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 I (claims 9-16) in the reply filed on September 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 9, 2026.
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 1-16 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 term “kγ is a constant” in claim 1 and 9 renders the claim indefinite. The term “kγ is a constant” is not defined by the claim, the method of measuring the constant or how the constant value is obtained is not recited and thus, the metes and bounds of “kγ is a constant” cannot be ascertained.
The term “kviscosity is a constant…” in claim 1 and 9 renders the claim indefinite. The term “kviscosity” is not defined by the claim, the method of measuring the constant or how the constant value is obtained is not recited and thus, the metes and bounds of “kviscosity” cannot be ascertained.
The term “kconductivity is a correction coefficient…” in claim 1 and 9 renders the claim indefinite. The term “kconductivity“ is not defined by the claim, the method of measuring the correction coefficient or how the correction coefficient value is obtained is not recited and thus, the metes and bounds of “kconductivity“ cannot be ascertained.
Claim 2-8 and 10-16 also rejected due to dependency on claims 1 and 9.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2022/0021020).
Regarding Claim 1, Liang et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery (i.e. a cell) comprising an electrolyte (Para. [0005]), comprising an organic solvent (Para. [0067]) which includes ethylene carbonate (EC) (i.e. a cyclic organic solvent) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) (i.e. and a linear organic solvent) (Para. [0067] and Example 21 in Table 1) and the electrode has a conductivity 9.2 mS/cm and a viscosity at room temperature of 2.0 mPa*s (i.e. a viscosity of electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius) (Table 1, Example 21 and Para. [0065]), an EC:DEC mass ratio (i.e. γ as claimed) of 30:70 or 0.4 (Table 1, Example 21), a positive electrode plate (i.e. sheet) (Para. [0005]), the electrolyte having an infiltration coefficient on the surface of the positive electrode (i.e. at least partially immersed in the electrolyte) (Para. [0007]), wound or laminated with the separator and the negative electrode plate (i.e. sheet) to form an electrode assembly wherein the electrolytic solution is infiltrated in the electrode assembly (Para. [0083], [0108]) (i.e. a separator located at a side of the of the positive electrode sheet and at least partially immersed in the electrolyte, and a negative electrode sheet disposed at a side of the separator away from the positive electrode sheet and at least partially immersed in the electrolyte).
Regarding the conductivity σ, kγ, kviscosity and kconductivity as claimed, Kim et al. teaches the same electrolyte composition as claimed, including the organic solvents as required by claim 1, the viscosity as required by claims 2-3, the mass ratio as required by claims 4-5, the cyclic and linear solvents (as explained above) and additive as required by claim 7, (see Para. [0052] teaching a propane sultone additive) (i.e. the same composition). Accordingly, the electrolyte of Liang et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the conductivity satisfying the σ = kγ x γ2 + kviscosity x µ0 - kconductivity, the kγ value, kviscosity value, and kconductivity value, or (b) differences in the these properties set forth in the instant claim, having the claimed values and satisfying the claimed σ = kγ x γ2 + kviscosity x µ0 - kconductivity would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition of the electrolyte of Liang et al. is identical in composition to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the electrolyte of Liang et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the σ = kγ x γ2 + kviscosity x µ0 - kconductivity, the kγ value, kviscosity value, and kconductivity value) would be small and obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches the electrolyte has a viscosity at room temperature of 2.0 mPa*s (i.e. a viscosity of electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius) (Table 1, Example 21 and Para. [0065]) (i.e. wherein the viscosity of the electrolyte µ0 of the electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius satisfies 1.9 mPA.s ≤ µ0 ≤ 4.5 mPA.s).
Regarding Claim 3, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches the electrolyte has a viscosity at room temperature of 2.0 mPa*s (i.e. a viscosity of electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius) (Table 1, Example 21 and Para. [0065]) (i.e. wherein the viscosity of the electrolyte µ0 of the electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius satisfies 1.9 mPA.s ≤ µ0 ≤ 2.4 mPA.s).
Regarding Claim 4, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches an EC:DEC mass ratio (i.e. γ as claimed) of 30:70 or 0.4 (Table 1, Example 21) (i.e. the mass ratio γ of the cyclic organic solvent to the linear organic solvent satisfies 0.05 ≤ γ ≤ 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches an EC:DEC mass ratio (i.e. γ as claimed) of 30:70 or 0.4 (Table 1, Example 21) (i.e. the mass ratio γ of the cyclic organic solvent to the linear organic solvent satisfies 0.1 ≤ γ ≤ 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches the electrolyte has a viscosity at room temperature of 2.0 mPa*s (i.e. a viscosity of electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius) (Table 1, Example 21 and Para. [0065]).
Regarding the property of a viscosity µT at a thermodynamic temperature T, Kim et al. teaches the same electrolyte composition as claimed, including the organic solvents as required by claim 1, the viscosity as required by claims 2-3, the mass ratio as required by claims 4-5, the cyclic and linear solvents (as explained above) and additive as required by claim 7, (see Para. [0052] teaching a propane sultone additive) (i.e. the same composition). Accordingly, the electrolyte of Liang et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the conductivity satisfying the viscosity µT at a thermodynamic temperature T, or (b) differences in these properties set forth in the instant claim, having the claimed values and satisfying the claimed viscosity µT at a thermodynamic temperature T would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition of the electrolyte of Liang et al. is identical in composition to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the electrolyte of Liang et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding viscosity µT at a thermodynamic temperature T) would be small and obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 7, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches the electrolyte includes ethylene carbonate (EC) (i.e. a cyclic organic solvent as claimed) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) (i.e. and a linear organic solvent as claimed) (Para. [0067]), lithium salt (Para. [0035]), and an additive A which is a cyclic compound containing a SO2 bond includes 1,3-propane sultone (Para. [0035], [0052]).
Regarding Claim 8, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches total concentration of lithium salt in the electrolyte is 1.0 mol/L (Para. [0060]) (i.e. a molar content of the salt ranges from 0.8 mol/L to 1.2 mol/L) and an additive A is from 0.01 wt % to 5 wt % (Para. [0056]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 9, Liang et al. teaches a battery pack (Para. [0015]), comprising a plurality of battery modules provided in a battery case (Para. [0089] and Fig. 4) (i.e. a box, and a plurality of cells received in the box) arranged in any manner (Para. [0089]) (i.e. electrically connected in series, in parallel or in a series-parallel manner) each comprising an electrolyte (Para. [0005]), comprising an organic solvent (Para. [0067]) which includes ethylene carbonate (EC) (i.e. a cyclic organic solvent) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) (i.e. and a linear organic solvent) (Para. [0067] and Example 21 in Table 1) and the electrode has a conductivity 9.2 mS/cm and a viscosity at room temperature of 2.0 mPa*s (i.e. a viscosity of electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius) (Table 1, Example 21 and Para. [0065]), an EC:DEC mass ratio (i.e. γ as claimed) of 30:70 or 0.4 (Table 1, Example 21), a positive electrode plate (i.e. sheet) (Para. [0005]), the electrolyte having an infiltration coefficient on the surface of the positive electrode (i.e. at least partially immersed in the electrolyte) (Para. [0007]), wound or laminated with the separator and the negative electrode plate (i.e. sheet) to form an electrode assembly wherein the electrolytic solution is infiltrated in the electrode assembly (Para. [0083], [0108]) (i.e. a separator located at a side of the of the positive electrode sheet and at least partially immersed in the electrolyte, and a negative electrode sheet disposed at a side of the separator away from the positive electrode sheet and at least partially immersed in the electrolyte).
Regarding the conductivity σ, kγ, kviscosity and kconductivity as claimed, Kim et al. teaches the same electrolyte composition as claimed, including the organic solvents as required by claim 9, the viscosity as required by claims 10-11, the mass ratio as required by claims 12-13, the cyclic and linear solvents (as explained above) and additive as required by claim 15, (see Para. [0052] teaching a 1,3-propane sultone additive) (i.e. the same composition). Accordingly, the electrolyte of Liang et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the conductivity satisfying the σ = kγ x γ2 + kviscosity x µ0 - kconductivity, the kγ value, kviscosity value, and kconductivity value, or (b) differences in the these properties set forth in the instant claim, having the claimed values and satisfying the claimed σ = kγ x γ2 + kviscosity x µ0 - kconductivity would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition of the electrolyte of Liang et al. is identical in composition to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the electrolyte of Liang et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the σ = kγ x γ2 + kviscosity x µ0 - kconductivity, the kγ value, kviscosity value, and kconductivity value) would be small and obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 10, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches the electrolyte has a viscosity at room temperature of 2.0 mPa*s (i.e. a viscosity of electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius) (Table 1, Example 21 and Para. [0065]) (i.e. wherein the viscosity of the electrolyte µ0 of the electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius satisfies 1.9 mPA.s ≤ µ0 ≤ 4.5 mPA.s).
Regarding Claim 11, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches the electrolyte has a viscosity at room temperature of 2.0 mPa*s (i.e. a viscosity of electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius) (Table 1, Example 21 and Para. [0065]) (i.e. wherein the viscosity of the electrolyte µ0 of the electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius satisfies 1.9 mPA.s ≤ µ0 ≤ 2.4 mPA.s).
Regarding Claim 12, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches an EC:DEC mass ratio (i.e. γ as claimed) of 30:70 or 0.4 (Table 1, Example 21) (i.e. the mass ratio γ of the cyclic organic solvent to the linear organic solvent satisfies 0.05 ≤ γ ≤ 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches an EC:DEC mass ratio (i.e. γ as claimed) of 30:70 or 0.4 (Table 1, Example 21) (i.e. the mass ratio γ of the cyclic organic solvent to the linear organic solvent satisfies 0.1 ≤ γ ≤ 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches the electrolyte has a viscosity at room temperature of 2.0 mPa*s (i.e. a viscosity of electrolyte at 25 degrees Celsius) (Table 1, Example 21 and Para. [0065]).
Regarding the property of a viscosity µT at a thermodynamic temperature T, Kim et al. teaches the same electrolyte composition as claimed, including the organic solvents as required by claim 9, the viscosity as required by claims 10-11, the mass ratio as required by claims 12-13, the cyclic and linear solvents (as explained above) and additive as required by claim 15, (see Para. [0052] teaching a propane sultone additive) (i.e. the same composition). Accordingly, the electrolyte of Liang et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the conductivity satisfying the viscosity µT at a thermodynamic temperature T, or (b) differences in these properties set forth in the instant claim, having the claimed values and satisfying the claimed viscosity µT at a thermodynamic temperature T would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition of the electrolyte of Liang et al. is identical in composition to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the electrolyte of Liang et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding viscosity µT at a thermodynamic temperature T) would be small and obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 15, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches the electrolyte includes ethylene carbonate (EC) (i.e. a cyclic organic solvent as claimed) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) (i.e. and a linear organic solvent as claimed) (Para. [0067]), lithium salt (Para. [0035]), and an additive A which is a cyclic compound containing a SO2 bond includes 1,3-propane sultone (Para. [0035], [0052]).
Regarding Claim 16, Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Liang et al. further teaches total concentration of lithium salt in the electrolyte is 1.0 mol/L (Para. [0060]) (i.e. a molar content of the salt ranges from 0.8 mol/L to 1.2 mol/L) and an additive A is from 0.01 wt % to 5 wt % (Para. [0056]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
