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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2021, 07/13/2022 and 11/27/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election has been treated as an election without traverse in the reply filed on 02/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Zhang”, US 20190148775 A1, disclose in IDS) in view of Gao et al. (“Gao”, LiAlCl4•3SO2 as a high conductive, non-flammable and inorganic non-aqueous liquid electrolyte for lithium ion batteries, disclose in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Zhang teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a pre-lithiated carbon-based negative electrode, a positive electrode, a separator (Zhang, [0004], [0011], [0095], [0135], [0136], [0138], [0139], e.g., lithium ion batteries with carbon/silicon composite-based anodes; the anode is prelithiated, the system further comprises a cathode; a battery separator is a porous sheet or film placed between the anode and cathode; batteries (e.g., rechargeable batteries); lithium ion batteries; a rechargeable battery 100 including a cathode 120, a separator 130 which is infused with an electrolyte (i.e., a LSE), and an anode 140; a rechargeable lithium ion battery, the anode is carbon-based (e.g., graphite- and/or hard carbon-based); the anode is prelithiated).
Zhang does not teach an inorganic electrolyte represented by Formula 1 of claim 1.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gao teaches LiAlCl4•3SO2 as a high conductive, non-flammable and inorganic non-aqueous liquid electrolyte for lithium ion batteries (Gao, Title, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inorganic electrolyte LiAlCl4•3SO2, for the purpose of high conductive, non-flammable and high lithium ion transport number (Gao, Title, Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Gao teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as disclosed above. Zhang teaches wherein 30% to 90% of capacity based on total capacity of a negative electrode active material of the pre-lithiated carbon-based negative electrode is lithiated by pre-lithiation (Zhang, [0139], e.g., the anode is prelithiated to at least 50% of capacity, or up to 100% capacity (which is being interpreted as 50%-100% of capacity based on total capacity of a negative electrode active material of the pre-lithiated carbon-based negative electrode is lithiated by pre-lithiation) (which overlaps the claimed range of 30% to 90%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Zhang in view of Gao teaches a lithium secondary battery substantially identical to that of claim 1. Therefore, the lithium secondary battery of Zhang in view of Gao is expected to have wherein 30% to 90% of capacity based on total capacity of a negative electrode active material of the pre-lithiated carbon-based negative electrode is lithiated by pre-lithiation, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. (See MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Gao teaches lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as disclosed above. Zhang teaches wherein the positive electrode comprises a lithium transition metal phosphate (Zhang, [0141], e.g., exemplary cathodes for lithium ion batteries include LiFePO4 (LFP), LiMC1xM.sup.C21-xPO4 (MC1 or MC2=Fe, Mn, Ni, Co, Cr, or Ti; 0≤x≤1), Li3V2-xM1x(PO4)3 (M1=Cr, Co, Fe, Mg, Y, Ti, Nb, or Ce; 0≤x≤1)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 9-5.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/HAIXIA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights