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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 07/06/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 13, and 15–17 is/are amended; claim(s) 2, 4–6, 10–12, 14, and 18–20 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections as well as 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 04/10/26 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 112(d), and 103.
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 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites “the first lithium salt and the imide-based lithium salt are included in a molar ratio of about 1:0.1 to about 1:5” (lines 1 and 2). The intended scope of the molar-ratio range is unclear given parent claim 1 recites “a content of the first lithium salt is about 0.3 M to about 1.5 M … [and] a content of the imide-based lithium salt is about 0.2 M to about 1.0 M” (lines 10 and 11), which the scope of claim 5’s ratio would seem to violate.
For example, if the first salt:imide salt ratio were about 1:0.1 as the lower bound, even taking the maximally allowed first salt concentration of about 1.5 M, such would yield 0.15 M imide salt, which, even when taking “about” to include ± 10%, would fall outside the minimally allowed imide salt concentration of about 0.2 M. Likewise, taking the minimally allowed first salt concentration of 0.3 M and considering claim 5’s upper bound of about 1:5 as the upper bound, such would yield 1.5 M imide salt, which falls outside the maximally allowed imide salt concentration of about 1.5 M.
For this Office Action, claim 5 will be interpreted to require molar ratios within “about 1:0.1 to about 1:5” satisfying parent claim 1’s requirements of a first lithium salt concentration of about 0.3 M to about 1.5 M and an imide-based lithium salt concentration of about 0.2 M to about 1.0 M alongside the total content of 1.5 to 2.0 M, which appears further consistent with the specification’s exemplified molar ratios (see, e.g., ¶ 0065 and exs. of ¶ 0158–0163).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 recites “the first lithium salt and the imide-based lithium salt are included in a molar ratio of about 1:0.1 to about 1:5” (lines 1 and 2). It is unclear that claim 5 properly incorporates and/or further limits parent claim 1 given claim 1 recites “a content of the first lithium salt is about 0.3 M to about 1.5 M … [and] a content of the imide-based lithium salt is about 0.2 M to about 1.0 M” (lines 10 and 11), which the scope of claim 5’s ratio would seem to violate for the reasons detailed above. See above also for interpretation for this Office Action.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–6, 9, 10, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 20190089003 A1) (Noguchi) in view of Pan et al. (CN 112331914 A) (Pan).
Regarding claims 1–4, 9, 10, and 19, Noguchi discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (Abstract) comprising an electrolyte solution (Abstract, exs.) comprising (per Ex. 11, Table 1) a non-aqueous organic solvent (ethylene carbonate (EC) plus diethyl sulfone (DES) plus 2,2-bis(trifluoromethyl)-1,3-dioxolane (FDOL)), a first lithium salt (LiPF6, further satisfying claims 9 and 10), and an imide-based lithium salt (LiFSI, further satisfying claims 2–4, where, in claim 4, the imide salt is represented by Chemical Formula 1A); a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (¶ 0108); and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (graphite, ¶ 0109, further satisfying claim 19), wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent contains 4.5 wt% of ethylene carbonate based on the total weight of the non-aqueous organic solvent (per densities of 1.32 g/cc, 1.357 g/cc, and 1.53 g/cc for EC, DES, and FDOL, respectively, alongside volume ratio of 5:35:60 EC:DES:FDOL), falling within ≤ 5 wt%, and the positive electrode active material comprises a cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide (LiNi0.51Mn1.5O4, ¶ 0108).
Noguchi, in Ex. 11, discloses concentrations of the first lithium salt and imide-based lithium salt of 0.6 M and 0.2 M, respectively (Table 1). These ratios, although respectively satisfying the recitations of a content of the first lithium salt is about 0.3 M to about 1.5 M, and a content of the imide-based lithium salt is about 0.2 M to about 1.0 M, the total ratio of 0.8 M is outside the recited total content of the first lithium salt and the imide-based lithium salt of 1.5 M to 2.0 M.
More broadly, however, Noguchi discloses that the salts’ total concentration is preferably 0.5–2 M (¶ 0050), noting that the combination of LiPF6, i.e., first lithium salt, and LiFSI, i.e., imide salt, contribute oxidation and reduction resistance stability, and ease of dissolution (¶ 0050). More specifically, Pan, in teaching an analogous lithium battery electrolyte including LiPF6 and LiFSI (¶ 0016), teaches that LiPF6 affords (ion) conductivity (¶ 0054), while partially replacing some of this salt with LiFSI improves heat resistance and prevents decomposition in water to enhance electrochemical performance (¶ 0026). Moreover, one skilled in the art would generally recognize that enough of Noguchi’s total salt must be present for ion conductivity without exceeding Noguchi’s solvent system’s solubility limit.
To balance suitable conductivity, redox and heat resistance, and prevention of decomposition from water exposure, all while accounting for sufficient salt solubility, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited total salt content of 1.5–2.0 M by routinely optimizing the contents of LiPF6 and LiFSI and overall salt content (MPEP 2144.05 (II)), as taught by Noguchi and Pan.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Noguchi discloses or renders obvious the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1.
Regarding the recited molar ratios of first salt:imide-based salt, although Noguchi may fail to explicitly disclose such, based on claim 1’s rationale, it would have been obvious to arrive at each range by routinely optimizing the contents of the first salt and imide-based salt to balance factors such as conductivity, redox and heat resistance, and prevention of decomposition from water exposure (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 20, Noguchi discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the rechargeable lithium battery has a charging upper limit voltage of 4.75 V (¶ 0112), falling within ≥ about 4.45 V.
Claim(s) 1–6, 9–13, and 15–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (CN 112331914 A) (Pan) in view of Qiao et al. (WO 2021143376 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20220393166 A1) (Qiao).
Regarding claims 1–4, 9, 10, 16, 17, and 19, Pan discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (Title) comprising (per Ex. 14, Table 1 (p. 8)) an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (DEC/EMC), a first lithium salt (LiPF6, further satisfying claims 9 and 10), and an imide-based lithium salt (LiFSI, further reading on claims 2–4, where, in claim 4, the imide salt is represented by Chemical Formula 1A); a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (e.g., NCM811, ¶ 0040); and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (e.g., Si-C material, ¶ 0040, further reading on claim 19’s Si composite), wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent contains no ethylene carbonate based on the total weight of the non-aqueous organic solvent (per Ex. 14, Table 1), falling within less than about 5 wt%.
Pan exemplarily discloses that the first lithium salt and the imide-based lithium salt are included at ~ 0.92 M and ~ 0.27 M, respectively (per below calcs. from Pan’s Ex. 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
86
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
These ratios, although respectively satisfying the recitations of a content of the first lithium salt is about 0.3 M to about 1.5 M, and a content of the imide-based lithium salt is about 0.2 M to about 1.0 M, the total ratio of 1.19 M is outside the recited total content of the first lithium salt and the imide-based lithium salt of 1.5 M to 2.0 M.
However, Pan generally discloses that LiFSI preferably constitutes 1.0–7.7 mass% of the electrolyte (¶ 0017) and, thus, contemplates adjusting this salt’s mass and, thus, molar content. For example, if one employed Pan’s exemplified 7.7 mass% LiFSI while maintaining 14.0% LiPF6 (as in Ex. 14), such would yield ~ 0.92 M LiPF6 and 0.41 M LiFSI and, thus, a total of 1.33 M, which approaches 1.5–2.0 M.
More broadly, though, Pan discloses that LiPF6 generally adds conductivity (¶ 0054), while adding salts such as LiFSI provides good film-forming properties to inhibit metal-ion dissolution and improve cycle performance (¶ 0054). Further, Pan includes other additives like inorganic sulfides (e.g., ¶ 0010) to passivate the negative electrode to protect against organic-solvent dissolution while conducting ions (¶ 0025). Moreover, one skilled in the art would generally recognize that enough of Pan’s total salt must be present for ion conductivity without exceeding the solvent system’s solubility limit.
To balance each of these effects, then, all while accounting for proper solubility, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited total salt content of 1.5–2.0 M by routinely optimizing the contents of LiPF6 and LiFSI and overall salt content (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
As noted above, Pan exemplifies an NCM811 cathode material—i.e., LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2—in Ex. 14 and, although clearly contemplating low-Co materials (see also general formula in ¶ 0022), fails to explicitly disclose such in Ex. 14.
Qiao teaches an analogous lithium battery (Title) including a Co-free cathode active material represented by LixNiaMnbAlcO2, where 1 ≤ x ≤ 1.15, 0.5 ≤ a ≤ 0.95, 0.02 ≤ b ≤ 0.48, and 0 < c < 0.05 (¶ 0027, 0028), including materials such as LiNi0.92Mn0.06Al0.02O2 (Ex. 1, ¶ 0051). Qiao recognizes that Co is expensive and scarce (¶ 0002), but this material, specifically in being doped with Al, exhibits a stabilized crystal structure to yield excellent rate capability and cycle performance even at high temperatures (¶ 0005).
As Pan also desires long cycle life and wide temperature-operating ranges (¶ 0004), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adopt Qiao’s material such as LiNi0.92Mn0.06Al0.02O2 as Pan’s Co-free cathode active material—further satisfying claim 16’s Chemical Formula 3, where a = 1, x = 0.92, y = 0.06, z = 0.02, M1 = Al, w = b = c = 0, M2 is absent because w = 0, and w + x + y + z = 1, as well as claim 17’s Chemical Formula 3-1, where a = 1, x1 = 0.92, y1 = 0.06, z1 = 0.02, w1 = b = c = 0, M2 is absent because w1 = 0, and w1 + x1 + y1 + z1 = 1—with the reasonable expectation of achieving excellent rate capability and cycle performance even at high temperatures, as taught by Qiao.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Pan discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1.
Regarding the recited molar ratios of first salt:imide-based salt, based on claim 1’s rationale, although Pan may fail to explicitly disclose such, it would have been obvious to arrive at each range by routinely optimizing the contents of the first salt and imide-based salt to balance factors such as conductivity, cycle performance, and high-temperature storage properties (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 11–13, modified Pan discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is composed of chain carbonate alone (DEC/EMC from Pan’s Ex. 14), wherein the chain carbonate is represented by Chemical Formula 2, where R1 and R2 are each unsubstituted C2 alkyl groups (in DEC) or where R1 is an unsubstituted C2 alkyl group and R2 is an unsubstituted C1 alkyl group (in EMC), wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is a mixture of DEC and EMC (Pan’s Ex. 14).
Regarding claim 15, modified Pan discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte solution further comprises an additive of LiPO2F2 (Pan’s Ex. 14, Table 1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Pan discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 17.
Qiao further teaches, as discussed above, a general formula of LixNiaMnbAlcO2, where 1 ≤ x ≤ 1.15, 0.5 ≤ a ≤ 0.95, 0.02 ≤ b ≤ 0.48, and 0 < c < 0.05 (¶ 0027, 0028), where a, b, and c overlap the instant 0.6 ≤ x1 ≤ 0.79, 0.2 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.39, and 0.01 ≤ z1 < 0.1, respectively.
Although failing to explicitly embody the instant x1, y1, and z1 of claim 18, it would have been obvious to routinely select such values from within Qiao’s overlapping molar ranges with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful cathode material with excellent rate properties, as taught by Qiao (MPEP 2144.05 (I), 2144.07).
Regarding claim 20, modified Pan discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1.
Pan further discloses a full-state/upper-limit voltage of 4.2 V (¶ 0043), which appears to read on “greater than or equal to about 4.45 V” given no special definition of “about” (i.e., 4.2 V is within 10% of 4.45 V and, thus, reasonably “about” 4.45 V) and no apparent criticality to this range.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (CN 112331914 A) (Pan) in view of Qiao et al. (WO 2021143376 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20220393166 A1) (Qiao), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Matsui et al. (JP 2009163971 A) (Matsui).
Regarding claim 14, modified Pan discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1.
Pan exemplifies a solvent of DEC and EMC in Ex. 14 (Table 1) but more generally discloses that the solvent contains at least two of PC, DMC, DEC, and EMC (¶ 0018).
Although failing to embody a solvent comprising EMC and DMC in Ex. 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely select this mixture from Pan’s narrow list with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful solvent mixture (MPEP 2144.07).
However, Pan fails to explicitly articulate the concentrations of these compounds and, thus, a volume ratio of EMC:DMC of about 10:90 to about 50:50.
Matsui teaches an analogous battery electrolyte with a solvent consisting of chain carbonates (Abstract), where DMC and EMC is the preferred mixed solvent (¶ 0016). Matsui teaches a preferable molar ratio of 8/2 ≤ DMC/other linear carbonates (e.g., EMC) ≤ 10/0 (¶ 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Pan's EMC:DMC mixture must necessarily be incorporated at some mass ratio, and, as demonstrated by Matsui, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a molar ratio of, e.g., 8/2 ≤ DMC/EMC ≤ 10/0 as an appropriate ratio.
Based on DMC and EMC’s densities each very close to 1.0 g/mL, such yields a volume ratio of ~ 100:0 to 78:22 DMC:EMC, per below calcs. Such overlaps the instant about 10:90 to about 50:50 such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful solvent mixture (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
PNG
media_image2.png
221
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections and necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing Noguchi in view of Pan for the first 103 rejection, as well as Pan’s broader disclosure as part of the second 103 rejection over Pan in view of Qiao.
Additionally, for completeness, Examiner respectfully observes no criticality to a total salt content of 1.5–2.0 M based on the data of record. Further, although instant Comp. Ex. 2 includes LiFSI at 1.5 M—i.e., outside 0.2~1.0 M—such appears to be an improper comparative example based on Noguchi and Pan because each reference embodies the combined first lithium and imide-based salts, whereas CE 2 only uses LiFSI as the salt. Thus, Examiner further observes no criticality to either recited salt’s molarity, making the above cases of obviousness appear to remain proper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights