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 1-4 in the reply filed on 5/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected lithium-ion battery, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/25/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: PVTF is not defined as poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-trifluoroethylene-co-chlorotrifluoroethylene) (para 23). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “exceptional” and “significantly higher” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “exceptional” and “significantly higher” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbosa et al. (High Performance Ternary Solid Polymer Electrolytes Based on High Dielectric Poly(vinylidene fluoride) Copolymers for Solid State Lithium-Ion Batteries) in view of Tan et al. (Additive engineering for robust interphases to stabilize high-Ni layered structures at ultra-high voltage of 4.8 V), and/or in view of Li et al. (Lithium Difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2): An Electrolyte Additive to Help Boost Low-Temperature Behaviors for Lithium-Ion Batteries).
Regarding claim 1 and 3, Barbosa, drawn to polymer electrolytes, discloses PVTF-based solid polymer electrolyte (Abstract, “P(VDF-TrFE-CFE)”), comprising: a polymer matrix; a N, N-Dimethylformamide (DMF) solvent and lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) (Section 2.2). Barbosa does not explicitly disclose electrochemical window of up to 5.68 V, ionic conductivity of 1.91 × 10-3 S cm-1 at ambient temperature and a glass transition temperature (Tg) lower than -38 °C. In the specification of the instant application, the claimed electrochemical window, ionic conductivity and glass transition temperature is stated to be due to the addition of LiDFP (para 92).
Barbosa does not expressly teach the PVTF-based solid polymer electrolyte further comprises a sacrificial additive. Barbosa teaches “The nature of the polymer matrix and fillers affect the morphology and mechanical properties of the samples and play an important role in electrochemical parameters such as ionic conductivity value, electrochemical window stability, and lithium-transference number” (Abstract).
Tan, drawn to additives for electrolytes in lithium battery art, discloses “using a sacrificial additive is an efficient approach for improving the electrochemical performance at high-voltage operating conditions” (P1, para 2). Tan teaches LiDFP additive forms a stable interphase which “suppresses TM dissolution, inhibits cathode surface reconstruction and facilitates uniform Li distribution within the cathode, effectively mitigating the strain and crack formation” (P2, para 2).
Li, also drawn to electrolyte additive, discloses adding Lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) (LiDFP) “can obviously lift the electrolytes’ ionic conductivity” (Conclusion). Li further teaches LiDFP can “participate in the CEI film’s formation and inhibit the further decomposition of the electrolyte” (Conclusion).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify polymer electrolyte of Barbosa by incorporating the LiDFP additive as taught by Tan and/or Li as doing such “prevents continuous electrolyte decomposition and cathode degradation” (Tan, P3, para 1) and/or “lifts the electrolytes’ ionic conductivity” (Li, Conclusion).
The PVTF-based solid polymer of Barbosa as modified by Tan and/or Li comprises: PVTF, DMF, LiTFSI and LiDFP as specified by the applicant in the instant application. Because Barbosa as modified by Tan and/or Li teach the same chemical composition, the properties claimed (the electrochemical window, ionic conductivity and glass transition temperature) are necessarily present (MPEP2112.01). As such, the properties of the solid polymer of Barbosa as modified by Tan and/or Li is the same as the electrochemical window, ionic conductivity and glass transition temperature claimed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 2, Barbosa discloses that LiTFSI was added to DMF with 40:60 weight ratio, polymer was added to solvent with 15:85 weight ratio and mixed until complete polymer dissolution (Section 2.2, Sample Preparation).
Although Barbosa does not explicitly disclose polymer matrix comprises PVTF with a mass of 0.1 g to 2 g, the LiTFSI has a mass of 0.1 g to 2 g and the DMF solvent has a volume of 1-10 mL, the disclosed weight ratios encompasses various batch sizes, including batch size that would result in claimed ranges:
L
i
T
F
S
I
D
M
F
=
40
60
P
V
D
F
-
T
r
F
E
-
C
F
E
L
i
T
F
S
I
+
D
M
F
=
15
85
Assuming P(VDF-TrFE-CFE) = 0.6 g,
0.6
=
15
85
→
L
i
T
F
S
I
+
D
M
F
=
3.4
L
i
T
F
S
I
=
3.4
40
100
=
1.36
g
D
M
F
=
3.4
60
100
=
2.04
g
Density of DMF = 0.944 g/mL
D
M
F
=
2.04
g
0.944
g
/
m
L
=
2.16
m
L
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to select PVTF with a mass of 0.1 g to 2 g, the LiTFSI with a mass of 0.1 g to 2 g and the DMF solvent with a volume of 1-10 mL in electrolyte of Barbosa as modified by Tan and/or Li as varying the composition ratios is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality demonstrated by the applicant (MPEP 2144.04 and 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Tan discloses the sacrificial additive comprises LiDFP (P1, para 3) and 1% LIDFP containing electrolyte has best performance (P2, Para 2).
Although Tan does not expressly disclose LiDFP with a mass of 0.01-0.05 g, the disclosed weight percentage encompasses various batch sizes, including batch size that would result in claimed range. Following the calculations in rejection of claim 2, the total mass of the electrolyte equals 4 grams (mass of polymer (0.6g)+ mass of LiTFSI (1.36g) + mass of DMF (2.04 g)). 1% of 4 grams is 0.04 g, which falls inside the claimed range. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Similarly, Li discloses sacrificial additive comprises LiDFP (Abstract) and “1 LiPO2F2-containing and 2 LiPO2F2-containing electrolytes were predicted to have better cyclic stability to some extent” compared to 0 LiPO2F2 and 3 LiPO2F2-containing electrolytes (Section 3.2).
Although Li does not expressly disclose LiDFP with a mass of 0.01-0.05 g, the disclosed weight percentage (1 LiPO2F2-containing electrolyte corresponding to 1 wt% LiDFP) encompasses various batch sizes, including batch size that would result in claimed range. Following the calculations in rejection of claim 2, the total mass of the electrolyte equals 4 grams (mass of polymer (0.6g)+ mass of LiTFSI (1.36g) + mass of DMF (2.04 g)). 1% of 4 grams is 0.04 g, which falls inside the claimed range. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05).
The following is an alternative rejection for claim 4 and the limitations in claim 1 directed to the electrochemical window and ionic conductivity.
Electrochemical window is determined by onset of electrolyte oxidation, which is governed by interfacial decomposition process at electrode-electrolyte interface. Tan teaches that interphase formed by 1 % LiDFP prevents “continuous electrolyte decomposition and cathode degradation” (P3, para 1). Compared to the 0.5% LiDFP, the interface formed by 1% LiDFP would directly influences onset of electrolyte oxidation and 1% LiDFP would have been expected to affect the oxidative stability behavior of the electrolyte system.
Li similarly notes “the addition of LiPO2F2 to the electrolyte completely covered the surface of the electrode sheet with a uniform deposited film…indicating that the electrolyte containing LiPO2F2 promotes the formation of even stronger CEI films and facilitates the stability of the battery cycling” (Section 3.3, para 1). Li further concludes “LiPO2F2 could participate in the CEI film’s formation and inhibit the further decomposition of the electrolyte” (Conclusion).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the percentage/amount of LiDFP in the electrolyte taught by Barbosa as modified by Tan and/or Li through routine experimentation as suggested by Tan and/or Li (thereby to include a mass of 0.01-0.05 g) to determine optimum value at which electrolyte oxidation starts and thus the range for electrochemical stability (including exceptional electrochemical window of up to 5.68 V). MPEP 2144.05
Ionic Conductivity is directly influenced by the interface formed by LiDFP. Tan teaches that the decomposition product of LiDFP, Li3PO4, can “lead to a fast ionic transport and low interphase impedance“(P3, para 3) and states concentration of LiDFP additive needs to be optimized to balance the positive (Li3PO4 and LiF) and negative (HF) effects” (P3, para 4).
Li similarly notes “the appropriate amount of LiPO2F2 (LiDFP) can contribute to improving the electrolyte’s ionic conductivity” (Section 3.1).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the percentage/amount of LiDFP in the electrolyte taught by Barbosa as modified by Tan and/or Li through routine experimentation as suggested by Tan and/or Li (thereby to include a mass of 0.01-0.05 g) to determine an optimum ionic conductivity (including a significantly higher ionic conductivity of 1.91 × 10-3 S cm-1 at ambient temperature). MPEP 2144.05
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (Synergistic Effect of Lithium Salts with Fillers and Solvents in Composite Electrolytes for Superior Room-Temperature Solid-State Lithium Batteries), drawn to electrolytes in Li battery art, discloses a PVDF-based solid polymer electrolyte (composite solid electrolyte (CSE), comprising: a polymer matrix (PVDF matrix); a N, N-Dimethylformamide (DMF) solvent; and lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), wherein the PVDF-based solid polymer electrolyte demonstrates electrochemical window of up to 4.8 V, and ionic conductivity of 2.44 × 10-4 S cm-1 at ambient temperature (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights