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 .
Petition to Make Special under PPH
Applicant’s petition to make special was granted in the response mailed October 21, 2025.
Priority
Claim for priority as a continuation of PCT/CN2022/094497, filed May 23, 2022 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed August 30, 2023; July 8, 2024; October 16, 2024; July 23, 2025; April 25, 2025; July 29, 2025 and October 28, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references and foreign language patent office communications with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings received August 30, 2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification received August 30, 2023 has been reviewed for examination purposes.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification teaches at para. [0066]:
PNG
media_image1.png
184
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it appears that this is a mistake as the majority of the disclosure to Q% pertains to the positive electrode current collector and not the positive electrode active material. One of ordinary skill would further understand that the current collector and active material layer are not the same components of the battery. It is suggested that this paragraph be amended to recite that the elongation of break Q% is to the positive electrode current collector.
See portions of Tables 1 and 3 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
213
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
224
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See paras. [0055]; [0064];[0074];[0082];[0162]-[0163] under the 112 rejection below, incorporated herein). Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: variables H, A1, Q and P and relationships employing these variables in claims 1-3, 18 and 19 should include the corresponding units associated with each value including appropriate units in Table headers when appropriate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The explicitly recited variables H, A1, Q and P and relationships employing these variables in claims 1-3, 18 and 19 should include the corresponding units associated with each value. For example, in claim 1 H appears to be in terms of mm, A1 appears to be in terms of % by mass), Q appears to be % elongation at break and P appears to be g/cm3. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 4-17 and 20 are dependent upon at least base claim and objected to for the same reasons.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 defines the elongation of break, Q% to the positive active material layer (see claim 1, line 16). The disclosure appears to teach that the elongation of break, Q% is to the positive electrode current collector (see para. [0055]).
PNG
media_image4.png
82
820
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Also see, para. [0064]:
PNG
media_image5.png
274
808
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The specification further teaches at para. [0074]:
PNG
media_image6.png
268
822
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The specification further teaches at para. [0082]:
PNG
media_image7.png
566
812
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Example 1 in paras. [0162]-[0163] teaches:
PNG
media_image8.png
436
838
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In addition, Tables 1-4 all appear to teach of Q% as elongation at break of the positive electrode current collector and not the positive electrode active material layer as claimed. See portions of Tables 1 and 3 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
213
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
224
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). See MPEP § 2173.03, incorporated herein.
Therefore, the language of claim 1, reciting that the elongation at break of Q% being of the positive electrode active material layer appears to be contrary to the disclosed invention wherein the elongation at break of Q% is to the positive current collector.
Claims 2-20 are dependent upon claim 1 and rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim 6 is unclear as it recites “a second lithium salt”. However, the exact number of lithium salts in claim 6 is unclear as neither claim 6 nor claim 1 recite a first lithium salt. Thus the exact number of salts of claim 6 are not clear as to whether or not the term “second lithium salt” inherently includes a first lithium salt or if the term “second lithium salt” only employs the term “second” as a descriptor as used in the specification.
For examination purposes, the claim has been interpreted to only a lithium salt of the material(s) specified in claim 6 and not a first and second lithium salt. Claims 7 and 20 are dependent upon claim 6 and rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Interpretation
For those reasons discussed above, the elongation of break, Q%, of claims 1-20, is interpreted to be the elongation of break of the positive electrode current collector as disclosed with a high degree and not the positive electrode active material as claimed but not sufficiently disclosed.
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 1-4, 8-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0212281) in view of Zeng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0161630).
As to claims 1 and 2, Roy discloses a secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode plate; and
a non-aqueous electrolyte;
wherein:
the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode collector (aluminum foil in Example 2) and a positive active material layer (lithium transition metal oxide in Example 2) disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode collector;
the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a compound shown in Formula 1, in which X and Y each independently represent a fluorine atom, or partially fluorinated or perfluorinated group selected from C1-C10 alkyl group, C2-C10 alkenyl group, C2-C10 alkynyl group, C6-C8 aryl group, C1-C10 alkoxy group, C2-C10 alkenoxy group, C2- C10 alkynloxy group, and C6-C8 aryloxy group, and at least one of X and Y represents a fluorine atom;
PNG
media_image9.png
162
272
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Notably, the electrolyte in example 2 is LiDFOB (difluoro(oxalate)borate) which reads on the general formula 1 above and specific disclosed formula H4 of the instant invention.
PNG
media_image10.png
313
313
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
112
252
media_image11.png
Greyscale
LiDFOB (Roy) Formula H4 of the instant invention (LiDFOB)
based on a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte, the compound shown in Formula 1 is present in an amount of A1% by mass, the positive electrode collector has a thickness of H mm, the positive active material layer has an elongation at break of Q%, the positive active material layer has a compaction density of P g/cm3, and the secondary battery satisfies: H of Roy is 12mm which falls in the range from 4 to 14, A1 of Example 2 is 1%, thus A1/H is 1/12 or 0.083 which falls in the range from 0.0015 to 0.20, Q+A1 is from 1 to 4, and P/A1 is 3.6g/cc (3.6g/cm3)/1 which is 3.6 which falls in the range from 2 to 340.
Roy does not explicitly teach of the elongation at break of the current collector (Q) and relationship of Q+A1 in (see claim 1) or Q+A1 ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 (see claim 2).
As to the elongation of break of the positive electrode current collector (Q) and the relationship of Q+A1 is from 1 to 4, Roy teaches of the same aluminum foil current collector having the same relative thickness as in the instant invention, 12mm.
Zeng further teaches of a positive electrode wherein the positive electrode current collector foil of the same thickness (para. [0089] with specific examples of 12mm and was noted to have an elongation at break ranging from 0.8-4% (para. [0091]) with specific example at para. [0112] of a 12mm thick aluminum foil having an elongation at break of 3%.
Zeng teaches that elongation of break has a great influence on battery safety. If this parameter is too large, safety is decreased. If this parameter is too small, the collector is prone to breaking and also reduces the quality or safety of the battery. In order to improve safety of the battery, the elongation at break of the aluminum foil positive current collector should be in a range from 0.8-4%.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminum foil current collector of Roy to further have a an elongation at break ranging from 0.8-4%, including specific values in this range as taught by Zeng since it would have provided the predictable benefit of improved battery safety. In doing such, the last parameter of claim 1, Q% and Q+A1 ranging from 1 to 4 would have been obviated noting that Roy teaches of A1 being 2% or less, such as 1% in Example 2 as discussed above and Zeng teaches of Q being 0.8-4, with 3% specifically. Thus the range of Q+A1 would be (0.8-4)+2 at a maximum or 2.8-6 when LiDFOB is 2% and 1.8-5 when LiDFOB is 1% as in Example 2. As can be seen the amount of LiDFOB of 1% in Example 2 in combination with suitable elongation at break taught by Zeng (0.8-4%) defines a range from 1.8-5 which significantly overlaps with the ranges of claims 1 and 2 as it pertains to Q+A1. 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 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As to claim 3, P is 3.6 para. [0114] of Example 2.
As to claim 4, the electrolyte comprises LiPF6 (Example 2, para. [0116]).
As to claims 8-9, the electrolyte comprises a cyclic carbonate such as EC (ethylene carbonate, Example 2, para. [0116]).
As to claim 10, the electrolyte comprises FEC (fluoroethylene carbonate, Example 2, para. [0116]).
As to claims 12 and 13, as discussed above, the electrolyte additive of LiDFOB in Example 2, para. [0116] reads on 12(1) of claim 12 and H4 of claim 13.
As to claim 14, as discussed above the positive electrode current collector is aluminum foil (para. [0114]).
As to claim 15, the batteries of Roy are further employed in a battery module (para. [0102]).
As to claim 16, the batteries of Roy are further employed in a battery pack (para. [0103]).
As to claim 17, the battery of Roy is included in a device (para. [0104]).
As to claim 18, the amount of LiDFOB in example 2 is 1wt%. The electrolyte is 1.15 M LiPF6 in EC/FEC/EMC/DMC (7/7/46/40). For an electrolyte solution, the approximate mass per liter of LiPF6 is ~170g in a 1.15M LiPF6 electrolyte mixture in Example 2. Thus for the electrolyte solution where LiDFOB at 1%wt in the electrolyte solution to a significantly higher amount of LiPF6 (~170g in a 1.15M electrolyte solution or about 14-15%) would expectedly fall in the range from 5 to 650.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0212281) in view of Zeng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0161630) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Lim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0356021).
Roy teaches in Example 2 of the main lithium salt being LiPF6 (para. [0116]).
Roy does not teach of the electrolyte comprising a combination of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) and lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI, claim 5) or when LiPF6 and LiFSI are present in addition to LiDFOB, the ratio of the amount of LiPF6 to LiDFOB is from 5 to 650 (claim 19).
Roy teaches that the lithium salt can be LiPF6 as well as other electrolytes including (FSO2)2NLi which is also understood as lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI).
As to an electrolyte wherein LiPF6 also includes LiFSI together, Roy teaches that the lithium salt can include both (FSO2)2NLi (LiFSI) and LiPF6 together (para. 0036]).
In addition Lim teaches that LiFSI along with LiPF6 and LiDFOB can effectively be mixed together to provide an electrolyte having improved charge and discharge characteristics, high-temperature storage and life characteristics and increased reversible capacity.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by providing an electrolyte wherein the salts include a mixture of LiFSI along with LiPF6 and LiDFOB as taught by Lim since it would have provided for an electrolyte having improved charge and discharge characteristics, high-temperature storage and life characteristics and increased reversible capacity. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
As to claim 19, modified Roy in view of Lim teaches of an electrolyte wherein LiPF6 also includes LiFSI together, Roy teaches that the lithium salt can include both (FSO2)2NLi (LiFSI) and LiPF6 together (para. 0036]). In addition Lim teaches that LiFSI along with LiPF6 and LiDFOB can effectively be mixed together to provide an electrolyte having improved charge and discharge characteristics, high-temperature storage and life characteristics and increased reversible capacity. Thus the electrolyte of modified Roy includes LiPF6 (A2), LiDFOB (A1) and LiFSI (A3).
The amount of LiDFOB in example 2 is 1wt%. The electrolyte is 1.15 M LiPF6 in EC/FEC/EMC/DMC (7/7/46/40). For an electrolyte solution, the approximate mass per liter of LiPF6 is ~170g in a 1.15M LiPF6 electrolyte mixture in Example 2. Thus for the electrolyte solution where LiDFOB at 1%wt in the electrolyte solution to a significantly higher amount of LiPF6 (~170g in a 1.15M electrolyte solution or about 14-15%) would expectedly fall in the range from 5 to 650. Thus satisfying A2/A1 from 5 to 650 as recited in one of the relationships of claim 19.
Claims 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0212281) in view of Zeng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0161630) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Tamura et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0312306).
Roy teaches in Example 2 of the main lithium salt being LiPF6 (para. [0116]).
Roy does not teach of a second electrolyte salt including lithium difluorophosphate (claims 6 and 7) or where this salt is present in a total amount of A4% by mass and A4 is 5 or less (claim 20).
As to claims 6-7, Tamura teaches of an electrolyte mixture comprising LiPF6, Li[(FSO2)2N] and LiPO2F2 (lithium difluorophosphate; abstract, examples). Tamura teaches that the addition of LiPO2F2 was shown to improve battery performance including improved energy density, charging rate characteristics. As to claim 20, the amount of LiPO2F2 is in a preferable amount from 0.0005-7 mass%, preferably 0.5 to 5 mass% (para. [0038]) with specific examples in Table 1 of 1 mass%.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte to include an additional salt of LiPO2F2 in a preferably range from 0.5 to 5 mass% as taught by Tamura since it would have improved battery performance including, but not limited to, improved energy density, charging rate characteristics.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0212281) in view of Zeng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0161630) as applied to claim 1 above in view of CN ‘563 (CN102324563A) or Saruwatari et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0112011).
Roy does not teach of the electrolyte further including a moisture scavenger comprising at least one of hexamethyldisilazane and tris(trimethyl)phosphate.
Adding a moisture scavenger such as hexamethyldisilazane to an electrolyte having LiPF6, was known in the art as a moisture scavenger (CN ‘563, abstract and examples). Similarly, other moisture scavengers, such as tris(trimethyl)phosphate (Saruwatari, para, [0019]) can be used for the same purpose.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Roy by further including a moisture scavenger comprising at least one of hexamethyldisilazane and tris(trimethyl)phosphate as taught by either CN ‘563 or Saruwatari since it would have predictably provided good moisture scavenging to the LiPF6 based electrolyte of Roy.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0140446 discloses a lithium secondary battery with an electrolyte comprising a mixture of LiPF6, LiFSI and LiDFOB but nothing sufficient with respect to the positive electrode current collector to satisfy the relationships of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725