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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25th, 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. 18/249,606 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 25th, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1-25, 27-30, 34-38, 40-41, and 50 are cancelled and claim 26 is amended, resulting in claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-49 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed August 25th, 2026 have been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with applicant’s specification and arguments submitted April 17th, 2026, the vol. % or volume percentage is based on the total volume of the electrolyte composition (100 vol%).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 26, 31-33, 39, 42-49 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.
Regarding claim 26, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the fluorinated carbonate,” “cyclic sulfone,” and “lithium salt.” For the purposes of examination, this is presumed to refer to 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC), sulfolane, and LiN(SO2CF3)2, and, respectively, of the liquid electrolyte. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 31-33, 46-49, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected base claim.
Regarding claims 39-45, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “fluorinated solvent.” For the purposes of examination, this is presumed to refer to 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3,-tetrafluoropropyl ether of the independent claim. 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 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210218062 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Xu teaches an electrochemical cell (rechargeable battery), comprising:
a positive electrode;
negative electrode; and
a liquid electrolyte (LHCE, localized high-concentration electrolytes) (Paragraph 0156) comprising:
LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI) (Paragraph 0006);
1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl- 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) (Paragraph 0142);
sulfolane (tetramethylene sulfone (TMS), also called sulfolane), Paragraph 0137); and
4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC (Paragraph 0146)),
as 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), and further provides an example E009F in which LiN(SO2CF3)2 (LiTFSI), 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl- 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), sulfolane (tetramethylene sulfone (TMS), also called sulfolane); and 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC) are present together in a single electrolyte composition.
While Xu does not teach a specific embodiment of an electrolyte composition in which
the electrolyte comprises LiN(SO2CF3)2, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), sulfolane (SL), and fluoroethylene carbonate AND
the fluorinated carbonate is in an amount (x) of 0 < x ≤ 15 vol.%,
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 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).
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 lithium-ion battery comprising the aforementioned 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% (Paragraph 0175). 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 (at least 93%), meeting the instant limitations.
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 ≤ 5 vol.%.
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, the Examiner presents the teachings of Example E009F of the provisional application 63/080,486, filed September 18th, 2020, wherein the electrolyte comprises all four components of the instant electrolyte composition – LiFSI, sulfolane, TTE, and FEC – present in a molar ratio of LiFSI: TMS: TTE: FEC of 1.0 : 2.8 : 3.0 : 0.2.
By repeating the above calculations, the maximum volume percent of FEC additive taught by Xu is determined to be
LiFSI: 0.14 moles * (187.09 g/mol) * (1.052 g/cm3)-1 = 27.56 cm3
TMS: 0.4 moles * (120.17 g/mol) * (1.26 g/cm3)-1 = 60.56 cm3
TTE: 0.43 moles * (232.07 g/mol) * (1.54 g/cm3)-1 = 153.69 cm3
FEC: 0.03 moles * (106.05 g/mol) * (1.485 g/cm3)-1 = 4.75 cm3
Therefore, a suitable volume percent of fluoroethylene carbonate based on a total volume of the electrolyte composition comprising sulfolane, LiFSI, TTE, and FEC taught by Xu is:
Volume percent of fluoroethylene carbonate: 4.75 cm3/ (27.56 cm3 + 60.56 cm3 + 153.69 cm3 + 4.75 cm3) = 2 vol% FEC
Therefore, the volume percent of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte of Example E009F of Xu is extremely close to the instant claimed range, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
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
TMS: 0.14 moles * (120.17 g/mol) * (1.26 g/cm3)-1 = 21.2 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 + 21.2 cm3 + 43.7 cm3) = 15.1 vol% FEC
By repeating the above calculations, the minimum volume percent of FEC additive taught by Xu (when 1 : x : y : z = 1: 3.5 : 1.0 : 5) is determined to be
LiFSI: 0.01 moles * (187.09 g/mol) * (1.052 g/cm3)-1 = 1.97 cm3
TMS: 0.33 moles * (120.17 g/mol) * (1.26 g/cm3)-1 = 49.97 cm3
FEC: 0.01 moles * (106.05 g/mol) * (1.485 g/cm3)-1 = 1.57 cm3
TTE: 0.48 moles * (232.07 g/mol) * (1.54 g/cm3)-1 = 171.55 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: 1.57 cm3/ (1.57 cm3 + 1.97 cm3 + 49.97 cm3 + 171.55 cm3) = 0.7 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 31, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
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 32, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
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 33, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
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.
Regarding claim 39, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
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 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 Zhu corresponds with the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, the instant claimed limitations are met.
Regarding claim 42, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, 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. 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).
The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu 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).
Regarding claim 43, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, Xu teaches the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt molar ratio (z), 1 ≤ z ≤ 5. The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu 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).
Regarding claim 44, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, Xu teaches the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt molar ratio (z), 1 ≤ z ≤ 5. The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu 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).
Regarding claim 45, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, 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), where SL is a suitable sulfur-containing solvent and TTE is a suitable diluent.
x in the above ratio is representative of the ratio of solvent while z in the above ratio is representative of the ratio of diluent. Therefore, the molar ratio of cyclic sulfone to fluorinated solvent is represented by Xu’s x/z (equated with instant y/z).
Xu teaches the range of z between 1 and 5 and the range of x between 0.5 and 3.5, therefore the upper and lower bounds of SL/TTE (x/z) taught by Xu is 1/3.5 ≤ x/z ≤ 5/0.5, or 0.28 ≤ x/z ≤ 10.
The range of the molar ratio (x/z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu overlaps with the molar ratio (y/z) of SL/TTE of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 46, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
Xu teaches embodiments in which the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, and lithium nickel-manganese oxide (Paragraph 0162; NMC811 as recited in Provisional Application 65/080,496 Page 6, Lines 30-35)), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 47, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 46, wherein said positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide , as discussed above.
Regarding claim 48, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
In the disclosure, Xu teaches the aforementioned electrolyte used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Provisional Application 65/080,496; Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Therefore, Xu teaches the negative electrode comprising a material selected from the group consisting of silicon and graphite, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 above, further in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190123390 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 48.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the aforementioned electrolyte used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Provisional Application 65/080,496; Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprises lithium or copper.
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).
Claim 49 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 above, further in view of Michaud (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170033360 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 48.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the aforementioned electrolyte used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Provisional Application 65/080,496; Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprises lithium or copper.
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.
Claim 49 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 above, further in view of Thackeray (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090081529 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 48.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the aforementioned electrolyte used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Provisional Application 65/080,496; Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprises lithium or copper.
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.
Claim 49 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 above, 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 49, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 48.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the aforementioned electrolyte used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Provisional Application 65/080,496; Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprises lithium or copper.
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.
Claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 above, further in view of Ramprasand (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120100417 A1) and Ryu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120107728).
Regarding claim 26, the following limitations of claim 26 are taught by Xu as described above in the rejection of claim 26:
an electrochemical cell (rechargeable battery), comprising:
a positive electrode;
negative electrode; and
a liquid electrolyte (LHCE, localized high-concentration electrolytes) (Paragraph 0156) comprising:
LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI) (Paragraph 0006);
1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl- 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) (Paragraph 0142);
sulfolane (tetramethylene sulfone (TMS), also called sulfolane), Paragraph 0137); and
4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC (Paragraph 0146)),
wherein said electrochemical cell has a coulombic efficiency of at least 93% and has a molar ratio of cyclic sulfone/lithium salt (y) of 2.0 ≤ y ≤ 2.5.
As discussed above, Xu does not explicitly teach the fluorinated carbonate being comprised in an amount of 0.5 to 5 vol.%.
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 Shen, Ryu and Ramprasad recognize that the mixture of solvents, including fluorinated carbonates, may be controlled to achieve the aforementioned benefit of desirable battery performance.
Regarding claim 31, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
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 32, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
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 33, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
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.
Regarding claim 39, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
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 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 Zhu corresponds with the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, the instant claimed limitations are met.
Regarding claim 42, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, 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. 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).
The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu 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).
Regarding claim 43, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, Xu teaches the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt molar ratio (z), 1 ≤ z ≤ 5. The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu 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).
Regarding claim 44, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, Xu teaches the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt molar ratio (z), 1 ≤ z ≤ 5. The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu 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).
Regarding claim 45, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, 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), where SL is a suitable sulfur-containing solvent and TTE is a suitable diluent.
x in the above ratio is representative of the ratio of solvent while z in the above ratio is representative of the ratio of diluent. Therefore, the molar ratio of cyclic sulfone to fluorinated solvent is represented by Xu’s x/z (equated with instant y/z).
Xu teaches the range of z between 1 and 5 and the range of x between 0.5 and 3.5, therefore the upper and lower bounds of SL/TTE (x/z) taught by Xu is 1/3.5 ≤ x/z ≤ 5/0.5, or 0.28 ≤ x/z ≤ 10.
The range of the molar ratio (x/z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu overlaps with the molar ratio (y/z) of SL/TTE of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 46, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
Xu teaches embodiments in which the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, and lithium nickel-manganese oxide (Paragraph 0162; NMC811 as recited in Provisional Application 65/080,496 Page 6, Lines 30-35)), meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 47, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 46, wherein said positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide , as discussed above.
Regarding claim 48, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
In the disclosure, Xu teaches the aforementioned electrolyte used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Provisional Application 65/080,496; Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Therefore, Xu teaches the negative electrode comprising a material selected from the group consisting of silicon and graphite, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Ramprasand and Ryu as alternately applied to claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 above, further in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190123390 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 48.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the aforementioned electrolyte used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Provisional Application 65/080,496; Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprises lithium or copper.
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).
Claim 49 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Ramprasand and Ryu as alternately applied to claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 above, further in view of Michaud (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170033360 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 48.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the aforementioned electrolyte used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Provisional Application 65/080,496; Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprises lithium or copper.
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.
Claim 49 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Ramprasand and Ryu as alternately applied to claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 above, further in view of Thackeray (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090081529 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 48.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the aforementioned electrolyte used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Provisional Application 65/080,496; Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprises lithium or copper.
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.
Claim 49 is alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Ramprasand and Ryu as alternately applied to claims 26, 31-33, 39, 42-48 above, 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 49, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 48.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the aforementioned electrolyte used in lithium-ion batteries with graphite and or silicon-based anodes (Provisional Application 65/080,496; Page 1, Lines 10-15).
Xu is silent as to the negative electrode comprises lithium or copper.
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.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed August 25th, 2026, applicant argues that Shen’s teaching is inapplicable to the claimed system because it is expressly limited to ionic liquid electrolytes and is therefore inapplicable to the claimed non-ionic-liquid 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 25th, 2026, applicant argues that Xu provides no guides on the amount of FEC included in the electrolyte. Applicant argues that Xu’s only sulfolane example is E000F which tests a single fixed amount of FEC without exploring how changes in FEC concentration affect performance. Applicant argues that Xu provides no data or teaching from which a person of ordinary skill could determine the sufficient amount of FEC based on how its concentration affects performance in the electrolyte system.
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 content of fluorinated carbonate content (of which 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC) is a suitable additive comprised in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0006)) and cyclic sulfone content (of which sulfolane is a suitable sulfone solvent comprised in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0137), obviousness is established.
The Office submits a proper obviousness rejection was set forth in the Office action mailed June 3rd, 2026 as the prior art renders obviousness and teaches each required component of the instant claims.
As described above, 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, where sulfolane is an example of a suitable solvent useable in the electrolyte of Zu. Therefore, the molar ratio of solvent/lithium salt (x:1) of Xu was equated with the instant molar ratio (y) of cyclic sulfone/lithium salt. Xu teaches the range of x between 0.5 and 3.5, and thus 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 invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, the fact that Xu discloses a single example where sulfolane is included in the electrolyte composition does not make the above use of sulfolane in the electrolyte composition at the molar ratio of solvent to salt any less obvious.
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 defining the proportion of FEC, LiTFSI, TTE, and sulfolane present in the electrolyte composition.
Applicant does not claim merely a single electrolyte composition, but a large number of electrolyte compositions (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 ranges of FEC, LiTFSI, TTE, and sulfolane present in the electrolyte composition, 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 FEC, LiTFSI, TTE, and sulfolane within the ranges disclosed according to the teachings of Xu.
In the remarks filed August 25th, 2026, applicant argues that the claimed range of fluoroethylene carbonate in the instant claim provides an unexpected result. Applicant points toward table 2 to show that 2 vol.% FEC performs just as well as 5-15 vol.% FEC. Applicant further argues that the claimed range of SL/LiTFSI shows superior performance compared to the prior art’s exemplified ratio, and points toward Table 1 and Figure 1 and Paragraph 0078 of the specification to show superior efficiency.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that with respect to applicant’s arguments of unexpected results, it is noted 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).
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).
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.
The Examiner presents that in Table 1 of the instant disclosure comparing the impact of the molar ratio of SL/LiTFSI on the Coulombic efficiency, there are only two ratios on which data was collected. The ratio of SL/LiTFSI set to 2.0 is the bottom of the instant disclosed range (2.0 – 2.5 inclusive). The ratio of SL/LiTFSI set to 3.0 lies outside of the instant disclosed range, greater than the upper bound. However, applicant does not provide additional Coulombic efficiencies at SL/LiTFSI ratios which lie within the instant claimed range nor SL/LiTFSI ratios which are below the instant claimed range. As such, the Examiner presents that two data points is certainly not enough to show the criticality of claimed range. For Example, the Examiner presents that without additional testing, it is impossible to know how the Coulombic efficiencies varies, particularly the threshold of SL/LiTFSI at which the Coulombic begins to decrease (lower/upper bounds of the critical threshold).
The Examiner presents that in Table 2 of the instant disclosure comparing the impact of the volume percent of FEC in the electrolyte on the Coulombic efficiency, there are only four ratios on which data was collected. The volume percentages of FEC set to 0, 1, and 2 lies outside of the instant disclosed range (2 < x ≤ 5), lower than the lower bound. The volume percentages of FEC set to 5 lies in the instant disclosed range (2 < x ≤ 5), at the upper bound. However, applicant does not provide additional Coulombic efficiencies at volume percentages of FEC ratios which lie within the instant claimed range nor vol.% FEC which is above the instant claimed range. As such, the Examiner presents that one data point within the instant claimed range and no data above the instant claimed range is certainly not enough to show the criticality of claimed range. For Example, the Examiner presents that without additional testing, it is impossible to know how the Coulombic efficiencies varies, particularly the threshold of vol.% FEC at which the Coulombic begins to decrease (upper bound of the critical threshold).
In the remarks filed August 25th, 2026, applicant argues that Xu’s only sulfolane-based example used a solvent/salt molar ratio of 3.0 which is shown by the instant application’s data to be sub-optimal. Applicant further argues that a difference of 1.6 percentage points between the Coulombic efficiencies of the salt/salt molar ratios of Xu and the instant application is significant in the context of the present application.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, the fact that Xu discloses a single example where sulfolane is included in the electrolyte composition does not make the above use of sulfolane in the electrolyte composition at the more general range of molar ratio of solvent to salt (0.5 to 3.5) any less obvious. “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not only for what is indicated as preferred.” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) and a reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)).
Additionally, applicant appears to be arguing a significance in the Coulombic efficiency between Xu and the instant application, but applicant has not explained why such a difference is significant. Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data showing the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See MPEP 716.02(b)(II).
Further, any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 1276, 182 USPQ 290, 293 (CCPA 1974)
In the remarks filed August 25th, 2026, applicant argues the combination of the claimed FEC range and the SL/LiTFSI ratio is not taught or suggested by the prior art. Applicant argues that Xu does not teach or suggest the volume percent of FEC and the sulfolane/LiTFSI molar ratio which falls within the instant claimed ranges.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the invention of the prior art is not limited to or defined by only those embodiments disclosed in the Examples. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). Further, “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not only for what is indicated as preferred.” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) and a reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)).
Therefore, as described above, 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 sulfolane (equated with instant cyclic sulfone) is a suitable solvent usable in the electrolyte and LiN(SO2CF3)2 is a suitable lithium salt useable in the electrolyte. Therefore, the molar ratio of sulfolane/LiTFSI (x:1) taught by the disclose of Xu is between 0.5 and 3.5, which overlaps the instant claimed range and established prima facie obviousness.
Conclusion
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
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights