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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 11/03/25, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 12, and 14–16 is/are amended; and claim(s) 2–11 and 13 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections as well as 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 102, and 103 rejections set forth in the Office Action mailed 07/03/25 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate. When claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording (as a “plurality of cycles” covers the same scope as “at least 2 cycles”), it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim (MPEP 608.01(m)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–16 is/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.
Claim 1 recites “the final electrolyte composition comprises at least 70 weight percent propylene carbonate and at most 40 weight percent ethylene carbonate based on the total weight of the final electrolyte composition”. The claim’s scope is unclear given that if one selected 70 wt% PC and 40 wt% EC, 1) the final electrolyte’s weight percentage would appear to exceed 100 wt%, which is impossible, and 2) even if the PC + EC content were taken as 100 wt%, the composition would consist of EC and PC so that the lithium salt could not be dissolved. For this Office Action weight ratios of PC and EC that satisfy the recited ranges while allowing the lithium salt to occupy some non-zero weight percentage of the final electrolyte will be assumed to meet the claim.
Claims 2 and 3 recite “the final electrolyte composition includes from about 20 to 99 weight percent propylene carbonate”, as well as “the final electrolyte composition includes from about 50 to 99 weight percent propylene carbonate”, respectively. As claim 1 requires the final composition to include the narrower ≥ 70 wt% PC, claims 2 and 3’s intended scope is unclear. For this Office Action claims 2 and 3’s ranges will each be assumed to mean 70–99 wt%, which appears consistent with claim 1 and with the specification’s ¶ 0049.
Claim 14 recites “a first additional solvent is present in an amount less than an amount of the ethylene carbonate”. In depending from claim 1 versus from claim 13, it is unclear if the first additional solvent must be in the first electrolyte, the second electrolyte, and/or the final electrolyte. For this Office Action the first additional solvent will be assumed to be in the first electrolyte, consistent with claim 13 and spec.’s ¶ 0053.
Claim 16 recites “a second additional solvent is present in an amount less than an amount of the propylene carbonate”. In depending from claim 1 versus from claim 15, it is unclear if the second additional solvent must be in the first electrolyte, the second electrolyte, and/or the final electrolyte. For this Office Action the second additional solvent will be assumed to be in the second electrolyte, consistent with claim 15 and spec.’s ¶ 0053.
The remaining dependent claims fail to correct these deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, and 6 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.
Claims 2 and 3 recite “the final electrolyte composition includes from about 20 to 99 weight percent propylene carbonate”, as well as “the final electrolyte composition includes from about 50 to 99 weight percent propylene carbonate”, respectively. As claim 1 requires the final composition to include the narrower ≥ 70 wt% PC, it is unclear that claims 2 and 3 include all limitations of as well as further limit the parent claim. As noted above, for this Office Action claims 2 and 3’s ranges will each be assumed to mean 70–99 wt%.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the lithium-ion battery cell is degassed prior to introducing the second electrolyte composition”. As claim 1 requires introducing the second electrolyte composition into the container after degassing the container, it is unclear how claim 6 further limits claim 1. For this Office Action claim 6’s limitation will be assumed to be met by satisfying claim 1’s introducing the second electrolyte after degassing.
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
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–4, 6–13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 1845373 A) in view of Chae et al. (KR 20170034774 A) (Chae).
Regarding claims 1–3, 6, and 13, Liu discloses a method for forming a solid electrolyte interface on a lithium-ion battery electrode (e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0043–0047), the method comprising introducing a first quantity of a first electrolyte composition including ethylene carbonate (EC) (injecting first electrolyte solution into battery, ¶ 0043 and 0046; the battery is a Li battery based on Li electrolyte in ¶ 0044, 0045).
Although Liu’s battery would almost certainly be housed in some casing to be able to perform activation and cycling (¶ 0062), Liu fails to explicitly disclose such and, thus, introducing the first electrolyte composition into a container including at least one lithium-ion battery cell.
Chae, in teaching a similar method of battery activation and SEI formation (Abstract), teaches injecting a first electrolyte solution into a battery inside a cylindrical case before cycling (¶ 0099, 0100).
Chae and Liu are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery SEI formation and activation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to store Liu’s battery in a cylindrical case before injecting Liu’s electrolyte into the battery, as suggested by Chae—so that the first electrolyte would be introduced into a container including the LIB cell—with the reasonable expectation of predictably enabling further activation and cycling, as suggested by Chae.
Liu further discloses pre-charging the battery after injecting the first electrolyte (¶ 0046) such that a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) is formed (¶ 0033), as well as activating—and, thus, cycling—the battery (¶ 0040, 0041), but Liu fails to explicitly disclose cycling to form the SEI—i.e., that activation occurs before introducing the second electrolyte—as well as degassing the container.
Chae further teaches, after injecting the first electrolyte (containing EC, ¶ 0099), activating the battery (¶ 0057), followed by degassing (¶ 0064) and then introducing the second electrolyte containing propylene carbonate (PC) (¶ 0070). Chae teaches that this activation may include a charge-discharge-charge step—and, thus, appears to be an extension of Liu’s pre-charging—as well as an aging step (¶ 0061). Chae teaches that because the first electrolyte contains no PC—as in Liu (¶ 0043, 0044)—the activation process smoothly forms the SEI without destroying the negative electrode active material (¶ 0060), and the aging stabilizes the SEI and ensures that the electrolyte is evenly distributed on the electrode (¶ 0062). Chae then teaches removing gas generated by the activation process (¶ 0065, 0066), which otherwise prevents uniform activation and adversely affects battery performance (¶ 0067).
As Liu appears to afford no technical preference to activating the battery after injecting the second electrolyte, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Chae’s charge-discharge-charge and aging steps as an extension of Liu’s pre-charging between introducing the first and second electrolytes with the reasonable expectation of smoothly forming a stable SEI and evenly distributing the electrolyte onto the electrode, as taught by Chae. Further, as Chae demonstrates, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in fully activating the battery before versus after introducing the second electrolyte (see MPEP 2144.04 (C.) for obviousness of transposing method steps). Moreover, it would have been further obvious to degas the battery/container after the activation step but before introducing the second electrolyte, as taught by Chae, to purge the inevitably accumulated gas that otherwise compromises battery performance, as taught by Chae.
Thus, modified Liu would render obvious cycling the lithium-ion battery cell for at least one charging cycle such that one or more SEIs are formed (via Chae’s charge-discharge-charge activation), as well as degassing the container (Chae’s degassing).
Liu further discloses introducing, after degassing, a second electrolyte composition into the container to form a final electrolyte composition (injecting second electrolyte, ¶ 0047; note that each electrolyte would necessarily soak into the separator to conduct Li+, and, thus, each electrolyte solution would contact each other to form the final composition, as implied in ¶ 0017), the second electrolyte composition including propylene carbonate (¶ 0045), wherein each of the first, second, and final electrolyte compositions independently includes a lithium salt dissolved therein (e.g., ¶ 0044 for first LiPF6 and ¶ 0045 for second; further, as the solutions would contact each other to form the final composition, the final composition would necessarily contain the dissolved salt).
Liu further generally discloses that 1) the first electrolyte composition may constitute 5–99 wt% of the final composition, 2) the second electrolyte may constitute 1–95% of the final composition (¶ 0017), 3), the first electrolyte’s solvent includes a cyclic carbonate (e.g., EC in Ex. 1, ¶ 0043) mixed with a linear carbonate (e.g., methyl ethyl carbonate (EMC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) in Ex. 1, ¶ 0043) at a 1:1.5 to 1:3 ratio (¶ 0017), and 4) the second electrolyte’s solvent may consist of PC (¶ 0017, 0045). Liu appears, therefore, to allow the vast majority of the final electrolyte composition to be PC, though Liu fails to explicitly embody such and, thus, that the final electrolyte composition comprises ≥ 70 wt% PC and ≤ 40 wt% EC based on the total weight of the final electrolyte composition.
More importantly, though, Liu discloses that, of the final electrolyte’s components, 1) EC is advantageous for its high dielectric constant and electrode computability (¶ 0028); 2) PC is advantageous for its low melting point, high boiling point, high dielectric constant, and high- and low-temperature discharge performance (¶ 0028, 0033); 3) DMC reduces the electrolyte’s viscosity and improves conductivity (¶ 0028); and 4) EMC exhibits good electrode compatibility, low melting point, and high boiling point; reduces electrolyte viscosity; and improves conductivity (¶ 0028). The skilled artisan would recognize that each of these solvents must be included in the final composition at sufficient concentrations to perform their respective functions without detracting from the other components’ effects—all while accounting for proper Li+ conductivity from the lithium salt. To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to routinely optimize the mass ratio of the final electrolyte’s components and, thus, necessarily control the EC and PC’s mass contents (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on the following:
(claims 2 and 3) again, to balance each component’s effects in the final composition, the skilled artisan could have routinely optimized the PC content in the final composition (MPEP 2144.05 (II));
(claim 6) the lithium-ion battery cell is degassed prior to introducing the second electrolyte composition (per Chae’s degassing);
(claim 13) the first electrolyte composition further includes a first additional solvent of dimethyl carbonate and ethylmethyl carbonate (DMC and EMC, respectively, in Liu’s Ex. 1, ¶ 0043).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
As discussed above, Chae exemplifies a cylindrical case/can in Ex. 2 (¶ 0099) but further teaches that pouch and cylindrical shapes are equally suitable containers (¶ 0047).
As Chae recognizes pouch and cylindrical containers as equivalent battery containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute modified Liu’s cylindrical container for a pouch, as taught by Chae, with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful battery container (see, e.g., MPEP 2143 (B.) for substituting known elements to achieve predictable results; see also similar MPEP 2144.06 (II)).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Chae further exemplifies cycling anywhere from 1 to 100 times between injecting the first and second electrolytes (¶ 0117, 0118), but modified Liu fails to explicitly embody such and, thus, that the lithium-ion battery cell is cycled for a plurality of/at least 2 cycles prior to introducing the second electrolyte composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely cycle the battery a plurality of/at least 2 times, as suggested by Chae, with the reasonable expectation of successfully activating the battery as well as smoothly forming the SEI, as taught by Chae. Moreover, such would merely amount to a duplicated method step, which, absent demonstrated criticality, appears obvious because such would require merely routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Liu further discloses that the cyclic carbonate solvent (e.g., EC, ¶ 0043) may further include, e.g., vinyl, i.e., vinylene, carbonate (VC) (¶ 0009) but fails to explicitly embody such and, thus, that the first electrolyte composition includes a passivating additive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate a passivating additive of VC into Liu’s first electrolyte composition containing the cyclic carbonates with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful first electrolyte, as suggested by Liu (see, e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.) for obviousness of combining elements via known methods to achieve predictable results; see also MPEP 2144.07 for obviousness of selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Liu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the lithium-ion battery cell includes a negative electrode that includes a graphite layer (e.g., Liu’s ¶ 0033; see also carbon powder in neg. electrode (Liu’s ¶ 0038/Ex. 1), which is understood to reference graphite, as in ¶ 0030 and 0033), wherein the solid electrolyte interface forms on the negative electrode thereby protecting the graphite layer from propylene carbonate co-intercalation (implied in, e.g., Liu’s ¶ 0028 and 0033).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
As discussed in claim 1, Liu exemplifies a second electrolyte whose sole solvent is PC yet, while not appearing necessarily limited to this embodiment, fails to explicitly disclose that the second electrolyte composition further includes a second additional solvent selected from the recited group.
Chae further teaches injecting a second electrolyte including PC and co-solvent butylene carbonate (BC) at a ratio of 95:5 (e.g., Ex. 2, ¶ 0104). Chae teaches that, compared to when only PC is used in the electrolyte, including BC further improves the battery’s low-temperature performance by adding greater fluidity at low temperatures (¶ 0074, 0075).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a small amount of BC as a second additional solvent into Liu’s second electrolyte at a PC:BC ratio of 95:5—so that the second additional solvent would be present in an amount less than an amount of the PC—as taught by Chae, with the reasonable expectation of further improving the battery’s low-temperature performance, as taught by Chae.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 1845373 A) in view of Chae et al. (KR 20170034774 A) (Chae), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Bradford et al. (US 20210242550 A1) (Bradford).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
As discussed in claim 1, Chae teaches a cylindrical case (¶ 0099), and although this can would almost certainly be metallic for protection, modified Liu fails to explicitly disclose such.
Bradford, in teaching multi-electrolyte activation of electrochemical cells (Abstract), teaches that the cell’s container may be a steel/metallic can (¶ 0026).
Bradford is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode SEI formation in electrochemical cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that modified Liu’s can must necessarily be constructed of some material, and, as demonstrated by Bradford, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a metal can with the reasonable expectation of forming a successfully housed battery (MPEP 2143 (A.), 2144.07).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 1845373 A) in view of Chae et al. (KR 20170034774 A) (Chae), as applied to claim 1, taken alone or, alternatively, further in view of Ding et al. (CN 111477965 A) (Ding).
Regarding claim 14, modified Liu discloses the method of claim 1.
Liu further discloses that other cyclic carbonate solvents such as butene carbonate, i.e., butylene carbonate (BC), are usable (¶ 0009) but fails to explicitly embody such alongside EC and, thus, that a first additional solvent is present in an amount less than an amount of the ethylene carbonate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate a first additional solvent of BC alongside EC in Liu’s first electrolyte composition with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful first electrolyte, as suggested by Liu (MPEP 2143 (A.), MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding the EC and BC’s concentrations, although Liu fails to explicitly articulate such, the skilled artisan would recognize that some concentration must necessarily be selected for each solvent, further reasonably understanding that only three solutions exist for the concentration difference: the two solvents may constitute the same concentration; EC may be more concentrated; or BC may be more concentrated. Absent demonstrated criticality, then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely explore, e.g., a more concentrated EC when investigating the proper solvent ratio in the first electrolyte with the reasonable expectation of forming a successful electrolyte (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Alternatively, Ding, in teaching a LIB electrolyte (Abstract), teaches a matrix solvent of EC and BC (¶ 0010). Ding teaches that although EC is known to improve LiPF6’s solubility, EC’s high melting point limits the operating range of LIBs, yielding poor low-temperature performance (¶ 0005). Thus, Ding teaches adding BC alongside EC to reduce the electrolyte’s melting point (¶ 0016). Ding teaches that the EC and BC may be mixed at any proportion, with preferably 1:2 to 2:1 EC:BC (¶ 0010).
Ding is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely EC-containing LIB electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely BC alongside EC in Liu’s first electrolyte—with EC at a higher concentration than BC—as suggested by Ding, with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful electrolyte with lowered melting point for wider LIB temperature-operating ranges, as suggested by Ding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection—which, as noted above, has been withdrawn—and necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing the new reference(s) Liu, as established above. Additionally, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s apparent unexpected-results argument as follows:
Applicant argues that (i) a two-step process with SEI pre-formation and (ii) a final electrolyte including ≥ 70 wt% PC and ≤ 40 wt% EC represents a non-obvious technical achievement. Examiner respectfully notes 1) that no evidence of record demonstrates the criticality of these ranges; indeed, the spec.’s ¶ 0049 allows 20–99% PC and 0.5–85 wt% EC in the final electrolyte. As Liu’s ranges appear to allow a vast majority of PC in the final electrolyte, to balance all the effects of EC, PC, DMC, EMC, and the salt, the instant ranges appear routinely optimizable (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Further, Examiner respectfully notes 2) that the instant disclosure fails to compare against the closest prior art, Liu in view of Chae. Rather, the specification appears to lack both inventive and comparative data, and, thus, it is unclear that any results would be truly unexpected and superior compared to the prior art (MPEP 716.02(c)). Meanwhile, Liu, like the instant disclosure, first injects an electrolyte not containing PC, followed by one containing PC, to allow the SEI to stably form while enabling normal utility with PC to improve low- and high-temperature performance (¶ 0030, 0033), meaning any results from the instant disclosure would seem expected over Liu. Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/24/2025