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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 10th, 2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 10th, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Application No. 18/249,621 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 10th, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11/322,779 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and clam amendments submitted on August 10th, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 21, 26, and 37 are amended, and claims 1-20 and 27-36 are cancelled, resulting in claims 21-26, 37-40 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed August 10th, 2026 have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the recitation of suitable fluorinated solvents, “tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)orthoformate” appears two times in the list. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210218062 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Xu teaches an electrolyte composition suitable for lithium secondary batteries (Abstract) comprising:
a lithium salt selected from group consisting of LiN(SO2F)2 (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, LiFSI), LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI), LiN(SO2C2F5)2 (lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide, LiBETI), LiNSO2FSO2CF3 (lithium (fluorosulfonyl)(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (LiFTFSI)) and a combination thereof (Paragraph 0006);
a fluorinated solvent selected from the group consisting of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl- 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE) (Paragraph 0006) (Paragraph 0142), tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)orthoformate (TFEO) (Paragraph 0006);
a cyclic sulfone selected from the group consisting of sulfolane (tetramethylene sulfone (TMS), also called sulfolane), Paragraph 0137); and
a fluorinated carbonate selected from the group consisting of 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC) (Paragraph 0146) and a combination thereof;
Xu discloses an electrolyte for use in a lithium-ion battery which includes a lithium salt, a nonaqueous solvent, a diluent, and an additive. Xu teaches the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 3.5, 0.01 ≤ y ≤ 1.0, and 1 ≤ z ≤ 5 (Paragraph 0005; Provisional Application 65/080,496 Page 59, Lines 4-5).
Xu teaches the relative amounts of the salt, solvent, diluent, and additive are selected to reduce the cost of materials for the electrolyte, reduce electrolyte viscosity, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation, improve ionic conductivity and wetting ability of the electrolyte, and facilitate formation of an effective SEI layer (Paragraph 0149).
Xu teaches sulfolane (equated with instant cyclic sulfone) is a suitable sulfone solvent usable in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0137). Therefore, the molar ratio of solvent/lithium salt (x:1) of Xu is equated with the instant molar ratio (y) of cyclic sulfone/lithium salt. Xu teaches the range of x between 0.5 and 3.5, therefore the upper and lower bounds of the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt molar ratio (y) taught by Xu are 0.5/1 ≤ y ≤ 3.5/1, or 0.5 ≤ y ≤ 3.5.
The range of the molar ratio (y) of the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt taught by Xu overlaps with the molar ratio (y) of the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Xu teaches the diluent may be a fluorinated solvent (equated with instant fluorinated solvent) (Paragraph 0142). Therefore, the molar ratio of diluent/lithium salt (z:1) of Xu is equated with the instant molar ratio (z) of fluorinated solvent/lithium salt. Xu teaches the range of z between 1 and 5, therefore the upper and lower bounds of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt molar ratio (z) taught by Xu are 1/1 ≤ z ≤ 5/1, or 1 ≤ z ≤ 5.
The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent diluent/lithium salt taught by Xu overlaps with the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Xu teaches in some embodiments; the electrolyte comprises 5 wt% FEC (fluorinated carbonate) (Paragraph 0152).
Xu does not explicitly teach the fluorinated carbonate is in an amount (x) of 0 < x ≤ 15 vol.% based on a total volume of the electrolyte composition.
However, the non-provisional application of Xu teaches in some embodiments, the electrolyte comprises 5 wt% FEC. Xu teaches various electrolyte compositions with 5 wt% FEC as seen in Table 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
502
993
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, taking a molar basis of 1 for the Lb electrolyte composition, the moles of each component is determined to be:
LiFSI: 0.51/(0.51 + 1.1 + 2.2) = 0.13 moles
DMC: 1.1/(0.51 + 1.1 + 2.2) = 0.29 moles
TTE: 2.2/(0.51 + 1.1 + 2.2) = 0.58 moles
The mass of each component is determined to be:
LiFSI: 0.13 moles * (187.09 g/mol) = 24.32 g
DMC: 0.29 moles * (90.01 g/mol) = 18.90 g
TTE: 0.58 moles * (232.07 g/mol) = 134.6 g
The total mass of the LiFSI-DMC-TTE formula is 177.82 g. 1.0 wt% of this is 1.77 g VC and 5 wt% of this is 8.9 g of FEC.
Assuming density measured at 25 ºC, the volume of each component is determined to be:
LiFSI: 24.32 g * (1.052 g/cm3)-1 = 23.11 cm3
DMC: 18.90 g * (1.07 g/cm3)-1 =17.7 cm3
TTE: 134.6 g * (1.54 g/cm3)-1 = 87.4 cm3
VC: 1.77 g * (1.355 g/cm3)-1 = 1.3 cm3
FEC: 8.9 g * (1.485 g/cm3)-1 = 6.0 cm3
Therefore, a suitable volume percent of fluoroethylene carbonate based on a total volume of the electrolyte composition taught by Xu is:
Volume percent of fluoroethylene carbonate: 6.0 cm3/ (23.11 cm3 + 17.7 cm3 + 87.4 cm3 + 1.3 cm3 + 6.0 cm3) = 4.4 vol% FEC
Additionally, the examiner presents the teachings of Xu as provided in the priority disclosure of Xu, the provisional application 63/080,486, filed September 18th, 2020, wherein in the Examples of electrolyte compositions studied, Xu teaches LiFSI:DME:TTE:FEC comprised in the electrolyte in a molar ratio of 1.0:1.1:3.0:0.2 (Table 1). Therefore, taking a molar basis of 1, the moles of each component is determined to be:
LiFSI: 1.0/(1.0 + 1.1 + 3.0 + 0.2) = 0.19 moles
DME: 1.1/(1.0 + 1.1 + 3.0 + 0.2) = 0.21 moles
TTE: 3.0/(1.0 + 1.1 + 3.0 + 0.2) = 0.57 moles
FEC: 0.2/(1.0 + 1.1 + 3.0 + 0.2) = 0.04 moles
The mass of each component is determined to be:
LiFSI: 0.19 moles * (187.09 g/mol) = 35.55 g
DME: 0.21 moles * (90.12 g/mol) = 18.93 g
TTE: 0.57 moles * (232.07 g/mol) = 132.28 g
FEC: 0.04 moles * (106.05 g/mol) = 4.24 g
Assuming density measured at 25 ºC, the volume of each component is determined to be:
LiFSI: 35.55 g * (1.052 g/cm3)-1 = 33.8 cm3
DME: 18.93 g * (0.867 g/cm3)-1 =21.8 cm3
TTE: 132.28 g * (1.54 g/cm3)-1 = 85.9 cm3
FEC: 4.24 g * (1.485 g/cm3)-1 = 2.9 cm3
Therefore, a suitable volume percent of fluoroethylene carbonate based on a total volume of the electrolyte composition taught by Xu is:
Volume percent of fluoroethylene carbonate: 2.9 cm3/ (2.9 cm3 + 33.8 cm3 + 21.8 cm3 + 85.9 cm3) = 2.01 vol% FEC
Therefore, Xu teaches a suitable volume percent of fluorinated carbonate with respect to the total volume of the electrolyte composition that lies within the instant claimed range.
Additionally, and more generally in the priority disclosure of Xu, the provisional application 63/080,486, filed September 18th, 2020, Xu teaches the formulations of the localized high concentration electrolytes may be written as Li salt:main solvent:additive:diluent 1:x:y:z where x=0.5-3.5, y=0.01-1.0, ad z=1-5 (Page 59, Lines 4-5).
By repeating the above calculations, the maximum volume percent of FEC additive taught by Xu (when 1 : x : y : z = 1: 0.5 : 1 : 1) is determined to be
LiFSI: 0.29 moles * (187.09 g/mol) * (1.052 g/cm3)-1 = 51.6 cm3
DME: 0.14 moles * (90.12 g/mol) * (0.867 g/cm3)-1 = 14.6 cm3
FEC: 0.29 moles * (106.05 g/mol) * (1.485 g/cm3)-1 = 20.7 cm3
TTE: 0.29 moles * (232.07 g/mol) * (1.54 g/cm3)-1 = 43.7 cm3
Therefore, a suitable volume percent of fluoroethylene carbonate based on a total volume of the electrolyte composition taught by Xu is:
Volume percent of fluoroethylene carbonate: 20.7 cm3/ (20.7 cm3 + 51.6 cm3 + 14.6 cm3 + 43.7 cm3) = 15.8 vol% FEC
Xu exemplifies the suitable volume percentage of fluorinated carbonate that is encompassed by the small amount of additive added to the electrolyte system of Xu in order to obtain the beneficial effects described above. Thus, through the examples and teachings of the disclosure, the Examiner relies on the teachings of Xu relating to the mass/molar quantity of the fluorinated carbonate additive in the electrolyte composition to teach the volume percent. It is noted that as calculated above, the quantity of FEC present in the electrolyte composition of both the nonprovisional application (17/144,600) and the provisional application (63/080,486) of Xu teaches a volume percent of FEC that falls within the instant claimed range. Therefore, Xu teaches the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 22, Xu teaches the electrolyte composition according to claim 21, wherein the lithium salt is LiN(SO2C2F5)2 (lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide, LiBETI), LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI), LiN(SO2F)2 (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, LiFSI), as described above (Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 23, Xu teaches the electrolyte composition according to claim 21, wherein the fluorinated solvent is selected from the group consisting of 1,1 ,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE) as described above (Paragraphs 0006, 0142).
Regarding claim 24, Xu teaches the electrolyte composition according to claim 21, wherein the cyclic sulfone is sulfolane (SL), as described above (Paragraph 0137).
Regarding claim 25, Xu teaches the electrolyte composition according to claim 21, wherein the fluorinated carbonate is 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC), as described above (Paragraphs 0006, 0146).
Regarding claim 26, Xu teaches the electrolyte composition according to claim 21.
Xu does not teach a specific embodiment in which
the lithium salt is LiN(SO2CF3)2
the fluorinated solvent is 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE)
the cyclic sulfone is sulfolane (SL)
the fluorinated carbonate is 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC)
Also described above, Xu indicates LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI) is a suitable lithium salt comprised in the electrolyte, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) is a suitable diluent comprised in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0006), sulfolane is a suitable sulfone solvent comprised in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0137), and 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC) is a suitable additive comprised in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to have selected and combined
LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI) from the finite lists of possible combinations for lithium salt of the electrolyte composition
1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) from the finite lists of possible combinations for diluent of the electrolyte composition
sulfolane from the finite lists of possible combinations for sulfur-containing solvents of the electrolyte composition
4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC) from the finite lists of possible combinations for additives of the electrolyte composition
to arrive at the electrolyte composition of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claim 21 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 21-26 above, and further in view of Ramprasand (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120100417 A1) and Ryu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120107728).
Regarding claim 21, the following limitations of 26 are taught by Xu as described above in the rejection of claim 21:
an electrolyte composition suitable for lithium secondary batteries (Abstract) comprising:
a lithium salt selected from group consisting of LiN(SO2F)2 (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, LiFSI), LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI), LiN(SO2C2F5)2 (lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide, LiBETI), LiNSO2FSO2CF3 (lithium (fluorosulfonyl)(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (LiFTFSI)) and a combination thereof (Paragraph 0006);
a fluorinated solvent selected from the group consisting of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl- 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE) (Paragraph 0006) (Paragraph 0142), tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)orthoformate (TFEO) (Paragraph 0006);
a cyclic sulfone selected from the group consisting of sulfolane (tetramethylene sulfone (TMS), also called sulfolane), Paragraph 0137); and
a fluorinated carbonate selected from the group consisting of 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC) (Paragraph 0146) and a combination thereof;
wherein the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt is comprised in a molar ratio (y) of 1.5 ≤ y ≤ 2.5, and
wherein the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt is comprised in a molar ratio (z) of 2.5 ≤ z ≤ 3.0
As discussed above, Xu does not explicitly teach the fluorinated carbonate being comprised in an amount of 0.5 to 5 vol.% based on a total volume of the electrolyte composition.
However, as discussed above, by converting the teachings of weight percent of fluorinated carbonate of Xu to volume percent, the quantity of FEC (vol. %) present in the electrolyte composition of both the nonprovisional application (17/144,600) and the provisional application (63/080,486) of Xu teaches a volume percent of FEC that falls within the instant claimed range.
Additionally, it is recognized by Ryu that when selecting the components of non-aqueous solvents for a battery, the selection of solvents and the mixture ratio is controlled to result in the desired battery performance, and this process is widely understood to those skilled in the art (Paragraph 0051). Further, Ryu teaches examples of non-aqueous organic solvent which may suitably be fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (Paragraph 0050).
Further, Ramprasad teaches electrolyte fluids containing a mixture of one or more solvents, including fluorinated carbonate solvents such as methyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate (MTFEC) and proply-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate (PTFEC) (Paragraph 0073), which appear on the list of suitable fluorinated carbonates of the instant application. Ramprasad teaches that when a mixture of solvents are used, each solvent “may be present in an amount ranging from 0 wt% to about 99 wt% based on the total weight of solvents”, with the wt% of all solvents together equaling 100 wt% (Paragraph 0074).
Therefore, the ordinary artisan would recognize the quantity (volume percent) of fluorinated carbonate as a highly tunable variable in the composition of the electrolyte for a battery. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fluorinated carbonate in the electrolyte of Xu between 0.5 to 5 vol%, depending on how many solvents are added and the relative amounts of each solvent. The teachings of Ryu and Ramprasad recognize that the mixture of solvents, including fluorinated carbonates, may be controlled to achieve the aforementioned benefit of desirable battery performance.
Claims 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 21-26 above, and further in view Wu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190123390 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Xu teaches a lithium secondary battery cell comprising the electrolyte composition according to claim 21 (Paragraph 0188). Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell comprising a negative electrode (Paragraph 0008; Provisional Application 66/080,486 Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu teaches in some embodiments, the anode is a silicon-based or graphite-based anode (Paragraph 0159).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprising lithium metal.
However, Wu discloses an electrochemical device and an electrolyte including an active salt, solvent, and diluent (Paragraph 0003). The materials of the electrolyte of Wu overlap with those discussed above as discussed by Xu and the instant application, including:
a lithium salt selected from group consisting of LiN(SO2F)2 (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, LiFSI), LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI), LiN(SO2C2F5)2 (lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide, LiBETI), LiNSO2FSO2CF3 (lithium (fluorosulfonyl)(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (LiFTFSI)) and a combination thereof (Wu, Paragraph 0005);
a fluorinated solvent selected from the group consisting of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl- 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE) (Paragraph 0006), tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)orthoformate (TFEO), and a combination thereof (Wu, Paragraph 0008);
a cyclic sulfone selected from the group consisting of sulfolane (tetramethylene sulfone (TMS), also called sulfolane); Wu, Paragraph 0008); and
a fluorinated carbonate selected from the group consisting of 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC) (Wu, Paragraph 0006).
Wu teaches embodiments of the aforementioned electrolyte including lithium metal batteries and lithium-ion batteries (Paragraph 0200). Wu teaches that in embodiments when the rechargeable battery implementing the electrolyte of the disclosure is an alkali metal battery, the anode may be a metal (such as lithium) (Paragraphs 0203) and when the rechargeable battery implementing the electrolyte of the disclosure is an alkali metal ion battery, the anode may be a carbon-based, silicon-based, or carbon/silicon composite-based anode material (Paragraph 0204). Therefore, Wu teaches that an electrolyte of the disclosure, comprising the materials which overlap with those of Xu and the instant disclosure as described above, may suitably be implemented in alkali metal batteries or alkali metal ion batteries comprising lithium or carbon/silicon-based active materials, respectively.
Therefore, given the general teachings of Wu it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a lithium metal anode for a carbon or silicon-based anode of Xu, because Wu teaches that the disclosed electrolyte (with components similar to the instant application and Xu) may suitably be selected as lithium or carbon/silicon-based materials. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified compound/device would be useful as negative electrode material in the battery of Xu. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Regarding claim 38, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 37.
Xu discloses the use of localized super concentrated electrolytes (LSEs) or localized high-concentration electrolytes (LHCEs) for use in lithium ion batteries (Paragraph 0077). Xu teaches the lithium-ion battery comprising the disclosed electrolyte composition having a specific coulombic efficiency equal to or greater than the comparable battery with the conventional electrolyte or super concentrated electrolyte. Xu teaches the battery may have a first cycle Coulombic efficiency of at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 75%, or at least 85%, and/or a third cycle CE of at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 97%. In some embodiments, the lithium ion battery comprising the LHCE (or LSE) may have an average CE of at least 98%. Further, Tables 11 of 12 of Xu illustrate that electrolytes comprising lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate obtain average coulombic efficiencies during cycling of the battery which are close to 100 percent.
Therefore, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
The limitation “measured by electro-plating 3.36 mAh/cm2 of lithium on a negative electrode and electro-stripping 0.43 mAh/cm2 of lithium from an amount of lithium electro-plated on said negative electrode and repeating the process at for 50 cycles, followed by a final electro-stripping step until the potential reaches +0.5 V” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed invention because Xu in view of Wu discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrolyte composition and negative electrode which meets the instant claimed limitations of the composition of each component, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 39, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 38.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
Regarding claim 40, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 39.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, meeting the instant limitations.
Claims 37-40 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 21-26 above, and further in view of Michaud (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170033360 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Xu teaches a lithium secondary battery cell comprising the electrolyte composition according to claim 21 (Paragraph 0188). Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell comprising a negative electrode (Paragraph 0008; Provisional Application 66/080,486 Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu teaches in some embodiments, the anode is a silicon-based or graphite-based anode (Paragraph 0159).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprising lithium metal.
Michaud discloses carbonaceous particles such as graphite and their coating (Paragraphs 0014, 0026), the particles are used as negative electrode materials in lithium-ion batteries, particularly in vehicular applications (Paragraph 0019). In some embodiments, Michaud teaches a metal/metalloid or alloy component attached to the surface of the carbon core by incorporating it into the coating (Paragraph 0036). Michaud teaches the surface-modified carbon particles comprising the aforementioned additive which may be metal oxides such as lithium titanate (Paragraph 0069).
Michaud teaches that by combining the metal-based additive components with the coating of the graphite particles increases the electrochemical reversible capacity of the composite particles above the theoretical capacity of graphite (Paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of Xu to incorporate the teachings of Michaud in which lithium titanate is included as an additive to modify the surface of the carbonaceous particle (thus meeting the instant claimed limitation of the negative electrode comprising lithium metal). Michaud and Xu teach carbon-based negative electrode active materials and are thus compatible for combination. Further, the motivation for such a modification, as disclosed by Michaud, is the increased reversible capacity of the metal-coated graphite compared to uncoated graphite.
Regarding claim 38, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 37.
Xu discloses the use of localized super concentrated electrolytes (LSEs) or localized high-concentration electrolytes (LHCEs) for use in lithium ion batteries (Paragraph 0077). Xu teaches the lithium-ion battery comprising the disclosed electrolyte composition having a specific coulombic efficiency equal to or greater than the comparable battery with the conventional electrolyte or super concentrated electrolyte. Xu teaches the battery may have a first cycle Coulombic efficiency of at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 75%, or at least 85%, and/or a third cycle CE of at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 97%. In some embodiments, the lithium ion battery comprising the LHCE (or LSE) may have an average CE of at least 98%. Further, Tables 11 of 12 of Xu illustrate that electrolytes comprising lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate obtain average coulombic efficiencies during cycling of the battery which are close to 100 percent.
Therefore, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
The limitation “measured by electro-plating 3.36 mAh/cm2 of lithium on a negative electrode and electro-stripping 0.43 mAh/cm2 of lithium from an amount of lithium electro-plated on said negative electrode and repeating the process at for 50 cycles, followed by a final electro-stripping step until the potential reaches +0.5 V” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed invention because Xu in view of Michaud discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrolyte composition and negative electrode which meets the instant claimed limitations of the composition of each component, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 39, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 38.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
Regarding claim 40, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 39.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, meeting the instant limitations.
Claims 37-40 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 21-26 above, and further in view of Thackeray (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090081529 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Xu teaches a lithium secondary battery cell comprising the electrolyte composition according to claim 21 (Paragraph 0188). Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell comprising a negative electrode (Paragraph 0008).
In the disclosure, Xu teaches the electrolytes used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprising lithium metal.
However, Thackeray discloses lithium cells and batteries useable in a wide range of applications (Paragraph 0003). Thackeray teaches that in practice, graphite anodes provide a theoretical specific capacity of approximately 300-350 mAh/g while lithium metal anodes offer significantly higher theoretical capacity, on the order of about 3863 mAh/g. Further, Thackeray teaches the relatively high density of metal alloys provide anodes of these materials with significantly higher volumetric capacity compared to graphite (Paragraph 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode of the battery of Xu to incorporate the teachings of Thackeray in which it is comprised of lithium metal. By replacing a graphite negative electrode material such as the one disclosed by Xu with a lithium metal anode material, improved theoretical capacity and volumetric density can be achieved, as recognized by Thackeray.
Regarding claim 38, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 37.
Xu discloses the use of localized super concentrated electrolytes (LSEs) or localized high-concentration electrolytes (LHCEs) for use in lithium ion batteries (Paragraph 0077). Xu teaches the lithium-ion battery comprising the disclosed electrolyte composition having a specific coulombic efficiency equal to or greater than the comparable battery with the conventional electrolyte or super concentrated electrolyte. Xu teaches the battery may have a first cycle Coulombic efficiency of at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 75%, or at least 85%, and/or a third cycle CE of at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 97%. In some embodiments, the lithium ion battery comprising the LHCE (or LSE) may have an average CE of at least 98%. Further, Tables 11 of 12 of Xu illustrate that electrolytes comprising lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate obtain average coulombic efficiencies during cycling of the battery which are close to 100 percent.
Therefore, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
The limitation “measured by electro-plating 3.36 mAh/cm2 of lithium on a negative electrode and electro-stripping 0.43 mAh/cm2 of lithium from an amount of lithium electro-plated on said negative electrode and repeating the process at for 50 cycles, followed by a final electro-stripping step until the potential reaches +0.5 V” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed invention because Xu in view of Thackeray discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrolyte composition and negative electrode which meets the instant claimed limitations of identity and quantity of each component, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 39, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 38.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
Regarding claim 40, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 39.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, meeting the instant limitations.
Claims 37-40 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 21-26 above, and further in view of Iwamura (Non-Patent Literature, “Li-Rich Li-Si Alloy As A Lithium-Containing Negative Electrode Material Towards High Energy Lithium-Ion Batteries”).
Regarding claim 37, Xu teaches a lithium secondary battery cell comprising the electrolyte composition according to claim 21 (Paragraph 0188). Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell comprising a negative electrode (Paragraph 0008).
In the disclosure, Xu teaches the electrolytes used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprising lithium metal.
Iwamaura discloses lithium-ion batteries including lithium-containing negative electrode active material (Abstract). Iwamaura teaches that while silicon as a negative electrode active material shows a very high initial lithiation capacity, its capacity fades quickly because of the intense volume expansion of silicon upon lithiation (Page 4, Column 2). Iwamaura teaches that a Li-Si alloy does not undergo severe volume changes like pure silicon, and thus has better cyclability over silicon anode materials (Page 6, Column 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode of the battery of Xu to incorporate the teachings of Thackeray in which it is comprised of a lithium silicon alloy. By replacing a silicon negative electrode material such as the one disclosed by Xu with a lithium silicon alloy material, reduced swelling and therefore better cyclability can be achieved, as recognized by Iwamaura.
The result of the modification is the negative electrode of the lithium secondary battery cell of Xu comprises a Li-Si alloy, which is considered to meet the instant claimed limitations of a negative electrode comprising lithium metal.
Regarding claim 38, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 37.
Xu discloses the use of localized super concentrated electrolytes (LSEs) or localized high-concentration electrolytes (LHCEs) for use in lithium ion batteries (Paragraph 0077). Xu teaches the lithium-ion battery comprising the disclosed electrolyte composition having a specific coulombic efficiency equal to or greater than the comparable battery with the conventional electrolyte or super concentrated electrolyte. Xu teaches the battery may have a first cycle Coulombic efficiency of at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 75%, or at least 85%, and/or a third cycle CE of at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 97%. In some embodiments, the lithium ion battery comprising the LHCE (or LSE) may have an average CE of at least 98%. Further, Tables 11 of 12 of Xu illustrate that electrolytes comprising lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate obtain average coulombic efficiencies during cycling of the battery which are close to 100 percent.
Therefore, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
The limitation “measured by electro-plating 3.36 mAh/cm2 of lithium on a negative electrode and electro-stripping 0.43 mAh/cm2 of lithium from an amount of lithium electro-plated on said negative electrode and repeating the process at for 50 cycles, followed by a final electro-stripping step until the potential reaches +0.5 V” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed invention because Xu in view of Iwamaura discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrolyte composition and negative electrode which meets the instant claimed limitations of identity and quantity of each component, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 39, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 38.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
Regarding claim 40, Xu teaches the lithium secondary battery cell according to claim 39.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, meeting the instant limitations.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed August 10th, 2026, applicant argues that the amended claim 21 now requires the fluorinated carbonate content, molar ratio y, and molar ratio z to be satisfied simultaneously in a single claim. Applicant argues that the specification’s examples demonstrate why this particular combination of parameters, considered together, was not a result a person of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted from the cited references. Applicant points toward Tables 1 and 2 to demonstrate criticality of the claimed ranges and provides that none of the cited referenced report comparable data identifying where performance is optimized, remains stable, or fails, and rather provides broad numerical ranges.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that obviousness may be established by overlapping ranges 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As Xu teaches ranges of the fluorinated carbonate content, molar ratio y, and molar ratio z which overlap with those of the instant claim, obviousness is established.
The Office submits a proper obviousness rejection was set forth in the Office action mailed April 21st, 2026 as the prior art renders obviousness and teaches each required component of the instant claims. Each specific component of claimed compounds is discussed and addressed in the rejection.
Applicant sets forth a range of the amount of fluorinated carbonate (x), molar ratio (y), and molar ratio (z) which encompasses a large number of possible values where each variable is selected from many defined possibilities of the proportion of the fluorinated carbonate, cyclic sulfone, lithium salt, and fluorinated solvent.
Applicant does not claim merely a single species, but a large number of electrolyte compositions (with varying specific possibly compounds of fluorinated carbonate, cyclic sulfone, lithium salt, and fluorinated solvent, with varying possible proportions of these compounds in the electrolyte composition) according to the instant claim. Similarly, Xu sets forth an electrolyte composition with disclosed and defined variable groups and Xu is analogous art.
Just as applicant sets forth that one of ordinary skill in the art could form the electrolyte composition from a disclosed, broadly defined range of a plurality of possible constituents including compositions not expressly set forth as examples, the Office submits one of the same skill in the art would know how to make the electrolyte composition including fluorinated carbonate, cyclic sulfone, lithium salt, and fluorinated solvent within the ranges disclosed according to the teachings of Xu.
With respect to applicant’s arguments of criticality, the Examiner notes that:
it is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I).
Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II).
It is further noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d) II.
Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d).
The Examiner provides that in the remarks, applicant points toward Table 1 and 2 for support that the quantities of fluorinated carbonate, cyclic sulfone, lithium salt, and fluorinated solvent are critical. However, the Examiner points out that, for example, Tables 1 and 2 are directed toward electrolyte compositions which specifically comprise sulfolane, fluoroethylene carbonate, and lithium bis(trifluoromethansolfonyl)imide. These are compositions which are certainly narrower than the instant claim, and thus not commensurate in scope in order to establish criticality.
In the remarks filed August 10th, 2026, applicant argues that the rejection in view of Ramprasad and Ryu does not establish that a person of ordinary skill would have arrived at, or would have had reason to select, the specific claimed ranges. Applicant argues that a parameter being tunable only indicates that the value can be changed, not about what result will follow a given selection. Applicant further argues that the prior art does not suggest the specific claimed range would yield the coulombic efficiency results reported in the specification.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as described in the Final Rejection mailed April 21st, 2026 and above, Ryu teaches that the selection of solvents is widely understood to those skilled in the art and that the selection and quantity of solvent is controlled in order to obtain a desired battery performance. The Examiner provided Ramprasad as further evidence that each solvent in a mixture of solvent in an electrolyte composition may be present in any suitable amount. Thus, the Examiner provided in the rejection that in order to achieve the desired battery performance, the mixture of solvents can be adjusted, which is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, the Examiner presents that it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by the applicant. See MPEP § 2144 IV.
In the remarks filed August 10th, 2026, applicant argues that the amount of fluorinated carbon reported to provide good performance in Shen’s ionic-liquid electrolyte system would not necessarily be expected to provide good performance in Xu’s differently constituted electrolyte system.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Xu in view of Shen have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Shen applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the remarks filed August 10th, 2026, applicant argues that Xu does not disclose or suggest a lithium metal negative electrode, as recited in the amended limitations of claim 37. Applicant further argues this deficiency is not remedied by Shen.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that an updated rejection of the newly amended limitation is presented above.
In the remarks filed August 10th, 2026, applicant argues that the rejection does not identify any teaching addressing whether Xu’s specific disclosed molar ratios, optimized and reported by reference to graphite and silicon systems, would be expected to perform similar to achieve the coulombic efficiency levels recited in claims 38-40, when applied to a lithium metal anode instead. Applicant argues that lithium metal anodes are subject to plating and stripping behavior during cycling which differs from the intercalation behavior of graphite and silicon anodes for which Xu’s ratios were developed.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II). In alleging that lithium metal anodes subject to plating and stripping behavior during cycling which differs from the intercalation behavior of graphite and silicon anodes, applicant has not provided evidence to support that the coulombic efficiency within the claimed range could not be attained.
Further, the Examiner provides that Wu, as described in the rejection of claim 37 above, teaches the electrolyte composition suitable in batteries which contain either a lithium metal negative electrode or a graphite/silicon negative electrode. Thus, Wu provides evidence that the electrolyte system is suitably implemented in either battery configuration with desirable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights