DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 19, 21-24, 26-34, and 36-41 are pending. Claims 1-18, 20, 25, and 35 have been canceled.
The foreign priority application No. 20185836 filed in Finland on October 04, 2018 has been received and it is acknowledged. The application has been filed in English.
The Office Action introduces new grounds of rejection for claims 19, 22-24, 26, 27, 29-34, 36, and 38-41. Therefore, the Office Action is made non-final. The examiner apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.
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.
Claims 19, 22, 26, 27, 29-34, 36, 38, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP2012-018801 A, with machine translation made of record on February 26, 2026) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2014/0272553).
With regard to claims 19, 26, 27, 36, and 40, Nakajima teaches an electrolyte solution comprising 10wt% propylene carbonate (PC), 10% fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), 60wt% dimethyl carbonate (DMC), 15wt% succinonitrile (SCN), 5wt% lithium bistrifluoromehanesulfonylimide (LiTFSI), and 1mol/l LiPF6 (Example 1 in par.0042).
The mixture of propylene carbonate (PC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), and succinonitrile (SCN) is “a carbonate: nitrile solvent mixture, wherein the nitrile solvent comprises succinonitrile (SCN)” in claim 19, and a “carbonate: nitrile solvent mixture” in claim 36.
The volume ratio of the carbonate: nitrile solvent is 1:0.236, which is within the ranges in claims 19 and 36. The calculation is based on the following densities: propylene carbonate (PC)-1.21g/cm3, dimethyl carbonate (DMC)-1.07 g/cm3, and succinonitrile (SCN)-0.985 g/cm3.
Fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) is the “electrolyte additive” in claims 19 and 36, and meets the limitations of claims 26, 27, and 40.
LiPF6 is an alkali salt.
Nakajima fails to teach that the electrolyte solution comprises a polymer additive which is poly(methyl vinyl ether-alt-maleic anhydride).
Cheng et al. teach materials for use in electrolytes that provide a number of desirable characteristics when implemented within batteries, such as high stability during battery cycling up to high temperatures, high voltages, high discharge capacity, high coulombic efficiency, and excellent retention of discharge capacity and coulombic efficiency over several cycles of charging and discharging (abstract). The electrolyte includes a base electrolyte and a set of additive compounds which impart these desirable characteristics (abstract), wherein the base electrolyte includes Li salts and organic solvents, such as carbonates and nitrile (par.0047).
Cheng et al. further teach that the additive may be poly(methyl vinyl ether-alt-maleic anhydride) (par.0054, par.0059-0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include poly(methyl vinyl ether-alt-maleic anhydride) in the electrolyte solution of Nakajima in order to improve the stability during battery cycling up to high temperatures and to improve retention of discharge capacity and coulombic efficiency over several cycles of charging and discharging.
Cheng et al. teach that the poly(methyl vinyl ether-alt-maleic anhydride) may be added to an electrolyte in amount of 0.5wt% or 2wt% (see fig.5 and 6, par.0059-0060), so the electrolyte solution of Nakajima modified by Cheng is a liquid during electrochemical operation.
Therefore, the electrolyte solution of Nakajima modified by Cheng is equivalent to the electrolyte in claims 19, 26, 27, 36, and 40 of the instant application.
With regard to claims 22 and 38, LiPF6 is an alkali salt with a lithium cation.
With regard to claims 29 and 41, Nakajima teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and the electrolyte solution (Example 1 in par.0042-0044).
With regard to claim 30, Nakajima teaches that the positive electrode comprises LiMnO2 (par.0044), which is the claimed “lithium manganese oxide (LMO)”.
With regard to claims 31 and 32, Nakajima teaches that the negative electrode comprises a mixture of artificial graphite and natural graphite (par.0044).
The artificial graphite and natural graphite meet the limitations of claim 31 for “carbon”.
With regard to claims 33 and 34, Nakajima teaches that the negative electrode may also be metallic lithium (par.0027).
Claims 23, 24, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP2012-018801 A, with machine translation made of record on February 26, 2026) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2014/0272553) as applied to claims 19 and 36 above, and further in view of Hallac et al. (US 2015/0221977)
With regard to claims 23, 24, and 39, Nakajima modified by Cheng teach the electrolyte of claims 19 and 36 (see paragraph 6 above), but fail to teach that the electrolyte comprises an alkali salt with an anion including an oxalate-borate group.
Hallac et al. teach electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries (abstract).
Hallac et al. teach that LiTFSi in Example 1 of Nakajima et al. is functionally equivalent to LiDFOB as fluorinated additive for battery electrolytes (par.0116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to replace LiTFSI with LiDFOB in the electrolyte of Nakajima modified by Cheng.
LiDFOB is lithium difluoro(oxalate)(borate), and comprises an oxalate-borate group as required in claims 23 and 39.
LiDFOB is lithium difluoro(oxalate)(borate), as required in claim 24.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 21, 28, and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The electrolyte of Nakajima (JP2012-018801 A, with machine translation made of record on February 26, 2026) comprises a carbonate solvent, which is a mixture of propylene carbonate (PC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (par.0042).
There are no prior art teachings that would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify Nakajima (JP2012-018801 A) and obtain the electrolytes in claims 21 and 37 of the instant application.
Nakajima (JP2012-018801 A) fail to teach an electrolyte in claim 28.
There are no prior art teachings that would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify Nakajima (JP2012-018801 A) and obtain the electrolyte in claim 28 of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 19, 21-24, 26-34, and 36-41 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.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the rejection of claims 19, 22, 26, 27, and 29-34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP2012-018801 A, with machine translation made of record on February 26, 2026) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2017/0162907) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 19; and
-the rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (JP2012-018801 A, with machine translation made of record on February 26, 2026) in view of Cheng et al. (US 2017/0162907) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Smart et al. (US 2012/0007560) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 19.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 19, 22-24, 26, 27, 29-34, 36, and 38-41 are shown in paragraphs 5-7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights