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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is a non-final Office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 12/18/2028. Claims 1 and 20 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 5 – 6 and 14 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 3 – 4, 7 – 13, and 15 – 20 are pending in the current Office action.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in the previous Office action is withdrawn, and a new grounds of rejection is established below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/18/2025, regarding the combination of Kim’s silicon-carbon composite anode active material and Burkhardt’s electrolyte composite, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the following discussion and further in light of the new grounds of rejection established below which includes the teachings of Deng to further support why the Kim and Burkhardt, as established in the rejection previously and below, would have reasonable expectation of success of being combined.
First, in regards to applicant’s argument regarding the data in the specification and declaration {i.e. EL2} demonstrating that there would not be a reasonable expectation of success in combining the anode active material of Kim in the battery exemplified by Burkardt, while the Examiner agrees that, in comparison to EL3 – EL6, EL2 demonstrates a worse performance at 25°C, the Examine also respectfully notes that the electrolyte composition exemplified in Burkhardt is not the exact same as the electrolyte composition of EL2 {i.e. the composition taught in Burkhardt includes additional components and additives such as DEC, LiBOB, PC, maleic anhydride, and ethylene sulfate (See pg. 6 of final Office action); thus, it cannot necessarily be determined with certainty based on EL2 that the silicon-carbon anode active material of Kim would not be successfully incorporated into the battery taught by Burkhardt.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the teachings of Burkardt and Kim do not teach/suggest the applicant’s resulting effect {i.e. improved cycle performance} from the claimed components, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Examiner additionally respectfully reminds applicant that 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 the instant case, as noted by the examiner in the final Office action, Kim’s teachings regarding anode active materials for lithium ion batteries presents silicon-carbon composites as an alternative to anode active materials listed in Burkhardt (See pg. 7 of final Office action). The examiner further notes that Kim generally teaches using electrolyte compositions including solvents and additives exemplified by Burkhardt ([0026 – 0027]) and Deng, as established in the rejection below, teaches/suggests that composites including SiO , Si, and carbon are suitable negative electrode active materials for lithium ion batteries comprising high capacity positive electrode active materials and electrolyte compositions including halogenated carbonates and solvents that are also including in Burkardt’s taught electrolyte compositions ([0039];[0076 – 0077];[0097 – 0098]). Therefore, based on such teachings, it appears that a silicon-carbon composites as taught by Kim and Deng would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a functioning battery by being a known alternative anode active material to the materials listed by Burkhardt, and per MPEP 2144.06(II), it is still prima facie obvious to use alternative solutions for equivalent results.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3– 4, 7 – 13, 15 – 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhardt (WO2018011062A2 – cited in previous Office action mailed 10/20/2025), in view of Kim (US PG Pub. 2017/0345581 A1 – cited in previous Office action mailed 10/20/2025) and Deng (US PG Pub. 2017/0194627 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 7, 9, and 17, Burkhardt discloses an electrochemical cell (pg. 24, lines 14 – 21) comprising an anode (pg. 24, lines 12 – 20), a cathode (pg. 24, lines 12 – 20), and an electrolyte composition (pg. 24, lines 12 – 20), and said electrolyte composition comprises a solvent (pg. 5, lines 21 – 27); a fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester compound of the general formula R1-COO-R2 (pg. 9, lines 24 – 26), and an electrolyte salt (pg. 13, lines 22 – 23).
In Example 1, Burkhardt particularly discloses an electrolyte composition including diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), fluoroethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, LiBOB, maleic anhydride (MA), 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate (DFEA) , LiPF6, and ethylene sulfate (Table 2, Example 1; pg. 38, lines 30 – 31 and pg. 39, lines 1 – 19). Therefore, by disclosing an example electrolyte composition that includes the non-fluorinated solvents DEC, EMC and propylene carbonate, Burkhardt necessarily further discloses an electrolyte composition within the claimed scope of an electrolyte composition comprising a non-fluorinated solvent.
Based on the preparation data provided in the example {i.e. the mass amounts used for each component}, the electrolyte composition of example 1 includes about 5 wt% of 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate and about 8 wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition.
The electrolyte component, 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate, is a fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester compound of the general formula R1-COO-R2 where R1 is a C1 alkyl group and R2 is a C2 fluoroalkyl group (pg. 10, lines 18 – 27), and fluoroethylene carbonate is a fluorinated cyclic carbonate. Therefore, based on the electrolyte composition of example 1, Burkhardt further discloses an electrolyte composition comprising a fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid having a formula within the claimed scope and in an amount of 5 wt%, based on a total weight of the electrolyte, which is within the claimed ranges of 0.5 – 70 wt%, 0.5 – 10 wt% (Claim 7) and further 2 – 5 wt% (Claim 17); and a fluorinated cyclic compound in an amount of 8 wt%, based on a total weight of electrolyte, which is within the claimed ranges of 0.5 – 10 wt% and further 1 – 9 wt% (Claim 9).
For the anode active material, Burkhardt generally teaches using any suitable conducting material depending on the type of electrochemical cell and, without limitation, exemplifies lithium metal, lithium metal alloys, lithium titanate, aluminum, platinum, palladium, graphite, transition metal oxides, and lithiated tin oxide (pg. 25, lines 13 – 17). Burkhardt further teaches the electrochemical device to be a lithium ion battery (pg. 24, lines 20 – 21).
Burkhardt does not explicitly disclose an embodiment of the electrochemical device comprising, as an anode active material, a combination of at least a carbon material and a silicon material.
Kim teaches, for lithium ion batteries, using anode active materials such as graphitic carbons, lithium metal, lithium alloy compositions, lithium titanates, lithium-silicon alloys, lithium-germanium alloys, silicon, or a silicon-carbon composite ([0030];[0036 – 0044]). Furthermore, the electrolyte compositions taught by Kim overlaps in scope with the electrolyte composition exemplified in Burkart (Kim: [0025 – 0027]; Burkardt: Table 2, Example 1; pg. 38, lines 30 – 31 and pg. 39, lines 1 – 19).
Deng, particularly directed to silicon-oxide based negative electrode active materials for lithium ion batteries, teaches that composites including SiO , Si, and carbon are suitable negative electrode active materials for lithium ion batteries comprising high capacity positive electrode active materials ([0039];[0097 – 0098]). Deng’s list of positive electrode active materials significantly overlaps in scope with the positive electrode active materials taught in Burkardt (Deng: [0079 – 0080]; Burkahrdt: Pg. 26, lines 2 – 31, Pg. 27, lines 1 – 5 and 23 – 31, and Pg. 28, lines 1 – 25). In addition, Deng also teaches using electrolyte compositions including halogenated carbonate additives and solvents that are also included in Burkardt’s example electrolyte compositions ([0075 – 0077]; Burkardt: Table 2, Example 1; pg. 38, lines 30 – 31 and pg. 39, lines 1 – 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a silicon-based carbon composite, and further a composite within the scope of the claimed selection, as the anode active material of Burkardt, with a reasonable expectation of success, because such a selection, as shown by both Kim and Deng, would be a selection of a functionally equivalent negative electrode active material recognized in the art and one with ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so [See MPEP2144.06(II)].
Regarding Claims 3 – 4, modified Burkhardt discloses all limitations as set forth above. In the electrolyte composition of example 1, Burkhardt discloses including 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate (Table 2, Example 1; pg. 38, lines 30 – 31 and pg. 39, lines 1 – 19), which is included within the claimed selection of fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid esters (Claim 3) and further is the fluorinated acyclic carboxylic acid ester of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 8 and 18, modified Burkhardt discloses all limitations as set forth above. In the electrolyte composition of example 1, Burkhardt discloses including fluoroethylene carbonate, and further teaches the fluoroethylene carbonate to specifically be 4-fluoroethylene carbonate (Table 2, Example 1; pg. 6, lines 27 – 31, pg. 7, lines 1 – 6, and pg. 39, lines 7 – 13), which is within the claimed selection of 4-fluoroethylene carbonate, 4,5- difluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one, 4,5-difluoro-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-one, 4,5-difluoro-4,5- dimethyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-one, 4,4-difluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one, 4,4,5-trifluoro-1,3-dioxolan- 2-one, tetrafluoroethylene carbonate, and mixtures thereof (Claim 8) and further within the claimed selection of 4-fluoroethylene carbonate, 4,5- difluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one, and mixtures thereof (Claim 18).
Regarding Claims 10 and 15, modified Burkhardt discloses all limitations as set forth above. In the electrolyte composition of example 1, Burkhardt further discloses including propylene carbonate (Table 2, Example 1; pg. 39, lines 7 – 13), which is a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate (Claim 10) and further is within the claimed selection of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and mixtures thereof (Claim 15).
Regarding Claims 11 and 16, modified Burkhardt discloses all limitations as set forth above. In the electrolyte composition of example 1, Burkhardt further discloses including diethyl carbonate (DEC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (Table 2, Example 1; pg. 38, lines 30 – 31 and pg. 39, lines 1 – 6), which are both non-fluorinated acyclic carbonates (Claim 11) and further are within the claimed selection of ethyl methyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and mixtures thereof (Claim 16).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Burkhardt discloses all limitations as set forth above. In the electrolyte composition of example 1, Burkhardt further disclosing LiBOB {i.e. lithium bis(oxalato)borate}, maleic anhydride (MA), and ethylene sulfate (ES), which are a lithium boron compound, a cyclic carboxylic acid anhydride, and cyclic sulfate, respectively (Table 2, Example 1; pg. 15, lines 4 – 11, pg. 16, lines 13 – 15, and pg. 18, lines 3 – 8). Therefore, Burkhardt further discloses wherein the electrolyte further comprises an additive selected from a lithium boron compound, a cyclic sultone, a cyclic sulfate, a cyclic carboxylic acid anhydride, or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Burkhardt discloses all limitations as set forth above. Burkhardt teaches that the electrochemical cell can be applied in variety of applications, such as in an electronic device, a transportation device, or a telecommunication device (pg. 30, lines 16 – 23).
Therefore, while modified Burkhardt does not explicitly disclose an embodiment of an electronic device, transportation device, or telecommunications device comprising an electrochemical device according to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the electrochemical cell of modified Burkhardt within one of the devices taught by Burkhardt, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a functioning electronic device, transportation device, or telecommunications device with a suitable battery.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Burkhardt discloses all limitations as set forth above. In Example 1, Burkhardt particularly discloses an electrolyte composition including diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), fluoroethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, LiBOB, maleic anhydride (MA), 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate (DFEA) , LiPF6, and ethylene sulfate (Table 2, Example 1; pg. 38, lines 30 – 31 and pg. 39, lines 1 – 19). By including diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), and propylene carbonate in the electrolyte solvent, Burkhardt further discloses wherein the non-fluorinated solvent comprises a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate {i.e. propylene carbonate} and a non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate {i.e. DEC and EMC}.
Based on the preparation data provided in the example {i.e. the solvent mixture weight ratios provided in Table 1 for Example 1} and the densities of the solvent components, the non-fluorinated solvent of Burkhardt comprises ≈ 14 vol% of non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate, which is within the claimed range of 8 to 30 vol%, and ≈ 79 vol% non-fluorinated acyclic carbonate, which is within the claimed range of 10 to 85 vol%.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhardt et al. (WO2018011062A2), Kim (US PG Pub. 2017/0345581 A1) and Deng (US PG Pub. 2017/0194627 A1), as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Yun (US PG Pub. 2011/0229770 A1 – cited in previous Office action mailed 10/20/2025).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Burkhardt discloses all limitations as set forth above. As established above, based on the preparation data provided in the example {i.e. the mass amounts used for each component}, the electrolyte composition of example 1 includes about 8 wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (Table 2, Example 1; pg. 38, lines 30 – 31 and pg. 39, lines 1 – 19). Generally, Burkhardt teaches having the cyclic carbonate {i.e. first solvent} be present in the electrolyte composition in a range from about 1 wt% to about 40 wt% , based on a total weight of the first and second solvents (pg. 6, lines 27 – 31 and pg. 7, lines 20 – 31); therefore, Burkhardt generally teaches using an amount of cyclic carbonate that could overlap or at least encompass the claimed range of from 2wt% to 5wt%, based on a total weight of the electrolyte.
Modified Burkhardt does not, however, explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein the content of the fluorinated cyclic carbonate compound {i.e. fluoroethylene carbonate} is from 2 – 5 wt%.
Yun teaches an electrolyte solution for a lithium ion battery that includes fluoroethylene carbonate as an additive ([0038 – 0039];[0057]). Yun further teaches using 1 – 7 wt%, and further 1 – 5 wt%, based on a total weight of electrolyte solution, to obtain excellent storage characteristics at high temperature without deteriorating capacity and room temperature cycle-life characteristics in both a state of charge and a state of discharge ([0039]).
Since Burkhardt already teaches controlling the amount of cyclic carbonate depending on the desired properties of the electrolyte composition (pg. 7, lines 20 – 22), selection of an amount of fluorinated cyclic carbonate compound {i.e. fluoroethylene carbonate}, within overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Burkhardt and Yun, and further within the claimed range, for the electrolyte composition example of modified Burkhardt would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the storage characteristics, capacity, and cycle-life characteristics of the electrochemical cell, with a reasonable expectation of success and without undue experimentation [See MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/27/2026