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 with traverse of Group I, directed to claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 08/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is overlap between claims 1-12 and claims 13-20, and it would not be overly burdensome to examine claims 13-20 in addition to claims 1-12. This is not found persuasive because as the groups are directed towards different classifications within the art, there would be separate fields of search required, thereby representing a search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/25/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to based on the language “an enclosure including the battery cell stack and electrolyte” where no article is provided for “electrolyte”. A suggested rephrasing to overcome this objection is “an enclosure including the battery cell stack and an electrolyte”.
Claim 2 is objected to due to reciting “a ratio”, where only a single ratio between the two recited compounds is present. Here, a suggested rephrasing is “the ratio”.
Claims 3 is objected to due to reciting “wherein the lithium salt is in a range from 0.5M to 5M”, where, though it is clear based on the specification and context that the claim refers to a concentration of the lithium salt, said concentration is not explicitly stated, reducing clarity of the claim. Here, a suggested rephrasing is “wherein the concentration of the lithium salt is in a range from 0.5M to 5M”.
Claim 4 is objected to for the same reason as claim 3 above, in regards to the phrase “wherein the lithium salt is in a range from 1M to 2M.” Here, a suggested rephrasing is “wherein the concentration of the lithium salt is in a range from 1M to 2M”.
Claim 5 is objected to due to presenting a Markush group format using the improper phrasing of “a group consisting of”. Here, a suggested phrasing consistent with MPEP section 2117 is “the group consisting of”
Claim 6 is objected to due to presenting a Markush group format using the improper phrasing of “a group consisting of”. Here, a suggested phrasing consistent with MPEP section 2117 is “the group consisting of”
Claim 7 is objected to due to presenting a Markush group format using the improper phrasing of “a group consisting of”. Here, a suggested phrasing consistent with MPEP section 2117 is “the group consisting of”
Claim 9 is objected to due to reciting “a ratio”, where only a single ratio between the two recited compounds is present. Here, a suggested rephrasing is “the ratio”.
Claim 10 is objected to as it recites “wherein the fluorinated carbonate is selected from a group consisting of ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), and combinations thereof.” The items listed in this group are non-fluorinated carbonates. Based on specification paragraph 0032 which recites “Examples of the non-fluorinated carbonate include ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), and combinations thereof.”, this limitation is treated for the purpose of examination as reciting the non-fluorinated carbonate. Additionally, for proper antecedent basis, this claim is treated as having dependence from claim 8, to have proper antecedent basis.
Additionally, claim 10 is objected to due to presenting a Markush group format using the improper phrasing of “a group consisting of”. Here, a suggested phrasing consistent with MPEP section 2117 is “the group consisting of”
Claim 11 is objected to due to presenting a Markush group format using the improper phrasing of “a group consisting of”. Here, a suggested phrasing consistent with MPEP section 2117 is “the group consisting of”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Demeaux (FR 3116156 A1, with US equivalent 2024/0006662 A1 used for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Demeaux discloses a battery cell (Abstract, “The invention relates to an electrochemical cell comprising”) comprising a battery cell stack including C cathode electrodes (See paragraph 0024) including lithium and manganese rich cathode active material, disclosing the formula xLi2MnO3; (1-x)LiMO2 where M may be Mn, and x≤1 (See paragraph 0093). This material constitutes a lithium and manganese rich cathode active material, having high proportions of lithium and manganese compared to other metals, where the material does not comprise metals other than lithium and manganese.
Additionally, Demeaux discloses A anode electrodes including an anode active material (See paragraph 0115), and S separators (See paragraph 0116). Additionally, Demeaux discloses that C, A, and S are integers greater than one, through disclosing that their battery cell stack comprises stacked anodes, cathodes, and separators (See paragraph 0118).
Additionally, Demeaux discloses that the battery cell further comprises an enclosure ([0117], container) including the battery cell stack and an electrolyte (See paragraphs 0117-0120). Additionally, Demeaux discloses that the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt (Abstract, “b) at least one salt whose cation is the lithium cation,”) and a mixture of a fluorinated carbonate and a fluorinated ester, disclosing a mixture of ethylene monofluorocarbonate and trifluoroethyl acetate (Paragraph 0056, “a mixture ii) of ethylene monofluorocarbonate (F1EC) and trifluoroethyl acetate (F3EA),”).
Regarding Claim 2, Demeaux discloses the invention as disclosed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Demeaux discloses structure where the fluorinated carbonate (ethylene monofluorocarbonate (F1EC)) is present at a content of 30% of the volume of the electrolyte solvent, and the fluorinated ester (2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate (F3EA)) is present at a content of 45% of the volume of the solvent of the electrolyte, as shown in cell type C in Demeaux’s table 1. Here, this represents a volume ratio of 40:60, which falls within the range of the instant claim which requires that the volume ratio be from 60:40 to 20:80.
Regarding Claim 3, Demeaux discloses the invention as disclosed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Demeaux discloses that a concentration of the lithium salt is in a range from 1M to 2 M, which falls within the claimed range of 0.5M to 5M (Paragraph 0072, “The concentration of said at least one salt in the electrolyte varies from 0.7 to 4 mol L−1, or from 1 to 2 mol L−1, or from 1.2 to 2 mol L−1.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Demeaux discloses the invention as disclosed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Demeaux discloses that a concentration of the lithium salt is in a range from 1M to 2 M, which falls within the claimed range of 1.0M to 2M (Paragraph 0072, “The concentration of said at least one salt in the electrolyte varies from 0.7 to 4 mol L−1, or from 1 to 2 mol L−1, or from 1.2 to 2 mol L−1.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Demeaux discloses the invention as disclosed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Demeaux discloses that the lithium salt is LiPF6 (Paragraph 0022, “According to one embodiment, the lithium salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF6.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Demeaux discloses the invention as disclosed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Demeaux discloses that the fluorinated carbonate is fluoroethylene carbonate, “Paragraph 0056, “or a mixture ii) of ethylene monofluorocarbonate (F1EC) and trifluoroethyl acetate (F3EA)”).
Regarding Claim 7, Demeaux discloses the invention as disclosed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Demeaux discloses that the fluorinated ester comprises 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate (Paragraph 0049, “2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate (F3EA).”).
Regarding Claim 11, Demeaux discloses the invention as disclosed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Demeaux discloses that the anode active material is selected from lithium metal (Paragraph 0115, “The anodic active material is metallic lithium”).
Regarding Claim 12, Demeaux discloses the invention as disclosed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, Demeaux discloses that the battery cell operates in a voltage 4.9 V, which falls in the claimed range of 2.0-5.0, and a charging rage of the battery cell is C/10, which falls within the claimed range of C/100 to 6C (Paragraph 0138, “Each charge consists of a first step of charging at constant current of C/10 up to a voltage of 4.9 V”).
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) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demeaux (FR 3116156 A1, with US equivalent 2024/0006662 A1 used for citation purposes) as applied to claims 1-7 and 11-12 above in view of Liao (US 2022/0320586 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Demeaux discloses the invention as discussed above in regards to claim 1. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that the electrolyte further comprises a non-fluorinated carbonate, Demeaux fails to disclose said structure, disclosing only embodiments which comprise only fluorinated carbonates, or only nonfluorinated carbonates, as displayed in their table 1, where cell types A, D, and I comprise only non-fluorinated carbonates as electrolyte solvents, and the other cell types do not comprise non-fluorinated carbonates as electrolyte solvents. Demeaux does not present any embodiments which comprise combinations of fluorinated and nonfluorinated solvents.
Therefore, we look to Liao, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of stacked battery cells (Paragraph 0184, “The above components were assembled in a stacked three-layer structure”) comprising fluorinated electrolytes (Paragraph 0006, “an electrolyte comprising a fluorinated organic solvent”). Here, Liao discloses an electrolyte comprising a combination of fluoroethylene carbonate and a nonfluorinated carbonate solvent such as dimethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (Paragraph 0131, “In one set of embodiments, the solvent comprises a mixture of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and non-fluorinated carbonate solvent (e.g., dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), or combination thereof)”).
Here, Liao discloses an example 10 comprising a mixture of fluoroethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate as the electrolyte, shown in their table 1, disclosing that the inclusion of non-fluorinated solvents results in the formation of inorganic materials such as Li2CO3 and Li2O in the SEI layer (Paragraph 0127), further teaching that these materials being present in the SEI layer results in advantageous properties, such as stability during cycling, increasing anode-electrolyte compatibility, and increasing the life cycle of the cell (Paragraph 0050, “The solid electrolyte interphase layer may advantageously contain a substantial amount of certain inorganics materials, e.g., such as LiF and/or Li2CO3, that increases the performance of an electrochemical cell. For example, the solid electrolyte interphase layer may assist with increasing stability of the anode (or reducing anode degradation) during cycling, increasing the compatibility between typical electrolytes and lithium metal anode, and/or increasing the life cycle of the cell.”).
Demeaux and Liao are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the same field of electrolyte for stacked battery cells. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the nonfluorinated carbonates such as dimethyl carbonate, as tought by Lian in the electrolyte of Demeaux for the purpose of achieving the advantageous properties, such as stability during cycling, increasing anode-electrolyte compatibility, and increasing the life cycle of the cell.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Demeaux makes obvious the invention of Claim 8. Additionally, in regard to the limitation of the instant claim which requires that a ratio of the fluorinated carbonate and the fluorinated ester to the non-fluorinated carbonate is from 20:80 to 80:20 volume percent, where Liao makes obvious the inclusion of non-fluorinated carbonates as discussed above, it would further be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of Liao’s disclosed ratio between non-fluorinated electrolytes and fluorinated electrolytes. Here, Liao discloses a range of weight ratios between fluorinated and non-fluorinated electrolyte solvents (Paragraph 0129, “The electrolyte solvent may comprise fluorinated organic solvent(s) and non-fluorinated organic solvent(s) in any of a variety of appropriate ratios by weight”), specifically disclosing a weight ratio of fluorinated solvent to nonfluorinated solvent of between 1:4 and 1:1 (Paragraph 0131, “In some embodiments, a weight ratio of a fluorinated solvent (e.g., FEC) to non-fluorinated solvent (e.g., DMC) is greater than or equal to 1:4 and less than or equal to 1:1.”).
Here, where the density of dimethyl carbonate is 1.064 g/cm3, and the density of fluoroethylene carbonate is 1.45 g/cm3, this therefore means that a 1:1 weight ratio of FEC:DMC is a 1/1.45:1/1.064 volume ratio, or 0.69:0.93, which is a 43:57 volume ratio, which falls within the claimed range of 20:80 to 80:20. Where Liao makes obvious a combination of fluorinated and nonfluorinated electrolyte solvents, it would further be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of their disclosed ratio of said fluorinated and nonfluorinated solvents, based on a reasonable expectation of success to one ordinarily skilled in the art, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Demeaux makes obvious the invention of Claim 8. Additionally, as discussed above, Liao makes obvious the use of ethyl methyl carbonate and dimethyl carbonate (Paragraph 0131, “In one set of embodiments, the solvent comprises a mixture of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and non-fluorinated carbonate solvent (e.g., dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), or combination thereof)”), thereby making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights