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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 3/5/2026.
Claims 1, 3, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 7-8, 15, and 20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 13 is cancelled.
Claims 1-12, and 14-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 3/5/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon the rejection under 35 USC § 103 of being obvious over US 10367189 B2, ZHANG; Ji-Guang, in view of as set forth in the last Office action because: The affidavit makes an allegation of unexpected and surprising results. However, due to the alleged unexpected results not being commensurate in scope with the claimed invention a determination of unexpected/superior results cannot be made at this time. It should be noted that while the first part “(a)” of claim 1 is in line for such an analysis that the “or” language for part “(b)” removes this consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The crux of the applicant's argument and supporting affidavit is an allegation of surprising and unexpected results. However, as explained above, the alleged unexpected results are NOT commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Furthermore, on the bottom of page 9 of the remarks where applicant alleges that NURANG fails to use TEP in the claimed range of 40-60%. Please see table 1 of NURANG where it discloses TEP used in several samples at exactly 47.5% as well as other ranges that are clearly within the instantly claimed range. Applicant also argues in the same paragraph of the remarks that NURANG fails to teach the use of EC in the newly claimed range of 30-40%. Examiner directs the applicants’ attention to NURANG [col 22 lines 43-44] where EC is used in a 25% solution.
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, 14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10367189 B2, ZHANG; in view of US 5830600 A, NARANG et al.
As to claim 1, 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.
(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% 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;
NARANG [title] discloses A Nonflammable/self-extinguishing Electrolytes For Batteries where
NURANG [col 22 lines 43-44] “An electrolyte solution of 1.0M LiPF.sub.6 in ethylene carbonate: TEP (1:4 v/v) is embedded in a 1 mil thick separator (Celgard. RTM. 2500).”
NARANG [col 7 lines 24-31] discloses “In one embodiment of the invention, there is provided a battery comprising an anode, a cathode and a fire-retardant electrolyte composition comprising a lithium salt dissolved in a solvent that includes low-flammability, self-extinguishing, i.e., fire-retardant, solvents that are chemically stable to lithium. Such fire-retardant solvents include phosphates, phospholanes, cyclophosphazenes, silanes and mixtures of such solvents.” In particular NARANG [col 7 line 50] triethyl phosphate (TEP)
NARANG [col 1 lines 39-44] disclose “Solvents such as propylene carbonate ("PC"), ethylene carbonate ("EC"), diethyl carbonate ("DEC"), 1,2-dimethoxyethane, and methylformate have been used in lithium batteries either in pure form or in solvent mixtures. These solvents provide high conductivities in the presence of suitable lithium salts” and [col 11 lines 39-46] “In addition, a high dielectric constant solvent such as ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethoxyethane, diethyl carbonate, dimethoxyethane, dipropyl carbonate, methoxyethoxy ethyl ether, or mixtures thereof, may be added to the fire-retardant electrolyte composition. Such formulations have been shown to have conductivities at ambient temperature higher than 1x10-3 S/cm.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the triethyl phosphate (TEP) and ethylene carbonate (EC) in the instant range in order to form a synergistic low-flammability, self-extinguishing, i.e., fire-retardant electrolyte with the high dielectric constant solvent such as ethylene carbonate in order to improve conductivity of the electrolyte.
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 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, 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 6, the nonflammable electrolyte of claim 1, consisting essentially of:
the at least four different salts; ZHANG (col 2 lines 20-27 ) lists lithium salts for an electrolyte.
ZHANG does not disclose the TEP; and
the EC, if present.
NARANG [col 7 line 51] discloses triethyl phosphate (TEP)
NARANG [col 1 lines 39-40] discloses “Solvents such as ethylene carbonate ("EC")
NARANG [col 7 lines 24-31] discloses “In one embodiment of the invention, there is provided a battery comprising an anode, a cathode and a fire-retardant electrolyte composition comprising a lithium salt dissolved in a solvent that includes low-flammability, self-extinguishing, i.e., fire-retardant, solvents that are chemically stable to lithium. Such fire-retardant solvents include phosphates, phospholanes, cyclophosphazenes, silanes and mixtures of such solvents.” In particular NARANG [col 7 line 50] triethyl phosphate (TEP)
NARANG [col 1 lines 39-44] disclose “Solvents such as propylene carbonate ("PC"), ethylene carbonate ("EC"), diethyl carbonate ("DEC"), 1,2-dimethoxyethane, and methylformate have been used in lithium batteries either in pure form or in solvent mixtures. These solvents provide high conductivities in the presence of suitable lithium salts” and [col 11 lines 39-46] “In addition, a high dielectric constant solvent such as ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethoxyethane, diethyl carbonate, dimethoxyethane, dipropyl carbonate, methoxyethoxy ethyl ether, or mixtures thereof, may be added to the fire-retardant electrolyte composition. Such formulations have been shown to have conductivities at ambient temperature higher than 1x10-3 S/cm.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the triethyl phosphate (TEP) and ethylene carbonate (EC) in the instant range in order to form a synergistic low-flammability, self-extinguishing, i.e., fire-retardant electrolyte with the high dielectric constant solvent such as ethylene carbonate in order to improve conductivity of the electrolyte.
As to claim 9, 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, 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, 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 teaches all 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 14, ZHANG teaches the nonflammable electrolyte of claim 1, as well as:
(ii) LiDFOB or LiBOB, (ZHANG col 5 line 10) wherein the concentration of the LiDFOB or LiBOB is 40 mol% to 100 mol% of the total molar concentration of salts in the solution, TEP, and EC.
ZHANG [col 5 lines 22-25] teach LiBOB or LiDFOB in a solvent containing a mixture of EC and/or TEP with a concentration of lithium salt between 3-6 M. Converting to mol% and assuming the density of TEP is (0.773) g/mL, the density of EC is (1.13) g/mL, the molar mass of LiDFOB is (105.91) g/mol, the molar mass of TEP is (182.22) g/mol, the molar mass of EC is (90.08) g/mol and that the TEP to EC is a one to one ratio using LiDFOB only, you would get the range of 25.6 mol% to 50.5 mol% LiDFOB, or conversely you would also achieve a 27-47 mol% for only LiBOB in a 50-50 solution of EC and TEP.
ZHANG [col 5 lines 26-30] further teaches that this range can form a stable SEI layer to minimize the side reactions between the electrolyte and in situ formed Li metal which largely reduces the consumption of active materials, solvent and salt during the charge/discharge processes of the batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to mix LiBOB and/or LiDFOB in a TEP/EC solution in the range of the instant application order to form a stable SEI layer so to minimize the side reactions between the electrolyte and in situ, formed Li metal which largely reduces the consumption of active materials, solvent and salt during the charge/discharge processes of the batteries.
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.
NARANG [col 26 lines 66-67] discloses “1 part ethylene carbonate and 2 parts triethylphosphate (6 gm) were mixed and heated” which falls within the instant range.
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 NARANG 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 5830600 A, NARANG et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20180277913 A1, PAN.
As to claim 3, ZHANG modified by NARANG 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10367189 B2, ZHANG, in view of US 5830600 A, NARANG 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 5830600 A, NARANG 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
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 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 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