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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species A, claim(s) 1–16, in the reply filed on 06/04/26 is acknowledged. No claims are withdrawn because Species A is exemplified by a Markush group in claim 10, and all other claims appear generic to the species. Election was made without traverse.
Upon further search and consideration, the portion of the restriction requirement dated 04/09/26 has been reconsidered such that Species A–C and H are being fully examined together for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104; i.e., the restriction of Species B, C, and H is withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the portion of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 804.01.
Claim Objections
It is recommended that Applicant amend the claims as follows:
In claim 1, lines 19 and 20, “A is at least one element selected from B … Ti, and Si, and X is at least one element selected from S, F, P, and Cl” should read “A is at least one element selected from B … Ti, [[and]] or Si, and X is at least one element selected from S, F, P, [[and]] or Cl” to conform to the “A, B, or C” Markush-group style in MPEP 2117. Similar correction should be made for the following:
Claim 4’s “solvent is a mixed solvent comprising at least two solvents selected from … and ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC)” (lines 2–5).
Claim 7’s “electron withdrawing group is at least one selected from … and a hexanoate (CO2C5H11) group” (lines 2–13).
Claim 8’s “at least one selected from … is hydrogen” (line 2).
Claim 12’s “the electrolyte solution further comprises at least one other additive selected from … and 2-fluorobiphenyl (2-FBP)” (lines 2–9).
Claim 15’s “the negative electrode active material comprises at least one selected from graphite and a Si composite” (lines 2 and 3).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1–4 and 6–16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumimoto et al. (JP 2014130774 A, from 08/31/23 IDS; see mach. translation) (Izumimoto) in view of Aishova et al. (Cobalt-Free High-Capacity Ni-Rich Layered Li[Ni0.9Mn0.1]O2 Cathode, available 2020) (Aishova).
Regarding claims 1, 6–10, 13, and 15, Izumimoto discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (e.g., ¶ 0019, 0105), comprising an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (monofluoroethylene carbonate and fluoromethyl difluoromethyl carbonate, ¶ 0105), a lithium salt (LiPF6, ¶ 0105; see also ¶ 0075), and an additive (acetylacetone, ¶ 0106); a positive electrode (¶ 0103) comprising a positive electrode active material (LiNi0.45Fe0.05Mn1.45Ti0.05O4, ¶ 0103); and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (negative electrode with graphite, ¶ 0104, further satisfying claim 15),
wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate in an amount of 0 wt% (i.e., omitted in ¶ 0105/0106), falling within less than about 5 wt%, the additive comprises a compound represented by instant Chemical Formula 1, wherein R1 and R4 are unsubstituted C1 alkyl groups, and R2 and R3 are hydrogens (acetylacetone, further satisfying claim 6, claim 7 (given electron-withdrawing group is optional limitation dependent on selecting substituted C1–20 alkyl group, substituted C6–20 aryl group, or substituted C2–30 heterocyclic group and, thus, not required given Izumimoto’s disclosing acetylacetone), and claims 8–10).
As established above, Izumimoto envisions Co-free active material with the spinel, Ni-substituted lithium manganate, yet, while disclosing that the positive electrode may further contain other lithium transition metal oxides like layered structures (¶ 0056), Izumimoto fails to explicitly disclose that the positive electrode active material is represented by Chemical Formula 2.
Aishova teaches a Co-free, layered-oxide positive active material of Li[Ni0.9Mn0.1]O2 (Abstract), noting that Co is expensive and toxic (Introduction, right col., p. 1). Aishova teaches that this Co-free material demonstrates long-term cycling stability and is more stable than comparative Co-containing cathodes and may contribute high energy density (Conclusion, both cols., p. 7).
Aishova and Izumimoto are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Aishova’s layered oxide of Li[Ni0.9Mn0.1]O2 active material into Izumimoto’s positive electrode with the reasonable expectation of achieving long-term cycling stability and high energy density, as taught by Aishova.
Thus, modified Izumimoto would disclose a positive electrode active material represented by Chemical Formula 2, wherein a = 1, b = c = y = 0, x = 0.9, 1–x–y = 0.1, and A and X are absent because c and y each respectively equals 0 (Aishova’s Li[Ni0.9Mn0.1]O2, further satisfying claim 13).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Izumimoto discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1.
As noted above, Izumimoto exemplifies both a cyclic fluoroethylene carbonate and a fluorinated chain carbonate (¶ 0105) but generally discloses that the fluorinated chain carbonate may be used (alone) instead of the fluorinated cyclic carbonate (¶ 0089).
It would have been obvious to routinely substitute Izumimoto’s cyclic + chain fluorinated carbonate solvent for the solely chain fluorinated carbonate with a reasonable expectation of achieving a successful solvent.
The chain fluorinated carbonate such as fluoromethyl difluoromethyl carbonate from Izumimoto’s ¶ 0105 satisfies claim 3’s chain carbonate’s being represented by Chemical Formula 3, wherein R5 and R6 are each independently a substituted C1 alkyl group (i.e., two fluorinated methyls).
Regarding claim 4, modified Izumimoto discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is a mixed solvent (Izumimoto, ¶ 0105).
Izumimoto further discloses that the solvent may include various carbonates and that DMC and EMC are preferable due to their wide potential window (¶ 0076, 0077).
Although Izumimoto fails to disclose that the mixed solvent comprises DMC and EMC in the above example, it would have been obvious to incorporate these solvents into the solvent mixture with the reasonable expectation of achieving a wide potential window for battery operability.
Regarding claim 11, modified Izumimoto discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is included in an amount of 1.6 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution (Izumimoto, ¶ 0106), falling within about 0.01 to about 5.0 parts by weight.
Regarding claim 12, modified Izumimoto discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1.
Izumimoto further discloses that the electrolyte may incldue various other additives, including film-forming agents like vinylene carbonate (¶ 0095), though Izumimoto fails to explicitly embody such in the example above.
It would have been obvious to incorporate an additive like vinylene carbonate into Izumimoto’s electrolyte with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful electrolyte capable of film formation.
Regarding claim 14, modified Izumimoto discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises LiNi0.9Mn0.1O2 (per Aishova), which is considered sufficiently specific to read on LiNi0.90Mn0.10O2 given no purported criticality in the specification to the last significant figure being in the hundredths’ versus tenths’ place.
Regarding claim 16, modified Izumimoto discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, wherein the rechargeable lithium battery has a charging upper limit voltage of ≥ 4.7 V (from lithium manganate pos. active material (¶ 0024), which would define battery’s upper-limit charging voltage as reduction potential vs. Li/Li+), falling within ≥ about 4.35 V.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumimoto et al. (JP 2014130774 A) (Izumimoto) in view of Aishova et al. (Cobalt-Free High-Capacity Ni-Rich Layered Li[Ni0.9Mn0.1]O2 Cathode) (Aishova), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Matsui et al. (JP 2009163971 A, from 05/09/24 IDS; see mach. translation) (Matsui).
Regarding claim 5, modified Izumimoto discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1.
Izumimoto further discloses that the solvent may include various carbonates and that DMC and EMC are preferable due to their wide potential window (¶ 0076, 0077).
Although Izumimoto fails to disclose that the mixed solvent comprises DMC and EMC in the above example, it would have been obvious to incorporate these solvents into the solvent mixture with the reasonable expectation of achieving a wide potential window for battery operability.
However, Izumimoto 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 a 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).
Matsui is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrolytes with chain-carbonate solvents.
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_image1.png
221
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Examiner notes that the prior art (see Izumimoto’s Markush group in ¶ 0069) appears to indicate that acetylacetone (Species A), trifluoroacetylacetone (Species B), hexafluoroacetylacetone (Species C), and benzoyltrifluoroacetone (Species H) are obvious, substitutable variants (note also instant spec.’s listing these compounds together in Markush group of ¶ 0081).
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230327208 A1: lithium battery with electrolyte including dicarbonyl solvent such as acetylacetone and other pentanedione derivatives.
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 7/1/2026
Prosecution Insights