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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 11/13/2025. Claims 1, 9, and 11 are amended. Claims 3 – 4, 8, 10, and 21 are cancelled. Claims 12 – 13 and 15 – 20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 7, 9, 11, 14 and 22 – 23 are pending in the current Office action.
The objection to claim 1 set forth in the previous Office action (mailed 09/19/2025) is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment. The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejections of claims 9 and 11, set forth in the previous Office action, are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn, and a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment is presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Specifically, for the rejection of claim 1 the examiner no longer relies on the Kim reference to disclose/render obvious the claimed electrolyte composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 7, 9, 11, and 22 – 23 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.
Regarding Claim 1, specifically, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites “wherein the electrolyte consists essentially of an ester solvent; a salt; a propionate; and a compound having a cyano group(s)” and thus necessarily appears to require some amount of compound having a cyano group(s) {i.e. narrow limitation}; however the claim also recites “and a content of the compound having the cyano group is equal to or less than 2 wt%” and thus additionally recites claim language that does not necessarily require any amount of compound having a cyano group(s) {i.e. 0 wt% is within the claimed range of equal to or less than 2 wt%}. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2, 5 – 7, 9, 11, and 22 – 23 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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, 5 – 7, 9, 11, 14, and 22 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US PG Pub. 2014/0205913 A1) in view of Takahashi (US PG Pub. 2010/0028786 A1), Sawa (JP2019192639A, machine translation provided), Shinji (JP2002260636A – cited previously in Office action mailed 09/19/2025) and Tokutake (JP2007179765A, cited previously in Office action mailed 09/19/2025). {Examiner note: For citations of the instant specification the examiner utilizes the US PG Pub. version of the instant application: US20210367268A1}
Regarding Claims 1, 7, 9, 11 and 22, Park discloses an electrochemical device (rechargeable lithium battery; Fig. 1, 100; [0033]), comprising a cathode (Fig. 1, 10; [0033]), an electrolyte ([0033]), and an anode (Fig. 1, 100; [0033]).
Park teaches the electrolyte including a lithium salt, a non-aqueous organic solvent, and an additive ([0020 – 0022];[0028]). The non-aqueous organic solvent is specifically taught to be a mixture including ethylene carbonate, ethyl propionate, diethyl carbonate, and propylene carbonate ([0022 – 0023]) and the additive is taught to be one or more selected from fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, propane sultone, succinonitrile, adiponitrile ([0028]). One with ordinary skill in the art would appreciate/recognize ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate to be cyclic carbonate esters and diethyl carbonate to be a linear carbonate ester. One with ordinary skill in the art would further appreciate/recognize the additives succinonitrile and adiponitrile to be compounds that have a cyano group(s). As such, by teaching an electrolyte composition including only esters solvents, ethyl propionate, and a salt as the main components and further teaching the option of having succinonitrile and/or adiponitrile as the electrolyte additive ([0030 – 0022]), Park includes within its taught scope an electrolyte consisting essentially of an ester solvent, a salt, a propionate, and a compound having a cyano group(s), but does not particularly disclose a working embodiment of such an electrolyte.
Takahashi, directed to a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery, teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte composition containing an electrolyte salt, a nitrile compound, and a non-aqueous solvent containing a carboxylic acid ester ([0017 – 0021]). In addition to carboxylic acid ester and the nitrile compound, Takahashi teaches that additional solvents can be used in combination with the carboxylic acid ester solvents and includes within its taught scope of additional solvents, the carbonate solvents taught in Park ([0121]). Furthermore, Takahashi includes ethyl propionate within its taught scope of carboxylic acid ester solvents as well as adiponitrile and succinonitrile within its taught scope of nitrile compounds ([0036 – 0037]). Takahashi further teaches that adding a nitrile compound to a non-aqueous solvent containing a carboxylic acid ester can prevent a decrease in the high-temperature cycle characteristics caused by the addition of the carboxylic acid ester {i.e. Without the nitrile compound, carboxylic acid esters, while improving overcharge characteristics, cause a reduction in high-temperature cycle characteristics by weakening the protective film of the negative electrode.} ([0015];[0098 – 0099]).
Therefore, since Park teaches an electrolyte composition including a carboxylic acid ester solvent {i.e. ethyl propionate} and further is concerned with obtaining improved high-rate charging/discharging characteristics as well as high temperature cycle-life characteristics ([0023 – 0024];[0029]), selection of succinonitrile and/or adiponitrile as the electrolyte additive, and thus an electrolyte composition within the claimed scope of an electrolyte consisting essentially of an ester solvent, a salt, a propionate, and a compound having a cyano group(s), would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, as (1) such a selection would be from a finite list of additives and thus would have a reasonable expectation of success in being a selection of additive suitable for the battery electrolyte [See MPEP 2143(I)(E)] and (2), as taught by Takahashi, such a selection of additive would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving improved cycle characteristics while also preventing a decrease in the high-temperature cycle characteristics (Takahashi: [0098 – 0099]), as desired by (Park: [0023];[0029]).
