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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the limitation “
c
+
x
10
≥
0.10
,” rendering the claims indefinite. Specifically, “c” represents a numerical subscript while “x” possesses units of mass %. The variables cannot be added without first addressing the units. Additionally, claims 1 and 3-10 recite variables representing percentages compared with numerical ranges expressed as numbers, for example “0<x≤1.0” in claim 1. Are the end points numbers or percentages? The claims are unclear because it is uncertain what ranges the variables must fall within to be within the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al., Customizing a Li-metal battery that survives practical operating conditions for electric vehicle applications, Energy Environ Sci., 2019, 12, 2174, available at https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/ee/c9ee00716d, last visited March 13, 2026, hereinafter “Hwang,” in view of Park et al. (US 2019/0288336 A1), hereinafter “Park.”
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrolyte solution and a positive electrode plate wherein:
the positive electrode plate comprises a layered material with a molecular formula of LiaNibCocM1dM2eOfAg, specifically LiNi0.75Co0.10Mn0.15O2 where a=1, b=0.75, c= 0.10, d=0.15, e=g=0, and f=2 (p. 2175); and
the electrolyte solution comprises lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) (p. 2175) that makes up more than zero to less than or equal to one mass percent of the electrolyte solution, in this case 0.05 M (p. 2175) which results in less than or equal to 1.0 mass% of the electrolyte.
Hwang does not disclose that the secondary battery satisfies
c
+
x
10
≥
0.10
. However, Park teaches a battery electrolyte comprising 0.5 wt% to 10 wt% LiDFOB (¶ [0061]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that increasing the LiDFOB loading to satisfy
c
+
x
10
≥
0.10
would have ensured effective migration of lithium ions and/or electrons in the electrolyte during charging and discharging (see ¶ [0061]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided increased LiDFOB loading to satisfy
c
+
x
10
≥
0.10
in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 2, Hwang further discloses that the electrolyte solution comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (p. 2175).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang is silent on the mass percentage content of the FEC. However, Hwang teaches an electrolyte comprising FEC at a 3:100 volume loading (¶ [0136]), which would result in a mass loading of 2.5% or less. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an amount of FEC would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided FEC at 2.5% by mass or less in order to provide a functioning electrolyte.
Regarding claim 6, Hwang discloses a method for preparing a secondary battery comprising the steps of:
assembling a positive electrode plate, a separator, a negative electrode plate, and an electrolyte, in this case the lithium ion battery includes these components (e.g. p. 2175);
the positive electrode plate comprises a layered material with a molecular formula of LiaNibCocM1dM2eOfAg, specifically LiNi0.75Co0.10Mn0.15O2 where a=1, b=0.75, c= 0.10, d=0.15, e=g=0, and f=2 (p. 2175); and
the electrolyte solution comprises lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) (p. 2175) that makes up more than zero to less than or equal to one mass percent of the electrolyte solution, in this case 0.05 M (p. 2175) which results in less than or equal to 1.0 mass% of the electrolyte.
Hwang does not disclose that the secondary battery satisfies
c
+
x
10
≥
0.10
. However, Park teaches a battery electrolyte comprising 0.5 wt% to 10 wt% LiDFOB (¶ [0061]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that increasing the LiDFOB loading to satisfy
c
+
x
10
≥
0.10
would have ensured effective migration of lithium ions and/or electrons in the electrolyte during charging and discharging (see ¶ [0061]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided increased LiDFOB loading to satisfy
c
+
x
10
≥
0.10
in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Hwang further discloses that the electrolyte solution comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (p. 2175), but is silent on the mass percentage content of the FEC. However, Hwang teaches an electrolyte comprising FEC at a 3:100 volume loading (¶ [0136]), which would result in a mass loading of 2.5% or less. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an amount of FEC would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided FEC at 2.5% by mass or less in order to provide a functioning electrolyte.
Regarding claims 11-13, Hwang does not disclose the battery module, battery pack, or electrical apparatus. However, Park teaches a battery pack that comprises a battery module that in turn comprises the secondary battery (¶ [0129]-[0131]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing the battery within a module within a battery pack would have facilitated providing electrical power to an electrical apparatus such as a power tool, electric vehicle, and others (¶ [0131]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the battery within a battery module within a battery pack in order to have provided electric power to an electrical apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: no prior art reference could be found that fairly teaches or suggests the claimed loading relationships and ratios between FEC, LiFSI, and LiDFOB as set forth in claims 4, 5, and 7-10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights