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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
The remarks/amendments filed on 12/08/2025 are acknowledged and were found persuasive over the previous prior art 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of record. However, in light of the amendments a subsequent search was conducted and additional prior art identified. This new prior art, when considered in combination with the previously applied reference, renders the prior arguments and amendments moot. Accordingly, a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been applied to claims 1–16 and 18–20 and can be seen below.
Summary
This is a continued examination non-final office action for application 17/830,951 in response to the amendments filed on 12/08/2025. Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are under examination.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s provisional Application No. 63/211,836 filed on 06/17/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 07/12/2023, 01/21/2025, 03/17/2025, 03/21/2025, 12/09/2025 and 02/23/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 15–16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites “LiDFOB,” whereas claim 15, and claim 16 depending therefrom, recite “LidFOB.” The inconsistent spelling renders the claims unclear. Appropriate correction is required for consistency throughout the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites an additive selected from LiDFOB, PES, MMDS, PC, VEC, HTCN, and combinations thereof. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 but recites an additive selected from LiDFOB, PES, MMDS, PS, FEC, SN, HTCN, and combinations thereof, thereby introducing PS, FEC, and SN, which are not included in claim 14. Accordingly, claim 15 does not further limit claim 14, but instead alters and expands the additive limitation. Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and includes the same defect..
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (CN 103618111 A) and further in view of Hu et al. (US-20200028213-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Han discloses a battery cell (see e.g. "preparation of lithium secondary battery" in paragraph [93] on page 11) comprising:
a cathode (see e.g. "positive pole" in paragraph [19] on page 4) comprising a cathode active material disposed on a cathode current collector (see e.g. "the positive pole using in the present invention and negative pole comprise active material, conductive agent, collector, described active material and conductive agent are combined with described collector" in paragraph [70] on page 9);
an anode (see e.g. "Negative pole" in paragraph [20] on page 4) comprising an anode active material disposed on an anode current collector (see e.g. "the positive pole using in the present invention and negative pole comprise active material, conductive agent, collector, described active material and conductive agent are combined with described collector" in paragraph [70] on page 9), and
an electrolyte fluid (see e.g. "ionic liquid electrolyte" in Abstract on page 1) comprising:
a compound of Formula (I) (see e.g. "the general formula of ionic liquid is C +[A] -, the C of nitrile group-containing functional group wherein +cationic structural formula" in paragraph [50] and "R in structural formula 1, R 2, R 3and R 4 identical or not identical, have a substituting group Wei – (CH at least 2)ncN, n=1～10" in paragraph [52] on page 8 and the image below) and an anion (see e.g. "Anion" in paragraph [54] on page 8) wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 10 (see e.g. "R in structural formula 1, R 2, R 3and R 4 identical or not identical, have a substituting group Wei – (CH at least 2) ncN, n=1～10" in paragraph [52] on page 8); and
fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (see e.g. "additive comprises... fluorinated ethylene carbonate" in paragraph [16] on page 4) ; and
Han discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Han does not explicitly disclose that the anode is oriented towards the cathode such that the anode active material faces the cathode active material, that a separator is disposed between the cathode active material and the anode active material or that the electrolyte fluid further comprises propane sultone (PS) and succinonitrile (SN).
Hu, however, in the same field of endeavor, electrolyte stabilizing materials for use in battery cells, discloses a battery cell (see e.g. "a secondary battery" in paragraph [0033] of Hu) wherein the anode is oriented towards the cathode such that the anode active material faces the cathode active material (see e.g. part numbers 21 and 22 in FIG. 1 of Hu),
a separator is disposed between the cathode active material and the anode active material (see e.g. "a separator 23 in between" in paragraph [0243] and part number 23 in FIG. 1 of Hu), and
an electrolyte fluid that comprises propane sultone (PS) (see e.g. "1,3-propane sultone" in paragraph [0347] of Hu), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (see e.g. "fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)" in paragraph [0215] of Hu) and succinonitrile (SN) (see e.g. "succinonitrile" in paragraph [0215] of Hu).
Hu further teaches that a battery of this type to include an anode oriented towards the cathode, a separator disposed in between and these additives provides improvement of charge/discharge capacity and coulomb efficiency of the batteries in presence of the additives. Furthermore, enhancement of the electrolyte stability, enhancement of battery-lifetime, increase of battery power density retention, increase of battery capacity retention by cycling at high charging voltage, increase of battery voltage retention in fully charged state during storage and reducing of swelling of the battery during storage decreases (see e.g. paragraph [0201] of Hu). 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 battery cell of Han et al. such that the anode is oriented towards the cathode such that the anode active material faces the cathode active material, a separator is disposed between the cathode active material and the anode active material and the electrolyte fluid further comprises propane sultone (PS) and succinonitrile (SN) as taught by Hu et al. in order to have a battery with improved charge/discharge capacity and coulomb efficiency, enhancement of electrolyte stability, enhancement of battery-lifetime, increase of battery power density retention, increase of battery capacity retention by cycling at high charging voltage, increase of battery voltage retention in fully charged state during storage and reduced swelling of the battery during storage as suggested by Hu.
PNG
media_image1.png
139
138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Han, figure taken from disclosure)
Regarding Claim 2, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han further discloses that n is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 10 (see e.g. "(CH2)nCN，n=1～10" on page 14).
Han discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 3, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han further discloses that n is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 10 (see e.g. "(CH2)nCN, n=1～10" on page 14).
Han discloses a range that overlaps with the point claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed point, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 4, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han further discloses that the anion is selected from BF4-, PF6-, OTF (also commonly known as the triflate anion with chemical formula CF3SO3-), NTf2- (also commonly known as the bistriflimide anion or TFSI-), and N(SO2F)2- (also commonly known as the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide anion or FSI-) (see e.g., "BF4-, PF6-, CF3SO3-, TFSI-, and FSI-" in paragraph [54] on page 8).
Regarding Claim 5, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han further discloses the compound is the compound of Formula (II), which is a five-membered ring structure containing a nitrogen atom also known as a pyrrolidine ring, attached to the nitrogen atom are two substituents, the first substituent is a four carbon nitrile group (i.e. (CH2)3CN) and the second substituent is a methyl group, with this compound there is also the anion N(SO2F)2- (also commonly known as the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide anion or FSI-) (see e.g. "the C of nitrile group-containing functional group wherein +cationic structural" in paragraph [50] on page 8 and the image below which represents the pyrrolidine ring with two substituents attached to the nitrogen and "R in structural formula 1, R 2, R 3and R 4identical or not identical, have a substituting group Wei – (CH at least 2) ncN, n=1～10." in paragraph [52] on page 8; this represents the first substituent described above, the 4 carbon nitrile group, (CH2)3CN) and "R in structural formula 1, R 2, R 3or R 4bu Wei – (CH 2) during CN substituting group, R 1, R 2, R 3or R 4structure Wei – C mh 2m+1, m=1～10." in paragraph [53] on page 8; this represents the second substituent described above, the methyl group, C1H3 and "The anion [A]- is... FSI-" in paragraph [54] on page; this is the anion N(SO2F)2- ) on page 8).
Regarding Claim 7, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han further discloses that the battery cell comprises an electrolyte salt selected from LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4, and LiN(SO2CF3)2 (also commonly known as LiTFSI) (see e.g. "LiPF6, LiBF4, LiTFSI, and LiCLO4" in paragraph [15] on page 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 7 (see e.g. claim 7 rejection above).
Han further discloses that the salt comprises LiPF6 (see e.g. "LiPF6" in paragraph [15] on page 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 7 (see e.g. claim 7 rejection above).
Han further discloses that the concentration of the electrolyte salt is 0.5 - 2 mol/L (see e.g. "0.5 - 2 mol/L" in paragraph [15] on page 4).
Han discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 10, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han further discloses that the electrolyte fluid comprises a solvent selected from ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), ethyl propionate (EP), methyl acetate (MA), ethyl acetate (EA), propyl propionate (PP), and butyl acetate (BA) (see e.g. "ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, ethyl propionate, methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, propyl propionate, and butyl acetate" in paragraph [64] on page 9).
Regarding Claim 11, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 10 (see e.g. claim 10 rejection above).
Han further discloses that the solvent is selected from propylene carbonate PC, EC, PP or EP (see e.g., "propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, propyl propionate, and ethyl propionate" in paragraph [64] on page 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 10 (see e.g. claim 10 rejection above).
Han further discloses that the solvent is selected from PC, EC, PP and EP (see e.g., "propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, propyl propionate, and ethyl propionate" in paragraph [64] on page 9). Regarding Claim 14, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han further discloses that the electrolyte fluid comprises an additive selected from vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (see e.g. "vinylethylene carbonate, fluorinated ethylene carbonate" in paragraph [16] on page 4).
Regarding Claim 15, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 14 (see e.g. claim 14 rejection above).
Han further discloses that the electrolyte fluid comprises an additive selected from fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (see e.g. "fluorinated ethylene carbonate" in paragraph [16] on page 4).
Regarding Claim 16, Han in view of Hu discloses the electrolyte fluid of claim 15 (see e.g. claim 15 rejection above).
The instant specification does not disclose or give an example of the additive comprising all of LidFOB, PES, MMDS, PS, FEC, SN, and HTCN. In accordance with this claim 16 is being interpreted to mean that the additive must comprise of any one of LidFOB, PES, MMDS, PS, FEC, SN, and HTCN.
Han further discloses that the additive comprises FEC (see e.g. "fluorinated ethylene carbonate" in paragraph [16] on page 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han in view of Hu does not disclose that the specific discharge capacity at 25 °C of the battery cell is higher than the specific discharge capacity at 25 °C of a battery cell comprising the electrolyte fluid that does not include a compound of Formula (I).
Han in view of Hu, however, discloses a battery cell that meets all of the claim limitations of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Claim 18 imparts no new structural or compositional limitations and because this battery cell has the claimed components and structure, then the properties of this battery cell must be inherent and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (II).
Regarding Claim 19, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han in view of Hu does not disclose that the energy retention of the battery cell at cycle 200 is at least 20% higher than the energy retention of a battery cell comprising the electrolyte fluid in the absence of the compound of Formula (I).
Han in view of Hu, however, discloses a battery cell that meets all of the claim limitations of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Claim 18 imparts no new structural or compositional limitations and because this battery cell has the claimed components and structure, then the properties of this battery cell must be inherent and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (II).
Regarding Claim 20, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han in view of Hu does not disclose that the RSS of the battery cell at cycle 200 is at least 40% decreased than a battery cell comprising the electrolyte fluid in the absence of the compound of Formula (I).
Han in view of Hu, however, discloses a battery cell that meets all of the claim limitations of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above). Claim 18 imparts no new structural or compositional limitations and because this battery cell has the claimed components and structure, then the properties of this battery cell must be inherent and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (II).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (CN 103618111 A) in view of Hu et al. (US-20200028213-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Oldiges et al. (Understanding transport mechanisms in ionic liquid/carbonate solvent electrolyte blends, 14 May 2018, Royal Society of Chemistry, Volume 20).
Regarding Claim 6, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Han in view of Hu does not disclose that the compound is in an amount between 0.1 wt% and 10.0 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid.
Oldiges, however, in the same field of endeavor, ionic liquid/carbonate solvent electrolyte blends, discloses an electrolyte fluid that contains an ionic liquid with an anion in a carbonate solvent containing electrolyte salts (see e.g. “ionic liquid (IL) 1-butyl-1-methylpyrrolidinium bis(trifluoromethyl sulfonyl)imide (Pyr14TFSI), ethylene carbonate (EC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) with the conducting salts lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) and lithium bis(trifluoromethyl sulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI)” in Abstract of Oldiges). While Oldiges does not disclose the exact ionic liquid of claim 1, Oldiges does disclose an analogous ionic liquid to the instant application. Furthermore, Oldiges discloses that the ionic liquid is 10 wt.% of the electrolyte fluid (see e.g. “IL fraction of 10 w%” in Ionic Conductivities section paragraph starting with “Using 1 M LiTFSI” of Oldiges).
Oldiges discloses a point that lies on the end point of the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point that lies on the end point of the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Oldiges also teaches that the electrolyte blend achieves balanced ion transport properties, with approximately equal transport and lithium ion transference numbers maintained across a broad concentration range (see e.g. “approximately equal transport and transference numbers” in Abstract of Oldiges). In addition, the blend demonstrates robust interfacial behavior and consistent performance regardless of the specific conducting salt used, which further reinforces its suitability for high-performance battery applications (see e.g. “improved interfacial behavior” in Conclusion of Oldiges). 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 compound amount in the electrolyte fluid of Han et al. in view of Hu et al. such that the compound is in an amount of 10.0 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid as taught by Oldiges et al. in order to have an electrolyte blend that achieves balanced ion transport properties as well as a blend that demonstrates robust interfacial behavior and consistent performance regardless of conducting salt used as suggested by Oldiges.
Regarding Claim 13, Han in view of Hu discloses the battery cell of claim 10 (see e.g. claim 10 rejection above).
Han in view of Hu does not disclose that PC is from 2 to 20 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid, EC is from 5 to 40 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid, PP is from 20 to 70 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid, and/or EP is from 10 to 50 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid.
Oldiges, however, discloses that EC is 15 wt. %, 25 wt.%, 30 wt.%, and 35 wt.% of the total electrolyte fluid (see e.g. “(100-x) wt.% EC:DMC (1:1 by wt.), respectively, with x = 0, 10, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 100” in Sample Preparation section of Oldiges; when x (wt.% of ionic liquid) is 30 wt.%, 40 wt.%, 50 wt.%, and 70 wt.% then the corresponding wt.% of solvent would be 70 wt.%, 60 wt.%, 50 wt.%, and 30 wt.%, the ratio of EC to DMC is 1:1 by wt.%, and thus the corresponding EC wt.% must be 15 wt. %, 25 wt.%, 30 wt.%, and 35 wt.% of the total electrolyte fluid).
Oldiges also teaches that the electrolyte blend achieves balanced ion transport properties, with approximately equal transport and lithium ion transference numbers maintained across a broad concentration range (see e.g. “approximately equal transport and transference numbers” in Abstract of Oldiges). In addition, the blend demonstrates robust interfacial behavior and consistent performance regardless of the specific conducting salt used, which further reinforces its suitability for high-performance battery applications (see e.g. “improved interfacial behavior” in Conclusion of Oldiges). 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 amount of ethylene carbonate (EC) in the electrolyte fluid of Han et al. in view of Hu et al. such that the compound is in an amount of 15 wt. %, 25 wt.%, 30 wt.%, or 35 wt.% of the total electrolyte fluid as taught by Oldiges et al. in order to have an electrolyte blend that achieves balanced ion transport properties as well as a blend that demonstrates robust interfacial behavior and consistent performance regardless of conducting salt used as suggested by Oldiges.
Conclusion
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
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723