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 .
Status of Application
Claim 1 is amended and claims 2, 5, and 9 are canceled. Claims 1, 4, and 10-11 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 4, and 10-11 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 1, the liquid electrolytes requires five chemical compounds a-e: a) lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, b) dimethyl sulfate, c) lithium hexafluorophosphate, d) lithium difluorophosphate, and e) lithium fluorosulfonate, with respective content and/or ratio with respect to a mass of the liquid electrolyte (Ln11-12, Ln20-26) or with respect to a certain combination of two or three compounds (Ln15-19). However, according to the instant disclosure, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [0010], dimethyl sulfate [0012-0016], lithium hexafluorophosphate [0017], lithium difluorophosphate [0018] [0021], and lithium fluorosulfonate [0020-0022], are all gradually consumed for forming the hybrid film, assisting with film formation, or for the production of Li4SiO4 within the silicate phase. Even though the claim in Ln22-23 specifies the dimethyl sulfate concentration is prior to an initial charge or discharge of the battery, it remains unclear whether the claim requires the contents regarding the other four chemical compounds (a, and c-e) in the liquid electrolyte, respectively representing prior to an initial charge or discharge of the battery; or representing a content after the film formed and the concentration/content of each being stabilized.
For Examination purposes, based on the instant disclosure [0010-0018] and [0020-0022] etc., the Examiner interprets the contents of the other four chemical compounds (a, and c-e) in the liquid electrolyte based on the first scenario above, i.e., all five chemical compounds including b) dimethyl sulfate, required in the liquid electrolyte with a respective content/concentration are representing prior to an initial charge or discharge of the battery.
Further, Claim 1 recites two ratio ranges in the claim: “a ratio of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to a total of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and lithium hexafluorophosphate is 5 mass% or more and 50 mass% or less”; and “a ratio of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to a sum of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium hexafluorophosphate, and lithium difluorophosphate is 0.5 mass% or more and 50 mass% or less”. The first ratio range encompasses a capped value of 50 mass% while the second ratio range also encompasses a capped value of 50 mass%, which is contradictory causing indefiniteness because the claim positively requires all three of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium hexafluorophosphate, and lithium difluorophosphate, therefore, the first range capped value and the second range capped value cannot be the same of 50 mass%. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand the metes and bounds of the two mutually exclusive ratio ranges co-existing in the same claim. For examination purposes, the second ratio recitation is interpreted as “a ratio of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to a sum of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium hexafluorophosphate, and lithium difluorophosphate is 0.5 mass% or more and less than 50 mass%”.
Claims 4 and 10-11 are rejected for the same reason as set forth above for incorporating the indefinite subject matter from base claim 1, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 1, 4, and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as set forth in this Office action.
With the amendment submitted on January 14, 2025, the closest prior art is considered to be Tamura (US20190312306A1), Yoshida (JPH07296849 A, see machine translation for citation), Sawa (US20160322669A1), Minami (US20170309950 A1), and Xia (CN103682443A).
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable claims 1, 4 and 10-11:
The invention of claim 1 is directed to a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode containing at least lithium and nickel with an atomic molar ratio of the nickel to one mole of the positive electrode active material being 80% or greater and 98% or less; a negative electrode including a silicate phase and silicon particles dispersed in the silicate phase; and a liquid electrolyte composition including lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, dimethyl sulfate, lithium difluorophosphate, lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium fluorosulfonate, and methyl acetate, wherein a content of lithium difluorophosphate is 2 mass% or less, a content of lithium fluorosulfonate is 2 mass% or less, a concentration of the dimethyl sulfate is 1 mass% or more and 2 mass% or less prior to an initial charge or discharge of the battery, and a content of methyl acetate in the liquid electrolyte is 3 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less with respect to a mass of the liquid electrolyte; a ratio of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to a total of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and lithium hexafluorophosphate is 5 mass% or more and 50 mass% or less, and a ratio of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to a sum of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium hexafluorophosphate, and lithium difluorophosphate is 0.5 mass% or more and 50 mass% or less.
Tamura discloses lithium ion secondary battery with LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 positive electrode ([0027]); amorphous carbon coated graphite negative electrode ([0048]) and an electrolyte solution comprises: LiFSI, LiPF6 and LiPO2F2 ([0052]) with methyl acetate listed as one of the solvent usable in the electrolyte among other choices ([0033]). Tamura does not disclose a negative electrode including a silicate phase and silicon particles dispersed in the silicate phase. Further, Tamura does not disclose or teach the electrolyte including dimethyl sulfate and its range of 1 mass% or more and 2 mass% or less; nor lithium fluorosulfonate and its range of 2 mass% or less.
Yoshida teaches the use of lithium fluorosulfonate in an electrolyte would suppress the decomposition reaction of the electrolyte solution and improves cycle characteristics ([0009]) without teaching its range of 2 mass% or less as claimed. Further, Yoshida does not teach using dimethyl sulfate and its range of 1 mass% or more and 2 mass% or less in the electrolyte, nor a negative electrode including a silicate phase and silicon particles dispersed in the silicate phase.
Sawa teaches difluorophosphate salts may be more preferably 2 mass % or less, to ensure that the salts produce significant effect in the enhancement of initial irreversible capacity ([0437])
Minami further teaches a negative-electrode active material contains Si particles dispersed in a lithium silicate phase represented by Li2zSiO(2+Z) (0<z<2) ([0013]) and a battery containing the negative electrode active material has good cycle characteristics ([0015]).
Although Xia teaches using 0.5 mass% of dimethyl sulfate in the liquid electrolyte (Table 1 and [0053]; Refer to Example 2 in light of Example 1), none of the cited art teaches or suggests using dimethyl sulfate and its range of 1 mass% or more and 2 mass% or less in the electrolyte.
It would not have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arbitrarily combine the teaching from Tamura, Yoshida, Sawa, and Xia simultaneously and figure out the specific electrolyte composition with the required electrolyte mass ratio. It is further not obvious to use this specific electrolyte composition together with a change from amorphous carbon coated graphite negative electrode to a Si particles dispersed in a lithium silicate phase negative electrode as required in claim 1, because it changes the battery operation mechanism of Tamura .
In terms of providing a favorable impedance results, the instant disclosure also provides evidence (Battery A1 vs. other battery examples) in supporting the criticalities of: 1) the dimethyl sulfate and the ratio of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to a total of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and lithium hexafluorophosphate being 5 mass% or more and 50 mass% or less (Table 1); 2) the combination of lithium difluorosulfonate and lithium difluorophosphate (Table 2); and 3) silica phase with silicon particles (LSX) (Table 3).
The closest prior art taken individually and/or in combination fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the claimed limitation as a whole.
Claims 4, and 10-11 are indicated as allowable for incorporating the same allowable subject matter of claim 1.
Conclusion
4. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
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 on (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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/28/2026
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/28/2026
Prosecution Insights