As established above, the electrolyte of modified Park includes only esters solvents, ethyl propionate, an electrolyte salt, and succinonitrile and/or adiponitrile as the electrolyte additive, and thus is within the claimed scope of consisting essentially of an ester solvent, a salt, a propionate, and a compound having a cyano group(s).
PNG
media_image1.png
189
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chemical depiction of ethyl propionate from PubChem.
Furthermore the propionate of Park’s electrolyte, ethyl propionate is within the scope of claimed Formula 2 (See chemical structure depiction of ethyl propionate above) and further is within the claimed selection of propionates in claim 9; and the additive(s), succinonitrile and/or adiponitrile, are both within the claimed scope of claimed Formula 4 (See chemical structure depictions of succinonitrile and adiponitrile below) and further both are within the claimed selection of compounds having a cyano group(s) in claim 11.
PNG
media_image2.png
178
716
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chemical depictions of succinonitrile (left) and adiponitrile (right) from PubChem.
With respect to the amounts of propionate, Park teaches the electrolyte solvent including volume % to about 40 volume % of ethylene carbonate, about 1 volume % to about 50 volume % of ethyl propionate, about 1 volume % to about 50 volume % of diethyl carbonate, and about 1 volume % to about 40 volume % of propylene carbonate ([0023]). In working embodiments, Park particularly exemplifies the salt being LiPF6 and a salt concentration of 1.15M ([0057]). The working examples in Park do not include additive; however, as established above, modified Park includes 0.1 – 20 parts by weight of additive based on 100 parts by weight ([0029]), and when modified to include the additive established above, working Examples 1 – 4 of Park provide, based on a total weight of electrolyte, a content of propionate as low as 12 wt% and as high as 29 wt% and a content of additive {i.e. succinonitrile or adiponitrile} as low as 0.08 wt% and as high as 15 wt% {i.e. Examiner estimated the wt% of ethyl propionate and the additive based on the example data provided in Table 1, the densities of the solvent components, and the molar mass of LiPF6}. Therefore, modified Park includes within its taught scope contents of propionate that overlap/at least encompass the claimed range of 15 wt% - 30 wt% and a contents of compound having the cyano group that overlap/at least encompass the claimed range of equal to or less than 2 wt%, and the taught electrolyte component amounts {i.e. salt concentrations/solvent volume ratios/additive amount} in Park appear to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for claimed ranges [See MPEP 2144.05(I)]. To further render obvious the claimed range, the following teachings are relied upon:
Park further teaches controlling the concentration of the lithium salt to achieve enhanced electrolyte performance and lithium ion mobility due to optimal electrolyte conductivity and viscosity ([0027]).
Takahashi, as established above, teaches that adding a nitrile compound to a non-aqueous solvent containing a carboxylic acid ester can prevent a decrease in the high-temperature cycle characteristics caused by the addition of the carboxylic acid ester {i.e. Without the nitrile compound, carboxylic acid esters, while improving overcharge characteristics, cause a reduction in high-temperature cycle characteristics by weakening the protective film of the negative electrode.} ([0015];[0098 – 0099]).
Sawa, also directed to non-aqueous electrolyte compositions including carboxylic acid esters and cyano-group containing compounds ([0010 – 0015]), teaches controlling the amount of carboxylic acid esters {inclusive of ethyl propionate}, relative to the total amount of electrolyte to be 0.001 mass% - 70 mass% and more preferably 0.1 mass% to 15 mass% of the electrolyte for the purpose of more easily controlling the output characteristics, load characteristics load characteristics, low-temperature characteristics, cycle characteristics, and high-temperature storage characteristics by suppressing the increase in negative electrode resistance ([0026 – 0029]). Sawa further teaches controlling the amount {i.e. vol%} of cyclic carbonate and chain-like carbonate to achieve an increase in the dielectric constant of the electrolyte without increasing the viscosity of the electrolyte to the point where ion conductivity is decreased ([0147];[0153]). Sawa further teaches controlling the amount of compounds having one – three cyano groups {i.e. inclusive of succinonitrile and adiponitrile} to be 0.001 mass% - 10 mass% and more preferably 0.1 mass% - 5 mass% of the electrolyte for the purpose of more easily controlling the output characteristics, load characteristics load characteristics, low-temperature characteristics, cycle characteristics, and high-temperature storage characteristics ([0104]).
Therefore, selection of a content of propionate and content of compound having the cyano group { succinonitrile and/or adiponitrile} within the overlapping portion of the suggest/taught ranges of Park and Sawa and the claimed range, would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing dare of the claimed invention to optimize the effects of the amount ethyl propionate and succinonitrile and/or adiponitrile {i.e. improving overcharge characteristics vs. obtaining high-temperature characteristics} in view of the effects of the amounts of the carbonate solvents and the lithium salt {i.e. increasing dielectric constant/ion conductivity without negatively impacting the viscosity}, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Park further discloses the anode comprising an anode active material layer ([0043]).
Modified Park does not explicitly disclose a contact angle of the anode active material layer relative to a non-aqueous solvent being not greater than 60° as measured by a contact angle measurement.
Shinji teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte battery having a negative electrode that, with respect to the electrolyte, provides a contact angle of 60° or less ([0009]). A contact angle of 60° degrees or less of the electrolyte with electrode is taught by Shinji to provide good cycle characteristics by improving electrolyte penetration/wettability of electrode which improves discharge efficiency ([0025 – 0026];[0066])
Since Park is concerned with obtaining a battery with improved high temperature cycle-life characteristics and high-rate charge and discharge characteristics ([0023 – 0024];[0029]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the contact angle of modified Park’s negative electrode to be within the range taught by Shinji, and thus obtain a negative electrode active material layer contact angle relative to a nonaqueous solvent within the claimed range not greater than 60°, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a battery with improved cycle characteristics by improving electrolyte wettability/penetration of the electrode.
In addition to negative electrode active material, Park teaches including conductive material and binder in the negative electrode active material layer ([0045]). Negative electrode active materials taught by Park include silicon-containing compounds, lithium metal alloys, transition metal oxides, and carbon active materials, such as crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, and mixtures thereof for the negative electrode active material ([0047]). In the example battery Park particularly exemplifies utilizing graphite as the negative electrode active material ([0060]).
Modified Park does not disclose wherein the anode active material further comprises an auxiliary agent; wherein the auxiliary agent comprises at least one of polyoxyethylene ether, polyol ester, amide, block polyether, peregal, polyether or sodium hexadecylbenzenesulfonate (Claim 7); and more particularly, wherein the auxiliary agent comprises at least one of the following: polyoxyethylene alkanolamide, octyl phenol polyoxyethylene ether, nonyl phenol polyoxyethylene ether, higher fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether, polyoxyethylene fatty acid ester, polyoxyethylene amine, alkanolamide, polyoxyethylene lauryl ether, C12-14 primary alcohol polyoxyethylene ether, C12-14 secondary alcohol polyoxyethylene ether, branched C13 Guerbet alcohol polyoxyethylene ether, branched C10 Guerbet alcohol polyoxyethylene, linear C10 alcohol polyoxyethylene ether, linear C8 octanol polyoxyethylene ether, linear C8 isooctanol polyoxyethylene ether, fatty acid monoglyceride, glycerin monostearate, fatty acid sorbitan ester, composite silicone polyether compound, polysorbate, polyoxyethylene fatty acid ester, polyoxyethylene fatty alcohol ether, polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene block copolymer, polyether modified trisiloxane or polyether modified organosilicon polyether siloxane (Claim 22).
Tokutake teaches a lithium secondary battery with a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material that contains graphite and a surfactant ([0015];[0020]). Tokutake further teaches that the negative electrode active material layer may further include binder and one or two more kinds of active negative electrode active materials capable of inserting and extracting lithium ([0023 – 0024]). The surfactant is taught to be included to achieve the benefit of improved electrolyte permeability ([0020]). In examples 1 – 1 to 1 – 5, Tokutake specifically discloses using the surfactant polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether to achieve an improvement in electrolyte permeability ([0047 – 0048];[0055]).
Since Park exemplifies using a graphite negative electrode ([0060]), it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether in the negative electrode active material as an nonionic surfactant/auxiliary agent {and thus include an auxiliary agent within the scope of claims 7 and 22}, as taught by Tokutake, with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a negative electrode with improved electrolyte permeability.
Although modified Park does not specifically teach the auxiliary agent having at least one of the following features: an oxidation potential of not less than 4.5 V and a reduction potential of not greater than 0.5 V; or a surface tension of not greater than 30 mN/m, one with ordinary skill in the art would expect the polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether in modified Park to inherently have at least one of the auxiliary agent features, because polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether is included in the claimed list of auxiliary agents which are disclosed by the applicant to have such features (Instant Specification: [0022];[0108 – 0109];[0118]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Park discloses all limitations as set forth above. In the instant specification, the applicant discloses examples of the nonionic surfactants that may be included in the invention. Specifically, the nonionic surfactants disclosed by the applicant are the same as the materials claimed for the auxiliary agent (See materials listed in [0022] and [0118]). Therefore, based on the surfactant materials disclosed in the instant specification and auxiliary agent materials claimed and disclosed, the examiner is interpreting the “nonionic surfactant” to be the same as the “auxiliary agent”.
Therefore, by including the auxiliary agent, polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether (See rejection of claims 1 and 7 above), modified Park, necessarily further discloses wherein the anode active material layer further discloses a nonionic surfactant.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, modified Park discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Park includes polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether as a nonionic surfactant/auxiliary agent in the negative electrode active material (See rejection of claims 1 and 7 above).
Modified Park does not disclose wherein based on a total weight of the anode active material layer, a content of the auxiliary agent is less than 3,000 ppm (Claim 6) and wherein, based on a total weight of the anode active material layer, a content of the nonionic surfactant is less than 3,000 ppm (Claim 14).
Tokutake further teaches a ratio of surfactant to natural graphite included in the negative active material ranges that from 10 ppm by mass – 2% by mass ([0022]). Utilizing a ratio taught by Tokutake allows for the surfactant to sufficiently improve the permeability of the electrolytic solution without decreasing battery characteristics and significantly decreasing the peel strength of the active material ([0022]). In Table 1, Tokutake compares the effects of different ratios of polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether surfactant to graphite ranging from 2wt%, 1wt%, 4500 ppm, 200 ppm, and 10 ppm (Table 1; [0048];[0053 – 0055]). Table 1 shows that, as the ratio of polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether to graphite increased, the permeation rate of the solvent was increased and load characteristics improved while the peel strength decreased ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed Invention, to utilize a ratio of surfactant to graphite taught by Tokutake when adding the polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether to Takahashi’s negative electrode active material, with a reasonable expectation of success in adding an amount of surfactant that provides sufficient peeling strength, increased electrolyte permeation, and improved battery load characteristics.
It would have been further obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to specifically select surfactant/graphite ratios on the lower end of Tokutake’s taught range {i.e. values closer to 10 ppm) that provide a content of the ionic auxiliary agent/nonionic surfactant that is less than 3,000 ppm, based on a total weight of the anode active material layer in modified Takahashi, to obtain a negative electrode that contains polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether in an amount that sufficiently provides the effect of increased electrolyte permeation and minimizes losses in peeling strength, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Regarding Claim 23, modified Park discloses all limitations as set forth above. Park further discloses an example embodiment of the negative electrode active material comprising graphite ([0060]), Park does not particularly disclose whether the graphite of the example negative electrode is artificial or natural; however, since Park only teaches using graphite that is artificial/natural , one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the graphite of the example electrode to be artificial or natural graphite and thus within the claimed group consisting of artificial graphite, natural graphite, mesophase carbon microspheres, soft carbon, hard carbon and amorphous carbon.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US PG Pub. 2014/0205913 A1), Takahashi (US PG Pub. 2010/0028786 A1), Sawa (JP2019192639A), Shinji (JP2002260636A) and Tokutake (JP2007179765A), as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Brighton Science (Brighton Science “What is a Contact Angle” webpage, pp. 1-3, cited previously in Office action mailed 09/19/2025).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Park discloses all limitations as set forth above. In modified Park, the negative electrode and electrolyte provide a contact angle within the claimed range of 60° or less (See Shinji: [0025] and rejection of claim 1 above).
Brighton Science defines the contact angle as the angle between a tangent to the liquid surface and the solid surface at a three-phase contact point (Brighton Science “What is a Contact Angle”; Pg. 2). Brighton science further teaches that as the drop of liquid spreads across a surface, the contact angle becomes smaller (Brighton Science “What is a Contact Angle”, pg. 2). The image below exemplifies the difference between a droplet that forms a small contact angle versus a droplet that forms a larger contact angle.
PNG
media_image3.png
260
751
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Based on how a contact angle is formed and is defined, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the contact angle and droplet diameter are significantly dependent on one another and the solid surface being analyzed.
In the instant specification, the applicant discloses that the contact angle of the anode may be affected by factors such as the type of auxiliary agent used in the material or the porosity ([0055];[0063]). The applicant further discloses a porosity for their anode ranging from 10 to 60% ([0069]).
Modified Park does not explicitly disclose the porosity of the negative electrode; however, it would be in the purview of one with ordinary skill in the art to control the porosity of electrode to be within the range taught by the applicant, because, as taught by Shinji, porosities within the applicant’s taught range {i.e. porosities of 15 – 50%} are known to provide negative electrodes with improved capacities ([0012 – 0014]).
Therefore, since the negative electrode of modified Park includes an active material claimed/taught by the applicant, a porosity taught by the applicant, and further provides a contact angle within the claimed range, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the negative electrode of modified Park to have a surface similar to the claimed anode, and thus provide a droplet diameter of the non-aqueous solvent on the anode active material layer that is within the claimed range of not greater than 30 mm as measured by a contact angle measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights