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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-21) in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no substantial search burden between Groups I and II since both groups are classified in related CPC classification classes, H01M10/05xx. This is not found persuasive because, despite being related, these CPC classes include hundreds of thousands of documents and searching through these classes requires differing search strategies depending on the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, Groups I and II include divergent subject matter (Group I being drawn to the composition of a silicic acid additive and Group II being drawn to the composition of silicon dioxide particles) and would, thus, require vastly different search strategies. Thus, examiner maintains that there would be a serious search burden if Groups I and II were not restricted.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 22-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 requires that the electrolyte composition comprises the additive. However, claim 1 already requires that the electrolyte composition comprises the additive. Similarly, claim 7 requires that the cathode or an anode, or both, comprise the additive. However, claim 1 already requires this limitation. Thus, claims 4 and 7 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5-6 and 8-10 are also rejected for being dependent upon rejected claims 4 and 7, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi et al. (US 2009/0111020) (Yamaguchi).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a lithium battery (title; [0005]; [0269]) comprising a cathode (21) and an anode (22) (see Fig 1; [0029]), wherein the anode (22) comprises an additive (oxo acid salt) (abstract; [0011]-[0012]; [0057]-[0059]). Yamaguchi further discloses that the additive can be a silicate ([0059]; [0062]), reading on the list of alternatives for the additive. Therefore, because the electrolyte composition in claim 1 is an alternative limitation to the cathode/anode limitation, Yamaguchi reads on all of the required limitations in claim 1. Nevertheless, Yamaguchi does disclose that the battery comprises an electrolyte (electrolytic solution) ([0029]), wherein the electrolyte comprises an ether solvent ([0147]), an electrolyte solvent ([0084]), and a lithium salt ([0099]). Yamaguchi further discloses that the electrolyte can comprise a plurality of lithium salts, including lithium hexafluorosilicate ([0099]), which reads on the claimed additive to the electrolyte as well as the list of alternatives for the additive (lithium hexafluorosilicate being a type of silicate). Yamaguchi further discloses Comparative example 2-1 in which a lithium secondary battery comprises a similar electrolyte composition as above except that the additive is lithium orthosilicate ([0191]; see also Table 2), which also reads on the list of alternatives for the additive. Thus, Yamaguchi also reads on the alternative electrolyte composition limitations in claim 1. While Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose that the electrolyte comprises an amphiphilic molecule, examiner notes that this limitation is optional and is, thus, not required in determining the patentability of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Yamaguchi discloses that the additive can be a silicate, specifically lithium orthosilicate ([0062]), which is a lithium salt of silicic acid, reading on all of the limitations in claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses Comparative example 2-1 in which a lithium secondary battery comprises a similar electrolyte composition as above except that the additive is lithium orthosilicate ([0191]; see also Table 2), which still reads on the claimed additive in claim 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 4. Yamaguchi further discloses that the content of the additive (lithium orthosilicate) is 0.5 wt % with respect to other electrolyte components ([0191]), reading on the claimed ranges in claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claims 7-10, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Examiner notes, however, that claims 7-10 are directed to alternative limitations in claim 1 regarding the cathode/anode. Therefore, since Yamaguchi reads on the limitations regarding the electrolyte composition in claim 1, all limitations related to the cathode/anode are not required, including the limitations in claims 7-10. Thus, Yamaguchi satisfies all of the limitations in claims 7-10.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. As set forth above, Yamaguchi discloses that the additive can be lithium orthosilicate ([0062]), which reads on the claimed formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
90
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; wherein M is Li.
Regarding claim 13, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Yamaguchi further discloses that the silicate acid salt is placed on the anode current collector (22A) by a liquid-phase deposition method and then dried at room temperature ([0064]-[0065]; [0185]-[0186]), which necessarily results in a silicate anhydrous (i.e., dried) salt. Yamaguchi further discloses that this salt can be a lithium, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, or aluminum silicate anhydrous salt ([0062]), reading on all of the limitations in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 13. As set forth above, Yamaguchi discloses that the silicate acid salt is dried on the anode current collector (22A) ([0064]-[0065]; [0185]-[0186]), which would necessarily result in an anhydrous silicate salt. Yamaguchi further discloses that this silicate salt can be potassium metasilicate ([0062]), which is known to have the claimed structure in anhydrous form. Thus, Yamaguchi reads on all of the limitations in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 13. . As set forth above, Yamaguchi discloses that the silicate acid salt is dried on the anode current collector (22A) ([0064]-[0065]; [0185]-[0186]), which would necessarily result in an anhydrous silicate salt. Yamaguchi further discloses that this silicate salt can be lithium metasilicate ([0062]), which is known to have the claimed structure in anhydrous form. Thus, Yamaguchi reads on all of the limitations in claim 15.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses that the additive to the anode (22) can be a metasilicate Li, Na, K, Ca, Mg, or Al salt ([0062]), reading on the claimed list of alternatives in claims 16 and 17.
Regarding claim 18, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Yamaguchi further discloses that the additive can be a sodium metasilicate salt ([0062]). Yamaguchi further discloses that the sodium metasilicate is placed on the anode current collector (22A) by a liquid-phase deposition method of an aqueous solution or polar solvent solution of the sodium metasilicate ([0064]). Therefore, since sodium metasilicate is known to have the claimed structure, at least in ionic form in solution, it is clear that Yamaguchi reads on the claimed limitations in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Yamaguchi further discloses that the additive can be a lithium metasilicate salt ([0062]), which is known to have the claimed structure. Yamaguchi further discloses that the lithium metasilicate is placed on the anode current collector (22A) by a liquid-phase deposition method of an aqueous solution or polar solvent solution of the sodium metasilicate ([0064]; [0186]). Therefore, since lithium metasilicate is known to have the claimed structure, at least in ionic form in solution, it is clear that Yamaguchi reads on the claimed limitations in claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Yamaguchi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Yamaguchi discloses that the electrolyte composition comprises an additive of lithium hexafluorosilicate ([0099]), which itself comprises particles. Furthermore, Yamaguchi also discloses Comparative example 2-1 in which a lithium secondary battery comprises a similar electrolyte composition as above except that the additive is lithium orthosilicate ([0191]; see also Table 2), which also comprises particles and also reads on the claimed additive in claim 1. Thus, Yamaguchi reads on all of the limitations in claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Yamaguchi discloses an electrolyte composition ([0029]; [0084]) comprising an electrolyte solvent ([0084]), a lithium salt ([0099]), and an ether solvent ([0149]). Yamaguchi further discloses that the electrolyte composition can contain a plurality of lithium salts, including lithium hexafluorosilicate ([0099]), which reads on the claimed additive to the electrolyte as well as the list of alternatives for the additive (lithium hexafluorosilicate being a type of silicate). Yamaguchi also discloses Comparative example 2-1 in which a lithium secondary battery comprises a similar electrolyte composition as above except that the additive is lithium orthosilicate ([0191]; see also Table 2), which also reads on the claimed list of alternatives for the additive. Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose that the electrolyte composition comprises an amphiphilic molecule; however, this limitation is stated as an optional limitation and is, thus, not required in determining the patentability of claim 21. Thus, Yamaguchi reads on all of the required limitations in claim 21.
Claims 1-13, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yagi (JP 2006260889 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yagi discloses a lithium battery (title) comprising an electrolyte composition (abstract; [0008]) comprising an electrolyte solvent and an ether solvent ([0026]-[0027]), a lithium salt ([0038]), and an additive (carbon dioxide absorbent) ([0008]-[0009]), wherein the additive can be a silicate (lithium orthosilicate) ([0009]; [0012]; [0041]-[0043]), reading on the claimed list of alternatives for the additive. While Yagi does not explicitly disclose that the electrolyte comprises an amphiphilic molecule, examiner notes that this limitation is optional and is, thus, not required in determining the patentability of claim 1. Thus, Yagi reads on all of the required limitations in claim 1. While Yagi does not specifically disclose that a cathode/anode contains the additive, examiner notes that these limitations are expressed in the alternative with respect to the electrolyte composition limitations. Thus, since Yagi reads on all of the electrolyte composition limitations, Yagi need not also read on the cathode/anode limitations in order to satisfy all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yagi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Yagi discloses that the additive can be lithium orthosilicate ([0009]; [0012]; [0041]-[0043]), which is a lithium salt of silicic acid, reading on all of the limitations in claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claims 4-6, Yagi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Yagi discloses that the electrolyte composition comprises the additive (carbon dioxide absorbent) ([0008]-[0009]). Yagi further discloses an example in which the content of the additive (lithium orthosilicate) in the electrolyte composition is 0.5% by weight with respect to other electrolyte components ([0041]), reading on the claimed ranges in claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claims 7-10, Yagi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Examiner notes, however, that claims 7-10 are directed to alternative limitations in claim 1 regarding the cathode/anode. Therefore, since Yagi reads on the limitations regarding the electrolyte composition in claim 1, all limitations related to the cathode/anode are not required, including the limitations in claims 7-10. Thus, Yagi satisfies all of the limitations in claims 7-10.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Yagi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. As set forth above, Yagi discloses that the additive can be lithium orthosilicate ([0009]; [0012]; [0041]-[0043]), which reads on the claimed formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
90
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; wherein M is Li.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Yagi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Yagi further discloses that the silicate acid salt can be lithium metasilicate ([0009]; [0052]), specifically in anhydrous (powder) form ([0041]), reading on the claimed list of alternatives of silicate anhydrous salt in claim 13. Furthermore, lithium metasilicate in anhydrous form is known to have the claimed structure in claim 15. Thus, Yagi reads on all of the limitations in claims 13 and 15.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Yagi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Yagi further discloses that the additive can be a lithium metasilicate salt ([0009]; [0052]), reading on the claimed list of alternatives in claims 16 and 17.
Regarding claim 19, Yagi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. As set forth above, Yagi discloses that the additive can be a lithium metasilicate salt ([0009]; [0052]), which is known to have the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 20, Yagi discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. As set forth above, Yagi discloses that the electrolyte composition comprises an additive of lithium orthosilicate ([0009]; [0012]; [0041]-[0043]), which itself contains particles. Thus, Yagi reads on all of the limitations in claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Yagi discloses all of the limitations in claim 21 as set forth above for claim 1, which includes all of the limitations in claim 21.
Claims 1-10, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ouyang et al. (US 2022/0384800) (Ouyang).
Regarding claim 1, Ouyang discloses a lithium battery (abstract; [0006]) comprising a cathode (positive electrode) and an anode (title; abstract; [0153]-[0158]), wherein the cathode comprises an additive (silicate) ([0010]; [0016]). Specifically, Ouyang discloses that that the additive is an alkali metal salt of silicic acid ([0016]), reading on the list of alternatives for the additive. Thus, Ouyang reads on all of the required limitations in claim 1. While Ouyang does not specifically disclose that an electrolyte composition contains the additive, examiner notes that these limitations are expressed in the alternative with respect to the cathode/anode limitations. Thus, since Ouyang reads on all of the cathode/anode limitations, Ouyang need not also read on the electrolyte composition limitations in order to satisfy all of the limitations in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Ouyang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Ouyang further discloses that the additive can be potassium silicate ([0016]), which is a potassium salt of silicic acid, reading on all of the limitations in claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claims 4-6, Ouyang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Examiner notes, however, that claims 7-10 are directed to alternative limitations in claim 1 regarding the electrolyte composition. Therefore, since Ouyang reads on the limitations regarding the cathode/anode in claim 1, all limitations related to the electrolyte composition are not required, including the limitations in claims 4-6. Thus, Ouyang satisfies all of the limitations in claims 4-6.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ouyang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Ouyang further discloses that the cathode comprises the additive ([0010]; [0016]), and the additive can be included in powder form in the cathode ([0178]; [0191]).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Ouyang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 7. Ouyang further discloses that the content of the additive is 2.5 wt% with respect to the weight of the cathode (lithium matrix) ([0189]-[0191]; see also Table 1), reading on the claimed ranges in claims 9 and 10.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Ouyang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Ouyang further discloses that the silicate acid salt can be potassium silicate anhydrous ([0178]; see also [0189]-[0191] and Table 1), reading on the claimed limitations in claims 13 and 14. Furthermore, potassium silicate anhydrous is known to have the claimed structure in claim 14.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Ouyang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 1. Ouyang further discloses that the additive can be potassium metasilicate (K2SiO3) ([0178]; [0191]), which is a potassium metasilicate salt. Thus, Ouyang reads on all of the limitations in claims 16 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-12, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang et al. (US 2022/0384800) (Ouyang) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2009/0111020) (Yamaguchi).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ouyang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 2. Ouyang further discloses that the additive can be a lithium silicate ([0016]) and that the additive is designed to help prevent decomposition of the electrolyte ([0057]). Ouyang fails to explicitly disclose the type of lithium silicate. However, lithium silicate is a general term that includes a number of alternative chemical structures which are known in the art. For instance, Yamaguchi teaches a similar a lithium battery (title; [0005]; [0269]) comprising a lithium silicate additive (abstract; [0011]-[0012]; [0057]-[0059]; [0062]). Specifically, Yamaguchi teaches that the lithium silicate includes the lithium orthosilicate structure ([0062]), which suggests the claimed formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
90
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; wherein M is Li. Yamaguchi further discloses that this silicate is able to prevent decomposition of the electrolyte solution ([0083]-[0086]). Therefore, based on the teachings from Yamaguchi, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen lithium orthosilicate as the silicate in the invention of Ouyang because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to predictable results in preventing the decomposition of the electrolyte solution.
Regarding claim 15, Ouyang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 13. Ouyang further discloses that the additive can be a lithium silicate ([0016]) and that the additive is designed to help prevent decomposition of the electrolyte ([0057]). Ouyang further discloses that the silicate is added to the cathode in anhydrous form ([0178]; [0191]). Ouyang fails to explicitly disclose, however, that the silicate has the claimed structure. However, lithium silicate is a general term that includes a number of alternative chemical structures which are known in the art. For instance, Yamaguchi teaches a similar a lithium battery (title; [0005]; [0269]) comprising a lithium silicate additive (abstract; [0011]-[0012]; [0057]-[0059]; [0062]). Specifically, Yamaguchi teaches that the lithium silicate includes the lithium metasilicate structure ([0062]), which has the claimed structure in anhydrous form. Yamaguchi further discloses that this silicate is able to prevent decomposition of the electrolyte solution ([0083]-[0086]). Therefore, based on the teachings from Yamaguchi, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the claimed structure as the silicate in the invention of Ouyang because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to predictable results in preventing the decomposition of the electrolyte solution.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Ouyang discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Ouyang further discloses that the additive can be a sodium silicate or a lithium silicate ([0016]) and that the additive is designed to help prevent decomposition of the electrolyte ([0057]). Ouyang fails to explicitly disclose the type of sodium silicate or lithium silicate. However, sodium silicate and lithium silicate are general terms that include a number of alternative chemical structures which are known in the art. For instance, Yamaguchi teaches a similar a lithium battery (title; [0005]; [0269]) comprising a silicate additive (abstract; [0011]-[0012]; [0057]-[0059]; [0062]). Specifically, Yamaguchi teaches that the silicate includes the sodium metasilicate structure and the lithium metasilicate structure ([0062]). Yamaguchi further discloses that this silicate is able to prevent decomposition of the electrolyte solution ([0083]-[0086]). Therefore, based on the teachings from Yamaguchi, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the claimed structures as the silicate in the invention of Ouyang because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to predictable results in preventing the decomposition of the electrolyte solution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights