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
In response to the amendment received on April 1, 2026:
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending. Claim 10 has been canceled as per Applicant’s request;
The prior art rejections to Chiga are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 103107364).
As to claims 1 and 2, Li discloses an electrolyte solution, containing a solvent, an additive and a lithium salt, wherein the solvent (Embodiment 2) comprises
a first solvent and a second solvent,
the first solvent being a cyclic ester solvent (EC, ethylene carbonate),
the second solvent being a linear carboxylic ester solvent (MA, methyl acetate),
the additive comprises a film forming additive (VC, vinylene carbonate), and
based on the total mass of the electrolyte solution, the lithium salt has a mass fraction of W1, the film forming additive has a mass fraction of W2, and the second solvent has a mass fraction of W3, which satisfy the following relationship: 0.2 ≤ (W1 + W2)/W3 ≤ 0.4.
Notably, the electrolyte of Li is 1M LiPF₆, 40/9.5/50/0.5 EC/EMC/MA/VC (the mixed solvent composed of the solvents above by mass %). The amounts are calculated based on 1.0 mole of LiPF₆ dissolved in 1000 mL of solvent mixture (40/9.5/50/0.5 EC/EMC/MA/VC; mass% of the mixed solvent).
A 1M solution of LiPF₆ has 1 mole of LiPF₆ (151.9g/mol). Therefore W1 is 151.9g.
In a 1L solution of 40/9.5/50/0.5 EC/EMC/MA/VC (mass% of solvent blend only). Given the amounts of EC/EMC/MA/VC at 49/9.5/50/0.5 and their densities (EC 1.321g/mL; EMC 1.006g/mL; MA 0.956g/ml; and VC 1.360g/mL) the mixture density would be ~1.09g/mL for the solvent blend.
The solvent blend totals 1000g to (yielding 917mL solvent blend) and adds 151.9g of LiPF6 to form the 1M solution of Li.
Breakdown by component:
Mass of EC: mEC=400g
Mass of EMC: mEMC=95g
Mass of MA: mMA=500g
Mass of VC: mVC=5g
Solvent mass total 1000g.
In a 1L of 1M LiPF₆ in EC/EMC/MA/VC (40/9.5/50/0.5 mass% ratio or solvents), the mass of each above is:
W1 - LiPF6 (151.9g)
W2 – VC additive (5g)
W3 – MA solvent (500g)
(W1+W2)/W3 is (151.9g+5g)/500g=156.9/500g = 0.314.
Therefore, the mass fraction of lithium salt and film forming additive to the second solvent (linear carboxylic ester solvent) is 0.314 for embodiment 2 which falls within the range 0.2-0.4 of claim 1 and further to the narrower range of 0.25-0.36 of claim 2.
As to claim 3, the cyclic ester solvent is ethylene carbonate in embodiment 2.
As to claim 4, the linear carboxylic ester solvent is methyl acrylate in embodiment 2.
As to claim 5, the film forming additive is vinylene carbonate in embodiment 2.
As to claim 6, the lithium salt is LiPF6 in embodiment 2.
As to claim 7, the mass of LiPF₆ in 1M of this solution is 151.9g. The total mass of the solution is 1000g of solvent and 151.9g LiPF6 in a 1M solution is 1151.9g. The mass% of LiPF₆ (151.9g) based on the total mass of 1151.9g is 13.2%.
As to claim 8, the mass of VC is 5.64. The total mass of the solution is 1128.09g and the mass% of VC based on the total mass of the electrolyte solution 5.64/1128.09g is 0.5% with Li teaching that the amount of VC can effectively and operatively range from 0.5 to 5% (para. [0008]). As LiPF6 remains fixed at 151.9g (1 mol in a 1M solution) each 1% VC increase increases the ratio slightly. For example, adjusting incrementally from 0.5% VC towards 5% VC would still effectively provide for a significant overlap of (W1+W2)/W3 is (151.9g+10g)/500g=161.9/500g = 0.324; (151.9g+10g)/495g=161.9/495g = 0.327; (151.9g+20)/500g=171.9/500g = 0.344; (151.9g+20g)/485g=171.9/485g = 0.354; (151.9g+30)/500g=181.9/500g = 0.364; (151.9g+30g)/475g=181.9/475g = 0.383; etc..
As to claim 9, the mass of LiPF₆ in 1M of this solution is 151.9g. The total mass of the solution is 1000g of solvent and 151.9g LiPF6 in a 1M solution is 1151.9g. The mass% of methyl acetate 50% of the mass of the solvent blend in Embodiment 4 is 500g or 50%.
As to claims 14 and 19, the electrolyte above is employed in a lithium ion secondary battery and further conventionally applied in combination with a power consuming electronic device (paras. [0004], [0012] for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 103107364) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhang et al (CN 107749466A).
Li does not teach of the electrolyte further including a water removal additive as in claim 11, more particularly at least one of the specific materials recited in claim 12, in an amount of 0.5% or less as in claim 13.
Zhang is drawn to lithium ion battery chemistries including selection of cathode active materials and methods of making for lithium ion batteries. Zhang teaches of adding a minor amount of hexamethyldisilazane (abstract, examples, applied to claims 11 and 12) in an improved manufacturing method for dispersing active material which achieving good cycle performance for the benefit reducing water formation in a non-aqueous secondary battery. The amount of additive is minor amount ranging from 0.2 to 0.4% (claim 13).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Li to further include the formulation technique of Zhang including 0.2-0.4% hexamethyldisilazane as taught by Zhang since it would have predictably provided good active material dispersion, good cycle performance and the inclusion of the additive for preventing/reducing water formation in the battery.
Claims 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 103107364) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0328947), Shirakata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0216605) and Du et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0315992).
As to claim 15, Li teaches of the positive electrode comprising lithium manganese oxide (paras. [0011]; [0030]).
Li does not teach of the positive electrode film layer comprising a lithium containing phosphate of an olivine structure on a substrate (claim 15) where the thickness of the film on one side is 80-140 microns (claim 17), where the porosity of the film is 20-50% (claim 18).
Li teaches by example that the positive electrode is lithium manganate (LiMn2O4). Replacing LiMn2O4 with LiFePO4 would have been readily known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as LiFePO4 was known to improve safety, cycle life and cost. Chou, drawn to the same field of endeavor, selection of cathode active materials for lithium ion batteries, recognized that LiFePO4 provides for certain benefits over both LiCoO2 and LiMn2O4 cathode materials in terms of low cost and improved safety (paras. [0006]-[0007]). Shirakata drawn to the same field of endeavor, selection of cathode active materials for lithium ion batteries, teaches that secondary batteries employing an olivine-type lithium metal phosphate active material as a low-cost material compared to other conventional materials (para. [0003]). Du drawn to the same field of endeavor, selection of cathode active materials for lithium ion batteries, teaches of manufacturing thicker electrodes including LiFePO4 (lithium containing phosphate of an olivine structure, claim 15). The electrode has a porosity of 20-40% and an overlapping thickness as low as 100 microns or more (para. [0019], claims 17-18). Du recognized that electrode thickness and porosity are important to battery performance and selected based on battery application (para. [0005]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material, thickness and porosity of the positive electrode active material of Li to be an olivine-type lithium metal phosphate active material as taught by Chou, Shirakata and Du having a thickness of at least 100 microns and a porosity of 20-40% since it would have provided a conventionally recognized active material, LiFePO4, having excellent electrochemical performance at low-cost and provided electrode parameters, thickness and porosity of sufficient amounts to provide a robust mechanical and electrochemical positive electrode active material layer. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the secondary battery of claim 16, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, wherein the battery further satisfies the relationship of claim 16.
While Li satisfies the relationship of claim 1, Li itself does not teach or suggest satisfying this relationship in combination with the positive electrode film layer active material comprising a lithium-containing phosphate of an olivine structure which further satisfies the relationship of claim 16 which includes the second relationship and it would not appear to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to satisfy this second relationship with sufficient specificity to appreciate the need to satisfy the two relationships in combination. While the secondary references above obviate certain features of an olivine-type lithium metal phosphate active material, there is no reasonably teaching or suggestion from the combination above to effectively satisfy the relationships together (relationship of claim 1 in combination with the relationship of claim 16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 11-15 and 17-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed April 1, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) Chiga have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejections is made in view of Li above.
By amending the range of the first solvent to be in the range of 30-40%, even if it were obvious to modify the amount of the first solvent of Chiga (ethylene carbonate) to be in this range while maintaining a minimum of FEC (10%) and adjusting methyl acrylate in Example A3, increasing the first solvent of Chiga, while reducing the second solvent in this example would fail to satisfy the relationship of claim 1 as a reduction in the amount of methyl acrylate would lower the mass fraction value W3. In order to satisfy the relationship of claim 1, Chiga can only appear to do so when EC is low (10 vol%) and MA is high (80 vol%). But claim 1 now requires EC to be much higher (first solvent, cyclic ester) and Chiga cannot satisfy the relationship of claim 1 for higher amounts of EC as the calculated value would significantly exceed 0.4 (~0.53 if EC/MA/FEC of A3 is modified to 30/60/10 and ~0.64 if EC/MA/FEC of A3 is modified to 40/50/10). And since there is no further teaching of Chiga to optimize the various components to satisfy the relationship of claim 1, Chiga cannot be applicable to the claimed invention when the first solvent is limited to the mass fraction of 30-40% as stated therein.
Therefore the rejections to Chiga have been withdrawn in favor of the new grounds of rejections to Li set forth above.
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 GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights