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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 3-8, filed April 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chevier et al. (WO 2017160897 A1) in view of Huang (CN 103367803 A), and Yoon et al. (US 2019/0067740 A9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevier et al. (WO 2017160897 A1) in view of Huang (CN 103367803 A; citations refer to attached English translation), Yoon et al. (US 2019/0067740 A9), Aravindan et al. ("Effect of LiBOB Additive on the Electrochemical Performance of LiCoPO4," Journal of the Electrochemical Society 159 A1435, August 2012), and Zhao et al. ("Simultaneous Stabilization of LiNi0.76Mn0.14Co0.10O2 Cathode and Lithium Metal Anode by Lithium Bis(oxalato)borate as Additive," ChemSusChem 11(13), pp. 2211-2220, July 2018) as evidenced by Homann et al. ("Poly(Ethylene Oxide)-based Electrolyte for Solid-State-Lithium-Batteries with High Voltage Positive Electrodes: Evaluating the Role of Electrolyte Oxidation in Rapid Cell Failure," Scientific Reports 10, 4390, March 2020).
Chevier discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive (NMC 622) and negative (graphite and binder with no silicon) electrodes with an N/P ratio (i.e. a ratio Qn/Qp) of 1.5, which falls within the range of the instant claim with an electrolyte comprising ethylene carbonate and lithium hexafluorophosphate (Selectilyte LP 57; see Homann, Materials) (Chevier p. 15, lines 17-29).
Chevier does not teach the use of methyl acetate. Huang is directed to a lithium-ion battery with improved low-temperature operation (Huang [0002]). Huang teaches that adding 4 wt% (approx. 5 vol%) methyl acetate to a carbonate electrolyte significantly improves low-temperature operation of a lithium-ion battery (Huang [0039] and Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add 5 vol% methyl acetate, which falls within the range of the instant claim, to the electrolyte of Chevier to improve low-temperature operation.
Chevier does not teach the addition of 0.025-0.05 M LiBOB to the electrolyte. Yoon is directed to an improved electrolyte for lithium-ion batteries (Yoon [0008]). Yoon teaches that adding up to 0.5 wt% of LiBOB to a LiPF6 alkylene carbonate electrolyte (Yoon [0036], [0041], [0042], and [0045]) significantly improves capacity retention (Yoon [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add up to 0.5 wt% of LiBOB to the electrolyte of Son (up to approximately 0.03 M) in order to improve capacity retention. In addition, it is well known that LiBOB additive concentration controls capacity retention for a variety of lithium-ion battery chemistries. See, for example, Aravindan Fig. 5 or Zhao Fig. 1. LiBOB concentration is therefore a known result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an optimum LiBOB concentration, including values with the range of the instant claim, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); MPEP 2144.05.
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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights