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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 29 August 2025 and 18 September 2025 fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because they lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. In the interest of compact prosecution, the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4 are amended. Claims 14-18 are newly added. Claims 1-18, as filed 29 August 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Response to Arguments
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest wherein solvation energy calculated in a state where three molecules of the fluorine- containing electrolyte are coordinated to a lithium ion is higher than -5.00 eV, and wherein negative charges of an oxygen atom in a molecule of the fluorine-containing electrolyte coordinated to the lithium ion is more reduced than negative charges of an oxygen atom in a molecule of ethylene carbonate. This argument is rendered moot by a newly cited reference, Kodato.
The rejections with respect to nonstatutory double patenting and provisional nonstatutory double patenting have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 includes the limitation (emphasis added) “wherein solvation energy calculated in a state where three molecules of the fluorine- containing electrolyte are coordinated to a lithium ion is higher than -5.00 eV, and wherein negative charges of an oxygen atom in a molecule of the fluorine-containing electrolyte coordinated to the lithium ion is more reduced than negative charges of an oxygen atom in a molecule of ethylene carbonate. Appliance is requested to use an article (“a” or “the”) before the terms “solvation energy” and “negative charges”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 includes the limitation (emphasis added) “comprising an electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode further comprises a first electrolyte, and wherein the electrolyte comprises a solvent comprising the fluorine-containing electrolyte and the first electrolyte.” Applicant may consider amending “the first electrolyte” to “the second electrolyte” for the purpose of clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 includes the limitation (emphasis added) “comprising an electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode further comprises a first electrolyte, and wherein the electrolyte comprises a solvent comprising the fluorine-containing electrolyte and the first electrolyte.” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant limitation includes “the positive electrode comprises a solvent comprising the fluorine-containing electrolyte and the first electrolyte.” Said differently, the positive electrode comprises a fluorine-containing electrolyte and one additional electrolyte.
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.
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) 1-10 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodato (US 20170133676 A1) in view of Ochiai (US 20180013130 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kodato teaches a secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; and a negative electrode, (abstract)
wherein the positive electrode comprises an electrolyte ([0131] electrolytic solution … injected into the battery container), a current collector, a positive electrode active material, and a binder, ([0023] current collector, positive electrode mixture, [0038] binding material)
While Kodato discloses injection of electrolytic solution into a battery, and Examiner notes that this process is generally understood to add electrolyte into the positive electrode layer, Kodato does not explicitly teach that the positive electrode comprises an electrolyte.
Ochiai discloses (abstract) a lithium-ion battery. At [0360] Ochiai discloses “The negative electrode 307, the positive electrode 304, and the separator 310 are immersed in the electrolyte solution”. Ochiai teaching that the positive electrode is immersed in the electrolyte solution provides evidence that the positive electrode of Kodato comprises electrolyte.
Kodato further teaches:
wherein the electrolyte comprises tetrafluoroethylene carbonate ([0112]) and a lithium salt ([0093] electrolytic solution … lithium salt),
Kodato discloses at [0107] that the electrolyte comprises a cyclic carbonate at 5-50 volume percent, which overlaps the claimed range of tetrafluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte at 30 volume % to 100 volume %. Examiner notes that tetrafluoroethylene carbonate is a type of cyclic carbonate.
At [0112] (emphasis added) “fluoroethylene carbonate and the like is particularly preferred from a viewpoint of the extension of the battery life.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the amount of tetrafluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte solution of Kodato, in order to extend battery life, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the range.
Regarding the limitations wherein solvation energy calculated in a state where three molecules of the fluorine- containing electrolyte are coordinated to a lithium ion is higher than -5.00 eV, and wherein negative charges of an oxygen atom in a molecule of the fluorine-containing electrolyte coordinated to the lithium ion is more reduced than negative charges of an oxygen atom in a molecule of ethylene carbonate, the instant application at FIG. 2C, FIG. 3, FIG. 4, and [0028] states that an electrolyte meeting the above composition will meet these limitations. Therefore, these limitations are met.
Regarding claim 2, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. However, Kodato does not explicitly teach wherein the positive electrode further comprises a solid electrolyte material, and wherein the solid electrolyte material is an oxide. Ochiai discloses ([0335]) the use of a solid electrolyte including … an oxide-based inorganic material, … where there is no possibility of liquid leakage, to increase the safety of the battery.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace some of the liquid electrolyte solution with a solid electrolyte as taught by Ochiai, with a reasonable expectation of increasing the safety of the battery.
Regarding claim 3, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kodato discloses [0047] the use of carbonaceous or graphite conductive additives but does not explicitly teach wherein the positive electrode further comprises graphene. Ochiai discloses (FIG. 1A, [0302]) “the graphene compound … is capable of making low-resistance surface contact… the electrical conduction between the positive electrode active material particles 100 and the graphene compounds 201 can be improved with a smaller amount of the graphene compound 201 than that of a normal conductive additive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select graphene as a conductive additive to improve electrical conduction while using a smaller amount of material, which a person of ordinary skill would understand will improve the gravimetric energy density of the battery.
Regarding claim 4, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kodato further teaches the battery comprising an electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode further comprises a first electrolyte, as rendered obvious in claim 1, above. Regarding the limitation wherein the electrolyte comprises a solvent comprising the fluorine-containing electrolyte and the first electrolyte, Kodato discloses [0093] a lithium salt (electrolyte) and nonaqueous solvent with dissolves the lithium salt. At [0095] Kodato discloses the use of LiPF6. At ([0098-0099]), two or more salts can be used independently, which may be LiPF6 and LiBF4, … where characteristic deterioration can be suppressed.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the two salts as taught by Kodato for the battery of modified Kodato, with a reasonable expectation of successfully suppressing deterioration.
Regarding claim 5, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Ochiai further teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises fluorine. ([0049] fluoro-rubber as a binding material)
Regarding claim 6, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kodato further teaches wherein the negative electrode comprises silicon. ([0072] negative electrode active material … silicon oxide)
Regarding claim 7, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kodato discloses [0072] that the negative electrode may comprise carbonaceous materials. However, Kodato does not explicitly teach wherein the negative electrode comprises graphene. Ochiai discloses ([0317]) the use of graphene as a negative active material. At [0294] “a graphene compound may be used as the conductive additive.” [0324] “for the conductive additive … materials similar to those of the conductive additive … that can be included in the positive electrode active material layer can be used.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select graphene as the carbonaceous material used as part of the negative active material of Kodato, with a reasonable expectation that it would improve electrical conduction while using a smaller amount of material as taught by Ochiai, which a person of ordinary skill would understand will improve the gravimetric energy density of the battery.
Regarding claim 8, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. At claim 1, Kodata in view of Ochiai renders obvious the positive electrode comprising electrolyte. For the same reasons, the negative electrode will necessarily comprise the electrolyte. Kodata does not explicitly teach wherein the negative electrode comprises fluorine. At [0095] Kodato discloses the use of LiPF6. Because the electrolyte comprises a fluorine-containing salt, and the negative electrode comprises the electrolyte, the negative electrode therefore necessarily contains fluorine.
Regarding claim 9, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kodato teaches [0093] the use of a non-aqueous liquid electrolyte. Kodato does not explicitly teach wherein the secondary battery is a semi-solid-state secondary battery. Ochiai discloses ([0331] gelled electrolyte …safety against liquid leakage and the like is improved) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the liquid electrolyte of Kodato with the gelled electrolyte of Ochiai, with a reasonable expectation of improving safety.
Regarding claim 10, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Kodato does not explicitly teach a vehicle comprising the claimed battery. Ochiai teaches ([0485-0487]) an electric vehicle comprising Ochiai’s battery. Examiner notes that the batteries of Ochiai and Kodato are both lithium ion secondary batteries (abstract) and have similar electrolyte compositions as set for the above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the battery of modified Kodato in a vehicle based on Ochiai’s suggestion of suitability.
Regarding claim 14, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above.
Kodato does not explicitly teach wherein the solvation energy and the negative charges are estimated by quantum chemistry calculation. A battery meeting the limitations of claim 1 has been rendered obvious by Kodato in view of Ochiai as set forth above. The instant application at FIG. 2C, FIG. 3, FIG. 4, and [0028] states that an electrolyte meeting the above composition will meet the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, this battery will also meet the limitation of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Kodato teaches a secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; and a negative electrode, (abstract)
wherein the positive electrode comprises an electrolyte ([0131] electrolytic solution … injected into the battery container), a current collector, a positive electrode active material, and a binder, ([0023] current collector, positive electrode mixture, [0038] binding material)
While Kodato discloses injection of electrolytic solution into a battery, and Examiner notes that this process is generally understood to add electrolyte into the positive electrode layer, Kodato does not explicitly teach that the positive electrode comprises an electrolyte.
Ochiai discloses (abstract) a lithium-ion battery. At [0360] Ochiai discloses “The negative electrode 307, the positive electrode 304, and the separator 310 are immersed in the electrolyte solution”. Ochiai teaching that the positive electrode is immersed in the electrolyte solution provides evidence that the positive electrode of Kodato comprises electrolyte.
