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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on April 28, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 3-4 are amended and claim 5 is cancelled, resulting in claims 1-4 and 6-20 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 6, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs, et al. (US 2020/0251775 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kovacs teaches an electrochemical cell including an anode, electrolyte, and cathode (¶ [0040], Ln. 1-4). The batteries of Examples 7-9 include metal anodes, which take up and release metal ions to and from the electrolyte during charging and discharging, and a LiAlCl4∙2SO2 or NaAlCl4∙2SO2 electrolyte (solvent with an ion conducting salt) (¶ [0059], Ln. 1-4, ¶ [0060], Ln. 1-4, ¶ [0061], Ln. 1-4). Kovacs teaches the presence of multiple SEI layers located between the anode current collector (5) and anode (1), between the anode (1) and separator (7), between the separator (7) and cathode (2), or between the cathode (2) and cathode current collector (6) (¶ [0046, Ln. 1-12; Fig. 2). Kovacs further teaches that fluorine containing salts, such as Na-DFOB, Li-DFOB, Na-triflate, and Li-triflate act as SEI-forming additives which improve the anode SEI (¶ [0022], Ln. 1-15), teaching an example of an electrolyte including 1 wt% Li-DFOB in Example 9 (¶ [0061], Ln. 4-5). The SEI layer formed would include an oxide of metal ions.
Kovacs teaches that the cathode is an alkali salt based cathode constructed by infusing an alkali salt into a carbon-based framework (¶ [0050], Ln. 1-4), further teaching that the cathode active material may be comprised of alkali-halide:copper, preferably between the 1:1 and 10:1 molar ratio range (¶ [0051], Ln. 38-40). In the batteries of Examples 7-9, the cathodes are prepared by making a saturated solution of alkali halide in propylene carbonate or methanol, dispersing porous carbon into the solution, and evaporating the solvent (matrix of an electrically conductive porous material and a metal halide interspersed in the matrix) (¶ [0056], Ln. 1-6) and include a mixture of 94 wt% active material and 6 wt% PTFE (¶ [0058], Ln. 1-3). Kovacs teaches that the cell contains an excess of alkali halides such that they don’t dissolve in the electrolyte (¶ [0043], Ln. 1-7). As Kovacs teaches that the cathode active material may be comprised of alkali-halide:copper preferably between the 1:1 and 10:1 molar ratio range (¶ [0051], Ln. 38-40), Kovacs teaches overlapping ranges wherein the cathode active material would include more than 50 wt% halide salt. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Kovacs does not expressly teach that the total amount of the metal halide in the cathode is at least twice the amount of the metal halide that is dissolvable in the electrolyte.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the amount of excess alkali halide in the cathode. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as the alkali halide is included in excess such that it does not all dissolve in the electrolyte, different amounts of alkali halide above the amount that dissolves in the electrolyte can be included. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try twice the amount that is dissolvable in the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 2, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches a separator (7) in between the anode (1) and cathode (2) (¶ [0046], Ln. 1-7; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the electrolyte is an SO2 based solvent including a mixture of alkali metal electrolyte salts, teaching the use of LiAlCl4 and NaAlCl4 (ion conducting salt comprising Cl, Li, and Al or Cl, Na, and Al) (¶ [0006], Ln. 1-7).
Regarding claim 6, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the cathode is prepared by making a saturated solution of alkali halide in solvent, dispersing porous carbon (electrically conductive porous material) into the solution, and evaporating the solvent (¶ [0056], Ln. 1-6). Kovacs does not expressly teach that the porous carbon is selected from the group consisting of carbon black, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, activated carbon, amorphous carbon, graphite, graphene, and mixtures and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use carbon black in the cathode of Kovacs. One of ordinary skill in the art would know the common types of carbon used to form electrically conductive carbon frameworks in electrodes and recognize that carbon black is one of the most common types of carbon used in cathodes for lithium batteries. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use carbon black as the porous carbon as it is generally low-cost.
Regarding claims 8-9, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the cathode includes PTFE (polymeric binder) (¶ [0058], Ln. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the electrolyte is SO2 solvent based, meaning it contains at least 10% mole fraction SO2, and preferably at least 50% mole fraction SO2 (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-6). Although it is acknowledged that Kovacs does not expressly teach that the solvent is non-aqueous, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that for use in a lithium based battery, the solvent must be non-aqueous.
Regarding claim 14, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that fluorine containing salts, such as Na-DFOB (metal ion Na and anion DFOB-), Li-DFOB (metal ion Li and anion DFOB-), Na-triflate (metal ion Na and anion TF-), and Li-triflate (metal ion Li and anion TF-) act as SEI-forming additives when included in the electrolyte, which improves the anode SEI (¶ [0022], Ln. 1-15). In the battery of Example 9, the electrolyte includes 1 wt% Li-DFOB (¶ [0061], Ln. 4-5).
Regarding claims 15-16, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the anode is metal, teaching examples including Constantan, sodium, and lithium (¶ [0059], Ln. 1-2, ¶ [0060], Ln. 1-2, ¶ [0061], Ln. 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kovacs further teaches that the anode current collector may be a carbon coated metal or an alloy of two or more metals, including a copper-nickel alloy, and that other carbon coated metals or alloys are possible (¶ [0007], Ln. 1-10). Kovacs does not expressly teach that the anode current collector is selected from the group consisting of copper, copper oxide, zinc, zinc oxide, nickel oxide, and mixtures and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the copper-nickel current collector of Kovacs to a carbon coated copper foil or copper alloy including zinc based on the teachings of Kovacs that the anode current collector may contain copper, and that other metals and alloys are possible options. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that copper foil is one of the most common anode current collectors due to its electrical conductivity and compatibility with anode active materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use copper foil as it is a relatively inexpensive material and performs the necessary function of the anode current collector.
Regarding claim 20, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the cathode is pressed on a carbon-coated aluminum current collector (¶ [0058], Ln. 3-5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs, et al. (US 2020/0251775 A1) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Manev, et al. (US 2002/0122973 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kovacs does not expressly teach that the battery contains an oxidizing gas as a redox reaction inducement.
Manev teaches a secondary lithium-ion battery comprising a carbon anode with a copper current collector (¶ [0003], Ln. 1-5), a cathode containing lithiated transition metal oxides with an aluminum current collector [¶ [0004], Ln. 3, 7-9), an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt dissolved in a non-aqueous solvent (¶ [0005], Ln. 1-2), and a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) that is formed on the electrode surface during the first cycle of the rechargeable lithium-ion cell (¶ [0008], Ln. 1-5). Manev additionally teaches that oxygen may be purposefully provided in the cell by dissolving oxygen in the electrolyte (¶ [0024], Ln. 13-15). When a first voltage is applied, oxygen in the cell reacts with moisture in the cell, which decreases the moisture in the cell, decreasing cell impedance and increasing cell power capability (¶ [0030], Ln. 1-3). Manev teaches that voltage is selected to keep the potential of the carbon-containing electrodes more negative than the equilibrium potential of the oxygen to ensure that oxygen reduction occurs on the carbon-containing electrodes (¶ [0024], Ln. 22-30).
As evidence that the oxidizing gas of Manev is included as a redox reaction inducement, Manev teaches including the oxidizing gas by dissolving oxygen in the electrolyte (¶ [0024], Ln. 13-15). Paragraph [0027] of the instant specification teaches that an oxidizing gas may be dissolved in the solvent including the electrolyte. Manev teaches including the oxidizing gas in the same manner as the instant specification, indicating that the oxidizing gas would perform the same function in a similar rechargeable lithium battery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery taught by Kovacs to dissolve oxygen in the electrolyte as taught by Manev in order to reduce moisture in the cell upon applying an initial voltage to the cell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply this process to the battery of Kovacs in order to decrease cell impedance and increase cell power capacity.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs, et al. (US 2020/0251775 A1) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Nakano, et al. (JP2009064584 A), cited on IDS.
Regarding claim 7, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Kovacs does not expressly teach that the cathode comprises a halogen diatomic molecule selected from the group consisting of I2, Br2, Cl2, and F2.
Nakano teaches a battery with a carbon positive electrode containing lithium iodide and a lithium negative electrode arranged in a non-aqueous electrolyte solution containing lithium ions and iodine (¶ [0008], Ln. 72-75). Nakano teaches that the positive electrode contains at least one halogen selected from the group consisting of I2, Br2, Cl2 (¶ [0015], Ln. 139-142) which are supplied by a halogen dissolved in the electrolyte (¶ [0015] Ln. 143-144). Nakano teaches the use of iodine, bromine, and chlorine because they have excellent electrolyte solubility and make it possible to charge and discharge at a large current while maintaining a high capacity (¶ [0012], Ln. 105-109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery of Kovacs to include a halogen diatomic molecule in the positive electrode as taught by Nakano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to make it possible to charge and discharge at a large current while maintaining a high capacity.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs, et al. (US 2020/0251775 A1) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Julien, et al. (“Electrolytes and Separators for Lithium Batteries.” in: Lithium Batteries: Science and Technology. Springer, Cham., 2016. p. 433-434).
Regarding claims 11-12, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the electrolyte is SO2 solvent based, meaning it contains at least 10% mole fraction SO2 (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-6). Kovacs does not expressly teach that the electrolyte solvent is selected from the claimed group of materials or contains a heterocyclic compound.
Julien teaches the use of various solvents suitable for use as electrolyte solvents in lithium batteries, including carbonate solvents as well as γ-valerolactone, tetrahydrofuran, and dioxolane (Section 11.2.2, Solvents, Tables 11.1 and 11.2). Julien teaches that carbonate solvents and these other solvents are ideal because of their aprotic nature and ion conductivity. Additionally, Julien teaches that solvents with polar groups such as carbonyls and ether linkages are ideal because of their ability to dissolve sufficient amounts of lithium salts (Section 11.2.2, Solvents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one of the claimed solvents containing a cyclic ester, such as γ-valerolactone, or cyclic ether, such as tetrahydrofuran or dioxolane in the SO2 based electrolyte of Kovacs, as taught by Julien. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include one of the solvents due to their conductivity and ability to dissolve sufficient amounts of lithium salts.
Regarding claim 13, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the electrolyte is SO2 solvent based, meaning it contains at least 10% mole fraction SO2 (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-6). Kovacs does not expressly teach that the electrolyte solvent comprises a nitrile compound.
Julien teaches the use of various solvents suitable for use as electrolyte solvents in lithium ion batteries, including carbonate solvents as well as solvents containing polar groups such as nitriles (Section 11.2.2, Solvents). Julien teaches that carbonate solvents and these other solvents are ideal because of their aprotic nature, ion conductivity, and lithium salt solubility (Section 11.2.2, Solvents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one of the claimed solvents containing a nitrile group in the SO2 based electrolyte of Kovacs, as taught by Julien. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include one of the solvents due to their conductivity and ability to dissolve sufficient amounts of lithium salts.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacs, et al. (US 2020/0251775 A1) as applied to claim 15 above in view of Yushin, et al. (US 2015/0325882 A1), cited on IDS.
Regarding claims 17-18, Kovacs teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. Kovacs does not expressly teach that the anode is a metalloid or nonmetal selected from the group consisting of Si, Ge, Sb, carbon, and mixtures and combinations thereof.
Yushin teaches electrolyte compositions for rechargeable lithium batteries comprising an anode, a cathode, a separator, and an electrolyte (¶ [0022], Ln. 8-11). Yushin teaches that Li-free anodes are prevalent in lithium batteries and typically comprise a graphite anode with the inclusion of small amounts of other elements such as silicon or tin (¶ [0028], Ln. 1-7). Yushin specifically teaches that Si and Ge composites are used to form higher capacity anode materials (¶ [0031], Ln. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the anode material of the battery taught by Kovacs to include a graphite anode with Si or Ge as taught by Yushin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to form a higher capacity anode material.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 4, the previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 10, et al. (US 2020/0251775 A1) has been modified above. Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the amount of halide included in the cathode is improperly treated as a result-effective variable and that it would not have been obvious to try modifying the amount of halide, and that the molar ratios disclosed in the reference do not establish a weight percentage.
With respect to the argument, see pages 7-8 of the remarks, that the amount of halide included in the cathode is improperly treated as a result-effective variable and that it would not have been obvious to try modifying the amount of halide, this argument is not persuasive. It is noted that the amount of halide included in the cathode is not treated as a result-effective variable in the previous rejection of claim 1 or in the rejection above. Based on the teachings of Kovacs, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an amount of alkali halide in the cathode that is at least twice the amount dissolvable in the electrolyte. Kovacs teaches that one or more non-dissolved/solid alkali halides may be added to the cell, specifically teaching that excess may be added that is not dissolved in the electrolyte and providing examples including NaF, NaCl, NaBr, NaI, LiF, LiCl, LiBr, LiI (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-9). Additionally, Kovacs teaches that the cathode active material may be comprised of alkali-halide:copper, with a molar ratio of alkali-halide:copper up to 10:1 (¶ [0051], Ln. 38-40). The cathode of the examples taught by Kovacs includes 94 wt% active material (¶ [0058], Ln. 1-3). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, as the alkali halide is included in excess such that it does not all dissolve in the electrolyte, different amounts of alkali halide above the amount that dissolves in the electrolyte may be included. Further, given that the alkali halide may be included in the cathode active material at a molar ratio of 10:1 alkali-halide:copper with the active material making up 94 wt% of the electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a high excess of alkali halide material in the cathode, including twice the amount that is dissolvable in the electrolyte.
With respect to the argument, see page 8 of the remarks, that the molar ratios disclosed in the reference do not establish a weight percentage, this argument is not persuasive. The range of molar ratios of alkali halide:copper taught by Kovacs cover the weight percentage of halide salt claimed. Specifically, Kovacs teaches that the cathode active material may be comprised of alkali-halide:copper with a molar ratio of alkali-halide:copper up to 10:1 (¶ [0051], Ln. 38-40) and the examples taught by Kovacs include 94 wt% active material (¶ [0058], Ln. 1-3), indicating that additional cathode components make up a small percentage of the cathode. In using the full list of alkali halides taught by Kovacs (NaF, LiF, NaCl, LiCl, NaBr, LiBr, NaI, LiI (¶ [0014], Ln. 1-3)), over the full range of molar ratios taught by Kovacs (1:1 to 10:1 alkali -halide:copper), and including the active material at 94 wt% in the cathode, the full range of weight percentages of halide salts included in the cathode taught by Kovacs is approximately 27-90%, overlapping the claimed range of more than 50 wt%. The molar ratio of 10:1 alkali halide:copper for any of the alkali halides taught by Kovacs results in a weight percentage of halide salt well above 50 wt%. Thus, the molar ratios taught by the reference establish a weight percentage overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights