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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see P, filed June 10, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1,2, 6-12, and 16-17 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds across various pages of the instant specification have low resolution and it is difficult to discern the variables and atoms in the structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 13-15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The compounds have low resolution and it is difficult to discern the variables and atoms in the structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, 13, and 18, refer to
PNG
media_image1.png
129
124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as an additive of an electrolyte. Applicant has not cited any particular place in the specification for support for the claim additive. Examiner can only find references to an additive with the chemical formula C7H7B in Table 1, page 9 of the specification. However, the chemical formula of
PNG
media_image1.png
129
124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is C7H9B. Therefore, there does not appear to be support for the claimed additive and the claims as amended appear to constitute new matter.
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 1-17 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 claims 1 and 8, the metes and bounds of the term “predicted oxidation potential” are unclear. The specification provides no guidance as to how to attain those values and under what conditions the predicted values would be calculated. For purpose of examination the term predicted is not taking under consideration and the claim will be interpreted as saying “an oxidation potential”.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 9-17, claims 1 and 8 recite “predicted oxidation potential” which renders the claim indefinite as described above in paragraph 14. Claims 2-7 and 9-17 are dependent on claim 1 and 8 and fail to overcome, clarify or remedy the limitations regarding the “predicted oxidation potential” of claim 1 and 8.
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, 6-10, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. (ChemSusChem 2022, 15, e202200543) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2015/0079466 A1) and J. C. Burns et al (2013 J. Electrochem. Soc. 160 A1668).
Regarding claim 1 and 8, Xing teaches a lithium-ion battery (coin cell, page 7, right column, 2nd para. of experimental section), comprising: anode active material (graphite, page 7, right column, 2nd para. of experimental section): nickel-based cathode active material (NCM811, page 7, right column, 2nd para. of experimental section); and an electrolyte having a formulation as follows:
a carbonate-based solvent (ethyl methyl carbonate: diethyl carbonate: ethylene carbonate = 5 : 2 : 3 in weight, page 7, right column, 1st para. of experimental section)
a lithium salt, specifically LiPF6 (page 7, right column, 1st para. of experimental section)
and an additive
PNG
media_image2.png
106
128
media_image2.png
Greyscale
that satisfies the following:
6 carbons
3 unsaturated bonds
an oxidation potential of 3.75 V (Figure 1C, page 2, right column, para. 1)
and the following atoms: carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), and boron (B)
Xing does not teach wherein the electrolyte formulation comprises vinylene carbonate.
Yoon teaches a battery (Example 1) with an anode active material (graphite, para. 0038), a nickel based cathode (para. 0039) and an electrolyte (para. 0041) having the formulation as follows:
carbonate-based solvent (ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and diethyl carbonate, para. 0041)
a lithium salt, specifically LiPF6 (para. 0041)
vinylene carbonate in 2 wt% concentration (para. 0042)
and a boron additive (para. 0043, passivation salt)
Yoon teaches that the vinylene carbonate is used as a passivation additive to form a passivation layer on one or more negative electrodes in the battery during discharge of the battery (para. 0032).
Furthermore, J. C. Burns teaches that adding vinylene carbonate to electrolytes of lithium ion batteries is beneficial on coulombic efficiency, charge endpoint capacity slippage, cycling performance and cell impedance (conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the vinylene carbonate of Yoon to the battery of Xing, because this would yield an electrolyte having a passivation layer forming agent and because Burns further teaches that vinylene carbonate is a beneficial additive to improve coulombic efficiency, charge endpoint capacity slippage, cycling performance and cell impedance.
Regarding claim 6 and 16, modified Xing further teaches wherein the anode active material is graphite (page 7, right column, 2nd para. of experimental section).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, modified Xing does not specifically teach wherein the anode active material is a silicon-based material.
However, Yoon teaches that suitable negative active materials can be a Li-Si alloy or an intermetallic compound including Si (para. 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a silicon-based material, because it would have been choosing one suitable anode active material from those taught by Yoon. The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode active material of Xing by forming it of a silicon-based material because the silicon-based material would predictably combine with the battery of Xing to act as a negative active material.
Regarding claim 9, modified Xing teaches wherein the solvent is ethyl methyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate and the lithium salt is LiPF6 (page 7, right column, 1st para. of experimental section).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xing does not specifically teach wherein the solvent is one or more of dioxolane and dimethoxyethane and the lithium salt is one or both of LiTFSI and LiFSI.
However, Yoon teaches that suitable solvents for the electrolyte are dioxolane and dimethoxyethane (para. 0020). Additionally, Yoon teaches that suitable lithium salts for the electrolyte are LiTFSI and Li-imide salts (thus LiFSI, para. 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose dioxolane or dimethoxyethane, because it would have been choosing one suitable solvent from those taught by Yoon. The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Xing by using one or more of dioxolane and dimethoxyethane because dioxolane and dimethoxyethane would predictably combine with the battery of Xing to act as a suitable solvent for the electrolyte.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose LiTFSI or LiFSI, because it would have been choosing one suitable salt from those taught by Yoon. The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Xing by using as the lithium salt one or both of LiTFSI or LiFSI because LiTFSI or LiFSI would predictably combine with the battery of Xing to act as a suitable salt for the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 12, modified Xing further teaches wherein the vinylene carbonate is 2 wt% of the electrolyte (as described above for claims 1 and 8 in paragraph 21).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing et al. (ChemSusChem 2022, 15, e202200543), Yoon et al. (US 2015/0079466 A1) and J. C. Burns et al (2013 J. Electrochem. Soc. 160 A1668) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (Chem Asian J. 2020, 15, 2803-2814).
Regarding claim 2 and 11, The combination of Xing and Yoon teach the lithium-ion battery of claim 1 and 8 as described above in paragraph 21. However, the combination of Xing and Yoon does not specifically teach wherein the nickel-based cathode active material has a nickel content of greater than 80%.
It should be noted that nickel-content is a result effective variable. Wu teaches that the increase of nickel content is favorable for improving the theoretical specific capacity of the battery (page 2809, right col., para. 2). This suggests that changing nickel-content would result in an improved capacity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the nickel-content since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the battery capacity by using a nickel content of greater than 80% in order to improve capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-5, 13-15, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claims 3-5 and 13-15, the closest prior art of record, Xing et al. (ChemSusChem 2022, 15, e202200543), Yoon et al. (US 2015/0079466 A1), J. C. Burns et al (2013 J. Electrochem. Soc. 160 A1668), and Wu et al. (Chem Asian J. 2020, 15, 2803-2814), do not teach nor suggest the additives with a boron atom, a phosphorus atom, or an S-N bond with the chemical structures shown in claims 3-5 and 13-15.
Regarding claim 18, the closest prior art of record, Xing et al. (ChemSusChem 2022, 15, e202200543), Yoon et al. (US 2015/0079466 A1), J. C. Burns et al (2013 J. Electrochem. Soc. 160 A1668), and Wu et al. (Chem Asian J. 2020, 15, 2803-2814), do not teach nor suggest a liquid electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery, comprising one or more additives selected from the group disclosed in claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights