DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 22, 2026 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received January 22, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 4 are amended; and clam 3 is cancelled; resulting in claims 1-2 and 4-11 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, et al. (CN 1948366 A).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, Liu teaches a method for preparing a lithium-ion battery electrolyte (¶ [0002], Ln. 1). Liu teaches that the electrolyte includes: a polymer with a content of 0.1% to 10%, preferably 0.5-5% (¶ [0010], Ln. 1-2); an electrolyte volume selected from ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dipropyl carbonate (DPC), methyl ethyl carbonate (EMC), methyl propyl carbonate (MPC), methyl isopropyl carbonate (MiPC), and γ-butyrolactone (γ-GBL) (¶ [0012], Ln. 1-5); and a lithium salt (¶ [0013], Ln. 1-2). Liu further teaches that the electrolyte may include a film-forming additive such as vinylene carbonate (VC), vinylene ethylene carbonate (VEC), propiolactone sulfonate (PS), and butyrolactone sulfonate (DS), with the addition amount being 0.5-5% (¶ [0015], Ln. 1-3). Liu teaches that the polymer can be a polymeric monomer containing carbonyl-COO-, or a polymer obtained by polymerizing a polymeric monomer containing carbonyl-COO- with an olefin containing a double bond (¶ [0009], Ln. 1-3), teaching the inclusion of methyl methacrylate (a carboxylate-based compound represented by claimed formula I) in the examples (Example 1-11). Given the ranges taught in the reference, the mass percentage of vinylene carbonate is 0.5-5% (A) and the mass percentage of polymer is 0.5-5% (B), resulting in a value of A/B ranging from 0.1-10 and a value of A+B ranging from 1-10%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Specifically in Example 1, Liu teaches an electrolyte composition including 17.64% ethylene carbonate, 17.64% propylene carbonate, 49.92% diethyl carbonate, 10.8% LiBOB, 1.0% vinylene carbonate, and 3.0% of a polymer copolymerized from methyl methacrylate (a carboxylate-based compound represented by claimed formula I) and vinyl acetate in a mass ratio of 1:2 (¶ [0031], Ln. 1-6; Table 1). Based on the composition of Example 1, Liu teaches an example wherein the mass percentage of vinylene carbonate is 1.0% (A) and the mass percentage of methyl methacrylate is 1.0% (B), resulting in a value of A/B of 1 and a value of A+B of 2, which do not overlap but are close enough to render obvious to the claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close absent any evidence of criticality or a showing of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claims 5-6, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the electrolyte composition in Examples 1-7 includes an ethylene carbonate content ranging from 17.64-29.83% (C) (Table 1). Using this range and the range for A+B of 1-10%, the resulting range of C/(A+B) is 1.764-29.83, overlapping the claimed range of 5-20 and more specifically the claimed range of 8.3-15. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Specifically, using the amount of ethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, and methyl methacrylate in the electrolyte of Example 1, the value of C/(A+B) is 8.82, within the claimed range of 5-20 and more specifically the claimed range of 8.3-15.
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches that the electrolyte meeting the limitations of claim 1 above is used in a battery including a positive electrode, negative electrode, and diaphragm (separator) (¶ [0034]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above and further teaches that the negative electrode includes an MCMB (mesocarbon microbead; graphite material) negative electrode active material and a copper foil current collector (¶ [0036], Ln. 1-3). Liu additionally teaches that the diaphragm (separator) is a three-layer polymer membrane consisting of polyethylene/polypropylene/polyethylene (¶ [0037], Ln. 1).
While it is acknowledged that Liu does not expressly teaches that the chlorine content of the diaphragm is less than or equal to 20 ppm, the reference teaches a polyethylene/polypropylene/polyethylene diaphragm, which is not expected to contain chlorine. Therefore, the separator would contain essentially no chlorine, meeting the limitation of a chlorine content of less than or equal to 20 ppm.
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above. Liu does not expressly teach a chlorine content of the diaphragm of 7 ppm to 20 ppm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of chlorine impurity in the diaphragm should be as low as possible. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to permit trace amounts of chlorine in the diaphragm that do not have adverse effects on the performance of the battery. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably allow trace amounts of chlorine within the range of 7 ppm to 20 ppm in the diaphragm without having adverse effects on the performance of the battery.
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches that polymer lithium-ion batteries are promising rechargeable battery systems (¶ [0004], Ln. 8-9). Liu does not expressly teach an embodiment in which the lithium battery meeting the limitations of claim 7 above is used in an electronic device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the lithium-ion battery of Liu in an electronic device. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the purpose of producing a lithium-ion battery would be to use it in an electronic device, such as an electric vehicle or mobile phone.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, et al. (CN 1948366 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li, et al. (CN 110911740 A).
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above and further teaches that the positive electrode includes a LiCoO2 positive electrode active material (¶ [0035], Ln. 1-2). Liu does not expressly teach that the positive electrode active material is selected from any one or a mixture of two or more of lithium iron phosphate, lithium-nickel transition metal composite oxide, and lithium-nickel-manganese composite oxide having a spinel structure.
Li teaches a gel electrolyte for a lithium battery (¶ [0012], Ln. 3-4) including: a solvent including any one or a combination of at least two of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate (¶ [0024], Ln. 1-3); a solute selected from a list of lithium salts (¶ [0031], Ln. 1-10); an initiator and/or monomer (¶ [0033], Ln. 1-2); and additives selected from any one or a combination of at least two of vinylene carbonate, 1,3-propanesulfonate lactone, 1,3-propenesulfonate lactone, NaODFB and LiBOB (¶ [0036], Ln. 1-3). For example, the electrolyte in Example 3 includes a solvent mixture of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate; a solute mixture of LiPF6 and LFSI; an additive mixture of vinylene carbonate, 1,3-propane sultone, and 1,3-propene sultone; and an initiator/monomer combination of azobisisobutyronitrile and methyl methacrylate (¶ [0077], Ln. 1-7). Li teaches that the electrolyte is used in battery with a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide positive active material (¶ [0078], Ln. 1-4). Li teaches that the gel electrolyte inhibits lithium dendrite growth, enhancing cycle performance of the lithium battery (¶ [0017], Ln. 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the battery of Liu to include a positive electrode active material including a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide based on the teachings of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would substitute the positive electrode active material of Liu with a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide with a reasonable expectation of success based on the similarities in the electrolyte taught by Li. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that lithium nickel transition metal oxides are commonly used as positive electrode active materials in lithium ion batteries. One would be motivated to include a positive electrode active material including nickel, cobalt, and manganese to improve the cycle life and reduce the cost of the positive electrode active material.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections 102 and 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of claim 3 and limit the R1, R3, and R4 groups to exclude substituted hydrocarbons, the previous rejections of claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Ohashi (JP 2014013659 A), claims 6, 8, and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ohashi, and claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kotado, et al. (JP 2007/258102 A) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785