Kodato further teaches:
wherein the electrolyte comprises tetrafluoroethylene carbonate ([0112]) and a lithium salt ([0093] electrolytic solution … lithium salt),
Kodato discloses at [0107] that the electrolyte comprises a cyclic carbonate at 5-50 volume percent, which overlaps the claimed range of tetrafluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte at 30 volume % to 100 volume %. Examiner notes that tetrafluoroethylene carbonate is a type of cyclic carbonate.
At [0112] (emphasis added) “fluoroethylene carbonate and the like is particularly preferred from a viewpoint of the extension of the battery life.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the amount of tetrafluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte solution of Kodato, in order to extend battery life, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the range.
Regarding claim 16, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitation set forth above. Kodato does not explicitly teach wherein the electrolyte further comprises an ionic liquid.
Ochiai at [0327] discloses that the electrolyte solution may further comprise an ionic liquid, which provides the desirable features of non-flammability and non-volatility. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Kodato’s electrolyte by adding an ionic liquid, with a reasonable expectation of improving safety.
Regarding claim 17, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitation set forth above. Kodato discloses [0049] the use of a binder having a polymer composition having the ion conductivity of an alkali metal ion. This may be considered part of the electrolyte. However Kodato does not explicitly teach wherein the electrolyte further comprises a lithium-ion conductive polymer. Ochiai at [0331-0332] discloses a gelled electrolyte which is a polymer swelled with an electrolyte solution, which improves safety against liquid leakage. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace Kodato’s liquid electrolyte with the gelled polymer electrolyte of Ochiai, with a reasonable expectation of improving safety.
Regarding claim 18, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitation set forth above. Kodato does not explicitly teach the battery further comprising an electrolyte layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the electrolyte layer comprises a lithium-ion conductive polymer and the lithium salt. Ochiai discloses [0335] that if a solid electrolyte is used, a separator and a spacer are not necessary, and safety is increased dramatically. Examiner notes that if a solid electrolyte is used in a successful battery, there would necessarily be some separation between the negative and positive electrodes, which means that an electrolyte layer is necessarily present between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, meeting the instant claim limitation.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to replace the liquid electrolyte of Kodato with the solid electrolyte of Ochiai, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving Ochiai’s dramatic increase in safety.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodato (US 20170133676 A1) in view of Ochiai (US 20180013130 A1), as set forth in claims 1 above, and in further, view of Sun (CN 107204421 A, with paragraph references to the provided Espacenet translation.)
Regarding claim 11, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kodata discloses ([0073]) that the negative electrode may comprise carbonaceous materials which ([0076-0077]) may be used to enhance electrical conductivity. Kodata does not explicitly teach wherein the negative electrode comprises a carbon-based material containing fluorine.
Sun, in (abstract) the field of lithium ion secondary batteries, discloses ([0010]) the use of fluorinated graphene as a negative electrode stabilizer and also as a negative electrode conductor and discloses ([0017]) that fluorinated graphene will conduct lithium ions, improve lithium precipitation and charging speed. Examiner notes that graphene is a type of carbonaceous material.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the fluorinated graphene of Sun, for use as the carbonaceous additive of modified Kodato, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving improved lithium precipitation and charging speed.
Regarding claim 12, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Kodato does not explicitly teach wherein the concentration of fluorine is higher than or equal to 1 atomic% with respect to the total concentration of fluorine, oxygen, lithium, and carbon when the carbon-based material is measurement by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy.
Sun discloses ([0010]) the use of fluorinated graphene as a negative electrode stabilizer and also as a negative electrode conductor and discloses ([0017]) that fluorinated graphene will conduct lithium ions, improve lithium precipitation and charging speed. At ([0031]) Sun discloses the use of fluorinated graphene with a fluorination ratio of 10%. At FIG. 1 and ([0068]), Sun demonstrates excellent capacity retention rate for the resulting battery.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, that Suns 10% fluorine material, the selection of which is rendered obvious in claim 11, above, would demonstrate a total fluorine concentration of greater than 1 atomic percent when measured using XPS, thus meeting the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Kodato in view of Ochiai teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Kodata discloses ([0073]) that the negative electrode may comprise carbonaceous materials which ([0076-0077]) may be used to enhance electrical conductivity, however Kodato does not explicitly teach wherein the negative electrode comprises a conductive agent modified with fluorine.
Sun discloses ([0010]) the use of fluorinated graphene as a negative electrode stabilizer and also as a negative electrode conductor and discloses ([0017]) that fluorinated graphene will conduct lithium ions, improve lithium precipitation and charging speed. Examiner notes that graphene is an example of a carbonaceous material.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to select the fluorinated graphene of Sun, for use as the carbonaceous additive of modified Kodato, with a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving improved lithium precipitation and charging speed.
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 CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-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 at 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/17/2025