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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao-Horn et al. (US 2024/0128514; hereinafter “Shao”) in view of Nitta et al. (US 2024/0322244; hereinafter “Nitta”).
In regard to claims 1-8, Shao discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery, the electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (such as DMTMSA; [0076]) and a lithium salt (such as LiFSI, [0080]), wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises about 10 vol% to about 30 vol%, or to about 20 vol% (the combination of LiFSI and DMTMSA can be used in a weight percentage of about 80% or as an additive with a concentration of 0.1% to 20% wherein the weight percentage of the LiFSI in the combination is about 15% to about 20%; see [0081]-[0082]) as recited in claim 2, of a non-aqueous organic solvent represented by Chemical Formula 1 (N, N-dimethyltrifluoromethane-sulfonamide; [0076]) wherein each X is a fluorine atom (i.e. “trifluoro”) as recited in claim 3, based on a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent and a carbonate-based non-aqueous organic solvent such as ethylene carbonate as recited in claim 4. See Figure 1C and [0076]-[0080]. Thus, if 80 to 85 wt% of the combination of the LiFSI/DMTMSA is DMTMSA and the combination of LiFSI/DMTMSA can be 20 wt% of the electrolyte, it can be surmised that the DMTMSA is used at approximately 16 to 17 vol% of the electrolyte solvent. See [0081].
It is noted that Shao uses weight percentage to describe the concentrations of the solvents of the electrolyte while the claim uses volume percent. It is viewed that the weight and volume percentage concentrations are roughly equivalent. But if it is held that the numbers are not directly related, it is viewed that it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimum or workable range of volume percentage of the non-aqueous organic solvent represented by Chemical Formula 1 to be present in the non-aqueous organic solvent of the electrolyte of Shao through routine experimentation and without the creation of any new or unexpected results as the criticality of the concentration of the solvent component was not disclosed in the instant application. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Shao is silent in regard to the use of an ester-based non-aqueous organic solvent and to wherein the carbonate-based non-aqueous organic solvent comprises both ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate as recited in amended claim 5.
Nitta discloses wherein the electrolyte of a rechargeable lithium battery can comprise an ester-based non-aqueous solvent such as methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, propyl acetate, methyl propionate, ethyl propionate, propyl propionate (as recited in claims 6 and 8), valeroactone, caproactone or a combination thereof. Nitta also discloses wherein the solvent composition may comprise one or more cyclic carbonates such as ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate. See [0127]-[0128] and [0130].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the use of the ester-based solvent, such as propyl propionate, of Nitta with the electrolyte of Shao for the purpose of contributing to better ionic conductivity in the electrolyte, better discharge rate capability, better fast charge performance, reduced HT outgassing, reduced end-of-life outgassing, better calendar life, and/or better low-temperature performance. It would have additionally been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further included propylene carbonate as disclosed by Nitta in the above combined electrolyte composition as it is known in the prior art to include mixtures of cyclic carbonate solvents in electrolytes without creating any new or unexpected results.
In regard to claim 9, Shao discloses that the carbonate-based non-aqueous organic solvent, such as ethylene carbonate (EC), is present in a concentration of about 0.1% to 30% by weight, such as 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 16%, 20% or 30%. See [0083]. Shao is silent in regard to the presence of an ester-based non-aqueous solvent.
Nitta discloses the presence of an ester-based non-aqueous solvent as discussed in the above rejection of claims 4 and 7-8. Nitta teaches that the total mole fraction of the ester compounds in the electrolyte may be in a range of 1 mol% to 5 mol%, 5 mol% to 15 mol%, 15 mol% to 25 mol%, 25 mol% to 45 mol%, 45 mol% to 55 mol%, 55 mol% to 65 mol% or 65 mol% to 75 mol%. Nitta also discloses wherein a carbonate-based non-aqueous organic solvent such as ethylene carbonate can be present in a range of 1 mol% to 5 mol% or propylene carbonate can be present in the amount of 1 mol% to 20 mol%. See [0127] and [0130]. Nitta is silent in regard to a volume ratio of the carbonate-based solvent to the ester-based solvent.
However, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an workable volume ratio of the carbonate-based solvent to the ester-based solvent through routine experimentation and without the creation of any new or unexpected results. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is also noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the recited volume ratio range.
In regard to claim 10, Shao discloses wherein the lithium salt comprises at least one of LiPF6, LiFSI, LiDFOB and LiBOB. See [0080]-[0081], [0083].
In regard to claim 11, Shao discloses wherein the electrolyte further comprises a carbonate-based additive (ethylene carbonate; [0083]), a sultone-based additive (PST; [0083]), a lithium salt-based additive (LiDFOB and LiBOB; [0083]), or a combination thereof.
In regard to claim 12, Shao discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (battery cell 100) comprising a positive electrode (cathode 120) comprising a positive electrode active material ([0077]), a negative electrode (anode 15) comprising a negative electrode active material ([0078]) and the electrolyte (110; [0076]) of claim 1. See Figure 1C and [0076].
In regard to claim 13, Shao discloses wherein the battery has a charging voltage of greater than 4.45 V (“as high as 4.7 V”). See [0076].
In regard to claim 14, Shao discloses wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium cobalt oxide. See [0007] and [0077].
In regard to claim 15, Shao discloses wherein the negative electrode active material comprises graphite. See the abstract, [0009] and [0078].
In regard to claims 16-17, it is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations of claims 16-17 do not explicitly require that the optional additives of claim 11 all be present and have the recited specific compositions. Therefore, the claims are met by Shao teaching that fluoroethylene carbonate can be included in the electrolyte. See [0083] of Shao.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nitta does not disclose or suggest modifying Shao’s DMTMSA electrolyte to include both a carbonate-based solvent and an ester-based solvent. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the ester based solvent of Nitta for the purpose of contributing to better ionic conductivity in the electrolyte, better discharge rate capability, better fast charge performance, reduced HT outgassing, reduced end-of-life outgassing, better calendar life, and/or better low-temperature performance. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Applicant states that the “routine experimentation” rationale for combining Shao and Nitta “does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the claimed mixture of three non-aqueous organic solvents in the claimed amounts, for use in Shao’s DMTMSA electrolyte. The Examiner has fully considered the argument, but has not found it persuasive. The Examiner has reviewed the previous office action and the only place where the Examiner relied upon a “routine experimentation” rationale for combining Shao and Nitta was for the volume ratio of claim 9. It is noted that the criticality of the recited volume ratio range has not been provided. Thus, the Examiner maintains that it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an workable volume ratio of the carbonate-based solvent to the ester-based solvent through routine experimentation and without the creation of any new or unexpected results. It is noted that the “Evidence of Criticality and Unexpected Results” section of the reply does not regard the criticality of the recited volume ratio, but rather the subject matter of newly entered claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach, suggest or render obvious an electrolyte having the recited components in the recited amounts in combination with the other recited components of claim 1 as claim 18 positively sets forth that the electrolyte comprises the specific components in the recited weight percentages based on a total weight of the electrolyte.
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 TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM ET.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights