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 .
LITHIUM-ION BATTERY
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/259,300 Art Unit 1727 January 10, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on filed on June 26, 2023 has been received. Claims 118 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is 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. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends to seek protection for with the “preferably” or “more preferably” statements. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claims will not be construed to require the “preferably” and “more preferably” limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (CN 110931863 A; as found in IDS dated 01/21/2025 and using US 2020/0227784 A1 for citation purposes).
As to Claims 1-7 and 16-17, Lin discloses a lithium-ion battery, comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a nonaqueous electrolyte. The positive electrode comprises an active material represented by formula LiNixCoyMnzL(1-x-y-z)O2 wherein L is at least one of Al, Sr, Mg, Ti, Ca, Zr, Zn, Si or Fe, 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, 0<x+y+z≤1 (paragraphs [0016-0017]). Lin discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a solvent, LiPF6 and a compound represented by formula 2/D2 (reads on claimed formula 1) which is present in an amount of 1 wt% based on the entire electrolyte (Paragraphs [0008, 0085], Table 2, Example 2).
As to Claims 10-12, Lin discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises vinylene carbonate and/or fluoroethylene carbonate (paragraph [0011]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN 110931863 A; as found in IDS dated 01/21/2025 and using US 2020/0227784 A1 for citation purposes) in view of Wan et al. (CN 111755753 A; using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claim 8, Lin does not specifically disclose at least one of the claimed compounds.
However, Wan teaches of an electrolyte additive comprising a compound I-V (reads on claims 2-8) (Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
278
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Lin to comprise the claimed compounds because Wan teaches that the cost of the electrolyte can be reduced and a high purity product can be provided (paragraph [0021]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN 110931863 A; as found in IDS dated 01/21/2025 and using US 2020/0227784 A1 for citation purposes).
As to Claim 9, Lin teaches wherein the positive electrode comprises an active material represented by formula LiNixCoyMnzL(1-x-y-z)O2 wherein L is at least one of Al, Sr, Mg, Ti, Ca, Zr, Zn, Si or Fe, 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, 0<x+y+z≤1 (paragraphs [0016-0017]). This overlaps with the claimed materials. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active material of Lin to read on the claims because Lin teaches that a battery with improved output performance is provided (Abstract).
Claim(s) 13-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN 110931863 A; as found in IDS dated 01/21/2025 and using US 2020/0227784 A1 for citation purposes) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2020/0335823 A1).
As to Claims 13-15, Lin does not specifically disclose the claimed aromatic additive.
However, Takahashi teaches of an electrolyte solution, comprising at least one additive, such as: difluoroanisole (encompasses the claimed difluoroanisoles), biphenyl, vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, maleic anhydride and/or succinic anhydride (paragraph [0100]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Lin to comprise one of the claimed additives because Takahashi teaches that an overcharge preventing function, negative electrode coating film formation function, positive electrode coating film formation function, etc., can be provided (paragraph [0100]).
As to Claim 18, Takahashi teaches wherein the positive electrode is composed of a current collector coated with the active material (paragraphs [0131-0134]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode of Lin to comprise a current collector because Takahashi teaches that a functioning positive electrode for a battery can be formed (paragraphs [0131-0134]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727