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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments and remarks filed on January 16, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 16, 2025 have been received and entered. Claim 11 was amended to incorporate the limitations of claim 12, which was cancelled. Claim 21 depending on claim 1 was added. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending in this application.
The objection made to the disclosure because on paragraph 0082, the given description correspond to Fig. 4 instead of Fig. 3, was not addressed, therefore it is maintained. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210344004 A1) in view of Muhammad, S., et al. (Evidence of reversible oxygen participation in anomalously high capacity Li-and Mn-rich cathodes for Li-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation) and Smith, K., et al. (Electrolytes containing fluorinated ester co-solvents for low-temperature Li-ion cells, see NPL documents for citation).
Applicant argues (see page 11 and 12) that the Office alleges at page 4 of the current Office Action that Muhammad, which reportedly "teaches the preparation of a lithium-rich manganese-nickel-oxide electrode in the xLi2MnO3-(1- x)LiMn0.5Ni0.5)O2 system, in which x=0.4" cures the teaching deficiencies of Liu regarding the claimed formula for the electroactive material. The Office alleges that it would have been obvious to modify the electrode of Liu to include the electroactive material of Muhammad because the electroactive material of Muhammad is "analogous to the positive electrode active material of Liu." The Office does not substantiate this relationship in the current Office Action; however, in a recent interview, as summarized in the Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary dated January 16, 2026, the Office alleges that because Liu provides "that its positive electrode (24) may be formed from a lithium-based active material that comprises a transition metal and that can sufficiently undergo lithium intercalation and deintercalation . . . and that the lithium-rich manganese-nickel-oxide electrode xLi2MnO3-(1- x)LiMn0.5Ni0.5O2 system, which x=0.4, taught by Mohammad by its nature is capable of lithium intercalation/deintercalation, it met the general teaching of Liu and therefore can be considered analogous to its lithium-based active material."
Applicant notes that lithium-ion intercalation and deintercalation are fundamental processes in lithium-ion batteries. Lithium intercalation and deintercalation is not unique to the electroactive material of Liu and/or the electroactive material of Mohammad and the reliance on the same by the Office amounts to nothing more than a suggestion that any electroactive material capable of lithium intercalation/deintercalation is, without consequence, interchangeable for any other electroactive material capable of lithium intercalation/deintercalation, which of course, is an inaccurate assertion. There are many considerations why certain electroactive materials (including different electroactive materials capable of lithium intercalation/deintercalation) may be appropriate for use in one system and inappropriate for use in another. Here, the Office has failed to provide any further assertion as to why the skilled artisan would understand the electroactive materials of Mohammad to be analogous with, and therefore interchangeable with, the electroactive materials of Liu.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that Liu, Muhammad, Smith, Hasegawa, Xu '062, and Xu 2017, considered alone or in combination, fail to provide the necessary guidance or teachings for the skilled artisan to have a compelling reason, or importantly, a reasonable expectation of success, to arrive at the invention of the independent claims or their dependent claims.
Applicant's arguments filed on January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons for not considering those arguments persuasive are explained below:
From Liu teachings as presented on the Non Final Office Action mailed on October 16, 2025 (see page 3), Liu can be considered analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ion, the electrode comprising a porous electroactive layer, which may have an electrolyte solution or system inside their pores. Liu teaches that its positive electrode (24) may be formed from a lithium-based active material that comprises a transition metal and that can sufficiently undergo lithium intercalation and deintercalation [0073]. It is further taught that one of the problems to be avoided with the prepared electrodes is the capacity fade or other performance loss over time observed in lithium manganese oxide-based positive electrode materials [0073 and 0075].
Mohamed was relied for teaching the preparation and study of lithium-rich manganese-nickel-oxide electrodes with structure xLi2MnO3(1-x)LiMn0.5Ni0.5O2, in which x=0.4, to be employed on Li-ion batteries [p. 174; par. 2 and Tittle]. Based on this teaching, Mohamed electrodes can be considered analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ion, where the electrode comprises an electroactive material represented by xLi2MnO₃ (1-x)LiMO₂ (M being a combination of Mn and Ni). In addition, Mohamed teaches that these electrodes, due to the participation of oxygen in the redox reactions of these lithium and manganese-rich composite electrode structures, show an anomalously high capacity [p. 182; conclusions].
Based on the above, a skilled artisan could be motivated to modify the electrode active material of Liu by Mohamed teachings with the reasonable expectation that doing so would obtain an electrode with an anomalously high capacity being advantageously for Liu purposes, avoiding or minimizing the material’s capacity fade or other performance loss over time.
In addition, this reasoning is not suggesting that "any" material capable of sufficiently undergo lithium intercalation and deintercalation can be switched, but rather that the specific material of Mohammed may be used in the battery of Liu, and the skilled artisan would reasonably understand that the materials may be interchanged in the specific electrode due to their similarity, e.g. both are lithium manganese oxides.
Because of the above reasons, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, as presented on the Non-Final Office Action mailed on October 16, 2025, is maintained. Given that independent claims 1, 13 and 19 were not amended, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims and its dependent claims are maintained.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210344004 A1) in view of Muhammad, S., et al. (Evidence of reversible oxygen participation in anomalously high capacity Li-and Mn-rich cathodes for Li-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation) and Smith, K., et al. (Electrolytes containing fluorinated ester co-solvents for low-temperature Li-ion cells, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a lithium ions cycling battery (20) consisting of a negative and positive electrode (22 and 24), an interposed separator (26) and an electrolyte (30) is present throughout the separator (26) and, optionally, in the negative electrode (22) and positive electrode (24) [0054 and Fig. 1]. The positive electrode (24), the negative electrode (22), and the separator (26) may each include an electrolyte solution or system (30) inside their pores [0061]. The electrolyte (30) may comprise lithium salts dissolved in a variety of organic solvents, including, but not limited to aliphatic carboxylic esters (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate as a possibility) [0062]. It is taught that the positive electrode (24) may be formed from a lithium-based active material that comprises a transition metal and that can sufficiently undergo lithium intercalation and deintercalation [0073].
Liu does not teach the feature “an electroactive material represented by: xLi2MnO3(1-x)LiMO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof and 0.01<x<0.99” and where the “electrolyte comprises 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate”.
Muhammad teaches the preparation of a lithium-rich manganese-nickel-oxide electrode in the xLi2MnO3–(1−x)LiMn0.5Ni0.5O2 system, in which x=0.4 related to cathodes for Li-ion batteries [p. 174; par. 2 and Title]. It is taught that these electrodes present an anomalously high capacity, which is the result of the reversible oxygen release and re-accommodation by the host structure [Abstract].
Smith teaches 1M LiPF6 ternary electrolyte formulations containing 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate between 20-40 vol% [p. 92; par. 2-3 and Table 1]. This fluoroester was found to display good results in terms of low temperature performance and high temperature resiliency of lithium-ion cells and it is anticipated that this fluorinated compound will impart some reduced flammability to any electrolyte mixture they are mixed with due to their halogenation [p. 92; par. 2].
Liu is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ion, the electrode comprising a porous electroactive layer, which may have an electrolyte solution or system inside their pores.
Mohamed is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ion, where the electrode comprises an electroactive material represented by xLi2MnO₃ (1-x)LiMO₂ (M being a combination of Mn and Ni).
Smith is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely ternary electrolyte formulations containing 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate between 20-40 vol% employable on lithium-ion cells.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Liu to include the feature “an electroactive material represented by: xLi2MnO3(1-x)LiMO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof and 0.01<x<0.99” and where the “electrolyte comprises 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate”, because Muhammad teaches that these electrodes present an anomalously high capacity, which is the result of the reversible oxygen release and re-accommodation by the host structure. In addition, Smith teaches that 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate was found to display good results in terms of low temperature performance and high temperature resiliency of lithium-ion cells and it is anticipated that this fluorinated compound will impart some reduced flammability to any electrolyte mixture they are mixed with due to their halogenation.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Liu further teaches that its electrolyte (30) may comprise a mixture of organic solvents including carbonate-based solvents (claim 2), which may be ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate, as examples (claim 3) [0062]. From claim 1 discussion, aliphatic carboxylic esters, from which “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate” can be included on the possibilities, can be considered a first solvent and the carbonate-based solvents can be considered the second solvent of the system.
Regarding claims 5-7, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Liu further teaches that its electrolyte (30) may comprise a mixture of organic solvents including carbonate-based solvents (claim 5), which may be ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate, as examples (claims 6 and 7) [0062]. From claim 1 discussion, aliphatic carboxylic esters, from which “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate” can be included on the possibilities, can be considered a first solvent and the carbonate-based solvents can be considered the second and third solvent of the system.
Regarding claim 8, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 7. From claim 7 discussion fluoroethylene carbonate lies inside the general carbonate-based category as stated by Liu for its electrolyte system (30) [0062]. On Example 1 it is employed on the coin cells preparation [0132]. From this general teachings can be possible to consider an electrolyte system (30) where fluoroethylene carbonate is a third solvent.
Regarding claim 10, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Liu teaches that among the possible lithium salts that may comprise its electrolyte (30) can be found LiPF6, LiFSi, LiClO4, LiAlCl4, LiI, LiBr, LiSCN, LiBF4, LiB(C6H5)4, LiAsF6, LiCF3SO3, LiN(CF3SO2)2, Li(CF3SO2)2N, and combinations thereof [0062]. On Example 1 and 2 a 1M LiPF6 was employed as lithium salt [0132 and 0137].
Claim 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210344004 A1) in view of Muhammad, S., et al. (Evidence of reversible oxygen participation in anomalously high capacity Li-and Mn-rich cathodes for Li-ion batteries. Nano Energy 21 (2016): 172-184, see NPL documents for citation) and Smith, K., et al. (Electrolytes containing fluorinated ester co-solvents for low-temperature Li-ion cells. ECS Transactions 11.29 (2008): 91, see NPL documents for citation) as applied to claim 2 and 5 above, further in view of Hasegawa et al. (JP H0620719 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 4, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 2, except “wherein a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent is greater than or equal to about 20:80 to less than or equal to about 50:50”.
Hasegawa teaches the preparation of an electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent, where the organic solvent includes a fluorine substituted carboxylic acid ester (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) among other carbonate-based solvents (analogous to Liu’s electrolyte in claim 2) [0004]. On Example 3, a mixed solvent of trifluoroethyl acetate and diethyl carbonate (a carbonate-based solvent as on claim 2) having a volume ratio of 1:2 was used as a solvent [0012]. This volume ratio lies between the claimed range greater than or equal to about 20:80 (1:4) to less than or equal to about 50:50 (1:1). It is taught that the volume ratio of the fluorine-substituted carboxylic acid (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) to the additional organic solvent is, for example, 5 to 80% (which meets the claimed range), because it does not impair the charge/discharge efficiency and the oxidation resistance of the overall organic solvent [0007].
Hasegawa is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent, where the organic solvent includes a fluorine substituted carboxylic acid ester (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) among other carbonate-based solvents.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Liu, Muhammad and Smith to include the feature “wherein a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent is greater than or equal to about 20:80 to less than or equal to about 50:50”, because Hasegawa teaches that that the volume ratio of the fluorine-substituted carboxylic acid (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) to the additional organic solvent is, for example, 5 to 80% (which meets the claimed range), because it does not impair the charge/discharge efficiency and the oxidation resistance of the overall organic solvent.
Regarding claim 9, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 5, except “wherein a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent to the third solvent is greater than or equal to about 1:1:98 to less than or equal to about 98:1:1”.
Hasegawa teaches the preparation of an electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent, where the organic solvent includes a fluorine substituted carboxylic acid ester (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) among other carbonate-based solvents (analogous to Liu’s electrolyte in claim 5) [0004]. On Example 2, mixed solvent of trifluoroethyl acetate, ethylene carbonate, and diethyl carbonate (a carbonate-based solvents as on claim 5) having a volume ratio of 1:0.5:1.5 was used as a solvent [0011]. This volume ratio lies between the claimed range a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent to the third solvent is greater than or equal to about 1:1:98 (0.01:0.01:1) to less than or equal to about 98:1:1 (1:0.01:0.01). It is taught that the volume ratio of the fluorine-substituted carboxylic acid (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) to the additional organic solvent is, for example, 5 to 80% (which meets the claimed range), because it does not impair the charge/discharge efficiency and the oxidation resistance of the overall organic solvent [0007].
Hasegawa is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent, where the organic solvent includes a fluorine substituted carboxylic acid ester (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) among other carbonate-based solvents.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Liu, Muhammad and Smith to include the feature “wherein a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent is greater than or equal to about 20:80 to less than or equal to about 50:50”, because Hasegawa teaches that that the volume ratio of the fluorine-substituted carboxylic acid (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) to the additional organic solvent is, for example, 5 to 80% (which meets the claimed range), because it does not impair the charge/discharge efficiency and the oxidation resistance of the overall organic solvent.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210344004 A1) in view of Muhammad, S., et al. (Evidence of reversible oxygen participation in anomalously high capacity Li-and Mn-rich cathodes for Li-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation) and Smith, K., et al. (Electrolytes containing fluorinated ester co-solvents for low-temperature Li-ion cells, see NPL documents for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Xu et al. (US 20210218062 A1) and Xu, C., et al. (LiTDI: A highly efficient additive for electrolyte stabilization in lithium-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claims 11, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein the electrolyte further comprises greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of an electrolyte additive.” and wherein the electrolyte additive is selected from the group recited.
Xu (‘062 A1) teaches electrolytes for Li-ion batteries, including a lithium salt, a non-aqueous solvent, a diluent and an additive [0005]. Among the suitable solvents to be employed 2, 2, 2-trifluoroethyl acetate may be selected [0136] (analogous to Liu’s electrolyte and claim 1). Some exemplary additives that may be selected to be part of the electrolyte are lithium 2-trifluoromethyl-4,5 dicyanoimidazole (LiTDI) and lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB) (claim 12) [0148]. A general molar ratio for the lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent is taught where 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤5, 0≤y≤l and 0.5≤z≤5 [0149]. Starting from this molar ratio, taking z=0, the diluent is eliminated from the electrolyte system. Taking the solvent as 2, 2, 2-trifluoroethyl acetate (142.08 g/mol) and the lithium salt as LiPF6 (151.9 g/mol) [0133], a similar electrolyte system as the one proposed on claim 1 and further limited, can be obtained. Using x=1, y=0.1 and LiTDI (192.03 g/mol) as an additive, the system will have a weight ratio of 151.9:142.08:19.20. Considering the electrolyte system total weight, the additive contribution is 6.13 wt.% (claim 11). It is taught by Xu (‘062 A1) that relative amounts (applicable to weight ratio) of the salt, solvent, diluent and additive are selected to reduce the cost of materials for the electrolyte, reduce viscosity of the electrolyte, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation at high-voltage cathodes, improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, improve wetting ability of the electrolyte, facilitate formation of an effective SEI layer, or any combination thereof [0149].
Regarding the employment of lithium 2-trifluoromethyl-4,5 dicyanoimidazole (LiTDI) as an electrolyte additive, Xu, C. teaches the employment of 2 wt.% LiTDI as an additive on a LP40 electrolyte (1:1 (v/v) ethylene carbonate/diethyl carbonate; 1 M LiPF6), where was demonstrated that it is a highly efficient moisture-scavenging additive in lithium-ion battery electrolytes [p. 2255; par. 1 and p. 2260; Conclusions].
Xu (‘062 A1) is analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate for Li-ion batteries.
Xu, C. is analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and an additive for lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Liu, Muhammad and Smith to include the features except “wherein the electrolyte further comprises greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of an electrolyte additive.” and wherein the electrolyte additive is selected from the group recited, because Xu (‘062 A1) teaches that relative amounts (applicable to weight ratio) of the salt, solvent, diluent and additive are selected to reduce the cost of materials for the electrolyte, reduce viscosity of the electrolyte, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation at high-voltage cathodes, improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, improve wetting ability of the electrolyte, facilitate formation of an effective SEI layer, or any combination thereof and Xu, C. teaches that LiTDI is a highly efficient moisture-scavenging additive in lithium-ion battery electrolytes.
Claims 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210344004 A1) in view of Muhammad, S., et al. (Evidence of reversible oxygen participation in anomalously high capacity Li-and Mn-rich cathodes for Li-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation) and Smith, K., et al. (Electrolytes containing fluorinated ester co-solvents for low-temperature Li-ion cells, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches a lithium ions cycling battery (20) consisting of a negative and positive electrode (22 and 24), an interposed separator (26) and an electrolyte (30) is present throughout the separator (26) and, optionally, in the negative electrode (22) and positive electrode (24) [0054 and Fig. 1]. The negative electrode (22) comprises an electrode active material [0067].
The positive electrode (24), the negative electrode (22), and the separator (26) may each include an electrolyte solution or system (30) inside their pores [0061]. The electrolyte (30) may comprise lithium salts dissolved in a variety of organic solvents, including, but not limited to aliphatic carboxylic esters (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate as a possibility) [0062]. It is taught that the positive electrode (24) may be formed from a lithium-based active material that comprises a transition metal and that can sufficiently undergo lithium intercalation and deintercalation [0073].
Liu does not teach the feature “an electroactive material represented by: xLi2MnO3(1-x)LiMO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof and 0.01<x<0.99” and where the “electrolyte comprises 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate”.
Muhammad teaches the preparation of a lithium-rich manganese-nickel-oxide electrode in the xLi2MnO3–(1−x)LiMn0.5Ni0.5O2 system, in which x=0.4, related to cathodes for Li-ion batteries [p. 174; par. 2 and Title]. It is taught that these electrodes present an anomalously high capacity, which is the result of the reversible oxygen release and re-accommodation by the host structure [Abstract].
Smith teaches 1M LiPF6 ternary electrolyte formulations containing 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate between 20-40 vol% (analogous to Liu’s electrolyte) [p. 92; par. 2-3 and Table 1]. This fluoroester was found to display good results in terms of low temperature performance and high temperature resiliency of lithium-ion cells and it is anticipated that this fluorinated compound will impart some reduced flammability to any electrolyte mixture they are mixed with due to their halogenation [p. 92; par. 2].
Liu is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ion, the electrode comprising a porous electroactive layer, which may have an electrolyte solution or system inside their pores.
Mohamed is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ion, where the electrode comprises an electroactive material represented by xLi2MnO₃ (1-x)LiMO₂ (M being a combination of Mn and Ni).
Smith is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely ternary electrolyte formulations containing 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate between 20-40 vol% employable on lithium-ion cells.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical cell of Liu to include the feature “an electroactive material represented by: xLi2MnO3(1-x)LiMO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof and 0.01<x<0.99” and where the “electrolyte comprises 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate”, because Muhammad teaches that these electrodes present an anomalously high capacity, which is the result of the reversible oxygen release and re-accommodation by the host structure. In addition, Smith teaches that 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate was found to display good results in terms of low temperature performance and high temperature resiliency of lithium-ion cells and it is anticipated that this fluorinated compound will impart some reduced flammability to any electrolyte mixture they are mixed with due to their halogenation.
Regarding claim 14, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 13. Liu further teaches that its electrolyte (30) may comprise a mixture of organic solvents including carbonate-based solvents, which may be ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate, as examples [0062]. From claim 13 discussion, aliphatic carboxylic esters, from which “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate” can be included on the possibilities, can be considered a first solvent and the carbonate-based solvents can be considered the second solvent of the system.
Regarding claim 16, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Liu further teaches that its electrolyte (30) may comprise a mixture of organic solvents including carbonate-based solvents, which may be ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate, as examples [0062]. From claim 14 discussion, aliphatic carboxylic esters, from which “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate” can be included on the possibilities, can be considered a first solvent and the carbonate-based solvents can be considered the second and third solvent of the system.
Claim 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210344004 A1) in view of Muhammad, S., et al. (Evidence of reversible oxygen participation in anomalously high capacity Li-and Mn-rich cathodes for Li-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation) and Smith, K., et al. (Electrolytes containing fluorinated ester co-solvents for low-temperature Li-ion cells, see NPL documents for citation) as applied to claim 14 and 16 above, further in view of Hasegawa et al. (JP H0620719 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 15, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 14, except “wherein a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent is greater than or equal to about 20:80 to less than or equal to about 50:50”.
Hasegawa teaches the preparation of an electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent, where the organic solvent includes a fluorine substituted carboxylic acid ester (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) among other carbonate-based solvents (analogous to Liu’s electrolyte in claim 14) [0004]. On Example 3, a mixed solvent of trifluoroethyl acetate and diethyl carbonate (a carbonate-based solvent as on claim 14) having a volume ratio of 1:2 was used as a solvent [0012]. This volume ratio lies between the claimed range greater than or equal to about 20:80 (1:4) to less than or equal to about 50:50 (1:1). It is taught that the volume ratio of the fluorine-substituted carboxylic acid (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) to the additional organic solvent is, for example, 5 to 80% (which meets the claimed range), because it does not impair the charge/discharge efficiency and the oxidation resistance of the overall organic solvent [0007].
Hasegawa is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent, where the organic solvent includes a fluorine substituted carboxylic acid ester (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) among other carbonate-based solvents.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical cell of Liu, Muhammad and Smith to include the feature “wherein a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent is greater than or equal to about 20:80 to less than or equal to about 50:50”, because Hasegawa teaches that that the volume ratio of the fluorine-substituted carboxylic acid (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) to the additional organic solvent is, for example, 5 to 80% (which meets the claimed range), because it does not impair the charge/discharge efficiency and the oxidation resistance of the overall organic solvent.
Regarding claim 17, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 16, except “wherein a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent to the third solvent is greater than or equal to about 1:1:98 to less than or equal to about 98:1:1”.
Hasegawa teaches the preparation of an electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent, where the organic solvent includes a fluorine substituted carboxylic acid ester (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) among other carbonate-based solvents (analogous to Liu’s electrolyte in claim 16) [0004]. On Example 2, mixed solvent of trifluoroethyl acetate, ethylene carbonate, and diethyl carbonate (a carbonate-based solvents as on claim 16) having a volume ratio of 1:0.5:1.5 was used as a solvent [0011]. This volume ratio lies between the claimed range a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent to the third solvent is greater than or equal to about 1:1:98 (0.01:0.01:1) to less than or equal to about 98:1:1 (1:0.01:0.01). It is taught that the volume ratio of the fluorine-substituted carboxylic acid (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) to the additional organic solvent is, for example, 5 to 80% (which meets the claimed range), because it does not impair the charge/discharge efficiency and the oxidation resistance of the overall organic solvent [0007].
Hasegawa is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent, where the organic solvent includes a fluorine substituted carboxylic acid ester (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) among other carbonate-based solvents.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical cell of Liu, Muhammad and Smith to include the feature “wherein a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent is greater than or equal to about 20:80 to less than or equal to about 50:50”, because Hasegawa teaches that that the volume ratio of the fluorine-substituted carboxylic acid (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) to the additional organic solvent is, for example, 5 to 80% (which meets the claimed range), because it does not impair the charge/discharge efficiency and the oxidation resistance of the overall organic solvent.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210344004 A1) in view of Muhammad, S., et al. (Evidence of reversible oxygen participation in anomalously high capacity Li-and Mn-rich cathodes for Li-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation) and Smith, K., et al. (Electrolytes containing fluorinated ester co-solvents for low-temperature Li-ion cells, see NPL documents for citation) as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Xu et al. (US 20210218062 A1) and Xu, C., et al. (LiTDI: A highly efficient additive for electrolyte stabilization in lithium-ion batteries." Chemistry of Materials 29.5 (2017): 2254-2263, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 18, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 13, except “wherein the electrolyte further comprises greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of an electrolyte additive selected from the group consisting of: lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB), lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), magnesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (MgTFSI), calcium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (CaTFSI), lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB), lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide (LiTDi), tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite (TTMSPi), tris(trimethlysilyl) phosphate (TTMSP), triethyl phosphate (TEP), tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite (TTFP), tris(1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-propyl) phosphite (THFPP), trimethyl borate (TMB), tris(trimethylsilyl)borate (TMSB), tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane (TFPFB), and combinations thereof.”.
Xu (‘062 A1) teaches electrolytes for Li-ion batteries, including a lithium salt, a non-aqueous solvent, a diluent and an additive [0005]. Among the suitable solvents to be employed 2, 2, 2-trifluoroethyl acetate may be selected [0136] (analogous to Liu’s electrolyte and claim 13). Some exemplary additives that may be selected to be part of the electrolyte are lithium 2-trifluoromethyl-4,5 dicyanoimidazole (LiTDI) and lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB) [0148]. A general molar ratio for the lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent is taught where 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤5, 0≤y≤l and 0.5≤z≤5 [0149]. Starting from this molar ratio, taking z=0, the diluent is eliminated from the electrolyte system. Taking the solvent as 2, 2, 2-trifluoroethyl acetate (142.08 g/mol) and the lithium salt as LiPF6 [0133] (151.9 g/mol), a similar electrolyte system as the one proposed on claim 13 and further limited, can be obtained. Using x=1, y=0.1 and LiTDI (192.03 g/mol) as an additive, the system will have a weight ratio of 151.9:142.08:19.20. Considering the electrolyte system total weight, the additive contribution is 6.13 wt.%. It is taught by Xu (‘062 A1) that relative amounts (applicable to weight ratio) of the salt, solvent, diluent and additive are selected to reduce the cost of materials for the electrolyte, reduce viscosity of the electrolyte, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation at high-voltage cathodes, improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, improve wetting ability of the electrolyte, facilitate formation of an effective SEI layer, or any combination thereof [0149].
Regarding the employment of lithium 2-trifluoromethyl-4,5 dicyanoimidazole (LiTDI) as an electrolyte additive, Xu, C. teaches the employment of 2 wt.% LiTDI as an additive on a LP40 electrolyte, where was demonstrated that it is a highly efficient moisture-scavenging additive in lithium-ion battery electrolytes [p. 2260; Conclusions].
Xu (‘062 A1) is analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate for Li-ion batteries.
Xu, C. is analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and an additive for lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical cell of Liu, Muhammad and Smith to include the features “wherein the electrolyte further comprises greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of an electrolyte additive” and “wherein the electrolyte additive is lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB) or lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide (LiTDI)”, because Xu (‘062 A1) teaches that relative amounts (applicable to weight ratio) of the salt, solvent, diluent and additive are selected to reduce the cost of materials for the electrolyte, reduce viscosity of the electrolyte, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation at high-voltage cathodes, improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, improve wetting ability of the electrolyte, facilitate formation of an effective SEI layer, or any combination thereof and Xu, C. teaches that LiTDI is a highly efficient moisture-scavenging additive in lithium-ion battery electrolytes.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210344004 A1) in view of Muhammad, S., et al. (Evidence of reversible oxygen participation in anomalously high capacity Li-and Mn-rich cathodes for Li-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation), Smith, K., et al. (Electrolytes containing fluorinated ester co-solvents for low-temperature Li-ion cells, see NPL documents for citation) and Hasegawa et al. (JP H0620719 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 19, Liu teaches a lithium ions cycling battery (20) consisting of a negative and positive electrode (22 and 24), an interposed separator (26) and an electrolyte (30) is present throughout the separator (26) and, optionally, in the negative electrode (22) and positive electrode (24) [0054 and Fig. 1]. The negative electrode (22) comprises an electrode active material [0067].
The positive electrode (24), the negative electrode (22), and the separator (26) may each include an electrolyte solution or system (30) inside their pores [0061]. It is taught that the positive electrode (24) may be formed from a lithium-based active material that comprises a transition metal and that can sufficiently undergo lithium intercalation and deintercalation [0073].
Liu further teaches that its electrolyte (30) may comprise lithium salts dissolved in a variety of organic solvents, including, but not limited to carbonate-based solvents and aliphatic carboxylic esters (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate as a possibility) [0062]. From the solvents discussion, aliphatic carboxylic esters, from which “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate” can be included on the possibilities, can be considered a first solvent and fluoroethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate can be selected as the second and third solvents of the system.
Liu does not teach the features “an electroactive material represented by: xLi2MnO3(1-x)LiMO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof and 0.01 <x<0.99”, where the electrolyte comprises “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate” and “wherein a ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent to the third solvent is greater than or equal to about 1:1:98 to less than or equal to about 98:1:1”.
Muhammad teaches the preparation of a lithium-rich manganese-nickel-oxide electrode in the xLi2MnO3–(1−x)LiMn0.5Ni0.5O2 system, in which x=0.4 (analogous to the positive electrode active material of Liu) [p. 174; par. 2]. It is taught that these electrodes present an anomalously high capacity, which is the result of the reversible oxygen release and re-accommodation by the host structure [Abstract].
Smith teaches 1M LiPF6 ternary electrolyte formulations containing 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate between 20-40 vol% (analogous to Liu’s electrolyte) [p. 92; par. 2-3 and Table 1]. This fluoroester was found to display good results in terms of low temperature performance and high temperature resiliency of lithium-ion cells and it is anticipated that this fluorinated compound will impart some reduced flammability to any electrolyte mixture they are mixed with due to their halogenation [p. 92; par. 2].
Hasegawa teaches the preparation of an electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent, where the organic solvent includes a fluorine substituted carboxylic acid ester (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) among other carbonate-based solvents (analogous to Liu’s electrolyte in claim 5) [0004]. On Example 2, mixed solvent of trifluoroethyl acetate, ethylene carbonate, and diethyl carbonate (a carbonate-based solvents as taught by Liu) having a volume ratio of 1:0.5:1.5 was used as a solvent [0011]. This volume ratio lies between the claimed range a volumetric ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent to the third solvent is greater than or equal to about 1:1:98 (0.01:0.01:1) to less than or equal to about 98:1:1 (1:0.01:0.01). It is taught that the volume ratio of the fluorine-substituted carboxylic acid (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) to the additional organic solvent is, for example, 5 to 80% (which meets the claimed range), because it does not impair the charge/discharge efficiency and the oxidation resistance of the overall organic solvent [0007].
Liu is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ion, the electrode comprising a porous electroactive layer, which may have an electrolyte solution or system inside their pores.
Mohamed is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ion, where the electrode comprises an electroactive material represented by xLi2MnO₃ (1-x)LiMO₂ (M being a combination of Mn and Ni).
Smith is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely ternary electrolyte formulations containing 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate between 20-40 vol% employable on lithium-ion cells.
Hasegawa is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolytic solution for a lithium secondary battery in which a lithium salt is dissolved in an organic solvent, where the organic solvent includes a fluorine substituted carboxylic acid ester (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) among other carbonate-based solvents.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ion of Liu to include the features “an electroactive material represented by: xLi2MnO3(1-x)LiMO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof and 0.01 <x<0.99”, where the electrolyte comprises “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate” and “wherein a ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent to the third solvent is greater than or equal to about 1:1:98 to less than or equal to about 98:1:1”, because Muhammad teaches that these electrodes present an anomalously high capacity, which is the result of the reversible oxygen release and re-accommodation by the host structure, Smith teaches that 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate was found to display good results in terms of low temperature performance and high temperature resiliency of lithium-ion cells and it is anticipated that this fluorinated compound will impart some reduced flammability to any electrolyte mixture they are mixed with due to their halogenation and Hasegawa teaches that the volume ratio of the fluorine-substituted carboxylic acid (as 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate) to the additional organic solvent is, for example, 5 to 80% (which meets the claimed range), because it does not impair the charge/discharge efficiency and the oxidation resistance of the overall organic solvent.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210344004 A1) in view of Muhammad, S., et al. (Evidence of reversible oxygen participation in anomalously high capacity Li-and Mn-rich cathodes for Li-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation), Smith, K., et al. (Electrolytes containing fluorinated ester co-solvents for low-temperature Li-ion cells, see NPL documents for citation) and Hasegawa et al. (JP H0620719 A, see machine translation for citation) as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Xu et al. (US 20210218062 A1) and Xu, C., et al. (LiTDI: A highly efficient additive for electrolyte stabilization in lithium-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 20 Liu, Muhammad, Smith and Hasegawa teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 19, except “wherein the electrolyte further comprises greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of an electrolyte additive selected from the recited group.
Xu (‘062 A1) teaches electrolytes for Li-ion batteries, including a lithium salt, a non-aqueous solvent, a diluent and an additive [0005]. Among the suitable solvents to be employed 2, 2, 2-trifluoroethyl acetate may be selected [0136] (analogous to Liu’s electrolyte and claim 19). Some exemplary additives that may be selected to be part of the electrolyte are lithium 2-trifluoromethyl-4,5 dicyanoimidazole (LiTDI) and lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB) [0148]. A general molar ratio for the lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent is taught where 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤5, 0≤y≤l and 0.5≤z≤5 [0149]. Starting from this molar ratio, taking z=0, the diluent is eliminated from the electrolyte system. Taking the solvent as 2, 2, 2-trifluoroethyl acetate (142.08 g/mol) and the lithium salt as LiPF6 [0133] (151.9 g/mol), a similar electrolyte system as the one proposed on claim 1 and further limited, can be obtained. Using x=1, y=0.1 and LiTDI (192.03 g/mol) as an additive, the system will have a weight ratio of 151.9:142.08:19.20. Considering the electrolyte system total weight, the additive contribution is 6.13 wt.%. It is taught by Xu (‘062 A1) that relative amounts (applicable to weight ratio) of the salt, solvent, diluent and additive are selected to reduce the cost of materials for the electrolyte, reduce viscosity of the electrolyte, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation at high-voltage cathodes, improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, improve wetting ability of the electrolyte, facilitate formation of an effective SEI layer, or any combination thereof [0149].
Regarding the employment of lithium 2-trifluoromethyl-4,5 dicyanoimidazole (LiTDI) as an electrolyte additive, Xu, C. teaches the employment of 2 wt.% LiTDI as an additive on a LP40 electrolyte, where was demonstrated that it is a highly efficient moisture-scavenging additive in lithium-ion battery electrolytes [p. 2260; Conclusions].
Xu (‘062 A1) is analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate for Li-ion batteries.
Xu, C. is analogous art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and an additive for lithium-ion batteries.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Liu, Muhammad, Smith and Hasegawa to include the features “wherein the electrolyte further comprises greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of an electrolyte additive” and “wherein the electrolyte additive is lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB) or lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide (LiTDI)”, because Xu (‘062 A1) teaches that relative amounts (applicable to weight ratio) of the salt, solvent, diluent and additive are selected to reduce the cost of materials for the electrolyte, reduce viscosity of the electrolyte, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation at high-voltage cathodes, improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte, improve wetting ability of the electrolyte, facilitate formation of an effective SEI layer, or any combination thereof and Xu, C. teaches that LiTDI is a highly efficient moisture-scavenging additive in lithium-ion battery electrolytes.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210344004 A1) in view of Muhammad, S., et al. (Evidence of reversible oxygen participation in anomalously high capacity Li-and Mn-rich cathodes for Li-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation) and Smith, K., et al. (Electrolytes containing fluorinated ester co-solvents for low-temperature Li-ion cells, see NPL documents for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Xu et al. (US 20210218062 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Liu, Muhammad and Smith teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein the electrolyte further comprises a solvent, the solvent comprising a sulfone-based solvent, a nitrile-based solvent, or any combination thereof”.
Xu teaches electrolytes for lithium ion batteries which includes a lithium salt; a nonaqueous solvent comprising at least one of the following components: (i) an ester, (ii) a sulfur-containing solvent, (iii) a phosphorus-containing solvent, (iv) an ether, (v) a nitrile, or any combination thereof [Abstract]. As exemplary cathodes applicable to the taught batteries, lithium manganese oxides comprising Ni and Co are mentioned [0162]. As part of the suitable ester solvents, 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate is mentioned and as part of suitable sulfur-containing solvents, sulfone solvents are mentioned [0136 and 0137]. From the above teachings it is possible then to have an electrolyte for lithium ion batteries comprising a lithium salt and a non-aqueous solvent including 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate, a sulfone solvent and a nitrile solvent. It is taught that embodiments of the disclosed electrolytes may present an enhanced stability and be useful over a wide temperature range [0154].
Xu is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrolyte employable on an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ion comprising electrodes made of lithium manganese oxides comprising Ni and Co. The electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and a non-aqueous solvent including 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate, a sulfone solvent and a nitrile solvent.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Liu, Muhammad and Smith to include the feature “wherein the electrolyte further comprises a solvent, the solvent comprising a sulfone-based solvent, a nitrile-based solvent, or any combination thereof”, because Xu teaches that electrolytes with these characteristics may present an enhanced stability and be useful over a wide temperature range.
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 GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00 pm.
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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 05/07/2026
Prosecution Insights