DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the January 21st, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on January 21st, 2026:
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 12-21 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 6-8, and 16-18 have been amended. Claims 2, 9, and 11 have been cancelled.
The previous objection to the abstract has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous objection to the specification has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous objection to the claims has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on August 6th, 2024 with respect to Claims 48-85, 91, 103, and 105 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art of record fails to disclose the claimed lithium-ion battery is not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant’s argument that the prior art of record lacks a reason of obviousness to disclose a molar ratio of the first lithium salt to the second lithium salt in a range from 1:1 to 20:1 based on the unexpected results of the claimed molar ratio is not persuasive.
Applicant points to paragraph [0047] of their own PG Publication for providing evidence of the criticality of the molar ratio ranging from 1:1 to 20:1. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this molar ratio is roughly equivalent to 50 mol% : 50 mol% to 95 mol% : 5 mol%. Paragraph [0047] discloses that it is imperative for the second lithium salt to be contained in an amount greater than 10 mol%. This falls within the claimed ratio and does not incorporate the end point (20:1).
Additionally, Examiner points to Tables 1 and 2 of Applicant’s own PG Publication. Specifically, Examples 5-6. Examples 5-6 both have a molar ratio of roughly 1:2.3 (which falls outside of the claimed range of 1:1 to 20:1) based on the provided mass ratios. However, both of these examples have capacity retentions after 100 cycles (86.5 and 86.9, respectively) that are greater than that of Example 1 (84.8) which does have a molar ratio (roughly 2.3:1) which does satisfy the claimed range.
Therefore, Applicant cannot prove that the claimed molar ratio is required to achieve the desired capacity retention. And, therefore, the rejection of record is maintained.
Prior Art
Previously cited Saruwatari US PG Publication 2017/0179486 (“Saruwatari”)
Previously cited Wilkening US PG Publication 2011/0059361 (“Wilkening”)
Previously cited Yamamoto US PG Publication 2017/0271671 (“Yamamoto”)
McCalla US PG Publication 2018/0175459 (“McCalla”)
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 as currently written reads “(Cancel).” This is most likely a typographical error and should read “(Cancelled).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 20-21 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.
Claims 20-21 are both dependent upon Claim 9 which has been cancelled. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that Claims 20-21 depended upon independent Claim 1.
Further clarification is required.
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, 3-8, 10, and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saruwatari US PG Publication 2017/0179486 in view of Wilkening US PG Publication 2011/0059361, Yamamoto US PG Publication 2017/0271671, and McCalla US PG Publication 2018/0175459.
Regarding Claim 1, Saruwatari discloses a lithium-ion battery (Abstract, entire disclosure incorporated herein) comprising a positive electrode [plate] 6, a negative electrode [plate] 7, a separator 8, and an electrolyte (Fig. 2, [0008], [0094]),
wherein the negative electrode plate 6 comprises a negative electrode active material layer comprising a negative electrode active material ([0031]), and the electrolyte comprises an electrolyte lithium salt and an organic solvent ([0073]-[0077]), wherein
the electrolyte lithium salt comprises a first lithium salt, wherein the first lithium salt is selected from fluorine-containing sulfonimide salts (such as LiTFSI)+ ([0075]) and a second lithium salt selected from one or more of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiSbF6, LiAsF6, LiClO4, and LiB(C2O4)2 ([0075]), and
Saruwatari discloses PDA is a compacted density of the negative electrode active material layer, measured in g/cm3; wherein PDA is from 1.5 to 3.2 g/cm3, as exemplified by 2.1 g/cm3 (which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 to 1.7 g/cm3) ([0057], [0113])1.
While Saruwatari does not disclose specific values for ME (a total mass of the electrolyte in the lithium-ion battery, measured in g) or MA (a total mass of the negative electrode active material layer in the lithium-ion battery, measured in g), the skilled artisan would recognize that Saruwatari discloses both an electrolyte and a negative electrode active material layer within the lithium-ion battery, and therefore, Saruwatari discloses some relation of ME/MA between 100:0 and 0:100 ([0008])2.
Additionally, Wilkening discloses a secondary battery ([0027]). Wilkening teaches that batteries with a mass ratio of the electrolyte to the anode active material (such as ME/MA) with a value of less than about 2:1 can employ a relatively low mass electrolyte allowing the battery to have an advantageously decreased thickness ([0097], [0133]).
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 optimize the ratio of the total mass of the electrolyte in the lithium ion battery to the total mass of the negative electrode active material layer in the lithium ion battery (ME/MA) of Saruwatari to be less than about 2:1 in order to employ a relatively low mass electrolyte allowing the battery to have an advantageously decreased thickness, as taught by Wilkening.
While Saruwatari does not disclose specific values for CI (a mass percentage of the first lithium salt with respect to the electrolyte, measured in %) or PA (a porosity of the negative electrode active material layer, measured in %), the skilled artisan would recognize that Saruwatari discloses both an electrolyte and a first lithium salt within the lithium-ion battery, and therefore, Saruwatari discloses some value of CI between 0 and 100% ([0074]); and the skilled artisan would recognize that Saruwatari discloses a negative electrode active material layer within the lithium-ion battery, and therefore, Saruwatari discloses some value of PA between 0 and 100% ([0008])2.
Additionally, Yamamoto discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte ([0016]-[0020]) wherein the electrolyte comprises a fluorine-containing sulfonimide lithium salts (such as LiFSI) ([0112]). Yamamoto teaches a porosity of the negative electrode active material layer between 30 and 45%, specifically 38%, in order to maintain diffusion of Li ions in the negative electrode active material interface and ensure electron conductivity ([0076], [0249]).
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 optimize the porosity of the negative electrode active material layer within the lithium ion battery of Saruwatari in view of Wilkening (PA) be 38% in order to maintain diffusion of Li ions in the negative electrode active material interface and ensure electron conductivity, as taught by Yamamoto.
The skilled artisan would recognize that Saruwatari in view of Wilkening and Yamamoto discloses wherein the first lithium salt and the negative electrode plate satisfy the following relation (1):
0
≤
M
E
x
C
I
M
A
P
D
A
x
P
A
≤
2.51
wherein the fluorine-containing sulfonimide lithium salt per unit volume of pores in the negative electrode active material layer is 0 g/cm3 to 2.51 g/cm3 (which encompasses the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.54 g/cm3)1.
While Saruwatari discloses that the organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate (such as vinylene carbonate VC or ethylene carbonate EC) ([0077]-[0078]), Saruwatari in view of Wilkening and Yamamoto fails to disclose wherein the cyclic carbonate in the organic solvent is no more than 10% by weight of the organic solvent.
However, Yamamoto teaches the combination of a cyclic carbonate, such as vinylene carbonate VC or ethylene carbonate EC, and a linear carbonate within the organic solvent, wherein the cyclic carbonate is comprised in an amount of 5 wt% or less, in order to optimize the mobility of the ions within the electrolyte by optimizing the viscosity of the electrolyte due to the concentration of the electrolyte ([0101]-[0113]).
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 battery of Saruwatari in view of Wilkening and Yamamoto such that the cyclic carbonate in the organic solvent is more than 5% by weight (which falls within, and therefore anticipates, the claimed range of no more than 10% by weight) of the organic solvent in order to optimize the mobility of the ions within the electrolyte by optimizing the viscosity of the electrolyte due to the concentration of the electrolyte, as taught by Yamamoto.
While Saruwatari does not disclose specific values for a molar ratio of the first lithium salt to the second lithium salt, the skilled artisan would recognize that Saruwatari discloses the use of two or more electrolyte salts in combination, and therefore, Saruwatari discloses some molar ratio of the first lithium salt to the second lithium salt from 0:100 to 100:0 (which encompasses the claimed range of 1:1 to 20:1) ([0075])2.
Further, McCalla discloses a lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte including an organic solvent and a lithium salt (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon).
McCalla teaches the use of both LiTFSI and LiPF6 as electrolyte salts wherein LiPF6 is less than 25 mol% of the total moles of salt and the use of LiTFSI in an amount of at least 50 mol% of the total moles of salt in order to achieve good high temperature stability ([0073]-[0078]).
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 battery of Saruwatari in view of Wilkening and Yamamoto such that a molar ratio of the first lithium salt to the second lithium salt is at least 2:1 (which overlaps the claimed range of 1:1 to 20:1)1 in order to achieve good high temperature stability, as taught by McCalla.
+ The skilled artisan would recognize that LiTFSI is a fluorine-containing sulfonimide salt, as evidenced by at least paragraph [0044] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
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).
2 In the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to optimize the claimed variables. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 3, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and the skilled artisan would recognize that the fluorine-containing sulfonimide lithium salt of Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla (i.e. LiTFSI) is a lithium salt with a chemical structure as shown in the claimed formula I wherein R1=R2=CF3.
PNG
media_image1.png
233
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
393
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 3, and the skilled artisan would recognize that Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla discloses wherein in Formula I, R1=R2=CF3 satisfies the claimed -CaHbFc when a=1, b=0, and c=3.
Regarding Claim 5, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Saruwatari discloses wherein the fluorine-containing sulfonimide lithium salt is lithium bistrifluoromethanesulfonimide (LiTFSI) ([0075]) (which meets the claim limitation of selected from one or more of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium fluorosulfonyl (trifluoromethanesulfon)imide, lithium bistrifluoromethanesulfonimide (LiTFSI), lithium methyl trifluoromethanesulfonimide, lithium fluoromethyl (pentafluoroethyl) sulfonimide, and lithium bis(pentafluoroethyl)sulfonamide).
Regarding Claim 6, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Saruwatari discloses wherein a mass percentage CI of the first lithium salt with respect to the electrolyte is between 0 and 100 wt% (which encompasses the claimed range of greater than or equal to 4.0 wt%) (Saruwatari [0074])1.
Regarding Claim 7, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Saruwatari discloses wherein the second lithium salt is selected from one or more of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiSbF6, LiAsF6, LiClO4, and LiB(C2O4)2 ([0075]).
Regarding Claim 8, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Saruwatari discloses wherein and the second lithium salt is selected from one or more of LiPF6, LiBF4, and LiPO2F2 (which meets the claim limitation of one or more of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiPO2F2, and Li3POF) ([0075]).
Regarding Claim 10, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and Saruwatari discloses wherein the organic solvent is selected from one or more of dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dipropyl carbonate (DPC), methyl ethyl carbonate (MEC), ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), γ-butyrolactone (GBL), and tetrahydrofuran (THF) (which meets the claim limitation of one or more of dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dipropyl carbonate (DPC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), methyl propyl carbonate (MPC), ethylene propyl carbonate (EPC), vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), γ-butyrolactone (GBL), butylene carbonate (BC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), methylmethyl formate (MF), ethyl formate, methyl acetate (MA), ethyl acetate (EA), propyl acetate (PA), methyl propionate (MP), ethyl propionate (EP), propyl propionate (PP), methyl butyrate (MB), ethyl butyrate (EB), sulfolane (SB), methyl sulfonyl methane (MSM), methyl ethyl sulfone (EMS), diethyl sulfone (ESE), tetrahydrofuran (THF), and propylene sulfite) ([0077]).
Regarding Claim 12, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and Saruwatari discloses wherein the electrolyte may further comprise lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) (which meets the claim limitation of one or more of fluoroethylene carbonate, lithium difluorophosphate, lithium difluoroacetate borate, and lithium difluorobisoxalate phosphate) ([0075]).
Regarding Claim 13, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1 above) Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla discloses wherein a porosity of PA of the negative electrode active material layer is 38% (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 10% to 50%) (Yamamoto [0076], [0249]);
and Saruwatari discloses wherein the negative electrode active material comprises graphite ([0043])3.
3 The skilled artisan would recognize that Saruwatari discloses the use of graphite. And that this graphite would have to be either artificial or natural.
Regarding Claim 14, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and Saruwatari discloses wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises one or more of hard carbon, soft carbon, or silicon oxides such as SiO (which meets the claim limitation of one or more of a mesocarbon microbead (MCMB), hard carbon, soft carbon, silicon, a silicon-carbon composite, SiO, a Li-Sn alloy, a Li-Sn-O alloy, Sn, SnO, SnO2, spinel-structure lithium titanate Li4Ti5O12, a Li-Al alloy, and metal lithium) ([0043]).
Regarding Claim 15, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla discloses a lithium ion battery, comprising the positive electrode, negative electrode, separator, and electrolyte as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Sing the lithium ion battery of Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla cover the entirety of the claimed lithium ion battery, the lithium ion battery of Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla would have the same physical resistance properties of the claimed lithium ion battery.4
4 Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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 provide 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 § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 16, Saruwatari discloses a battery module 22 comprising the lithium-ion battery of Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla according to Claim 1 ([0104]).
Regarding Claim 17, Saruwatari discloses a battery pack comprising the lithium-ion battery of Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla according to Claim 16 ([0009]).
Regarding Claims 18-19, Saruwatari discloses an apparatus, wherein the apparatus is selected from one or more of an electric vehicle and a digital camera (which meets the claim limitation of one or more of an electric vehicle, an electric vessel, an electric tool, and electronic device, and an energy storage system) comprising the lithium-ion battery of Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla according to Claim 1 ([0107]).
Regarding Claims 20-21, Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Saruwatari in view of Wilkening, Yamamoto, and McCalla discloses wherein a molar ratio of the first lithium salt to the second lithium salt ranges is at least 2:1 (which overlaps the claimed ranges of 1.2:1 to 10:1 and 6:4 to 9:1) (McCalla [0073]-[0078])1.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO 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 on (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.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729