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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 24th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on May 19th, 2026:
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-13, and 16-17 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 16 have been amended. Claims 11 and 13 stand withdrawn. Claims 2, 5-6, and 14-15 have been cancelled.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on May 19th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1. 3-4, 7-10, 12, and 16-17 are based on the claims as amended. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Prior Art
Previously cited Jeong US PG Publication 2018/0183100 (“Jeong”)
Garcia-Juan US PG Publication 2013/0108933 (“Garcia-Juan”)
Previously cited Song Jiang CN107732302 (“Song Jiang”)
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, 3-4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong US PG Publication 2018/0183100 in view of Garcia-Juan US PG Publication 2013/0108933.
Regarding Claim 1, Jeong discloses an electrolyte (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon), comprising:
a lithium salt ([0014]);
an organic solvent ([0014]); and
an additive ([0058]);
wherein:
the additive is selected from a group comprising the combination of a sulfur-containing compound (including sulfur hexafluoride SF6) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) ([0059]);
the sulfur-containing compound comprises at least sulfur hexafluoride (which meets the claim limitation of at least one of sulfur hexafluoride, sulfuryl fluoride, or carbon disulfide) ([0059]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that the reduction potential of the sulfur-containing compound sulfur hexafluoride of Jeong is higher than a reduction potential of lithium difluorophosphate since they are the same materials used in the instant invention (see paragraphs [0025]-[0026] of Applicant’s own PG Publication 2022/0102757). The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provided objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP 2112.02, I.).
While Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein a mass of lithium difluorophosphate accounts for 0.1% to 0.5% of a total mass of the electrolyte, Jeong does disclose wherein a weight of lithium difluorophosphate accounts for 0.2% to 0.5% of a total weight of the electrolyte ([0060]). The skilled artisan would recognize that since mass and weight are directly proportional, Jeong discloses wherein a mass of lithium difluorophosphate accounts for 0.2% to 0.5% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.5%) of a total mass of the electrolyte.
Further, while Jeong discloses wherein the organic solvent may be used without specific limitation as long as it is able to act as a medium through which ions involved in an electrochemical reaction of the battery are able to move2 ([0050]), Jeong fails to explicitly disclose wherein the organic solvent comprises at least one of methyl acrylate, propylene sulfite, diethyl sulfite, vinyl sulfate, acid anhydride, N-methylacetamide, acetonitrile, N,N-dimethylformamide, sulfolane, or dimethyl sulfide.
However, Garcia-Juan discloses an electrolyte comprising lithium difluorophosphate ([0001]-[0004], entire disclosure dependent upon). Garcia-Juan teaches that sulfolane and acetonitrile are solvents that are suitable and compatible for electrolytes comprising lithium difluorophosphate ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Jeong such that the organic solvent comprises at least one of sulfolane or acetonitrile due to the fact that these solvents are suitable and compatible for electrolytes comprising lithium difluorophosphate, as taught by Garcia-Juan.
2 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 3, Jeong in view of Garcia-Juan teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 1, and Jeong discloses wherein a weight of the sulfur-containing compound sulfur hexafluoride compound accounts for 0.2 to 0.5% of a total weight of the electrolyte ([0060]). The skilled artisan would recognize that since mass and weight are directly proportional, Jeong discloses wherein a mass of the sulfur-containing compound sulfur hexafluoride accounts for 0.2 to 0.5% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.1% to 8%) of the total mass of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 4, Jeong in view of Garcia-Juan teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 3, and Jeong discloses wherein a weight of the sulfur-containing compound sulfur hexafluoride compound accounts for 0.2 to 0.5% of a total weight of the electrolyte ([0060]). The skilled artisan would recognize that since mass and weight are directly proportional, Jeong discloses wherein a mass of the sulfur-containing compound sulfur hexafluoride accounts for 0.2 to 0.5% (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5% to 5%) of the total mass of the electrolyte1.
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 7, Jeong in view of Garcia-Juan discloses a lithium secondary (lithium-ion) battery (Abstract), comprising:
a cathode 5 (positive electrode plate) ([0015], [0063]-[0064]), comprising a positive electrode current collector ([0063]-[0065]) and a positive electrode film (membrane) disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector and comprising a positive electrode active material ([0040]-[0047], [0063]-[0066]);
an anode 3 (negative electrode plate) ([0015], [0063]-[0064]), comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode membrane disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector and comprising a negative electrode active material ([0069]);
a separator 7 ([0063]); and
the electrolyte as taught by Jeong described in the rejection of Claim 1 above ([0063]).
Regarding Claim 8, Jeong in view of Garcia-Juan teaches the instantly claimed lithium-ion battery according to Claim 7, and Jeong discloses wherein the positive electrode active material is selected from Chemical Formula 5 LixMyM’zXO4-wYw (which reads on the claim limitation a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide when M and M’ are defined by the combination of at least Ni, Co, and Mn, and reads on the claim limitation a lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide when M and M’ are defined by the combination of at least Ni, Co, and Al) ([0066]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 9, Jeong in view of Garcia-Juan teaches the instantly claimed lithium-ion battery according to Claim 7, and Jeong discloses is selected from one or more of artificial graphite and natural graphite (which meets the claim limitation of soft carbon, hard carbon, artificial graphite, natural graphite, a silicon0based material, a tin-based material, and lithium titanate) ([0070]).
