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 .
Status of Claims
This is a second final office action for application 17/784,803 in response to the Pre-Brief Appeal Conference Decision with a notification date of 07/07/20269. During this conference the previously filed prior art rejection of record was withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are under examination. Claims 6-7 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/08/2026 and 06/09/2026 have been reconsidered and were found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record. However, in light of the arguments/amendments a new search was conducted and new prior art has identified which render these arguments moot. See claims 1-5, 8-9 and 11-16 rejections below.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakane et al. (JP 3148293 B2) and further in view of Lamanna et al. (US-20100104950-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakane discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device (see e.g. " non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery" in paragraph [8]) comprising:
a negative electrode comprising a lithium alloy (see e.g. "at least lithium is selected from Ag and Mg as a negative
electrode material. Is an alloy in which one kind of metal is dissolved, and in this alloy" in paragraph [57]-[58]); wherein
the lithium alloy consists of lithium, silver and unavoidable impurities (see e.g. "A mixture of lithium and silver at the mixing ratio shown in Table 1 was melted and then cooled to produce a solid ingot of lithium and silver." in paragraph [73]), and a content of silver with respect to a total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy is 5% by mass (see e.g. 5.0 wt% Ag in Example A4 in Table 1 on page 11).
Nakane discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Nakane does not disclose that the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device comprises a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a fluorinated solvent.
Lamanna, however, in the same field of endeavor, nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage devices, discloses an electrolyte comprising a fluorinated solvent (see e.g. "In one embodiment, fluorine substituted 1,3-dioxolane-2-one compounds are provided as electrolyte solvents for lithium-ion batteries." in paragraph [0018] of Lamanna).
Lamanna teaches that utilizing fluorinated solvents in electrolyte compositions provides low reactivity towards charged positive electrodes and charged negative electrodes, as well as decreasing the electrolyte flammability. Lamanna also teaches that the high boiling points of the electrolyte compositions of the present invention result in less pressure buildup in the cells at operating temperatures (see e.g. paragraph [0020] of Lamanna). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nonaqueous electrolyte of Nakane et al. such that it comprises a fluorinated solvent as taught by Lamanna et al. in order to provide an electrolyte with lower flammability and less pressure buildup in the cells at operating temperatures as suggest by Lamanna.
Regarding Claim 2, Nakane discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device (see e.g. " non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery" in paragraph [8]) comprising:
a negative electrode comprising a lithium alloy (see e.g. "at least lithium is selected from Ag and Mg as a negative
electrode material. Is an alloy in which one kind of metal is dissolved, and in this alloy" in paragraph [57]-[58]); and
a nonaqueous electrolyte (see e.g. " a non-aqueous electrolyte" in paragraph [8]); wherein
the lithium alloy consists of lithium, silver and unavoidable impurities (see e.g. "A mixture of lithium and silver at the mixing ratio shown in Table 1 was melted and then cooled to produce a solid ingot of lithium and silver." in paragraph [73]), and a content of silver with respect to a total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy is 5% by mass (see e.g. 5.0 wt% Ag in Example A4 in Table 1 on page 11).
Nakane discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Nakane does not explicitly disclose that nonaqueous electrolyte comprises a lithium salt containing fluorine.
Lamanna, however, discloses an electrolyte comprises a lithium salt containing fluorine (see e.g. "Lithium salts can be used together with the solvents disclosed herein... liPF6, LiBF6" in paragraph [0038] and "electrolyte compositions comprising at least one partially-fluorinated compound and at least one electrolyte salt" in paragraph [0002] of Lamanna).
Lamanna also teaches that including lithium salts containing fluorine into the electrolyte leads to the formation of stable electrolyte compositions that adequately wet electrochemical device components and that exhibit adequate ionic conductivities over a range of operating temperatures (see e.g. paragraph [0011] of Lamanna). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nonaqueous electrolyte of Nakane et al. such that it comprises a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt containing fluorine as taught by Lamanna et al. in order to provide an electrolyte with stable electrolyte compositions that adequately wet electrochemical device components and that exhibit adequate ionic conductivities over a range of operating temperatures as suggest by Lamanna.
Regarding Claims 3 and 8, Nakane in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claims 1 and 2 (see e.g. claim 1 and 2 rejections above).
Nakane in view of Lamanna is silent to the nonaqueous electrolyte storage device having a positive electrode potential at an end-of-charge voltage under normal usage of 4.30 V vs. Li/Li+ or more. However, Nakane in view of Lamanna combined disclose a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device that has no compositional or structural distinction to the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device claimed by the instant application. Thus, it would be expected that the combined teachings of Nakane in view of Lamanna would produce a positive electrode having a potential at an end-of-charge voltage under normal usage of 4.30 V vs. Li/Li+ or more and a prima facie case of obviousness exist. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Nakane in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claims 1 and 2 (see e.g. claim 1 and 2 rejections above).
Nakane further discloses the content of silver with respect to the total content of lithium and silver in the lithium alloy is 5% by mass (see e.g. 5.0 wt% Ag in Example A4 in Table 1 on page 11).
Nakane discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claims 13 and 15, Nakane in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claims 1 and 2 (see e.g. claim 1 and 2 rejections above).
Nakane further discloses that the lithium alloy consists of lithium and silver (see e.g. "A mixture of lithium and silver at the mixing ratio shown in Table 1 was melted and then cooled to produce a solid ingot of lithium and silver." in paragraph [73]).
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, Nakane in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claims 1 and 2 (see e.g. claim 1 and 2 rejections above).
Nakane does not disclose that the fluorinated solvent includes both of a fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a fluorinated chain carbonate.
Lamanna, however, discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising fluorinated cyclic carbonates and fluorinated acyclic carbonates (see e.g. Abstract and paragraphs [0018]–[0019]). In Lamanna, fluorinated cyclic carbonates such as fluorinated 1,3-dioxolane-2-one compounds and fluorinated acyclic carbonates (open-chain carbonates) are taught as useful electrolyte solvents for lithium-ion batteries. Lamanna further discloses that these fluorinated carbonate solvents may be combined together in a single electrolyte (see e.g. "mixtures of one or more fluorinated compounds" in paragraph [0019]; describing mixtures of one or more fluorinated compounds including cyclic and acyclic carbonates). As used in the art, “acyclic carbonate” is equivalent to the claimed “chain carbonate,” such that Lamanna’s teaching of fluorinated acyclic carbonates renders obvious the claimed combination of a fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a fluorinated chain carbonate.
Lamanna further teaches that utilizing fluorinated solvents in electrolyte compositions provides low reactivity towards charged positive electrodes and charged negative electrodes, as well as decreasing the electrolyte flammability. Lamanna also teaches that the high boiling points of the electrolyte compositions of the present invention result in less pressure buildup in the cells at operating temperatures (see e.g. paragraph [0020] of Lamanna). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nonaqueous electrolyte of Nakane et al. such that it comprises a fluorinated solvent that includes both a fluorinated cyclic carbonate and a fluorinated chain carbonate as taught by Lamanna et al. in order to provide an electrolyte with lower flammability and less pressure buildup in the cells at operating temperatures as suggest by Lamanna.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakane et al. (JP 3148293 B2) in view of Lamanna et al. (US-20100104950-A1). as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Imachi et al. (US-20020182504-A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 9, Nakane in view of Lamanna discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device of claims 1 and 2 (see e.g. claim 1 and 2 rejections above).
Nakane in view of Lamanna does not explicitly disclose that the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device comprises a positive electrode comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide, wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has an a-NaFeO2-type crystal structure, and comprises nickel or manganese as a transition metal, and a molar ratio of lithium to the transition metal is more than 1.
Imachi, however, in the same field of endeavor, nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries, discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device (see e.g. "a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery" in paragraph [0014] of Imachi) that comprises a positive electrode comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide (see e.g. "comprising a positive electrode containing a positive electrode active material including lithium containing composite oxide" in paragraph [0014] of Imachi), wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has an α-NaFeO2-type crystal structure (see e.g. "the positive electrode active material represented by the general formula of LiXMnaCobMcO2 range from 0.45 to 0.55(0.45≦a≦0.55, 0.45≦b≦0.55), the layer crystal structure is also an α−NaFeO2 type crystal structure (monoclinic structure)" in paragraph [0015] of Imachi), and comprises manganese as a transition metal (see e.g. Mn in "LiXMnaCobMcO2" in paragraph [0015] of Imachi), and a molar ratio of lithium to the transition metal is more than 1 (see e.g. "a positive electrode active material (LiMn0.475Co0.525Ti0.01O2)" in paragraph [0031] of Imachi; the molar ratio of lithium to manganese is 1/0.475 ≈ 2.11).
Imachi discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Imachi also teaches this positive electrode active material has a large discharge capacities which leads to a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery which has excellent battery characteristics such as a cycle characteristic or a high temperature characteristic (see e.g. paragraph [0013] of Imachi). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the positive electrode of Nakane et al. in view of Lamanna et al. such that it comprises a lithium transition metal composite oxide, wherein the lithium transition metal composite oxide has an a-NaFeO2-type crystal structure, and comprises nickel or manganese as a transition metal, and a molar ratio of lithium to the transition metal is more than 1 as taught by Imachi et al. in order for the nonaqueous battery to have excellent battery characteristics as suggested by Imachi.
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm 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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
