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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of an electrolyte comprising of lithium difluorophosphate and only an additive of formula I and an additive of formula II (first additive) in the reply filed on November 7, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-17 have been examined in the context of the election.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 20180219256 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Lee teaches an electrolyte [¶ 0056], comprising a compound of formula I (Lee teaches the electrolyte may comprise a swelling inhibiting compound such as N-acetyl caprolactam, which is a compound represented by formula I and a claimed species of claim 2 [¶ 0072]) and lithium difluorophosphate (Lee teaches the electrolyte can comprise at least one electrolyte salt selected from a group consisting of LiPO2F2 which is lithium difluorophosphate [¶ 0057-0058]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Lee teaches an electrolyte [¶ 0056], comprising a compound of formula I (Lee teaches the electrolyte may comprise a swelling inhibiting compound such as N-acetyl caprolactam, which is a compound represented by formula I and a claimed species of claim 9 [¶ 0072]) and lithium difluorophosphate (Lee teaches the electrolyte can comprise at least one electrolyte salt selected from a group consisting of LiPO2F2 which is lithium difluorophosphate [¶ 0057-0058]). Lee also teaches use of the electrolyte in an electrochemical apparatus such as lithium batteries, supercapacitors, or hybrid supercapacitors [¶ 0056].
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Lee teaches the electrolyte of claims 1 and the electrochemical apparatus of 8, and further teaches the electrolyte further comprises an organic solvent and a lithium salt, wherein the organic solvent comprises at least one selected from ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate [¶ 0063-0068; 0070-0071]; the lithium salt comprises at least one selected from lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(oxalate)borate (Lee teaches the electrolyte composition often may comprise lithium salts LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate) and LiPO2F2 (lithium difluorophosphate) [¶ 0058]. Lee also teaches lithium bis(oxalate)borate can be applied as an additional additive).
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 3-4, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20180219256 A1) in view of Wang et al "Lithium Difluorophosphate As a Promising Electrolyte Lithium Additive for High-Voltage Lithium-Ion Batteries," ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2018, 1, 2647-2656.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Lee teaches the electrolyte of claim 1 and the electrochemical apparatus of claim 10. Lee further teaches wherein based on a total weight of the electrolyte, the amount of a swelling inhibiting compound such as N-acetyl caprolactam (a compound of formula I) can be 0.1 to 5 wt % [¶ 0072], which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Lee does not teach a percentage of the lithium difluorophosphate ranges from 0.01% to 1%.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches when the content of lithium difluorophosphate (LiDFP) exceeds 1.0%, the electrolytes’ phase stability can be negatively impacted (p3 left col para 1). They also teach that the cycling stability and discharge capacity of a cell with LiDFP with 0.5% and 1% LiDFP is significantly enhanced compared to a cell without LiDFP (p3 right col, ¶ 2; p4 Table 2) when the content of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to have modified the electrolyte of Lee to use 0.5% - 1% LiDFP to optimize the electrolytes’ phase stability and to enhance the cycling stability and discharge capacity of the cell. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Additionally, one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the amount of lithium difluorophosphate as a result-effective variable and would have found it obvious to use routine experimentation according to Wang’s taught conditions have adjusted the amount of LiDFP within the electrolyte to optimize the phase stability and the cycling stability and discharge capacity of the cell, and would have arrived at the claimed range as a result.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 11, Lee teaches the electrolyte of claim 1 and the electrochemical apparatus of claim 8. The combination also teaches the use of 0.5% - 1% LiDFP (Wang: p3 right col, ¶ 2; Table 2), which corresponds to b%, and the percentage of a compound of formula I (N-acetyl caprolactam) as 0.1 to 5 wt % (Lee: ¶ 0072), which corresponds to a%. Accordingly, a/b would correspond to (0.1 to 5)/(0.5 to 1), or 0.2 to 10, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 5-6, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20180219256 A1) in view of Watarai et al (WO 2019093443 A1).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 12, Lee teaches the electrolyte of claim 1 and the electrochemical apparatus of claim 8, and Lee also teaches nitriles can be used in the electrolyte compositions [¶ 0051]. However, Lee does not teach a first additive including a compound of formula II and a percentage of the first additive.
In the same field of endeavor, Watarai teaches a similar electrolyte using nitrile compounds such as acrylonitrile, methacrylonitrile, 2-methyl-2-butenenitrile, 2-pentenenitrile, 2-methyl-2-pentenenitrile [¶ 0049, 0087], which are species corresponding to a compound of formula II. Wang further teaches use of the nitrile compound within 0.001% to 5.0% mass % relative to the nonaqueous electrolyte solution can improve effects such as input/output characteristics, charge/discharge rate characteristics, cycle characteristics, and high-temperature storage characteristics [¶ 0049, 0087]. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to have modified Lee’s electrolyte to include Watarai’s nitrile compound within the taught range to take advantage of improved input/output characteristics, charge/discharge rate characteristics, cycle characteristics, and high-temperature storage characteristics, as disclosed by Watarai. Accordingly, the taught range of 0.001% to 5.0% of nitrile compounds such as acrylonitrile, methacrylonitrile, 2-methyl-2-butenenitrile, 2-pentenenitrile, 2-methyl-2-pentenenitrile overlap with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 13, the combination above teaches the electrolyte of claim 5 and the electrochemical apparatus of claim 12. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 5 and claim 12, Watarai teaches the compound of formula II can be acrylonitrile, methacrylonitrile, 2-methyl-2-butene nitrile, 2-pentene nitrile, 2-methyl-2 pentene nitrile [¶ 0049, 0087], which are claimed species.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20180219256 A1) in view of Su et al (CN 209045678 U).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the electrochemical apparatus of claim 8 and further teaches it comprises a positive electrode, wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material layer (Lee teaches a positive electrode consisting of a lithium metal oxide, conductive carbon black, and a binder, and the layer containing the lithium metal oxide layer would correspond to a positive electrode active material layer [¶ 0086]).
However, Lee does not explicitly claim a positive electrode current collector and does not teach an insulating layer disposed on the positive electrode current collector.
In the same field of endeavor, Su teaches a positive electrode 10 which includes a positive current collector 11, a positive electrode active material layer (either 12 or 13) and an insulating layer 14 (machine translation [¶ 0047], Fig. 2). The configuration of the positive electrode sheet is such that the first positive electrode
active material layer 12, the second positive electrode active material layer 13, and the insulating layer 14 are positioned along the length of the positive electrode current collector, such that a first distance 15 and a second distance 16 exist between the first positive electrode active material layer 12 and the second positive electrode active material layer 13 and the insulating layer 14, respectively (Fig. 2, ¶ 0047), and the first distance or, alternatively, the second distance, can correspond to a gap between the insulating layer and the positive electrode active material layer, and wherein the first distance is taught as about 0 mm to 83 mm, and the second distance is taught as 0 mm to about 83 mm [¶ 0050-0051]. Su teaches the configuration ensures the reliability of the positive electrode sheet during the manufacturing process without comprising the safety performance of the positive electrode sheet in a nail penetration test [¶ 0050-0051]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the electrochemical apparatus of Lee with the insulating layer as taught by Su to ensure the reliability of the positive electrode sheet during the manufacturing process without comprising the safety performance of the positive electrode sheet in a nail penetration test. Accordingly, within the combination of modified Lee, a gap is provided between the insulating layer and the positive electrode active material layer, wherein a width of the gap overlaps with the claimed range of claimed condition (a) as taught by Su of the combination. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Within the combination of prior art, the insulating layer taught by Su comprises inorganic particles, wherein the inorganic particle is aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, magnesium oxide, titanium oxide, hafnium dioxide, titanium oxide, tin oxide, hafnium oxide, cerium (ceria) dioxide, nickel oxide, zinc oxide, calcium oxide, zirconium dioxide, yttrium oxide, silicon carbide, boehmite, aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, or barium sulfate [¶ 0017], thus reading on claimed species recited by claimed condition (b).
Su also teaches the insulating layer can comprise of polymer wherein the polymer can be a homopolymer of vinylidene fluoride, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride, a copolymer of hexafluoropropylene, polystyrene, polyphenylene acetylene, sodium polyvinyl acetate, potassium polyvinyl acetate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene, polypropylene, or polytetrafluoroethylene, thereby reading on claimed species recited by claimed condition (c).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al (CN 209045678 U) in view of Lee et al (US 20180219256 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Su teaches an electronic apparatus (Su teaches mobile phones in machine translation [¶ 0004], laptops, mobile computers, memory cards, backup power supplies, motors, automobiles, motorcycles, electric bicycles [¶ 0090]), comprising an electrochemical apparatus (i.e., electrochemical devices such as lithium-ion batteries [¶ 0004]), the electrochemical apparatus comprises an electrolyte [¶ 0080].
However, Su does not teach the electrolyte comprises a compound of formula I and lithium difluorophosphate.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches an electrolyte [¶ 0056], comprising a compound of formula I (Lee teaches the electrolyte may comprise a swelling inhibiting compound such as N-acetyl caprolactam, which is a compound represented by formula I and a claimed species of claim 9 [¶ 0072]) and lithium difluorophosphate (Lee teaches the electrolyte can comprise at least one electrolyte salt selected from a group consisting of LiPO2F2 which is lithium difluorophosphate [¶ 0057-0058]). Lee also teaches use of the electrolyte in an electrochemical apparatus such as lithium batteries (including lithium-ion batteries), supercapacitors, or hybrid supercapacitors ([¶ 0056]). Lee teaches their electrolyte additives may increase the performance of the battery by formation of a protective layer on the electrode and can also lead to improved performance when used together with a silicon anode in a lithium ion battery [¶ 0009]. Given that Su teaches use of electrochemical apparatuses using lithium-ion batteries and the need for higher performance of the batteries [¶ 0004-0005], one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Su’s electronic apparatus to utilize Lee’s electrolyte for the benefits of increased the performance of the battery by formation of a protective layer on the electrode.
Regarding claim 17, the combination above teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 16.
Su of the combination further teaches a positive electrode 10 which includes a positive current collector 11, a positive electrode active material layer (either 12 or 13) and an insulating layer 14 [¶ 0047], Fig. 2. The configuration of the positive electrode sheet is such that the first positive electrode
active material layer 12, the second positive electrode active material layer 13, and the insulating layer 14 are positioned along the length of the positive electrode current collector, such that a first distance 15 and a second distance 16 exist between the first positive electrode active material layer 12 and the second positive electrode active material layer 13 and the insulating layer 14, respectively (Fig. 2, ¶ 0047), and the first distance or, alternatively, the second distance can correspond to a gap between the insulating layer and the positive electrode active material layer, and wherein the first distance is taught as about 0 mm to 83 mm, and the second distance is taught as 0 mm to about 83 mm. Accordingly, a gap is provided between the insulating layer and the positive electrode active material layer, wherein a width of the gap overlaps with the claimed range of claimed condition (a) as taught by Su of the combination. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Within the combination of prior art, the insulating layer taught by Su comprises inorganic particles, wherein the inorganic particle is aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide, magnesium oxide, titanium oxide, hafnium dioxide, titanium oxide, tin oxide, hafnium oxide, cerium (ceria) dioxide, nickel oxide, zinc oxide, calcium oxide, zirconium dioxide, yttrium oxide, silicon carbide, boehmite, aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, or barium sulfate [¶ 0017], thus reading on claimed species recited by claimed condition (b).
Su also teaches the insulating layer can comprise of polymer wherein the polymer can be a homopolymer of vinylidene fluoride, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride, a copolymer of hexafluoropropylene, polystyrene, polyphenylene acetylene, sodium polyvinyl acetate, potassium polyvinyl acetate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene, polypropylene, or polytetrafluoroethylene, thereby reading on claimed species recited by claimed condition (c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.L.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 02/19/2025