Regarding Claim 10, Jeong discloses portable devices such as a mobile phone, a notebook computer, a digital camera, and a camcorder (apparatus), wherein the apparatus comprises the lithium-ion battery as taught by Jeong in view of Garcia-Juan described in the rejection of Claim 7 above ([0074]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong US PG Publication 2018/0183100 in view of Garcia-Juan US PG Publication 2013/0108933, as applied to Claim 3, further in view of Song Jiang CN107732302 (machine translation provided in the Final Rejection disclosure mailed on July 11th, 2025).
Regarding Claim 12, Jeong in view of Garcia-Juan teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 3.
While Jeong does disclose an additive generally usable for an electrolyte for the purpose of improving lifetime characteristic of the battery, suppressing reduction in battery capacity, and improving battery discharge capacity selected from a list including a sulfur-containing compound (sulfur hexafluoride) ([0058]-[0059]), Jeong in view of Garcia-Juan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sulfur-containing compound comprises sulfuryl fluoride2.
However, Song Jiang discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0008]) comprising an electrolyte salt ([0010]), an organic solvent ([0010]), and an electrolyte additive ([0008], [0010]).
Song Jiang teaches the use of sulfuryl fluoride as an additive in the electrolyte ([0008], [0010]) such that the additive within the electrolyte improves lifetime battery cycle performance ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Jeong in view of Garcia-Juan such that the sulfur-containing compound is sulfuryl fluoride in order to improve lifetime battery cycle performance, as taught by Song Jiang.
2 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP 2143, B.).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong US PG Publication 2018/0183100 in view of Song Jiang CN107732302 (machine translation provided in the Final Rejection disclosure mailed on July 11th, 2025) and Garcia-Juan US PG Publication 2013/0108933.
Regarding Claim 16, Jeong discloses an electrolyte (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon), comprising:
a lithium salt ([0014]);
an organic solvent ([0014]); and
an additive ([0058]);
wherein:
the additive is selected from a group comprising the combination of a sulfur-containing compound (including sulfur hexafluoride SF6) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) ([0059]), and
wherein the organic solvent is selected from a list including γ-butyrolactone (which meets the claim limitation of at least one of methyl acrylate, propylene sulfite, diethyl sulfite, vinyl sulfate, acid anhydride, N-methylacetamide, acetronitrile, N,N-methylformamide, sulfolane, dimethyl sulfide, or γ-butyrolactone) ([0050]-[0051]).
Jeong discloses wherein a weight of the sulfur-containing compound accounts for 0.1 to 20% of a total weight of the electrolyte ([0060]). The skilled artisan would recognize that since mass and weight are directly proportional, Jeong discloses wherein a mass of the sulfur-containing compound sulfur hexafluoride accounts for 0.1 to 20% (which encompasses the claimed range of 6% to 8%) of the total mass of the electrolyte1.
While Jeong does disclose an additive generally usable for an electrolyte for the purpose of improving lifetime characteristic of the battery, suppressing reduction in battery capacity, and improving battery discharge capacity selected from a list including a sulfur-containing compound (sulfur hexafluoride) ([0058]-[0059]), Jeong fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sulfur-containing compound comprises sulfuryl fluoride2.
However, Song Jiang discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0008]) comprising an electrolyte salt ([0010]), an organic solvent ([0010]), and an electrolyte additive ([0008], [0010]).
Song Jiang teaches the use of sulfuryl fluoride as an additive in the electrolyte ([0008], [0010]) such that the additive within the electrolyte improves lifetime battery cycle performance ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Jeong such that the sulfur-containing compound is sulfuryl fluoride in order to improve lifetime battery cycle performance, as taught by Song Jiang.
The skilled artisan would recognize that the reduction potential of the sulfur-containing compound sulfuryl fluoride of Jeong in view of Song Jiang is higher than a reduction potential of lithium difluorophosphate since they are the same materials used in the instant invention (see paragraphs [0025]-[0026] of Applicant’s own PG Publication 2022/0102757). The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provided objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP 2112.02, I.).
Further, while Jeong discloses wherein the organic solvent may be used without specific limitation as long as it is able to act as a medium through which ions involved in an electrochemical reaction of the battery are able to move2 ([0050]), Jeong in view of Song Jiang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the organic solvent comprises at least one of methyl acrylate, propylene sulfite, diethyl sulfite, vinyl sulfate, acid anhydride, N-methylacetamide, acetonitrile, N,N-dimethylformamide, sulfolane, or dimethyl sulfide.
However, Garcia-Juan discloses an electrolyte comprising lithium difluorophosphate ([0001]-[0004], entire disclosure dependent upon). Garcia-Juan teaches that sulfolane and acetonitrile are solvents that are suitable and compatible for electrolytes comprising lithium difluorophosphate ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Jeong in view of Song Jiang such that the organic solvent comprises at least one of sulfolane or acetonitrile due to the fact that these solvents are suitable and compatible for electrolytes comprising lithium difluorophosphate, as taught by Garcia-Juan.
2 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 17, Jeong in view of Song Jiang and Garcia-Juan teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 16, and Jeong discloses wherein a weight of lithium difluorophosphate accounts for 0.2% to 0.5% of a total weight of the electrolyte ([0060]). The skilled artisan would recognize that since mass and weight are directly proportional, Jeong discloses wherein a mass of lithium difluorophosphate accounts for 0.2% to 0.5% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.5%) of a total mass of the electrolyte.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights