DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 8/5/2026.
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 7-8, 13, 15 and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14 and 16-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see third paragraph, page 7 of 8, filed 8/5/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 36 USC §103 have been fully considered, and while the office does not concede to the merits of the argument because it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the concentration of EC from 25% to 30% with expected results, the rejection has been withdrawn without prejudice. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 10367189 B2, ZHANG; in view of US 20140377635 A1, MATSUMOTO et al. described in detail in the rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference to NARANG applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 4-6, 9-12, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10367189 B2, ZHANG; in view of US 20140377635 A1, MATSUMOTO et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, ZHANG et al. discloses a nonflammable electrolyte, comprising:
a solution comprising
(a) at least four different salts, wherein
(i) each salt comprises an anion with a different chemical composition than an anion of each of the other salts, ZHANG (col 2 lines 20-27) teaches salts with a different chemical composition than an anion of each of the other salts. (The lithium salt of the electrolyte is, but is not limited to, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium hexafluoroarsenate (LiAsF6), lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate (LiCF3SO3), lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB), lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB), lithium perchlorate (LiClO4), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF.sub.4), or mixtures thereof). Furthermore, ZHANG (col 2 lines 28- 31) discloses “In one embodiment, at least one of the following non-lithium salts or additives are added to the lithium salts” Thus ZHANG et al. discloses a mixture of at least four different salts with different chemical compositions which also reads on the limitation of claim 6.
(ii) cations of each of the salts are the same, the cations comprising lithium cations, (col 2 lines 20-27)
(iii) a concentration of each of the salts is ≥ 5 mol% of a total molar concentration of the salts in the solution, and (col 5 lines 22-25, discloses 3-8 molarity which would overlap the claimed range when the volume is assumed to be 1 liter thus each of the salts would overlap the claimed rang of ≥ 5%)
ZHANG does not teach the
a solvent comprising triethyl phosphate (TEP) in an amount ranging from 60 vol% to 70 vol%, and ethylene carbonate (EC) in an amount ranging from 30 vol% to 40 vol%,
wherein the total molar concentration of the salts in the solution ranges from an amount 0.5 M to an amount of 1 M;
MATSUMOTO [title] discloses A Secondary Battery where
MATSUMOTO [0089] discloses in example 11 a solvent comprising triethyl phosphate (TEP) in an amount of 65% which is within the claimed range of 60 vol% to 70 vol%, also reading on claim 6
MATSUMOTO [0060] discloses that a “solvent having a high specific dielectric constant (also referred to as the high dielectric constant solvent) refers to a solvent having a specific dielectric constant of 15 or more. The solvent having a high specific dielectric constant include ethylene carbonate (EC: specific dielectric constant: 90)”
MATSUMOTO [0064] further discloses that “by using the non-fluorinated carbonate, the ion dissociation ability of the electrolyte solution is improved, and also, the viscosity of the electrolyte solution is decreased. Therefore, ion mobility can be improved. The non-fluorinated carbonate includes a compound having the same structure as the cyclic or linear fluorinated carbonate compound described above and comprising no fluorine.” Thereby teaching that the non-fluorinated carbonate is interchangeable and in certain case preferred.
MATSUMOTO [0089] example 11 also discloses “FEC and SL were mixed in a ratio of TEP:FEC:SL=(65:5:30 (volume ratio) which reads on the limitations of the instant claim of ethylene carbonate (EC) in an amount ranging from 30 vol% to 40 vol%, the presence of TEP and EC also read on the limitations of claim 6
MATSUMOTO [0067] discloses the total molar concentration of the salts in the solution ranges from 0.1 M to an amount of 1.5 M which reads on the instantly claimed range of 0.5 M to an amount of 1 M.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the solution disclosed by MATSUMOTO in the electrolyte disclosed by ZHANG in order to increase the ion dissociation ability of the electrolyte solution and decrease the viscosity of the electrolyte solution therefore improving ion mobility.
Regarding claim 2. Modified ZHANG (col 5 lines 22-25, discloses 3-8 molarity which would overlap the claimed range when the volume is assumed to be 1 liter thus each of the salts would overlap the claimed rang of ≥ 10 mol %) discloses the nonflammable electrolyte of claim 1, wherein each of the at least four different salts is present in an amount of at least 10 mol% of the total molar concentration of the salts.
As to claim 4, ZHANG in view of MATSUMOTO discloses the solution comprises at least four different salts and each of these four different salts comprises an anion selected from bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (FSI-) (ZHANG [col 5 line 9]), bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI-) [col 2 line 23], bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide (BETI-), bis(oxalato)borate (BOB-) [col 5 line 9], difluoro(oxalato)borate (DFOB-) [col 5 line 9], PF6- [col 4 lines 6 and 11, 26, 27], AsF6- [col 5 line 9], BF4- [col 5 line 10], CF3SO3- [col 5 line 9] , ClO4- [col 2 line 26, col 5 line 10].
As to claim 5, ZHANG in view of MATSUMOTO discloses the nonflammable electrolyte of claim 4, wherein:
(ii) the nonflammable electrolyte comprises four to six different salts comprising anions selected from FSI- (ZHANG [col 5 line 9]), TFSI- [col2 line 23], DFOB- [col 5 line 9], BOB-[col 5 line 9], BF4- [col5 line 10], PF6- [col 4 lines 6 and 11, 26, 27].
As to claim 9, ZHANG in view of MATSUMOTO discloses the nonflammable electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the solvent further comprises in addition to the TEP, ZHANG [col 2 lines 38-39] discloses trimethyl phosphate and triethyl phosphate.
As to claim 10, ZHANG in view of MATSUMOTO discloses the nonflammable electrolyte of claim 9, wherein solvent further comprises (ZHANG col 2 line 39), trimethyl phosphate (TMP) (col 2 line 38), triphenyl phosphate (col 2 line 38), tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphate (col 2 line 40), tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite (col 2 line 40), or any combination thereof.
As to claim 11, ZHANG in view of MATSUMOTO discloses the nonflammable electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the further comprises, in addition to the EC, a second organic carbonate solvent (ZHANG col 5 lines 14-17), an ether solvent (col 2 line 34 diethyl ether), an organic sulfoxide (col 2 line 41 sulfoxide), a sulfone (col 2 line 41 dimethyl sulfone), or any combination thereof.
As to claim 12, ZHANG in view of MATSUMOTO discloses the limitations of the nonflammable electrolyte of claim 11, and teaches the solvent further comprises dimethyl carbonate (DMC), vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), difluoroethylene carbonate (DFEC), trifluoroethylene carbonate (TFEC), vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC) in (col 5 lines 14-16), propylene carbonate (PC) (col 8 line 43), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (col 8 line 44), diethyl carbonate (DEC) (col 8 line 44), dimethoxyethane (DME) (col 2 line 32), 1,3- dioxolane (DOL) (col 2 line 34), tetrahydrofuran (THF) (col 2 line 34), dimethyl sulfone (DMS) (col 2 line 41), ethyl methyl sulfone (EMS) (col 2 line 41), diethylene glycol dimethyl ether (diglyme), triethylene glycol dimethyl ether (triglyme), tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether (tetraglyme) (diglyme, triglyme, tetraglyme in ZHANG (col 10 lines 20-21), acetonitrile (AN) (col 10 line 30), or any combination thereof.
As to claim 16, ZHANG [col 5 lines 31-56] teaches a battery system, comprising:
the nonflammable electrolyte according to claim 1, a cathode, and
an anode current collector in the absence of an anode [abstract],
Regarding claim 19. ZHANGE discloses the battery system of claim 16, wherein:
ZHANGE [col 5 lines 9-11] the nonflammable electrolyte comprises four to six different salts;
ZHANG [col 2 line 21] the anions are selected from FSI-; and
ZHANGE does not disclose the solvent comprises 68 vol% of the TEP and 32 vol% of the EC.
MATSUMOTO [0089] discloses in example 11 a solvent comprising triethyl phosphate (TEP) in an amount of 65% and 30% SL which is obvious over EC
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the mixture of solvents disclosed by MATSUMOTO in the electrolyte disclosed by ZHANG in order to create a fire-retardant electrolyte with a high conductivity.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10367189 B2, ZHANG; in view of US 20140377635 A1, MATSUMOTO et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20180277913 A1, PAN.
As to claim 3, ZHANG modified by MATSUMOTO discloses the nonflammable electrolyte of claim 1,
ZHANG col 2 lines 20-27 teaches a mixture of 1-8 different lithium salts and col 2 lines 30-31 teach 5 different non-lithium salts.
ZHANG teaches the concentration of salts to be 1.1 to 8 M
ZHANG does not teach 10 – 70 mol% concentration of the total molar concentration of the salts
It has been held that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is critical evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment with the mixture of salts within the instant range before the effective filing date in order to achieve optimization of both non-flammability and adequate flowability of a liquid electrolyte taught by PAN [0027] above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10367189 B2, ZHANG, in view of US 20140377635 A1, MATSUMOTO et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200287241 A1, MORINAKA et al.
Regarding claim 14. ZHANG in view of MATSUMOTO discloses the nonflammable electrolyte of claim 1, comprising:
[col 2 lines 20-27] LiFSI, LiTFSI, LiDFOB, TEP, and EC
ZHANG in view of MATSUMOTO does not disclose the use of LiPFe or LiPO2F2 in the combination of lithium salts
MORINAKA [title] discloses An Additive For Non-Aqueous Electrolyte Solution, Non-Aqueous Electrolyte Solution, And Non-Aqueous Electrolyte Solution Battery where,
MORINAKA [0054] discloses “Examples of the solute in a lithium battery and a lithium ion battery include electrolyte salts, such as… LiPO2F2…” and that [0056] “These solutes may be used alone or in any combination and at any ratio of two or more thereof according to the application. In particular, considering the energy density, output properties, life duration, etc. as a battery…”
Furthermore, MORINAKA [0057] discloses “when the ratio of LiPFE is lower than 1:0.5, the ionic conductance of the electrolyte solution decreases, and the resistance tends to increase.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used LiPO2F2 with LiPFE disclosed by MORINAKA in the nonflammable electrolyte disclosed by modified ZHANG in order to increase the ionic conductance of the electrolyte solution.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10367189 B2, ZHANG, in view of US 20140377635 A1, MATSUMOTO et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 20160093895 A1, DU; Lin-Shu.
As to claim 17. Modified ZHANG teaches all the limitations of claim 16.
Modified ZHANG fails to teach an anode comprising lithium metal; and a cathode comprising V205.
DU [0009] teaches “lithium metal anodes with a V2O5 cathode”.
DU [0010] teaches such batteries are non-flammable and heat resistant as well as operating in low temperatures to −20° C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine lithium metal anodes with a V2O5 cathode before the effective filing date in order to make a non-flammable and heat-resistant battery that has a low operating temperature down to −20° C.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10367189 B2, ZHANG; in view of US 20140377635 A1, MATSUMOTO et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 20150037690 A1, DALAVI; Swapnil
As to claim 18, modified ZHANG teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as well as a cathode, a separator [abstract] and a nonflammable electrolyte as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Modified ZHANG does not teach a battery system with a pouch cell comprising
a lithium metal anode, or a packaging material defining a pouch.
DALAVI teaches a lithium metal anode, [0020] a packaging material defining a pouch enclosing the anode, the cathode, the separator, and the nonflammable electrolyte. DALAVI figures 1A-C [0038]
DALAVI [0052] teaches pouch cell batteries can be particularly desirable for vehicle applications due to stacking convenience and relatively low container weight and pouch battery designs are particularly convenient for use in specific battery pack designs, the pouch batteries can be used effectively in other contexts as well with high capacity in a convenient format.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a pouch type battery case to house a lithium metal anode, a cathode, a separator, and a nonflammable electrolyte before the effective filing date in order to utilize the benefits of a pouch type cell which can be particularly desirable for vehicle applications due to stacking convenience and a relatively low container weight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights