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
Claim(s) 1-19 are pending and claim 20 is withdrawn in the current application and under consideration on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06 June 2024 has been considered by the examiner. The cited NPL was not considered as no English translation was submitted.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to an electrolyte and a battery, classified in H01M 10/056.
II. Claims 20, drawn to a method of manufacturing a lithium-ion battery classified in H01M 10/04.
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product of Group I can be made by a materially different process such as placing the anode and cathode in a coin cell as an alternative to placing the anode and cathode in a pouch, thereby resulting in a battery of claim 15.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for reasons given above and there would be serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply;
(A) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification,
(B) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and
(C) the inventions require a different field of search, e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with David Rodrigues on 21 May 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claim 1-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Turcheniuk et al. (US 20230238581 A1, "Turcheniuk"). Chemical Book (14-Dec-2012, Propylene carbonate "Chemical Book") is relied upon as an evidentiary reference in support of the rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Turcheniuk teaches an electrolyte [0011] comprising: a lithium salt [0011] ; and a cosolvent; where the cosolvent [0090] comprises a cyclic carbonate-containing solvent [0120] and a linear carbonate-containing solvent (ELY #26 contains a lithium salt (e.g. LiPF6 ), a cyclic carbonate-containing solvent (e.g. FEC) and a linear carbonate-containing solvent (e.g. dimethyl carbonate ), [0226])].
Regarding claim 2, Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 1, wherein the lithium salt comprises a primary lithium salt [0011] and a secondary lithium salt (additive lithium salt, [0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 2, where the primary lithium salt is LiPF6 [0031].
Regarding claim 4, Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 2, where the secondary lithium salt is at least one additive lithium salt such as ), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) or lithium difluorooxalatoborate (LIODFB0033].
Regarding claim 5, Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 1, where the lithium salt is LiPF6 [0092].
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 1, where the cyclic carbonate-containing solvent is FEC which comprises a 5-membered cyclic ring with a carbonate moiety, a boiling point of 240°C and melting point of -49°C (figure in Chemical Book of FEC). These values fall within the claimed ranges of a boiling point greater than 200°C and a melting point less than 50°C in claim 6 and a boiling point greater than 225°C and a melting point less than -25°C as in claim 7 and thus anticipate them. (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claim 8, Turcheniuk teaches The electrolyte of Claim 1, where the cyclic carbonate-containing solvent has a structure of formula (1) where R1 and R2 can be the same or different and are independently a hydrogen, a C1 to C5 alkyl or a halogen (ethylene carbonate, [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 8, where R1 is hydrogen, R2 is a hydrogen, a C1 – C3 alkyl or a fluorine ( e.g. ethylene carbonate, [0057]).
Regarding claim 10, Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 1, where the cyclic carbonate-containing solvent is ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), , fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), or a combination thereof (ethylene carbonate, [0120], [0124]).
Regarding claim 11, Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 1, where the cyclic carbonate-containing solvent is propylene carbonate (PC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), or a combination thereof ( ELY #15, [0213], [0124]).
Regarding claim 12, Turcheniuk teaches an example in paragraph [0182] showing an example electrolyte comprising 10.88 mol % of LiPF6, 24.80 mol % of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), 2.87 mol % of vinylene carbonate (VC), 60.82 mol % of ethyl propionate (ester), 0.45 mol % of lithium difluorophosphate (LFO), and 0.18 mol % of 3-{[1,3-bis(2-cyanoethoxy)propan-2yl]oxy}propanenitrile. Using the conversion equation to find the wt % of FEC from mol %,
w
t
%
=
m
o
l
%
*
m
o
l
a
r
m
a
s
s
∑
(
m
o
l
e
%
*
m
o
l
a
r
m
a
s
s
)
*
100
, which is about 50 wt % of FEC based on the total weight of the electrolyte. The wt % of FEC in this example falls within the claimed range and thus anticipates it (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claim 13, Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 1, where the linear carbonate-containing solvent is ethyl methyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, or a combination thereof ([0090], [0125]).
Regarding claim 14, Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 13, where the linear carbonate-containing solvent is ethyl methyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, or a combination thereof ( [0090], [0125]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcheniuk et al. (US 20230238581 A1, "Turcheniuk"), in view of Hays et al. (US 20230085778 A1; "Hays").
Regarding claim 15, Turcheniuk teaches a lithium-ion battery that comprises an anode, a cathode, a separator interposed between the anode and the cathode, and an electrolyte [0042]. The anode comprises Si-bases nanocomposite active materials casted (e.g. anode active layer) on an anode current collector [0182]. The cathode comprises high-voltage LCO active materials that are casted (e.g. cathode active layer) on a cathode current collector [0182]. The electrolyte comprises a primary lithium salt and an organic compound composition (e.g. cosolvent) that includes propylene carbonate (e.g. cyclic carbonate-containing solvent) and at least one linear carbonate (e.g. ethyl methyl carbonate [0125], [0090]) [0321].
Turcheniuk is silent regarding the anode active layer comprising lithiated silicon oxide or a combination of lithiated silicon oxide and carbon; where the lithiated silicon oxide or the combination of lithiated silicon oxide and carbon are present in an amount of 20 wt% or greater, based on a total weight of the anode active layer.
Hays teaches a silicon based active material such as a SiO/Si/C composite that can be used as the sole anode active material and that can comprise at least 40 wt % silicon based active material [0071] which overlaps with, and thereby renders prima facia obvious the claimed range of 20 wt % or greater (MPEP 2144.05).
Hays further teaches the process of lithiating an electrode (e.g. anode) by placing a lithium source within an electrode in a cell and preloading it with lithium [0121].
Turcheniuk and Hays each constitute prior art which is analogous to the claimed invention – a lithium-ion battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the battery of Turcheniuk to have an anode active layer comprising lithiated silicon oxide or a combination of liathiated silicon oxide and carbon to have a wt % of at least 40 wt % to accommodate better for volume expansion and to maintain the mechanical electrode stability and cycle life of the battery (Hays [0095-0096]).
Regarding claim 19, Turcheniuk in view of Hays teaches the battery of claim 15 described above.
Turcheniuk teaches the electrolyte of Claim 15, where the linear carbonate-containing solvent is ethyl methyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, or a combination thereof ([0090], [0125]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcheniuk et al. (US 20230238581 A1, "Turcheniuk") in view of Hays et al. (US 20230085778 A1; "Hays") and further in view Sato et al., (US 20260112640 A1, “Sato”).
Regarding claim 16, Turcheniuk in view of Hays teaches the battery of claim 15 described above including lithiated silicon oxide.
Turcheniuk in view of Hays is silent regarding the lithiated silicon oxide having the formula LiySiOx and where the combination of lithiated silicon oxide and carbon has the formula LiySiOx-C; where y is 0 to 1 and x is 0 to 2.
Sato teaches lithiated silicon oxide having a formula of
L
i
2
z
S
i
O
2
+
z
where z is 0 to 1 [0050] .
Turcheniuk, Hays, and Sato each constitute prior art which is analogous to the claimed invention – a lithium-ion battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made for the lithiated silicon oxide of Turcheniuk in view of Hays to have a formula of
L
i
2
z
S
i
O
2
+
z
where z is 0 to 1 as taught in Sato for stability, ease of production, and lithium-ion conductivity (Sato, [0050]).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turcheniuk et al. (US 20230238581 A1, "Turcheniuk") in view of Hays et al. (US 20230085778 A1; "Hays") and further in view of Chemical Book (14-Dec-2012, Propylene carbonate "Chemical Book").
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Turcheniuk in view of Hays teaches the battery of claim 15 described above including lithiated silicon oxide.
Chemical Book teaches the boiling and melting point of propylene carbonate which falls within the claimed range and thus anticipates it for claims 17 and 18 as mentioned above for claims 6 and 7 (MPEP 2131.03).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA BROWN whose telephone number is (571)270-0345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 6:15 am to 4:45 pm EST.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/SANDRA BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights