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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 29th, 2024, September 2nd, 2025 and January 15, 2026 were considered by the examiner.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. (WO2024222132A1; cited on IDS; Machine Translation provided via WIPO; hereafter Qian).
Regarding claim 1, Qian teaches a lithium-ion battery (Claim 1), that includes at least a positive electrode sheet (¶[0126]), wherein a double-sided density of the positive electrode sheet is preferably between 30 and 50 mg/cm2, which overlaps with the claimed range of 35 mg/cm2 (¶[0073]), and the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive electrode active material (¶[0006]). The positive electrode active material comprises a lithium manganese iron phosphate (¶[0006]).
Qian teaches a negative electrode sheet (¶[0132]), a separator located between the positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet (¶[0114]). Qian also teaches an electrolyte filled among the positive electrode sheet, the negative electrode sheet and the separator (¶[0050]). Wherein the electrolyte comprises a non-aqueous solvent (Claim 1) and the non-aqueous solvent comprises an ethylene carbonate (¶[0090]). The mass fraction of the ethylene carbonate accounts for 0.01 to 30wt% in the non-aqueous solvent, which overlaps with the claimed range of 10wt% - 35wt% in the non-aqueous solvent (¶[0113] The additive (EC)% by weight encompasses the majority of the disclosed range).
Qian teaches ranges for both the double-sided density and the mass fraction ratio of ethylene carbonate in the non-aqueous solvent that overlap with the claimed ranges of the instant application. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 2, Qian teaches a lithium-ion battery according to Claim 1, wherein a molecular formula of the lithium iron manganese phosphate is LixMnyFe1-yPO4, where 0.95≤x≤1.05 and 0.4≤y≤0.7 (Table 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Qian teaches a lithium-ion battery according to Claim 1, wherein a mass fraction of the ethylene carbonate accounts for 0.01 to 30 wt% in the non-aqueous solvent, which overlaps with the claimed range of 15 to 30 wt% (¶[0102]).
Regarding Claim 6, Qian teaches a lithium-ion battery according to Claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous solvent further comprises any one or a combination of at least two of a dimethyl carbonate, an ethyl methyl carbonate, a propylene carbonate or a diethyl carbonate (¶[0090]).
Regarding Claim 9, Qian teaches a lithium-ion battery according to Claim 1, wherein the electrolyte further comprises a lithium salt, and the lithium salt comprises any one or a combination of at least two of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiFSI, LiTFSI, LiBOB, LiODFP, LiODFB, LIPO2F2 or CF3SO3Li (¶[0095]).
Regarding claim 10, Qian teaches a lithium-ion battery according to Claim 9, wherein a concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte is 0.1 – 8 mol/L, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1mol/L to 2 mol/L (¶[0096]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 11, Qian teaches an electrochemical device, which comprises the lithium-ion battery according to Claim 1 (¶[0002] Lithium-ion batteries are currently widely used in devices).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian (WO2024222132A1), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Wang (US20170346136A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Qian teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, Qian does not expressly teach the electrolyte further comprising a positive electrode film-forming additive, where the positive electrode film forming additive comprises a 1,3-propane sultone, and a mass content of the positive electrode film-forming additive that accounts for 0.01wt% to 5wt% in the electrolyte.
Wang teaches a lithium-ion battery that contains an electrolyte further comprising a positive electrode film-forming additive (¶[0032]), and the positive film-forming additive comprising a 1,3-propane sultone (¶[0028]). Wang also teaches a mass content of the positive electrode film-forming additive 0.01% to 10% in the electrolyte ([0029]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 wt% to 5 wt% of additive in the electrolyte (¶[0029]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the instant application” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium-ion battery of Qian with the positive electrode film-forming additive as well as its composition and mass fraction of the electrolyte according to Wang as Wang found that cycle performance can be improved when this additive is present. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the lithium-ion battery in this way because “When the additives include the additive C [film-forming additive], the cycle performance of the lithium-ion battery can be further improved […] As an improvement, to the electrolyte of the present application, a content of the additive C is 0.01 wt% to 10 wt%” (Wang, [0055]-[0056]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Schmitz (US 20190067734 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Qian teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1. However, Qian does not expressly teach the electrolyte further comprising a negative electrode film-forming additive, where the negative electrode film-forming additive comprises a vinylene carbonate, and a mass content of the negative electrode film-forming additive that accounts for 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% in the electrolyte.
Schmitz teaches an electrolyte comprising a negative electrode film-forming additive that further comprises a vinylene carbonate (¶[0005]), and a mass content of the negative electrode film-forming additive that accounts for 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% in the electrolyte (¶[0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium-ion battery of Qian with the negative electrode film-forming additive as well as its composition and mass fraction according to Schmitz as Schmitz asserts vinylene carbonate to be well-known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the lithium-ion battery in this way because “One well-known additive film-forming additive is vinylene carbonate” (Schmitz [0005]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Ma et al (CN 105206875A; hereafter Ma).
Regarding Claim 7, Qian teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, Qian does not expressly teach the non-aqueous solvent further comprises an ethyl methyl carbonate and a dimethyl carbonate and a mass ratio of the ethylene carbonate, the ethyl methyl carbonate and a dimethyl carbonate is (0.5-4.5):(2.75-4.75):(2.75-4.75).
Ma teaches a method for improving lithium-ion battery electrode material circulation performance of the electrolyte, where the electrolyte further comprises an ethyl methyl carbonate and a dimethyl carbonate (¶[0010, 0013]) and a mass ratio of the ethylene carbonate, the ethyl methyl carbonate and a dimethyl carbonate falls within the claimed range of (0.5-4.5):(2.75-4.75):(2.75-4.75) (¶[0031], Example 5, EC, MDC, EMC mass ratio of EC:DMC:EMC of 3:4:3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium-ion battery of Qian with the non-aqueous solvent and its specific solvents and their respective mass ratios of Ma as Ma found that circulation performance is improved when organic solvent is present in the electrolyte. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the lithium-ion battery in this way because Ma, “claims a method for improving lithium-ion battery negative electrode material circulation performance of the electrolyte, the electrolyte is composed of organic solvent” (Abstract). Ma teaches an example of the mass ratios of the organic solvent that is within the range of the instant invention’s claimed range of the mass ratios, so it would have been obvious to try one of the examples outlined in Ma since the reference invention enhances parts of the instant invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Chang et al. (US 20120196158 A1; hereafter Chang).
Regarding Claim 8, Qian teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. However, Qian does not expressly teach the mass content of the non-aqueous solvent accounting for 60 wt% to 85 wt% in the electrolyte.
Chang teaches an electrolyte for an electrochemical device (¶[0002]) wherein the mass content of the non-aqueous solution accounts for 60 wt% to 85 wt% in the electrolyte (¶[0014], ¶[0059] The reference range overlaps with the upper limit of the claimed range). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lithium-ion battery of Qian with the electrolyte and its mass content in reference to the non-aqueous solvent of Chang as Chang found that the additive enhances the impedance at a specific proportion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the lithium-ion battery and electrolyte in this way because “It was found that the interfacial impedance of the batteries was obviously enhanced when the added amount of said additive was achieved to 5 wt%” (Chang [0008]). Moreover, “the non-aqueous solvent is used as complement of the electrolyte to 100 wt%; however, generally speaking, the non-aqueous solvent is preferably present in an amount of 85.8-88.6 wt%” (Chang [0059]). Because the non-aqueous solvent is added by mass proportion solely to ensure that the totality of the electrolyte weight reaches 100% and the additive enhances the impedance when added in this specific proportion, the non-aqueous solvent mass content ratio stated in the claimed invention would have been obvious to enhance the function of the lithium-ion battery, which was an objective of Chang (¶[0013]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN D BAGILEO whose telephone number is (571)270-5460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/M.D.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights