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 .
Claim Objections
Due to Applicant’s Amendments, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Due to Applicant’s Amendments, the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s Amendments have necessitated the rejection below.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In each of claims 1, 11 and 16, there is no written description for “a given elevated temperature above room temperature.” Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17-21 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans (WO 2018094101 A1).
In regards to claim(s) 16, Evans discloses a lithium-ion battery (title) that allows for reversable lithiation and delithiation reactions without structural degradation ([0027]), comprising: cathode materials having a cathode surface ([0021]); and an ionic liquid electrolyte (title) with one or more functional additives ([0029]-[0031]); wherein the cathode materials are cycled ([0011]-[0018]) in the electrolyte at a given elevated temperature above room temperature (see Fig. 3, at 60°C), the functional additives are decomposed (“Such electrolyte additives are expected to be "sacrificial,"”; [0029]), and products of the decomposed functional additives form a thermally stable filmcathode-electrolyte interface (CEI)” – [0030]; “This data suggests the immediate formation of a much more stable interface which is hypothesized to perform better under high rate and high temperature conditions.” –[0029]). While Evans does not explicitly disclose the term “in situ,” since Evans discloses the CEI with a separate CEI coating step, Evans necessarily discloses the in situ formation of the CEI.
In regards to claim(s) 17, Evans discloses NMC622 or NMC811 ([0053]).
In regards to claim(s) 18, Evans discloses pyrrolidinium ([0044]).
In regards to claim(s) 19, Evans discloses lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) ([0030]).
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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans.
In regards to claim(s) 21, Evans discloses between 0.5% and 5% which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 2% and therefore establishes a case of prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed range from the broader prior art range because prior art teaches the same utility over the entire range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see bottom of p. 9, filed 18 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC 103 over Lee, Fauteux and Badding have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Evans, see above.
In regards to the 112(a) rejection, Examiner notes that the specification states “High temperature operations as it is referred to throughout the disclosure means to operate at or about 100° C.” Examiner comments that there is nothing in the prior art that would direct one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a 100°C first charging cycle on Evans’ battery. Examiner discovers Laramie (US 20230112241 A1) which discloses high temperature first charging cycles at 45°C performed on high voltage Li-containing cells (title; Fig.5; Example 2; [0104]-[0105]). However, Laramie is directed towards all types of electrolyte ([0077]-[0092]). Yim (WO 2020101173 A1) discloses an ex situ method of adding a CEI layer to Ni-rich NCM positive electrode material (abstract).
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 NICHOLAS A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571)272-7769. 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.
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights