exhibits excellent capacity retention and an effect of improving a battery lifespan property when used in a lithium secondary battery.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to use LiFSI and lithium nitrate of PARK in an electrolyte of DOJO in order to lower corrosiveness and improve the lifespan of the battery.

Regarding claim 12: PARK [0019] teaches potassium nitrate (KNO3).

Regarding claim 13: The electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 11, wherein the electrolyte solution for the lithium secondary battery comprises dimethoxyethane (PARK[0013]) as the first solvent, 2-methylfuran [0041] as the second solvent, 2-methyltetrahydrofuran [0014] as the third solvent, and LiFSI [0053] and lithium nitrate [0019] as the lithium salt.

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 LAWRENCE LA RAIA  III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.





/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727                                                                                                                                                                                                        
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727