DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated March 4, 2026, claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are elected and claims 3-10 and 13-16 are withdrawn. No amendments were made to the claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the rejection does not adequately consider the unexpected technical effects achieved by the specific combination of the charging method and nitrile-containing electrolytic solution as disclosed in the present specification and that that Wang discloses nitrile compound additives for electrolytic solutions, but does not teach or suggest that such additives, when combined with a specific multi-stage charging method that increases the charge voltage limit.
It should be noted that constant voltage/constant current charging is well-known in the battery art, as evidenced by Nakatsuji. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to try charging any battery using traditional methods of charging, including that of the electrolyte solution of Wang.
Further, Wang ¶6 teaches "Nitrile compounds, such as glutaronitrile and adiponitrile, have an electrochemical window up to 8.3 V (vs Li/Li+), which is wider than the electrochemical windows of all aprotic solvents, including sulfones, and have the advantages of good thermal stability, low viscosity, and high dielectric constant." and ¶21 teaches "In the overcharging preventive electrolyte according to the first aspect of the present disclosure, the additive B may be at least one selected from the group consisting of propanedinitrile, butanedinitrile, glutaronitrile, adiponitrile, heptanedinitrile, cyanomethoxy acetonitrile, 1,3,6-hexanetrinitrile, 1,2,3-propanetrinitrile, 1,3,5-pentanetrinitrile, 3,3-bis(cyanomethyl) glutaronitrile, and 3,3-bis(cyanomethyl) adiponitrile." Thus teaching that the voltage is optimized using the electrolytic solution to prevent overcharging. This is further discussed in ¶43-48 where a constant current constant voltage is used for charging. It would thus be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the electrolytic solution of Wang to the charging of Nakatsuji in order to prevent overcharging and thus damage to the battery.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear which feature of FIGS. 4-8 is being referred to by the labels. It is suggested to amend the figures to clearly indicate the referred to feature as follows using FIG. 5 as an example:
PNG
media_image1.png
416
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further some of the labels are written over a line which makes distinguishing the label difficult. From FIG. 5:
PNG
media_image2.png
398
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsuji et al. US20110267009A1 in view of Wang US20170018803A1.
Regarding claim 1. Nakatsuji discloses a method for enhancing battery cycle performance, applied in a battery (14) (FIG. 1-2), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
at a first stage (T1-T2), charging the battery at a first-stage current (I1A) until reaching a first-stage voltage (Vth1) (¶60); and
at a second stage (T2-T3), charging the battery at a second-stage current (I2A/I1B) until reaching a second-stage voltage (Vfull) , wherein the second-stage voltage is greater than the first-stage voltage (Vfull>Vth1), and the second-stage current is less than the first-stage current (I2A<I1A) (¶60).
Although Nakatsuji discloses a lithium ion battery (¶28), it is not directed toward the electrolyte and thus does not teach the battery comprises an electrolytic solution containing an additive, the additive comprises a nitrile compound, and a mass percent of the nitrile compound in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% to 5%.
In a secondary lithium battery Wang teaches wherein the lithium battery is a lithium-ion battery (Wang, [0007]) the battery comprises an electrolytic solution containing an additive (Wang, [0013], [0022]),, the additive comprises a nitrile compound (Wang, [0022]), and a mass percent of the nitrile compound in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% to 5% (Wang, [0023]), encompassing the claimed range of 0.5% to 5%, the Courts have held that 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2144.05, in order to prevent a lithium-ion battery from being overcharged (Wang, [0010]) and overheating.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Nakatsuji with the teaching of Wang wherein the battery comprises an electrolytic solution containing an additive, the additive comprises a nitrile compound, and a mass percent of the nitrile compound in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% to 5% thereby preventing a lithium-ion battery from being overcharged and overheating.
Regarding claim 11. An electronic device (FIG. 1), comprising a battery (14) and a battery management unit (202), and the battery management unit is configured to execute a method for enhancing battery cycle performance, wherein the method comprises the following steps (FIG. 2):
at a first stage (T1-T2), charging the battery at a first-stage current (I1A) until reaching a first-stage voltage (Vth1) (¶60); and
at a second stage (T2-T3), charging the battery at a second-stage current (I2A/I1B) until reaching a second-stage voltage (Vfull) , wherein the second-stage voltage is greater than the first-stage voltage (Vfull>Vth1), and the second-stage current is less than the first-stage current (I2A<I1A) (¶60).
Although Nakatsuji discloses a lithium ion battery (¶28), it is not directed toward the electrolyte and thus does not teach the battery comprises an electrolytic solution containing an additive, the additive comprises a nitrile compound, and a mass percent of the nitrile compound in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% to 5%.
In a secondary lithium battery Wang teaches wherein the lithium battery is a lithium-ion battery (Wang, [0007]) the battery comprises an electrolytic solution containing an additive (Wang, [0013], [0022]),, the additive comprises a nitrile compound (Wang, [0022]), and a mass percent of the nitrile compound in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% to 5% (Wang, [0023]), encompassing the claimed range of 0.5% to 5%, the Courts have held that 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2144.05, in order to prevent a lithium-ion battery from being overcharged (Wang, [0010]) and overheating.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Nakatsuji with the teaching of Wang wherein the battery comprises an electrolytic solution containing an additive, the additive comprises a nitrile compound, and a mass percent of the nitrile compound in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% to 5% thereby preventing a lithium-ion battery from being overcharged and overheating.
Regarding claim 2 and claim 12. Nakatsuji does not explicitly disclose that the additive comprises a nitrile compound represented by Structural Formula 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
18
228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein, Ru is selected from substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkylidene or C1 to C10 alkyleneoxy.
Wang discloses that the additive comprises a nitrile compound represented by Structural Formula 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
18
228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(formula 4 - ¶8)
wherein, R11 is selected from substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkylidene or C1 to C10 alkyleneoxy (¶8 – “each of R7 to R14 is one independently selected from the group consisting of linear alkyl groups with 1 to 10 carbon atoms, side chain-containing alkyl groups, double bond-containing hydrocarbon groups, triple bond-containing hydrocarbon groups, ether bond-containing alkyl groups, or carbonyl-containing alkyl groups”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Zhang with the teaching of Nakatsuji wherein the battery comprises an electrolytic solution containing an additive, the additive comprises a nitrile compound, and a mass percent of the nitrile compound in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% to 5% thereby preventing a lithium-ion battery from being overcharged and overheating.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto et al. US8283075B2 discloses constant current and constant voltage charging of a battery with a nitrile compound (column 8, line 25).
Yi et al. US20210135289A1 - ¶148 – constant current and constant voltage charging of a battery with a nitrile compound.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights