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 without traverse of Group II (method Claims 15-20 and 22-34) in the reply filed on 3/17/26 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/13/23 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/10/23. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 17-20 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.
The claims utilize non-standard symbols to define numerical ranges, which creates uncertainty regarding the intended boundaries of the invention: Claims 17, 18, 19 and 20 use the tilde symbol ("~").
These symbols lack a precise legal definition in patent prosecution. It is unclear whether these symbols are intended to mean "to" (inclusive of endpoints), "between" (exclusive of endpoints), or "approximately" (indicating a flexible range). Because the exact scope of these ranges cannot be determined, the claims fail to provide the public with clear notice of what constitutes infringement.
Also, claim 19 refers to "a concentration of mentioned lithium salt". The use of the word "mentioned" is relative and lacks the precision of standard patent terminology such as "the" or "said." While it presumably refers back to the lithium salt defined in Claim 15, the phrasing creates a formal clarity issue under 112(b), as it does not clearly link the property (concentration) to the specific previously recited element.
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.
Claims 15 and 17-20, 22, 24-26, 28, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112768765 A1 (CN’765).
As to Claim 15:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte which comprises following groups of quantity shares:
12–18 shares of lithium salt (CN’765 discloses a lithium salt concentration of 0.5–2M, such as 1–1.5M, and specifically 1.2M in an embodiment (Pg. 3; Pg. 4));
20–35 shares of linear carbonic ester (CN’765 discloses diethyl carbonate (DEC) as a linear carbonate and uses 30 parts by weight in the solvent system (Pg. 3; Pg. 4));
20–35 shares of cyclic carbonic ester (CN’765 discloses cyclic carbonates including ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC), used in amounts of 25 parts and 10 parts, respectively, totaling 35 parts by weight (Pg. 3; Pg. 4));
20–50 shares of carboxylic ester (CN’765 discloses ethyl propionate (EP) as a carboxylic ester, used in an amount of 35 parts by weight (Pg. 3; Pg. 4)); and
10–15 shares of functional additive (CN’765 discloses additives including vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), 1,3-propane sultone (PS), adiponitrile (ADN), and a sulphate lithium salt additive, each added in specified weight percentages, e.g., 0.5% VC, 6% FEC, 2.5% PS, 2% ADN, and 0.1% sulphate lithium salt compound (Pg. 3; Pg. 4));
wherein the preparation method includes following steps:
mixing the linear carbonic ester, the cyclic carbonic ester and the carboxylic ester to obtain mixed organic solvent (CN’765 discloses mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP) according to a weight ratio to form a mixed solvent (Pg. 4));
adding the lithium salt to the mixed organic solvent and mixing them for the first time to obtain a premixing electrolyte (CN’765 discloses adding lithium hexafluorophosphate to the mixed solvent and dissolving it to form an electrolyte with a concentration of 1.2M (Pg. 4)); and
adding the functional additive in accordance with weight ratio to the premixing electrolyte and mixing them for the second time to obtain the electrolyte (CN’765 discloses adding VC, FEC, PS, ADN, and sulphate lithium salt additive in defined weight percentages to the electrolyte solution (Pg. 3–4)).
As to Claim 17:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method for preparing a high voltage electrolyte (Pg. 4)), further comprising:
mass ratio of the linear carbonic ester and the cyclic carbonic ester is 1/1~4/7 (CN’765 discloses a ratio of 30 parts linear carbonate (DEC) to 35 parts cyclic carbonate (EC+PC), resulting in a ratio of 30:35 ≈ 0.857 (Pg. 4); however, the cited passage does not disclose a ratio within the claimed range of 1/1 to 4/7).
As to Claim 18:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method for preparing a high voltage electrolyte (Pg. 4)); further comprising:
mass ratio of the cyclic carbonic ester and the carboxylic ester is 1/1~2/5 (CN’765 discloses a ratio of 35 parts cyclic carbonate (EC+PC) to 35 parts carboxylic ester (EP), resulting in a ratio of 1:1, which falls within the claimed range of 1/1 to 2/5 (Pg. 4)).
As to Claim 19:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method for preparing a high voltage electrolyte (Pg. 4)); further comprising:
a concentration of mentioned lithium salt is 1.0 mol/L–1.8 mol/L (CN’765 discloses that the concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte is 0.5–2M, such as 1–1.5M, and specifically 1.2M in an embodiment, which falls within the claimed range of 1.0–1.8 mol/L (Pg. 3; Pg. 4)).
As to Claim 20:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method for preparing a high voltage electrolyte (Pg. 4)); further comprising:
adding quantity of the functional additive is 2 wt%~5 wt% (CN’765 discloses that the sulphate lithium salt additive is added in an amount of 0.1–5% by mass of the electrolyte (Pg. 2–3), and further discloses individual functional additives such as 1,3-propane sultone (PS) at 2–3% by mass (Pg. 3); however, CN’765 does not disclose that the total functional additive amount is 2–5 wt%).
As to Claim 22:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP) according to a weight ratio to obtain a mixed organic solvent; adding lithium salt to the mixed organic solvent and mixing to obtain an electrolyte; and adding functional additives to the electrolyte solution (Pg. 4));
wherein the lithium salt is one of following items including lithium hexafluorophosphate (CN’765 explicitly discloses that the electrolyte includes lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) and further discloses a lithium salt concentration of 0.5–2M, such as 1–1.5M, and specifically 1.2M in an embodiment (Pg. 3; Pg. 4)).
As to Claim 24:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP) according to a weight ratio to obtain a mixed organic solvent; adding lithium salt to the mixed solvent to obtain an electrolyte; and adding functional additives to obtain the final electrolyte (Pg. 4)); and further discloses that the cyclic carbonic ester includes ethylene carbonate (EC) (CN’765 explicitly discloses ethylene carbonate as a cyclic carbonate component (Pg. 3–4)).
As to Claim 25:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP) according to a weight ratio to obtain a mixed organic solvent; adding lithium salt to the mixed organic solvent and mixing to obtain an electrolyte; and adding functional additives to the electrolyte solution (Pg. 4)); and further discloses that the carboxylic ester is ethyl propionate (EP) (CN’765 explicitly discloses ethyl propionate as a component of the organic solvent system (Pg. 3–4)).
As to Claim 26:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP) according to a weight ratio to obtain a mixed organic solvent; adding lithium salt to the mixed organic solvent to obtain an electrolyte; and adding functional additives to obtain the final electrolyte (Pg. 4)); and further discloses that the functional additive is at least one of the following items including:
lithium salt additive (CN’765 discloses a sulphate lithium salt compound) (Pg. 3–4);
nitrile additive (CN’765 discloses adiponitrile (ADN)) (Pg. 3–4);
sulfur additive (CN’765 discloses 1,3-propane sultone (PS)) (Pg. 3–4);
fluorine additive (CN’765 discloses fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)) (Pg. 3–4); and
vinylene carbonate (CN’765 discloses vinylene carbonate (VC)) (Pg. 3–4).
As to Claim 28:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP) to obtain a mixed organic solvent; adding lithium hexafluorophosphate into the mixed solvent to dissolve; and adding functional additives (Pg. 4)); wherein the functional additive includes a nitrile additive (CN’765 discloses additives including nitrile compounds such as adiponitrile (ADN), succinonitrile (SN), and hexane trinitrile (HTCN) (Pg. 3–4)).
As to Claim 32:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP); adding lithium salt into the mixed solvent to dissolve; and adding functional additives (Pg. 4)); wherein the functional additive includes a sulfur-containing additive (CN’765 discloses additives including 1,3-propane sultone (PS)) (Pg. 3–4); and further discloses that the sulfur additive is 1,3-propane sultone, which corresponds to 1,3-propylenesultone (Pg. 3–4).
As to Claim 33:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing organic solvents including ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP); adding lithium salt into the mixed solvent to dissolve; and then adding functional additives (Pg. 4)); wherein the functional additive includes a fluorine-containing additive (CN’765 discloses additives including fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)) (Pg. 3–4); and further discloses that the fluorine additive is fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (CN’765 explicitly utilizes fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) in its electrolyte formulation (Pg. 3–4)).
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 16, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112768765 A1 (CN’765), as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of CN 112635824 A1 (CN’824).
As to Claim 16:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method for preparing a high voltage electrolyte (Pg. 4)), including following steps:
mixing the linear carbonic ester, the cyclic carbonic ester and the carboxylic ester to obtain mixed organic solvent (CN’765 discloses mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC) and ethyl propionate (EP) according to a weight ratio to obtain a mixed solvent in a glove box (Pg. 4));
and further discloses a solvent system comprising linear, cyclic, and carboxylic esters in a specific mass ratio (CN’765 discloses a mass ratio of diethyl carbonate (linear): ethylene carbonate/propylene carbonate (cyclic): ethyl propionate (carboxylic) of 30:35:35 (Pg. 4)).
However, CN’765 does not explicitly disclose that the mass ratio of the linear carbonic ester, the cyclic carbonic ester, and the carboxylic ester is exactly 2:3:2.
CN’824 discloses a lithium-ion battery electrolyte comprising a similar solvent system of linear, cyclic, and carboxylic esters mixed according to a weight ratio (CN’824 discloses mixing ethylene carbonate (cyclic), diethyl carbonate (linear), and ethyl propionate (carboxylic) according to a weight ratio of 30:20:50 (Pg. 5)). This weight ratio establishes a proportional relationship between the linear carbonic ester and the cyclic carbonic ester of 20:30 (i.e., 2:3) (Pg. 5).
CN’824 further teaches that such electrolyte compositions comprising coordinated solvent components and additives provide improved performance, including formation of an SEI film having good compactness, elasticity, and corrosion resistance, thereby improving battery cycle performance and stability (Pg. 1–2).
CN’765 and CN’824 are analogous arts because both are directed to the same field of endeavor—specifically, electrolyte formulations for lithium-ion batteries—and both address improving battery performance through selection and proportioning of solvent components and additives (CN’765 Pg. 1–2; CN’824 Pg. 2–3).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the mass ratio of the linear and cyclic carbonic esters in the electrolyte of CN’765 (which is 30:35 ≈ 6:7) in view of CN’824’s teaching of a 2:3 proportional relationship between linear and cyclic carbonate components (Pg. 5), in order to optimize electrolyte performance, including SEI film stability as taught by CN’824 (Pg. 1–2).
Furthermore, CN’765 already discloses adjusting solvent component ratios within a mixed solvent system (Pg. 4), and CN’824 explicitly demonstrates that varying proportions of cyclic, linear, and carboxylic esters is part of electrolyte design (Pg. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to further adjust the relative proportion of the carboxylic ester within the known solvent system of CN’765 in view of CN’824’s teachings of proportional relationships among solvent components to arrive at a balanced composition, including a ratio such as 2:3:2, as a result of routine optimization of solvent proportions within known electrolyte systems.
As to Claim 23:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP) according to a weight ratio to obtain a mixed organic solvent; adding lithium salt to the mixed solvent to obtain an electrolyte; and adding functional additives to obtain the final electrolyte (Pg. 4)); and further discloses that the linear carbonic ester includes diethyl carbonate (DEC) (CN’765 explicitly utilizes 30 parts by weight of diethyl carbonate (DEC) in its solvent mixture (Pg. 3–4)).
However, CN’765 does not explicitly disclose that the linear carbonic ester includes dimethyl carbonate (DMC) or methyl ethyl carbonate (EMC) in its specific disclosed embodiment.
CN’824 discloses a lithium ion battery electrolyte wherein the chain (linear) carbonate is selected from methyl ethyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), and diethyl carbonate (DEC) (Pg. 2–3). CN’824 further teaches that these carbonate solvents are selected to optimize electrolyte performance, including improving conductivity and battery performance (Pg. 1–2).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate dimethyl carbonate (DMC) or methyl ethyl carbonate (EMC) as alternatives to, or in combination with, the diethyl carbonate (DEC) used in the preparation method of CN’765 in view of the teachings of CN’824. CN’824 explicitly teach that DMC and EMC are alternative linear carbonate solvents within the same class as DEC for use in lithium-ion battery electrolytes (CN’824 Pg. 2–3), and that selection among these solvents is used to improve electrolyte performance (CN’824 Pg. 1–2). Therefore, substituting or selecting DMC and/or EMC in place of or in addition to DEC in the electrolyte of CN’765 would have been a predictable variation within the same class of linear carbonate solvents to achieve desired electrolyte properties.
As to Claim 27:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing organic solvents including ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP); adding lithium salt into the mixed solvent to dissolve; and then adding functional additives (Pg. 4)); and further discloses that the functional additive is selected from a group including lithium salt additives, nitrile additives, sulfur additives, fluorine additives, and vinylene carbonate (Pg. 3–4).
However, CN’765 does not explicitly disclose that the lithium salt additive is at least one of lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB), lithium bis(oxalate) borate (LiBOB), or lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide (LiTFSI).
CN’824 discloses a lithium-ion battery electrolyte wherein the functional additives include a lithium salt-type additive, and specifically teaches that the lithium salt-type additive comprises lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB) and/or lithium bis(oxalate) borate (LiBOB) (Pg. 2–3).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB), lithium bis(oxalate) borate (LiBOB), or lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide (LiTFSI) as the lithium salt additive in the preparation method of CN’765 in view of CN’824. CN’824 explicitly teaches LiDFOB and LiBOB as lithium salt additives for improving electrolyte performance (Pg. 2–3).
Claim 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112768765 A1 (CN’765), as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of EP 3557678 A1 (EP’678).
As to Claim 29:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP); adding lithium salt into the mixed solvent to dissolve; and adding functional additives (Pg. 4)); wherein the functional additive is a nitrile additive (CN’765 discloses nitrile additives including adiponitrile (ADN)) (Pg. 3–4); and further discloses that the nitrile additive is adiponitrile (ADN) (Pg. 3–4); and discloses that the mass percentage of adiponitrile is within a specific range (CN’765 discloses that adiponitrile is present in an amount of 0.3–0.8% by mass) (Pg. 3).
However, while CN’765 discloses that the mass percentage of adiponitrile is 0.3–0.8%, it does not explicitly designate the sub-range of exactly 0.3–0.7 shares as a distinct preferred range.
EP’678 further teaches that cyano-containing functional additives may be used in an amount of 0.1% to 3.5% by mass to improve electrolyte stability and battery performance (Pg. 4–6).
CN’765 and EP’678 are analogous arts because each reference is directed to the technical field of non-aqueous electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries, and each addresses improving battery performance through the selection and optimization of functional additive concentrations (CN’765 Pg. 1–2; EP’678 Pg. 4–6).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide adiponitrile in the quantity of 0.3–0.7 shares as recited in Claim 29. CN’765 explicitly teaches that 0.3–0.8% is an effective concentration range for adiponitrile (Pg. 3), and the claimed range 0.3–0.7 lies within this disclosed range. EP’678 confirms that cyano-containing additives are used within defined concentration ranges (Pg. 4–6). Therefore, selecting the claimed sub-range of 0.3–0.7 from within the known effective range represents a predictable selection within the disclosed ranges to achieve desired electrolyte performance.
Claims 30, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112768765 A1 (CN’765), in view of CN 112635824 A1 (CN’824), as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of EP 3557678 A1 (EP’678).
As to Claim 30:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP) according to a weight ratio to obtain a mixed organic solvent; adding lithium salt to the mixed organic solvent to obtain an electrolyte; and adding functional additives to obtain the final electrolyte (Pg. 4)); wherein the functional additive includes a nitrile additive (CN’765 discloses adiponitrile (ADN) as a nitrile additive) (Pg. 3–4).
However, CN’765 does not explicitly disclose that the nitrile additive is succinonitrile, nor that the quantity of the succinonitrile is 2–4 shares.
CN’824 discloses a lithium-ion battery electrolyte wherein the nitrile additive comprises succinonitrile (Pg. 2–3). CN’824 further teaches that the content of the nitrile additive is 0.1–8 parts by weight, and preferably 2–6 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte (Pg. 3).
EP’678 also teaches that functional additives, including nitrile compounds, may be present in an amount of 0.1% to 10% by mass of the electrolyte (Pg. 4–6), thereby providing additional guidance regarding suitable additive concentration ranges.
CN’765, CN’824, and EP’678 are analogous arts because each reference is directed to the technical field of non-aqueous electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries, and each addresses improving battery performance through the selection and optimization of functional additives, including sulfur-containing additives (CN’765 Pg. 1–2; CN’824 Pg. 2–3; EP’678 Pg. 4–6).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize succinonitrile as the nitrile additive in the electrolyte preparation method of CN’765 in view of CN’824, which explicitly teaches succinonitrile as a suitable nitrile additive (Pg. 2–3). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to select the amount of succinonitrile within the range of 2–4 parts by weight, as this range falls within the preferred range of 2–6 parts by weight disclosed by CN’824 (Pg. 3) and within the broader range of 0.1–10% disclosed by EP’678 (Pg. 4–6).
CN’824 teaches that selecting nitrile additive content within the preferred range improves battery performance (Pg. 3), and EP’678 further confirms that such additives are used in defined concentration ranges to enhance electrolyte stability (Pg. 4–6). Therefore, selecting a specific value or subrange (2–4 shares) within the known preferred range represents a predictable selection within the disclosed ranges for achieving desired electrolyte performance.
As to Claim 31:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl propionate; adding lithium salt into the mixed solvent to dissolve; and adding functional additives (Pg. 4)); wherein the functional additive is a nitrile additive as described in Claim 26 and Claim 28 (CN’765 discloses that the additive further comprises selected from a group including succinonitrile (Pg. 3–4)); and the nitrile additive is succinonitrile (CN’765 explicitly lists succinonitrile as an additive (Pg. 3–4)).
However, CN’765 does not explicitly disclose that the succinonitrile has a purity over 99.95%.
CN’824 discloses a lithium-ion battery electrolyte where succinonitrile is utilized as a functional additive to improve high-temperature performance and electrode stability (Pg. 2–3). EP’678 further teaches that additives for high-voltage electrolytes are prepared and incorporated into electrolyte systems, including processes for preparing additive compounds suitable for battery applications (Pg. 4–6). These references collectively suggest that the purity of additives is a critical parameter for forming stable SEI films and avoiding parasitic side reactions that degrade battery performance.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize succinonitrile with a purity over 99.95% as recited in Claim 31. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use high-purity (e.g., >99.95%) reagents because it is a well-known requirement in the lithium-ion battery industry to minimize moisture and impurities that lead to side reactions, such as the generation of hydrofluoric acid or gas, which damage the electrode materials. Furthermore, achieving such high purity levels for a known additive like succinonitrile would have been obvious through the application of standard purification techniques like recrystallization, which are explicitly mentioned in EP’678 for the purpose of preparing battery-grade additives (Pg. 4–6). Therefore, the selection of a specific high-purity threshold represents the application of routine industrial standards to achieve the predictable result of maximizing electrolyte stability and performance.
As to Claim 34:
CN’765 discloses a preparation method of an electrolyte as described in Claim 15 (CN’765 discloses a method comprising mixing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and ethyl propionate (EP) to obtain a mixed organic solvent; adding lithium salt into the mixed solvent to dissolve; and then adding functional additives (Pg. 4)); wherein the fluorine additive is fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) as described in Claim 33 (CN’765 explicitly discloses utilizing fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) in its electrolyte formulation (Pg. 3–4)); and further discloses that the fluoroethylene carbonate is a functional additive (Pg. 3–4).
However, CN’765 discloses that the mass percentage of the fluoroethylene carbonate is approximately 5–7% by mass (Pg. 3–4), which does not explicitly recite the claimed range of 1–3 shares.
CN’824 discloses a lithium-ion battery electrolyte containing fluorine-containing carbonate additives used to improve electrolyte performance and stability (Pg. 2–3). CN’824 thus confirms the use of fluorinated carbonate additives within electrolyte systems for improving electrochemical performance.
EP’678 further teaches that functional additives, including fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), are used in high-voltage electrolytes in a mass percentage range of 0.1% to 10% by mass (Pg. 4–6). This disclosed range encompasses the claimed range of 1–3 shares (1–3%). EP’678 further teaches that such additives improve battery performance, including cycle life and interfacial stability (Pg. 4–6).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) in the quantity of 1–3 shares as recited in Claim 34. CN’765 already teaches the use of FEC in the electrolyte system (Pg. 3–4), and EP’678 explicitly teaches that FEC is effective within a broad range of 0.1–10% by mass (Pg. 4–6), which encompasses the claimed range. Therefore, selecting a sub-range of 1–3% from within the known effective range represents a predictable optimization of additive concentration to achieve desired electrolyte performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20040058250 A1 discloses a lithium secondary battery capable of preventing the thickness of the battery from expanding when the battery is charged at room temperature, or when the battery is stored at a high temperature after charging.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723