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 .
Summary
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted May 12, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended and claims 2-3 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1 and 4-20 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 10-11, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language defined by a Markush grouping requires selection from a closed group "consisting of" the alternative members. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See MPEP 2117(I).
Claim 7 recites “an electrolyte salt selected from … and a combination thereof”. It appears that applicant is intending for the selection to made from one of the salts in the list or a combination of those salts and the claim is interpretated as such. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “or a combination thereof” to reflect the alternative selection of a single salt or a combination of those from the list.
Claim 10 recites “a solvent selected from…and a combination thereof”. It appears that applicant is intending for the selection to made from one of the solvents in the list or a combination of those solvents and the claim is interpretated as such. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “or a combination thereof” to reflect the alternative selection of a single solvent or a combination of those from the list.
Claim 11 recites “the solvent is selected from… and a combination thereof”. It appears that applicant is intending for the selection to made from one of the solvents in the list or a combination of those solvents and the claim is interpretated as such. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “or a combination thereof” to reflect the alternative selection of a single solvent or a combination of those from the list.
Claim 17 recites “an additive selected from…and a combination thereof”. It appears that applicant is intending for the selection to made from one of the additives in the list or a combination of those additives and the claim is interpretated as such. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “or a combination thereof” to reflect the alternative selection of a single additive or a combination of those from the list.
Claim 18 recites “the additive is selected from…and a combination thereof”. It appears that applicant is intending for the selection to made from one of the additives in the list or a combination of those additives and the claim is interpretated as such. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “or a combination thereof” to reflect the alternative selection of a single additive or a combination of those from the list. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “Li[PF3(C2CF5)3]” is indefinite as it does not result in a stable structure. The structure as claimed would lack sufficient bonding sites for carbon atoms given the number of fluoride atoms and lack of hydrogen atoms in the molecular formula provided in claim 7. For the purposes of examination, “Li[PF3(C2CF5)3]” will be interpreted as LiPF18C6 (CAS RN: 403699-22-9, shown below), pending further clarification from Applicant.
Claims 8-9 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
482
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 9 recite the limitation "the salt" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims. LiDFOB, recited in claim 1, is also a salt; therefore, it is unclear if “the salt” of claims 8 and 9 refer to the “electrolyte salt” of claim 7 or a combination of LiDFOB and the “electrolyte salt” of claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-11, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (An, F., Zhao, H., Zhou, W. et al. S-containing and Si-containing compounds as highly effective electrolyte additives for SiOx -based anodes/NCM 811 cathodes in lithium ion cells. Sci. Rep. 9, 14108 (2019)).
Regarding claim 1, An teaches an electrolyte fluid comprising LiDFOB and PES (Figure 2b, “BL” and PES) and an electrolyte fluid comprising LiDFOB and MMDS (Figure 2e, “BL” and MMDS). However, An does not teach an electrolyte fluid comprising LiDFOB, PES, and MMDS.
An teaches that PES and MMDS have been “proposed as solid-electrolyte-interface (SEI)-forming additives” (Pg. 2 paragraph 3) and “MMDS has been reported as a multifunction additive suitable for a wide temperature range because it not only leads to a lower SEI impedance and reduces gas evolution but also passivates the cathode-electrolyte-interphase (CEI) at elevated temperature” (Pg. 2 paragraph 3, last sentence). An also teaches that “electrolytes with blended additives could directly and effectively improve the comprehensive performance of batteries by taking advantage of the synergistic effect of various substances” (Pg. 2 paragraph 4).
An also teaches that a MMDS-containing electrolyte showed better storage performance compared to an electrolyte containing (1,3,2-dioxathiolane 2,2-dixoide (DTD) and PES (Conclusion, paragraph 3). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added MMDS to the PES-containing electrolyte of Figure 2b in order to create a battery with improved performance that is suitable for a wide temperature range due to lower SEI impedance, reduced gas evolution, and passivation of the CEI at elevated temperatures.
Regarding claim 4, An teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid wherein LiDFOB is from 0.1 wt% to 1.0 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid (BL contains 0.5 wt% LiDFOB, Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, An teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid wherein PES is from 0.1 wt% to 3.0 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid (0.5% PES, Figure 2b). Although, Figure 2b does not specifically define 0.5% as a weight percent, the percent of PES is defined to be a weight percent (0.5 wt% PES) in the second to last line of the “Chemical” subsection of the “Experimental Section”.
Regarding claim 6, An teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid wherein MMDS is from 0.1 wt% to 1.5 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid (“0.5% MMDS”, Figure 2e). Although, Figure 2e does not specifically define 0.5% as a weight percent, the percent of MMDS is defined to be a weight percent (0.5 wt% MMDS) in the second to last line of the “Chemical” subsection of the “Experimental Section”.
Regarding claim 7, An teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid comprising an electrolyte salt selected from LiPF6, LiBF4, LiSO3CF3, LiN(SO2CF3)2, LiBC4O8, Li[PF3(C2CF5)3], LiC(SO2CF3)3, and a combination thereof (Abstract, “BL” contains LiPF6).
Regarding claim 8, An teaches all features of claims 1 and 7 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid wherein the salt comprises LiPF6 (Abstract, “BL” contains LiPF6).
Regarding claim 9, An teaches all features of claims 1 and 7 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid wherein the salt is from 0.8 M to 1.6 M (Abstract, 1.0 M LiPF6).
Regarding claim 10, An teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid comprising a solvent selected from propylene carbonate (PC), ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl-methyl carbonate (EMC), ethyl propionate (EP), butyl butyrate (BB), methyl acetate (MA), ethyl acetate (EA), propyl propionate (PP), butyl propionate (BP), propyl acetate (PA), and butyl acetate (BA), and a combination thereof (Fig. 2 “BL”). “BL” (Abstract) contains ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl-methyl carbonate (EMC), and diethyl carbonate (DEC).
Regarding claim 11, An teaches all features of claims 1 and 10 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid wherein the solvent is selected from PC, EC, PP, EP and a combination thereof (“BL” contains EC, Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, An teaches all feature of claim 1 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid comprising an additive selected from vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC), propane sultone (PS), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), succinonitrile (SN), 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile (HTCN), and a combination thereof (Figure 2, “BL” contains fluoroethylene carbonate and 1,3-propane sultone, Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, An teaches all features of claims 1 and 17 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid wherein the additive is selected from PS, FEC, SN, HTCN and a combination thereof (Figure 2, “BL” contains FEC and PS, Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, An teaches all features of claim 1 and further teaches a battery cell (pouch cell, Table 2) comprising: a cathode (positive electrode, Table 2) comprising a cathode active material (NMC811, Table 2) disposed on a cathode current collector (aluminium current collector, Table 2); an anode (negative electrode, Table 2) comprising an anode active material (Si-based composite, Table 2) disposed on an anode current collector (copper current collector, Table 2), the anode oriented towards the cathode such that the anode active material faces the cathode active material (pouch cell, Table 2); a separator disposed between the cathode active material and the anode active material (“In addition, a separator was included (ND16T40; SMCORP, China; 20 μm ceramic-coated PP/PE/PP films)”, last sentence of the first paragraph of the “Pouch cells” subsection); and an electrolyte fluid of claim 1 (Figure 2).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20170288268 A1).
Regarding claim 12, An teaches all features of claims 1 and 10 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid comprising EC, EMC, and DEC (An, Abstract). However, An does not teach the electrolyte fluid wherein the solvent comprises PC, EC, PP, and EP.
Kim teaches an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery (Kim, Abstract) comprising an “organic solvent including C3 to C5 alkyl propionate” (Kim [0037]), with propyl propionate (PP) being a potential solvent, and further including a carbonate-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, or a combination thereof (Kim paragraph [0042]), with examples of potential solvents including diethyl carbonate (DEC) (Kim paragraph [0043]), ethylene carbonate (EC) (Kim paragraph [0043]), and ethyl-methyl carbonate (EMC) (methylethyl carbonate (MEC), Kim paragraph [0043]). Kim further teaches that “the organic solvent may be used alone or in a mixture” with the ratio of solvents in the mixture “controlled in accordance with a desirable battery performance” (Kim paragraph [0046]) and “the carbonate-based solvent may include a mixture with a cyclic carbonate and a linear carbonate”.
Kim teaches an electrolyte fluid (Kim Table 1, Example 1) comprising PC, EC, PP, and EP (Kim paragraph [0090]). Since both An and Kim teach that solvents such as EC, EMC, and DEC are suitable for use as electrolytes in rechargeable lithium ion batteries, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the solvent mixture in the electrolyte of An (An, Figure 2b) for the solvent mixture of Kim (Kim Table 1, Example 1) in order to achieve the predictable result of optimal battery performance for a given application. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Regarding claim 19, An teaches all features of claims 1 and 17. An teaches the electrolyte fluid wherein the additive comprises propane sultone (PS; An, Abstract) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC; An, Abstract) (An, Figure 2b, “BL”), but does not teach the additive comprising PS, FEC, SN, and HTCN. However, Kim teaches an electrolyte fluid comprising SN and HTCN (Kim Table 1, Example 1).
An teaches that “1,3-propane sultone (PS) is one of most useful early-reported additives for layered materials because it induces low impedance of the cathode-electrolyte-interphase (CEI), which is the reason behind the obvious improvement of storage and cycle performances” (An, pg. 2 paragraph 1). An further teaches that FEC “is an essential additive in silicon-based negative electrodes” that enhances the stability of the solid-electrolyte-interphase, and also forms a LiF-rich compound to stabilize the cathode-electrolyte-interphase when oxidized on the positive electrode (An pg. 2 paragraph 3).
Kim teaches that succinonitrile can improve performance at high temperatures, suppress various interface side reactions, and have an effect on suppressing gas generation (An paragraph [0104]). Kim further teaches that HTCN can form a protective layer having a strong bonding force on the surface of the positive active material layer, help to prevent the electrolyte from directly contacting a positive electrode, help mitigate battery expansion, and suppress battery thickness change and improve thermal impact durability of the battery (Kim paragraph [0056]).
Kim teaches that the electrolyte additives “may include one or more of fluorethylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, succinonitrile, polysulfone, or a combination thereof” (Kim paragraph [0064]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added SN and HTCN to the electrolyte fluid of An (An, Figure 2b) to achieve an electrolyte with the benefits of SN and HTCN described above such as improvements in performance at high temperatures and thermal impact durability of the battery.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ramprasad (US 2012/0100417 A1) and Ryu (US 2012/0107728 A1).
Regarding claim 13, An teaches all features of claims 1 and 10 but does not teach the electrolyte fluid wherein PC is from 2 to 20 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid. However, Ramprasad teaches electrolyte fluids containing a mixture of one or more solvents, with carbonate-based solvents such as EC, PC, EMC, and DEC being suitable solvents (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0073]). Ramprasad teaches that the solvent comprises about 50-97 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0074]). Ramprasad further teaches that, when mixtures of solvents are used, each solvent “may be present in an amount ranging from 0 wt% to about 99 wt% based on the total weight of solvents”, with the wt% of all solvents together equaling 100 wt% (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 2-20 wt% PC to an electrolyte fluid, depending on how many solvents are added and the relative amounts of each solvent.
Additionally, it is recognized by Ryu that when selecting the components of non-aqueous solvents for a lithium ion battery, the selection of solvents and the mixture ratio is controlled to result in the desired battery performance and this process is widely understood to those skilled in the art [Ryu paragraph 51].
Since both An and Ramprasad teach that carbonate-based solvents such as EC, EMC, and DEC are suitable for electrolyte fluids, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the electrolyte of An (Figure 2b) for an electrolyte containing PC, within the range of 2-20 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid, to obtain an electrolyte fluid with the desired performance, as recognized is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan by Ryu. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Regarding claim 14, An teaches all features of claims 1 and 10 and further teaches the electrolyte fluid containing EC (An, Figure 2b). An teaches EC being 30 wt% of the solvent within the electrolyte fluid (An, Chemical subsection of the Experimental Section); however, An does not teach the electrolyte fluid wherein EC is from 5 to 40 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid. However, Ramprasad teaches electrolyte fluids containing a mixture of one or more solvents, with carbonate-based solvents such as EC, PC, EMC, and DEC being suitable solvents (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0073]). Ramprasad teaches that the solvent comprises about 50-97 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0074]). Ramprasad further teaches that, when mixtures of solvents are used, each solvent “may be present in an amount ranging from 0 wt% to about 99 wt% based on the total weight of solvents”, with the wt% of all solvents together equaling 100 wt% (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 5-40 wt% EC to an electrolyte fluid, depending on how many solvents are added and the relative amounts of each solvent.
Additionally, it is recognized by Ryu that when selecting the components of non-aqueous solvents for a lithium ion battery, the selection of solvents and the mixture ratio is controlled to result in the desired battery performance and this process is widely understood to those skilled in the art [Ryu paragraph 51].
Regarding claim 15, An teaches all features of claims 1 and 10 but does not teach the electrolyte fluid wherein PP is from 20 to 70 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid. However, Ramprasad teaches electrolyte fluids containing a mixture of one or more solvents, with carboxylate-based solvents such as EP and PP being suitable solvents (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0073]). Ramprasad teaches that the solvent comprises about 50-97 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0074]). Ramprasad further teaches that, when mixtures of solvents are used, each solvent “may be present in an amount ranging from 0 wt% to about 99 wt% based on the total weight of solvents”, with the wt% of all solvents together equaling 100 wt% (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 20-70 wt% PP to an electrolyte fluid, depending on how many solvents are added and the relative amounts of each solvent.
Additionally, it is recognized by Ryu that when selecting the components of non-aqueous solvents for a lithium ion battery, the selection of solvents and the mixture ratio is controlled to result in the desired battery performance and this process is widely understood to those skilled in the art [Ryu paragraph 51].
Since both An and Ramprasad teach that mixtures of solvents are suitable for electrolyte fluids, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the electrolyte of An (Figure 2b) for an electrolyte containing PP, within the range of 20-70 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid, to obtain an electrolyte fluid with the desired performance, as recognized is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan by Ryu. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Regarding claim 16, An teaches all features of claims 1 and 10 but does not teach the electrolyte fluid wherein EP is from 10 to 50 wt%. However, Ramprasad teaches electrolyte fluids containing a mixture of one or more solvents, with carboxylate-based solvents such as EP and PP being suitable solvents (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0073]). Ramprasad teaches that the solvent comprises about 50-97 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0074]). Ramprasad further teaches that, when mixtures of solvents are used, each solvent “may be present in an amount ranging from 0 wt% to about 99 wt% based on the total weight of solvents”, with the wt% of all solvents together equaling 100 wt% (Ramprasad, paragraph ([0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add 10-50 wt% EP to an electrolyte fluid, depending on how many solvents are added and the relative amounts of each solvent.
Additionally, it is recognized by Ryu that when selecting the components of non-aqueous solvents for a lithium ion battery, the selection of solvents and the mixture ratio is controlled to result in the desired battery performance and this process is widely understood to those skilled in the art [Ryu paragraph 51].
Since both An and Ramprasad teach that mixtures of solvents are suitable for electrolyte fluids, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the electrolyte of An (Figure 2b) for an electrolyte containing EP, within the range of 10-50 wt% of the total electrolyte fluid, to obtain an electrolyte fluid with the desired performance, as recognized is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan by Ryu. The simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to someone of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2413(I)(B).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 17/950,430 (reference application, hereinafter referred to as Dai-430).
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 16 of Dai-430 claim an electrolyte fluid comprising LiDFOB, PES and MMDS.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Response – Specification Objections
The objection to the specification due to informalities is overcome by applicant’s amendments to the specification in the response received on May 12, 2025. The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Response – Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 due to informalities is overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received on May 12, 2025. The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
On pages 6-8 of the response, applicant appears to allege that claims 7, 10, 11, 17, and 18 use proper Markush language.
This argument is not persuasive. Per MPEP 2117(I), claim language defined by a Markush grouping requires selection from a closed group "consisting of" the alternative members. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). The examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “or a combination thereof” to reflect the alternative selection of a single item or a combination of those from the list.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 112
On page 8 of the response, applicant appears to allege that the “Examiner’s assertion” that Li[PF3(C2CF5)3] is indefinite and does not result in a stable structure is incorrect. Applicant cites Kowsari (Kowsari and Ebrahimi, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2018, 20, 13379-13393) to support this allegation and appears to allege that this publication confirms that the anion PF3(C2CF5)3 is used in battery cells and is stable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. PF3(C2CF5)3 has a total of 9 carbons ((2 x 3) + (3 x 1) = 9), whereas the structure disclosed by Kowsari only has 6 carbons ((2 x 3 = 6); shown below, Kowsari title and Fig. 1). Therefore, the anion recited in instant claim 7 is not the same anion as the anion disclosed by Kowsari that is referenced by applicant.
The rejections of claims 7-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are maintained.
PNG
media_image2.png
67
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
456
457
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The rejections of claims 8 and 9 due to insufficient antecedent basis are maintained.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 102
The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-11, 17-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by An (An, F., Zhao, H., Zhou, W. et al. S-containing and Si-containing compounds as highly effective electrolyte additives for SiOx -based anodes/NCM 811 cathodes in lithium ion cells. Sci. Rep. 9, 14108 (2019)) are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received on May 12, 2025. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-11, 17-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) are withdrawn.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed May 12, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the response, applicant provides a Table (Table 1) showing a “series of electrolyte compositions containing LiPF6 along with solvents and additives in different combinations”. Applicant appears to allege unexpected results (“Surprising Results”, pg. 9; “there is no basis to expect the energy retention improvement from the specific combination of LiDFOB, PES, and MMDS additives”, pg. 11).
On page 11 of the response, applicant provides a “plot of the energy retention as a function of cycle count” and, on page 10 of the response, applicant appears to allege that solvents 3 and 6, which include LiDFOB, PES, and MMDS, have the highest energy retention, while solvent 4, which only includes LiDFOB and PES, has a lower energy retention at lower cycle counts.
These arguments are not persuasive. It is noted that it is the burden of applicant to provide comparative data that demonstrates that the alleged unexpected result is unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d). Being consistent with applicant’s terminology, herein the “electrolyte fluid form number” (as shown in Table 1 on page 10 of the response) will be referred to as the “solvent” number (as used in the description of Fig. 4A on page 10 of the response).
An teaches a base electrolyte comprising LiDFOB and further teaches electrolytes with improved performance that include the base electrolyte and the addition of PES or MMDS (An, Figs. 9-10). Therefore, it is known and expected that adding PES or MMDS to an electrolyte comprising LiDFOB improves battery performance.
It is noted that solvent 4 does not include LiDFOB, PES, and MMDS, rather it only includes LiDFOB and PES. Applicant appears to allege than solvent 4 has a lower energy retention than solvents 3 and 6, which include LiDFOB, PES, and MMDS. On the plot provided by applicant on page 11, the curve representing solvent 4 appears to be overlapping and substantially close to the curves representing solvents 3 and 6. Applicant does not appear provide any data that demonstrate that the energy retention of solvent 4 is lower than that of solvents 3 and 6, nor does applicant provide a means for differentiating between the curves of solvents 3, 4, and 6. Therefore, it is unclear how the energy retention curve data provided by applicant on page 11 represent unexpected results, and applicant fails to distinguish that the combination of LiDFOB, PES, and MMDs provides any benefit.
Solvents 3 and 6 include a variety of other additives in addition to LiDFOB, PES, and MMDS, and therefore, the data do not appear to be commensurate in scope with instant claim 1. Additionally, the specific amounts of additives claimed in instant claims 4-6 are not commensurate in scope with the data provided by applicant.
Response – Double Patenting
The rejections of claims 1 and 2 being provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, and 19 of copending Application No. 17/950,419 are overcome by applicant’s amendments to claim 1 in the response received on May 12, 2025. These rejections to claims 1 and 2 are withdrawn.
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 JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789