DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 12/2/2025, the following has occurred: Claim 13 has been amended.
Claims 1, 2, 7-13, and 18-24 are pending; claims 1, 2, 7-12, and 19-23 being withdrawn. Claims 13, 18, and 24 are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13 and 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (WO 2016/159117 to Matsuoka et al., the Office cites to US equivalent 2018/0062207) in view of Hallac (US 2016/0149263 to Hallac).
Regarding Claim 13, Matsuoka teaches:
a nonaqueous secondary battery comprising cathode, anode, separator and nonaqueous electrolyte (¶ 0108)
the electrolyte comprising acetonitrile in an amount of 30-100% by volume, including examples of e.g. 40-50% (¶ 0051 and examples)
the electrolyte also comprising conventional (mixtures of) carbonates including vinylene carbonate (¶ 0054-0056) specifically added to prevent decomposition of acetonitrile (¶ 0057) in an amount of 0.1-30%, or 2-20 vol% (¶ 0069, 0071)
the cathode comprising conventional positive active materials, including nickel- and cobalt-containing lithium transition metal oxides known in the art (¶ 0082-0083), such that it would have been obvious to use commercially available cathode materials like NMC622 or NMC 811
For evidence of ordinary skill in the art regarding cathode composition see e.g. previously cited Itabashi (US 2018/003992), which explicitly teaches nickel-rich cathodes in non-aqueous electrolytes that can comprise acetonitrile, carbonates, and additives, like organo-silicon species.
Matsuoka further teaches:
additives like lactones, sultones, sulfolanes, and amines added to prevent electrolyte decomposition, wherein more additive can prevent decomposition, but less additive allows for higher-rate characteristics (¶ 0069, 0072, 0074)
decomposition as a natural byproduct of cycling, and use of conventional carbonates in the solvent (¶ 0056), such that the lithium-containing decomposition products of the claimed formulas 4A-6A would be expected to form upon cycling with ethylene carbonate
See, for example, previously cited Zhuang et al. “Lithium Ethylene Dicarbonate Identified as the Primary Product of Chemical and Electrochemical Reduction of EC in 1.2 M LiPF6/EC:EMC Electrolyte.” J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 17567-17573.
Matsuoka does not teach:
inclusion of an organo-silicon compound such as that claimed in formula 2 as an additive
Hallac, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a nonaqueous electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery teaches solvents comprising conventional carbonates and so-called “aggressive solvents” such as acetronitrile (¶ 0025) because additives are included to prevent over-decomposition of the electrolyte (¶ 0026). The additives can includes VC, as well as sultones and amines (¶ 0074). In particular, Hallac teaches the use of vinyl trialkoxysilanes, such as vinyl trimethoxysilane and vinyl triethoxysilane (¶ 0075). It would have been obvious to use a trialkoxysilane as taught in Hallac in an amount of 0.5 wt% (¶ 0073), since Hallac teaches that it as a substitute for, or in combination with, sultone and amine additives as disclosed in Matsuoka, to prevent decomposition of “aggressive” solvents like acetonitrile (¶ 0025, see also ¶ 0084 which explicitly contemplates including an additive combination for protecting both the anode and cathode interfaces, and example electrolytes using 40% AN in ¶ 0102).
Regarding Claim 24, Matsuoka teaches:
electrolytes without acid anhydride (see generally)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (WO 2016/159117 to Matsuoka et al., the Office cites to US equivalent 2018/0062207) in view of Hallac (US 2016/0149263 to Hallac), in further view of Chen (Chen et al. “An approach to application for LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 cathode material at high cutoff voltage by TiO2 coating.” Journal of Power Sources 256 (2014) 20-27).
Regarding Claim 18, Itabashi does not explicitly teach:
coating the cathode with e.g. Ti
Chen, however, from the same field of invention, teaches a conventional titanium-based coating for nickel-rich cathode materials that improves their cycling stability (abstract). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to use a titanium-coated nickel-rich cathode material, with the motivation to improve thermal stability of the cathode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the instantly claimed combination of limitations, including 0.5 wt% additive triethoxyvinylsilane in an acetonitrile-containing electrolyte provides unexpected results. As pointed out in the Non-Final Rejection of 9/2/2025, Matsuoka teaches a majority acetonitrile solvent for a nonaqueous electrolyte that uses sultone and amine additives to prevent decomposition. Hallac teaches trialkoxysilanes as a substitute or complement to sultone and amine additives for preventing decomposition in electrolytes with “aggressive” solvents like acetonitrile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the silanes in Hallac in the electrolyte disclosed in Matsuoka with the motivation to improve decomposition resistance. Matsuoka therefore teaches VC and AN together to improve cycling, and Halluc teaches superior performance of triethoxyvinylsilane in preventing decomposition of AN-containing electrolytes.
Applicant argues that Hallac does not teach acetonitrile (Remarks at p. 13). This is not accurate. Hallac teaches acetonitrile, calling it an “aggressive solvent,” and further teaches that additives like the alkoxysilanes claimed improves the performance by preventing its decomposition (¶ 0025-0026, 0073-0075, 0084, 0102).
Applicant also argues that Hallac only teach 1 wt% inclusion of the additive. Halluc actually teaches 0.5-2 wt% (¶ 0073). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges for the additive, including 0.5 wt%, since Hallac teaches that they all achieve the effect of improving performance, with the known tradeoff of increasing impedance or reducing protective effect at either end of the range.
Applicant also advances an argument that the nonaqueous battery of the present invention prevents decomposition of acetonitrile at both the cathode and anode sides, and that this is not contemplated in the cited prior art (Remarks at p. 13). Hallac, however, already teaches this result, saying that VC and another additive, such as LiBOB or the alkoxysilanes, which are used in combination or substitutable, protect both anodes from decomposition in AN-containing electrolytes (¶ 0075 and 0084). The rejections are therefore maintained.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights