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
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 3-4 is/are amended; claim(s) 9-20 remain withdrawn; and claim(s) 2 is/are canceled. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the Office action mailed 07/28/2025 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1,3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zhang et al. (CN112635818A, see attached machine translation)
Regarding claims 1, 3, Zhang discloses a lithium-ion electrochemical cell comprising: a negative electrode (2) comprising an active material consisting of graphite ([n0094]); a positive electrode (1) ([n0094]); and a composite polymer electrolyte formed by impregnating an oxide electrolyte (4) with a polymer electrolyte (6) composed of a polymer formed by polymerizing monomers and comprising a lithium salt and a plasticizer ([n0045], FIG. 1), the polymer electrolyte (6) being recognized as a gel-type electrolyte as claimed.
The gel-type electrolyte comprises a matrix which is a polymer formed only from the cross-linking of a monomer ([n0049]; the lithium salt and plasticizer do not undergo polymerization); an experimental example (Example 1) of the gel-type electrolyte is produced with a polymer resulting only from the cross-linking of poly(ethylene glycol)diacrylate (PEGDA) ([n0067]) (claims 1, 3). While this experimental example uses lithium metal as the negative electrode active material instead of graphite ([n0062]), Zhang recognizes graphite and lithium metal as being substitutable equivalents for the same purpose of acting as the negative electrode active material ([n0056]), such that it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the lithium metal negative electrode active material of the electrochemical cell of Zhang Example 1 with an active material consisting of graphite with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.07).
It is recognized that the polymerization of gel-type electrolytes inherently forms a matrix in which there is embedded a liquid mixture comprising at least one solvent (i.e., a plasticizer) ([n0011], [n0045]) and a lithium salt; Zhang discloses the selection of at least one lithium salt from a finite group including LiPF6, LiFSI, and LiDFOB inter alia ([n0038]). While Zhang does not explicitly specify an embodiment comprising all three of LiPF6, LiFSI, and LiDFOB, it would nonetheless be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the use of LiPF6, LiFSI, and LiDFOB as lithium salts in Zhang’s gel-type electrolyte, as Zhang recognizes each of these salts as equivalents for the same purpose of providing ionic conductivity in the polymer ([n0031-n0032]) (MPEP 2144.06 I).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhang discloses the lithium-ion electrochemical cell according to claim 1, wherein an experimental example of the lithium-ion electrochemical cell uses azobisisobutyronitrile (an azo-type radical initiator) as a thermal initiator of radical polymerization ([n0067]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhang discloses the lithium-ion electrochemical cell according to claim 1, wherein an experimental example of the cell (Example 1) comprises a mixture of ethylene carbonate (a cyclic carbonate) and diethyl carbonate (a linear carbonate) ([n0067]).
Regarding claims 7, 8, modified Zhang discloses the lithium-ion electrochemical cell according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode comprises lithium cobalt oxide as the active material ([n0062]), being a lithium oxide of a transition metal (claim 7) included within the group of materials of claim 8.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN112635818A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zhang (A Review on Electrolyte Additives for Lithium-ion Batteries, hereinafter “Zhang-NPL”; see copy provided with this Office action)
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhang discloses the lithium-ion electrochemical cell according to claim 1. While modified Zhang necessarily has at least some measure of mass percentage of LiDFOB relative to a total mass of at least one solvent, LiPF6, LiFSI, and LiDFOB, Zhang does not explicitly specify this mass percentage as ranging from 0.1 to 5wt % of the total mass.
Zhang-NPL is directed to the use of various electrolyte additives, particularly in improving graphite SEIs and improving LiPF6 thermal stability in organic solvents, teaching economic benefits of using no more than 5% of the additive by electrolyte weight (Zhang-NPL pp. 1379 Section 1, Introduction). Zhang-NPL further teaches that LiDFOB (“lithium oxaltodifluoroborate”) present even at additive levels (i.e., <5 wt%) in a 1M LiPF6 PC–EC electrolyte improves SEI stabilization and cycling reversibility on graphite (pp. 1384 col. 2 ¶1), this electrolyte composition being comparable to the liquid mixture of modified Zhang’s gel-type electrolyte comprising LiPF6 and LiFSI (see discussion of claim 1) and further comprising EC and DC as electrolyte solvents (Zhang [n0067]) such that a skilled artisan would consider application of Zhang-NPL’s teaching for use of LiDFOB as an additive in this liquid mixture.
As such, in seeking to balance improvements to SEI stabilization and cycling reversibility and economic considerations of avoiding unnecessary amounts of LiDFOB in modified Zhang’s cell, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a mass percentage of LiDFOB within a range of 0 wt% to 5wt% relative to a total mass of at least one solvent, LiPF6, LiFSI, and LiDFOB being 100 wt% as taught by Zhang-NPL, encompassing the claimed range (0.1-5 wt%) such that a skilled artisan would have selected within the encompassed range through routine optimization under Zhang’s teaching with a reasonable expectation of success because of the material similarities between modified Zhang and Zhang-NPL’s electrolyte mixtures and electrodes, and because a skilled artisan would necessarily need to select at least some proportion of LiDFOB in order to produce modified Zhang’s electrochemical cell (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1-8 as unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US20040126668A1) in view of Zhu et al. (Positive Electrode Passivation by LiDFOB Electrolte Additive […]) or further in view of Taniuchi et al. (US5925283A) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Withdrawal of the previous ground of rejection has been necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed 10/16/2025.
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 EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/4/2026