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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 38, 40, 44 and 45 are currently pending. Claims 2 and 4 are withdrawn.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 11, 14, 21, 23, 26, 28-29, 31, 38, and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US 20200028165 A1) in view of Sheem et al. (US 20130288130 A1) and Chae et al. (US 20200052282 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang discloses an electrochemical cell (paragraph 0016, figure 1), comprising: an anode comprising lithium metal as an anode active material (paragraph 0071); an electrolyte comprising a fluorinated organic solvent (paragraphs 0067, 0112); a cathode (paragraph 0075); and a solid electrolyte interphase layer disposed between the anode and the electrolyte, wherein the solid electrolyte interphase layer comprises an inorganic material comprising LiF and Li2CO3 (paragraph 0122, claims 1-2). Chiang does not specifically disclose that a first ratio of fluorine atoms to oxygen atoms adjacent the electrolyte is higher than a second ratio of fluorine atoms to oxygen atoms adjacent the anode in the solid electrolyte interphase layer.
Sheem discloses a rechargeable lithium battery including a solid electrolyte interface (Sheem paragraph 0014). Sheem further discloses that the SEI can comprise LiF and Li2CO3 (Sheem paragraph 0017). The SEI comprises two layers wherein the first layer forms the surface of the SEI passivation film, while the second layer is beneath the first layer, the first layer apart from the surface of the negative active material layer. The first layer of the SEI passivation film includes LiF in a higher wt % than the second layer (Sheem paragraphs 0019, 0043-0044, first layer is equivalent to being adjacent to the electrolyte as it forms the surface of the SEI and is apart from the negative active material surface, second layer is under the first layer, equivalent to being adjacent to anode). The first layer includes more LiF than the second layer, therefore a first ratio of fluorine atoms to oxygen atoms adjacent the electrolyte is higher than a second ratio of fluorine atoms to oxygen atoms adjacent the anode in the SEI disclosed by Sheem. The reference teaches that the SEI layer with the provided LiF compositions in the layers provides a battery with excellent performance even during high-rate charge and discharge. Sheem and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with solid electrolyte interface layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell disclosed by Chiang to include the SEI composition disclosed by Sheem including the fluorine to oxygen atom ratio. Doing so would provide a battery with excellent performance even during high-rate charge and discharge.
Chiang does not explicitly disclose that the inorganic material is present in a total amount of greater than or equal to 90 wt% of the solid electrolyte interphase layer. Chae discloses a negative electrode in which a solid electrolyte interface layer is formed (Chae paragraph 0010). Chae further discloses an LiF layer on the electrode that forms the SEI layer (Chae paragraph 0089). The LiF layer comprises amorphous LiF in an amount of 30 mol% or more and may comprise Li2O and Li2CO3 in an amount of 3 to 90 wt% (Chae paragraphs 0019, 0023, inorganic material overlapping the claimed amount). The reference teaches that the amounts of the inorganic components in the SEI layer allow good short-circuit safety to be achieved while exhibiting better rapid charging characteristics (Chae paragraphs 0023, 0028). Chae and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with a solid electrolyte interface layer
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SEI disclosed by Chiang to include the inorganic material in an amount of 90 wt% or more as disclosed by Chae. Doing so would allow good short-circuit safety to be achieved while exhibiting better rapid charging characteristics. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang is silent regarding the LiF being present in an amount of at least 10 wt% in the solid electrolyte interphase layer.
Sheem discloses a rechargeable lithium battery including a solid electrolyte interface (Sheem paragraph 0014). Sheem further discloses that the LiF is included in the SEI in an amount of 30 to 70 wt %, overlapping the claimed range (Sheem paragraph 0040). The reference teaches that when the LiF is in the range, an SEI passivation film component is suppressed from being detached, suppressing performance degradation of the battery during high-rate charge and discharge (Sheem paragraph 0040). Sheem and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with solid electrolyte interface layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SEI disclosed by Chiang to include LiF in the amount disclosed by Sheem. Doing so would suppress performance degradation of the battery during high-rate charge and discharge.
Regarding claim 11, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang further discloses a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein the separator comprises pores in which the electrolyte resides (paragraph 0079).
Regarding claim 14, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang is silent regarding a formation of the solid electrolyte interphase layer being associated with a formation voltage applied during at least one period of time during charge and/or discharge of the cell and/or an application of anisotropic force applied to a surface of the anode during at least one period of time during charge and/or discharge of the cell.
Sheem discloses a rechargeable lithium battery including a solid electrolyte interface (Sheem paragraph 0014). Sheem further discloses that the SEI is formation voltage applied during charge and discharge (Sheem paragraphs 0045-0046). The reference teaches that the formation process may suppress components of the SEI passivation film from being detached from the surface of the negative active material layer during high-rate charge and discharge and thus, thereby accomplishing a rechargeable lithium battery having excellent battery performance during high-rate charge and discharge. Sheem and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with solid electrolyte interface layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell disclosed by Chiang to have the SEI formed by the process disclosed by Sheem. Doing so would provide a rechargeable lithium battery having excellent battery performance during high-rate charge and discharge.
Regarding claim 21, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang further discloses that the solid electrolyte interphase layer comprises intermixed LiF and Li2CO3 (paragraph 0122, claims 1-2).
Regarding claim 26, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang further discloses that the solid electrolyte interphase layer further comprises one or more of lithium alkoxides, lithium oxide, lithium salts, and decomposition products of electrolyte (paragraphs 0129-0130).
Regarding claim 28, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang further discloses that the electrolyte comprises at least one fluorinated organic solvent selected from cyclic and linear fluorinated carbonates (paragraphs 0112, 0121, fluoroethylene carbonate).
Regarding claim 29, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang further discloses that the electrolyte comprises at least one fluorinated organic solvent selected from fluoroethylene carbonate and/or difluoroethylene carbonate (paragraph 0122).
Regarding claim 31, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang further discloses that the electrolyte comprises at least one non-fluorinated organic solvent, and wherein the at least one non-fluorinated organic solvent comprises an ester-based solvent and/or a cyclic or linear carbonate (paragraph 0112, dimethyl carbonate).
Regarding claim 38, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang further discloses that the cathode is a lithium-intercalation cathode (paragraph 0075).
Regarding claim 40, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang is silent regarding the first ratio of fluorine atoms to oxygen atoms adjacent the electrolyte being higher than a second ratio of fluorine atoms to oxygen atoms adjacent the anode in the solid electrolyte interphase layer based on an average ratio and/or a maximum ratio of fluorine atoms to oxygen atoms across a thickness of the solid electrolyte interphase layer.
Sheem discloses a rechargeable lithium battery including a solid electrolyte interface (Sheem paragraph 0014). Sheem further discloses that the SEI can comprise LiF and Li2CO3 (Sheem paragraph 0017). The SEI comprises two layers wherein the first layer forms the surface of the SEI passivation film, while the second layer is beneath the first layer, the first layer apart from the surface of the negative active material layer. The first layer of the SEI passivation film includes LiF in a higher wt % than the second layer (Sheem paragraphs 0019, 0043-0044, first layer is equivalent to being adjacent to the electrolyte as it forms the surface of the SEI and is apart from the negative active material surface, second layer is under the first layer, equivalent to being adjacent to anode). The first layer includes more LiF than the second layer, therefore a first ratio of fluorine atoms to oxygen atoms adjacent the electrolyte is higher than a second ratio of fluorine atoms to oxygen atoms adjacent the anode in the SEI disclosed by Sheem. The reference teaches that the SEI layer with the provided LiF compositions in the layers provides a battery with excellent performance even during high-rate charge and discharge. Sheem and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with solid electrolyte interface layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrochemical cell disclosed by Chiang to include the SEI composition disclosed by Sheem including the fluorine to oxygen atom ratio. Doing so would provide a battery with excellent performance even during high-rate charge and discharge.
Regarding claim 45, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang further discloses that the solid electrolyte interphase layer has a thickness of less than or equal to 75 µm (paragraph 0074, greater than or equal to 1 nm).
If the ranges overlap, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A secondary reference is not needed. MPEP 2144.05: 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang is silent regarding the solid electrolyte interphase layer further comprising Li2O in an amount of at least 10 wt% in the solid electrolyte interphase layer.
Chae discloses a negative electrode in which a solid electrolyte interface layer is formed (Chae paragraph 0010). Chae further discloses an LiF layer on the electrode that forms the SEI layer (Chae paragraph 0089). Chae teaches that the layer may include Li2O in an amount of 3 to 90 wt% to improve rapid charging characteristics (Chae paragraph 0023). Chae and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with a solid electrolyte interface layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SEI disclosed by Chiang to include Li2O in an amount disclosed by Chae. Doing so would improve rapid charging characteristics.
Regarding claim 23, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang is silent regarding the Li2CO3 is present in an amount of at least 10 wt % in the solid electrolyte interphase layer.
Chae discloses a negative electrode in which a solid electrolyte interface layer is formed (Chae paragraph 0010). Chae further discloses an LiF layer on the electrode that forms the SEI layer (Chae paragraph 0089). Chae teaches that the layer may include Li2CO3 in an amount of 3 to 90 wt% to improve rapid charging characteristics (Chae paragraph 0023). Chae and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with a solid electrolyte interface layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SEI disclosed by Chiang to include Li2CO3 in an amount disclosed by Chae. Doing so would improve rapid charging characteristics.
Regarding claim 44, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang is silent regarding the solid electrolyte interphase layer comprises LiF and Li2O in a weight ratio of greater than or equal to 1:5 and less than or equal to 2:1.
Chae discloses a negative electrode in which a solid electrolyte interface layer is formed (Chae paragraph 0010). Chae further discloses an LiF layer on the electrode that forms the SEI layer (Chae paragraph 0089). Chae teaches that the layer may include Li2O in an amount of 3 to 90 wt% so that a fraction of the amorphous LiF included in the LiF layer may be increased. As a result, the rapid charging characteristics may be improved, and an effect of reducing the calorific value during overcharge and high-temperature exposure may be further improved. (Chae paragraph 0023). Chae is clearly teaching that the amounts of LiF and Li2O are result effective variables that control the fraction of amorphous LiF and resulting battery characteristics. Chae and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with a solid electrolyte interface layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed ratio of LiF to Li2O in the SEI layer because it has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US 20200028165 A1) in view of Sheem et al. (US 20130288130 A1) and Chae et al. (US 20200052282 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 20190067675 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang is silent regarding the solid electrolyte interphase layer comprises inorganic material particles having sizes of greater than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm.
Xiao discloses a negative electrode which forms a composite surface layer serving as a solid electrolyte interface (Xiao paragraph 0003). Xiao further discloses that the composite layer includes LiF particles less than 200 nm, substantially overlapping the claimed range (Xiao paragraph 0077). The reference teaches that the LiF particles form a stable and uniform SEI layer that suppresses or minimizes dendrite growth, improving the cycling life and diminishing loss of charge capacity of rechargeable batteries (Xiao paragraph 0079). Xiao and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with SEI layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SEI disclosed by Chiang to include the particles disclosed by Xiao. Doing so would form a stable and uniform SEI layer that suppresses or minimizes dendrite growth, improving the cycling life and diminishing loss of charge capacity of rechargeable batteries.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US 20200028165 A1) in view of Sheem et al. (US 20130288130 A1) and Chae et al. (US 20200052282 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vaughey et al. (US 20200321655 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 14. Chiang is silent regarding the formation voltage is greater than 4.35 V and less than or equal to 4.9 V.
Vaughey discloses an SEI formation process on anodes (Vaughey paragraph 0106). Vaughey further discloses that the voltage cutoff of the SEI formation cycles is 4.5 V (Vaughey paragraph 0106). The reference teaches that this cutoff provides better electrochemical performance (Vaughey paragraph 0106). Vaughey and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with SEI layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Chiang to include the SEI formation voltage disclosed by Vaughey. Doing so would provide better electrochemical performance.
Claims 20 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US 20200028165 A1) in view of Sheem et al. (US 20130288130 A1) and Chae et al. (US 20200052282 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Coowar et al. (US 20130069601 A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang is silent regarding the Li2CO3 being formed by a reaction of CO2 with lithium at the surface of the anode.
Coowar discloses an anode including an SEI layer grown on it (Coowar paragraph 0078). Coowar further discloses that CO2 can be added up to its solubility limit and be dissolved in an electrolyte containing LiPF6 (Coowar paragraph 0139, 0160). The reference teaches that the presence of CO-2 helps the formation of a good quality Li2CO3 SEI layer (Coowar paragraph 0139). Coowar and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with SEI layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SEI disclosed by Chiang to include Li2CO3 being formed by CO2 as disclosed by Coowar. Doing so would help the formation of a good quality Li2CO3 SEI layer.
Regarding claim 33, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang is silent regarding the fluorinated organic solvent being present in amount of greater than or equal to 14 wt % and less than or equal to 88 wt% of a total electrolyte weight.
Coowar discloses an anode including an SEI layer grown on it (Coowar paragraph 0078). Coowar further discloses that fluoroethylene carbonate is present in the electrolyte is present in an amount of 5 to 50 wt%, preferably greater than 10wt% (Coowar paragraph 0130). The reference teaches that this results in batteries with high efficiency over more than 50 cycles, and an SEI with a stable structure over prolonged cycling (Coowar paragraphs 0130, 0136). Coowar and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with SEI layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Chiang to include the fluorinated solvent in the amount disclosed by Coowar. Doing so would result in batteries with high efficiency over more than 50 cycles, and an SEI with a stable structure over prolonged cycling.
Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US 20200028165 A1) in view of Sheem et al. (US 20130288130 A1) and Chae et al. (US 20200052282 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe (US 20180097253 A1).
Regarding claim 34, modified Chiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Chiang is silent regarding the electrolyte further comprises at least one passivating agent, and wherein the passivating agent comprises an oxalate salt.
Abe discloses a lithium ion secondary battery comprising an SEI coating derived from an oxalate compound lithium salt included in the electrolyte (Abe paragraphs 0005, 0007). Abe further discloses that LiBOB may be the oxalate salt used to form the SEI coating (Abe paragraph 0015). The reference teaches that LiBOB can form an SEI coating with higher durability on the surface of the negative electrode active material (Abe paragraph 0015). Abe and Chiang are analogous because they both disclose batteries with SEI layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Chiang to include the oxalate salt as disclosed by Abe. Doing so would form an SEI coating with higher durability on the surface of the negative electrode active material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the LiF layer taught by Chae is distinct from the SEI and that Chae does not teach the claimed limitations. Chae teaches a LiF layer which forms as a protective layer which influences and effects the SEI formed (Chae paragraphs 0033, 0089). The layer comprises inorganic components known in the art to be present in an SEI layer (Chae paragraph 0030) and present in the SEI disclosed by Chiang (see claim 1 rejection). Therefore, the layer is analogous to an artificial SEI layer and is analogous to the teachings of Chiang. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the analogous layer of Chae as it discloses benefits directly related to the SEI as a result of the amount of inorganic material such as LiF (Chae paragraphs 0089-0090).
Applicant asserts that the layer disclosed by Chae is distinct from the claimed solid electrolyte interphase layer in the present claims because the layer of Chae is formed ex-situ by deposition methods. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an in-situ formation method for the solid electrolyte interphase layer) is not recited in rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Chae is not relied on to teach an in-situ formation method which is disclosed by Chiang (Chiang claim 1). Additionally, there is no evidence that the benefits of the disclosed layers stem from the formation methods. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include the claimed amount of inorganic material in view of the advantages disclosed by Chae.
Applicant further argues that the methods of Chiang and Sheem are incompatible with those disclosed by Chae due to the ex-situ method. However, Chae is not relied upon for teaching the method. In response to applicant's argument that the methods are incompatible, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Chae teaches the claimed range of inorganic material to allow good short-circuit safety to be achieved while exhibiting better rapid charging characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to the advantages disclosed by Chae, making it obvious to modify the SEI disclosed by Chiang to include the inorganic material in the claimed amount.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727 /Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights