DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 September 2023 and 14 April 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 line 3 is objected to because it recites “½ to 2”. For the sake of compact prosecution this is interpreted to read “1:2 to 2:1”. Claim 22 line 2 is also objected to for reciting “1/6 to 1/13” instead of “1:6 to 1:13” and should have consistent formatting with ratios recited in claims 1 and 6.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because it depends from canceled claim 2. For the sake of compact prosecution claim 3 is interpreted to depend from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0269528 (Zhang et al., hereinafter, Zhang) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0028165 (Chiang et al., hereinafter, Chiang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches:
A battery comprising:
an intercalation cathode (Zhang Abstract, cathode);
an electrolyte comprising lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate (LiDFOB) salt (¶32) and a solvent mixture, the solvent mixture comprising:
a first organic solvent comprising a cyclic carbonate
a second organic solvent comprising a linear ester or a nonfluorinated linear carbonate (Zhang ¶ 22 at least two different solvents…such as a combination of cyclic carbonate and linear carbonate), and the first organic solvent and the second organic solvent are present in the electrolyte at a ratio of first organic solvent/second organic solvent from 1:7 to 1:13 by volume (Zhang ¶ 22 A weight:weight ratio of cyclic carbonate(s) to linear carbonate(s) is for example from about 1:9 to about 7:3. This weight to weight ratio, when converted to a volume to volume ratio using fluoroethylene carbonate with a density of 1.454 g/mL as the first cyclic carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate with a density of 1.006 g/mL as the second linear carbonate, becomes 1:13 to 1:0.619 which overlaps the claimed range of 1:7 to 1:13 and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.)
Zhang teaches an anode but not that the anode is a lithium metal anode, and LiDFOB salt but not that the LiDFOB salt concentration is 0.6 M to 1.5 M. In a related field of endeavor, Chiang teaches a safe, long-lived rechargeable lithium metal anode (Chiang ¶ 110), and a LiDFOB salt concentration of 0.01 M to 5 M, or further 0.5 M to 2 M (Chiang ¶ 68-69). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery of Zhang with the lithium metal anode and LiDFOB salt concentration of Chiang. One would have been motivated with a reasonable degree of success because of the ultrahigh capacity and light weight of the lithium metal anode and the enhanced conductivity of the electrolyte because of the LiDFOB salt concentration (Chiang ¶ 110, 68-69).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Chiang teaches the battery of claim 1 (claimed as dependent on canceled claim 2, interpreted as dependent on claim 1), wherein the LiDFOB salt may be present at a concentration from 0.01 M to 5 M, or further 0.5 M to 2 M, encompassing the claimed range of 0.8 M to 1.2 M (Chiang ¶ 68-69).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Chiang teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the organic carbonates can be cyclic or acyclic and include diethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (Zhang ¶ 21, 23).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Chiang teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the organic carbonates can be cyclic or acyclic and include monofluoroethylene carbonate (Zhang ¶ 21).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Chiang teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the first organic solvent to second organic solvent of 1:9 lies within the prior art range of ratios of 1:13 to 1:0.619 after converting weight:weight into volume:volume (see rejection for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Chiang teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the first organic solvent is fluoroethylene carbonate, and the second organic solvent is ethyl methyl carbonate (Zhang ¶ 21, 23).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Chiang teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the anode is made of lithium metal (Chiang ¶ 110).
Claims 9-11, 13-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0269528 (Zhang) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0028165 (Chiang), and further in view of WO 2019/138815 (Yamazaki et al., hereinafter, Yamazaki).
Regarding claims 9-11, Zhang in view of Chiang teaches the battery of claim 1 and that the organic solvent can contain a cyclic carbonate (monofluoroethylene carbonate), linear carbonate (ethyl methyl carbonate), and linear ester (Zhang ¶ 21-22), but does not teach that the linear ester is ethyl difluoroacetate. In a related field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches an electrolyte solution with a fluorinated linear carboxylic acid ester including ethyl difluoroacetate (Yamazaki Paragraph beginning with “Specific examples of the fluorinated linear carboxylic acid ester”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrolyte solution in the battery of Zhang in view of Chiang with the ethyl difluoroacetate of Yamazaki. One would have been motivated with a reasonable degree of success to include the ethyl difluoroacetate in the electrolyte solution to obtain an electrochemical device with lower resistance, better cycle characteristics, and less generation of gas (Yamazaki Paragraph beginning with “According to the electrolytic solution containing”).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang in view of Chiang in further view of Yamazaki teaches a cathode including lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (Zhang ¶ 7), and an electrolyte comprising LiDFOB salt (Zhang ¶ 32), a lithium metal anode (Chiang ¶ 110), and a solvent mixture comprising a cyclic carbonate, a linear carbonate, and a fluorinated ester (Zhang ¶ 21-22, Yamazaki Paragraph beginning with “Specific examples of the fluorinated linear carboxylic acid ester”).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Chiang in further view of Yamazaki teaches the battery of claim 13 wherein the first organic solvent, for example fluorinated cyclic carbonate (FEC) content is 5% to 90% by volume (Paragraph beginning with “When the fluorinated cyclic carbonate is contained”), the second organic solvent, for example non-fluorinated linear carbonate (EMC) content is 10% to 90% by volume (Paragraph beginning with “When the non-fluorinated linear carbonate is contained”), and the third solvent, for example fluorinated linear carboxylic acid ester (ethyl difluoroacetate) content is 10% to 90% by volume (Paragraph beginning with “When the fluorinated linear carboxylic acid ester is contained”). To satisfy the claimed relationship, the first solvent FEC may be selected to be 10%, and both the second and third solvents of EMC and ethyl difluoroacetate may be selected to be 45% each, making them more than three times the amount of first solvent by volume.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Chiang in further view of Yamazaki teaches the battery of claim 13 wherein the LiDFOB salt may be present at a concentration from 0.01 M to 5 M, or further 0.5 M to 2 M, encompassing the claimed range of 0.5 M to 1.5 M (Chiang ¶ 68-69).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Chiang in further view of Yamazaki teaches the battery of claim 13 wherein the first organic solvent is FEC, the second organic solvent is EMC, and the third organic solvent is ethyl difluoroacetate (Zhang ¶ 21-22, Yamazaki Paragraph beginning with “Specific examples of the fluorinated linear carboxylic acid ester”).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Chiang in further view of Yamazaki teaches a cathode (Zhang Abstract), an electrolyte comprising LiDFOB salt (Zhang ¶ 32), a lithium metal anode (Chiang ¶ 110), that the LiDFOB salt may be present at a concentration from 0.01 M to 5 M, or further 0.5 M to 2 M, (Chiang ¶ 68-69), and a solvent mixture comprising a cyclic carbonate FEC, a linear carbonate EMC, and a fluorinated ester ethyl difluoroacetate (Zhang ¶ 21-22, Yamazaki Paragraph beginning with “Specific examples of the fluorinated linear carboxylic acid ester”).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang in view of Chiang in further view of Yamazaki teaches the battery of claim 19, wherein the anode is made of lithium metal (Chiang ¶ 110).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang in view of Chiang in further view of Yamazaki teaches the battery of claim 19, wherein the LiDFOB salt may be present at a concentration from 0.01 M to 5 M, or further 0.5 M to 2 M, encompassing the claimed range of 0.8 M to 1.2 M (Chiang ¶ 68-69).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang in view of Chiang in further view of Yamazaki teaches the battery of claim 19 wherein the fluorinated cyclic carbonate (FEC) content is 5% to 90% by volume (Paragraph beginning with “When the fluorinated cyclic carbonate is contained”), the non-fluorinated linear carbonate (EMC) content is 10% to 90% by volume (Paragraph beginning with “When the non-fluorinated linear carbonate is contained”), and the fluorinated linear carboxylic acid ester (ethyl difluoroacetate) content is 10% to 90% by volume (Paragraph beginning with “When the fluorinated linear carboxylic acid ester is contained”). To satisfy the claimed ratio of FEC to (EMC and ethyl difluoroacetate) being 1/6 to 1/13, FEC may be selected to be 10%. Then to satisfy the claimed ratio of EMC to ethyl difluoroacetate being ½ to 2 (interpreted as between 1:2 to 2:1), they may both be selected to be 45%.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights