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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the thickness C of the negative electrode plate is less than or equal to 150 µm”. This limitation fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1, specifically the claimed “relational expression: A + 100 × B – C ≥ 0”. Claim 1 has been amended to further recite 40 ≥ A ≥ 20 and 0.4 ≤ B ≤ 0.8 such that the relational expression solved for C and assuming the maximum for A (40) and B (0.8) is C ≤ 40 + 100 × 0.8, or C ≤ 120. Thus, the limitation in claim 16 fails to further limit the claimed relational expression in claim 1.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amiruddin et al. (US 2014/0050972A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045A1).
Regarding claim 1, Amiruddin discloses a battery, comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a separator, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (Title, Abstract, [0042]), wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent, an electrolyte salt, and an additive ([0053]-[0054]);
the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethyl methyl carbonate and/or ethyl propionate (methyl ethyl carbonate [0054]),
a thickness of the negative electrode plate is C, and measured in units of μm (negative electrode having a thickness from about 35 microns to about 150 microns [0051]);
a discharge direct current internal resistance of the battery at 25° C. in an SOC of 50% is D; a discharge direct current internal resistance of the battery at 25° C. in an SOC of 80% is E; and D and E satisfy the following relational expression: E/D≤2 (DC resistance [0105]-[0117], Fig. 9-10, 12A,C show a DCR ratio at 50% SOC and 80% SOC within the claimed range).
However, Amiruddin does not disclose the additive comprises LiPO2F2, the additive comprises fluoroethylene carbonate, 1,3,6-hexanetrinitrile, and 1,3-propanesultone.
Choi discloses an electrolyte for lithium secondary battery (see Title, Abstract) comprising fluoroethylene carbonate as an additive to reduce amount of gas generated in a high temperature storage environment and improve swelling characteristics, improve room temperature cycle-life improvement effect, and plays a role in forming a passivation film in the negative electrode ([0042]), hexane tricyanide (HTCN) as a secondary additive to suppress battery resistance and provide good cycle-life characteristics ([0049]-[0050]), and propane sultone as a third additive to improve swelling characteristics ([0044]-[0048]).
Amiruddin and Choi are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amiruddin to include fluoroethylene carbonate, hexane tricyanide (HTCN) and propane sultone as electrolyte additives because Choi teaches improving performance and safety.
Further regarding claim 1, Amiruddin does not disclose a mass percentage of content of the ethyl methyl carbonate and/or ethyl propionate in a total mass of the non-aqueous organic solvent is A wt %, and 40 wt %≥A wt %≥20 wt %.
Choi further discloses the solvent includes a carbonate-based solvent such as ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), wherein the carbonate-based solvent is prepared by mixing a cyclic carbonate and a chain-type carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:1 to 1:9 which is then further mixed with an aromatic hydrocarbon-based organic solvent in a volume ratio of 1:1 to 30:1 ([0052]-[0060]) and Examples 1-3 comprise a mixed solvent electrolyte containing 10% volume EMC ([0108]-[0121]), or an ester-based solvent such as ethyl propionate (EP), wherein Choi discloses a specific solvent combination including ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), ethyl propionate (EP), and propyl propionate (PP) mixed in a volume ratio of 5 to 25:5 to 25:25 to 30:35 to 45 based on a total volume of the mixed solvent ([0052]-[0060]) and Examples 4-5 comprise a mixed solvent electrolyte containing 40% EP ([0122]-[0129]). Choi disclose the mixture ratio may be controlled in accordance with a desirable battery performance ([0057], [0059]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Further regarding claim 1, Amiruddin does not disclose a mass percentage of content of the LiPO2F2 in a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution is B wt %, and 0.4 wt %≤B wt %≤0.8 wt %.
Choi further discloses the amount of lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) is 0.1 to 2 wt %, wherein the case the amount of lithium difluorophosphate satisfies said range, an effect of suppressing resistance increase is very excellent when the electrolyte for the lithium secondary battery according to the present disclosure is applied to a lithium secondary battery. In addition, since the gas generation may be significantly reduced even in a high temperature storage environment, swelling characteristics of a lithium secondary battery may be significantly improved ([0041]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte in order to desirable suppress gas generation and improve performance/safety (MPEP 2144.05).
Further regarding claim 1 reciting “A, B, and C satisfy the following relational expression: A+100×B−C≥0”, the resulting combination teaches A is 10, 25 to 30 or 40 (10% volume when EMC is used, or 25 to 30% volume when EP is used in an example or 40% volume when EP is used in other examples, see Choi: [0052]-[0060], [0108]-[0129]), 100×B is 20 to 200 (Choi: [0041]) and C between 35 to 150 (Amiruddin: the negative electrode has a thickness from about 35 microns to about 150 microns [0051]) which overlaps with the claimed relational expression. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549. Accordingly, the combination envisages the claimed relational expression.
Regarding claim 4, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises one or more of the following solvents: ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, propyl acetate, n-butyl acetate, isobutyl acetate, n-amyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, propyl propionate, methyl butyrate, or ethyl n-butyrate ([0054]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses the electrolyte salt is selected from at least one of a lithium salt, a sodium salt or a magnesium salt (lithium salt [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses the lithium salt is selected from at least one of lithium hexafluorophosphate or lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide; and/or a content of the electrolyte salt in the electrolyte solution ranges from 1 mol/L to 2 mol/L (lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [0053]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Choi further discloses a decrease in conductivity of the electrolyte solution caused by addition of LiPO2F2 to the electrolyte solution is less than or equal to 1 mS/cm (0.1 to 2 wt % [0041]; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses the discharge direct current internal resistance D of the battery at 25° C. in the SOC of 50% is less than or equal to 65 mΩ; the discharge direct current internal resistance E of the battery at 25° C. in the SOC of 80% is less than or equal to 100 mΩ; and D and E satisfy the following relational expression: E/D≤2 (DC resistance [0105]-[0117], Fig. 12A,C show a DCR ratio at 50% SOC and 80% SOC within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 12, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses D and E satisfy the following relational expression: 0.5≤E/D≤2 (DC resistance [0105]-[0117], Fig. 12A,C show a DCR ratio at 50% SOC and 80% SOC within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 13, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses D and E satisfy the following relational expression: 1≤E/D≤1.8 (DC resistance [0105]-[0117], Fig. 12A,C show a DCR ratio at 50% SOC and 80% SOC within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 14, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses D and E satisfy the following relational expression: 1.2≤E/D≤1.6 (DC resistance [0105]-[0117], Fig. 12A,C show a DCR ratio at 50% SOC and 80% SOC within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 15, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte solution further comprises one or more of the following additives: vinylene carbonate, vinyl ethylene carbonate, ethylene sulphite, methylene methanedisulfonate, ethylene sulfate, succinonitrile, glutaronitrile, adiponitrile, pimelic dinitrile, suberonitrile, sebaconitrile, 1,2-bis(2-cyanoethoxy)ethane, 3-methoxypropionitrile, or propenyl-ene-1,3-sultone (vinylene carbonate [0054]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses the thickness C of the negative electrode plate is less than or equal to 150 μm (the negative electrode has a thickness from about 35 microns to about 150 microns [0051]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses a ratio of a thickness of the positive electrode plate to the thickness of the negative electrode plate is (0.93−1.48):1 (positive electrode has a thickness from about 60 microns to about 150 microns, and negative electrode has a thickness from about 35 microns to about 150 microns [0050]-[0051]; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.).
Regarding claim 18, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer coated on a surface of either or both sides of the positive electrode current collector ([0042]-[0052]); and the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material, a conductive agent, and a binder (positive electrode active material [0058]-[0079]; conductive agent, binder [0042]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses the positive electrode active material is selected from one or more of a layered-lithium transition metal composite oxide, lithium manganate, or a ternary material mixed with lithium cobaltate (positive electrode active material [0058]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Amiruddin further discloses the layered-lithium transition metal composite oxide has a chemical formula of Li1+xNiyCozM(1−y−z)O2, wherein −0.1≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, and 0≤y+z≤1; and M is one or more of Mg, Zn, Ga, Ba, Al, Fe, Cr, Sn, V, Mn, Sc, Ti, Nb, Mo, or Zr ([0059]-[0074]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amiruddin et al. (US 2014/0050972A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045A1), as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11-20 above, and further in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2020/0091554A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Amiruddin discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Amiruddin does not further disclose conductivity of the electrolyte solution measured at 25° C. is greater than or equal to 7 mS/cm.
Because Matsuoka discloses the ionic conductivity of a non-aqueous electrolyte solution at a temperature of 20° C is preferably greater than 15 mS/cm, wherein lithium ion conduction in the electrode active material layer is sufficiently performed making it possible to perform charging/discharging at a large electric current, and the ionic conductivity is 50 mS/cm or lower from the viewpoint of suppressing unexpected battery degradation, wherein the ionic conductivity can be controlled by adjusting various factors ([0218]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte solution in order to arrive at a desired balance between performance and safety (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to Amiruddin, CN111653829A and Matsuoka failing to teach or suggest a combination of additives newly recited in claim 1 (see Remarks filed 11/24/2025), said prior art references are no longer relied upon to teach A and B. Instead, a combination of Amiruddin and a new prior art reference Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045A1) is relied upon to teach the claimed combination of additives.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to Amiruddin and CN111653829A failing to teach or suggest amended ranges for A and B in claim 1 (see Remarks filed 11/24/2025), said prior art references are no longer relied upon to teach A and B. Instead, a combination of Amiruddin and a new prior art reference Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045A1) is relied upon to teach claimed A and B.
Further, the applicant appears to argue unexpected results (see Remarks filed 11/24/2025). The applicants state “the mechanism of the synergistic effect” when using the four chemicals LiPO2F2, FEC, HTCN and PS simultaneously “may lie in that…” on p.6, the applicants state the narrower claimed range of B is non-obvious on p.6-7 and the applicants state the synergistic effect of A, B and C having an impact on fast charging performance on p.7.
I. BURDEN ON APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH RESULTS ARE UNEXPECTED AND SIGNIFICANT
The evidence relied upon should establish “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength “are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration.”); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical significance of data with regard to maturity date, flowering date, flower color, or height of the plant.). See also In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977) and In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as discussed in MPEP § 716.02(c). (See MPEP §716.02(b)).
Applicant’s general allegations of non-obviousness and certain ‘synergistic effects’ achieved with combinations of chemicals or variables are mere conclusions which are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence. The applicants have not provided any data to support their conclusions and, thus, have failed to meet the burden to establish results are unexpected and significant.
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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 3/4/2026