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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/23/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Note that a concise explanation was not provided for NPL cite No.1 which is not in the English language.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, a parenthesis “)“ should be added after “(lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI)”
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 12-13 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "0<y≤1; 0≤z≤1; 0≤y+z≤1;" in line 6 (p.3 line 1). This limitation is indefinite, as 0≤y+z≤1 encompasses 0 (greater than or equal to 0), however, note that 0<y≤1 (y greater than 0), and thus y+z will be greater than 0. For examination purposes, y+z will be treated as greater than 0.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “Chemical Formula 5-2” in line 7 (p.3 line 11). “5-2” appears to be a typographical error for “1-2”, as line 9 (p.3 line 13) refers to –Chemical Formula 1-2--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “1≤x1≤1.2” in line 9 (p.3 line 13). It is unclear whether the limitation is intending to refer to “x1” or to –x2—as the formula is directed to Chemical Formula 1-2 which lists Lix2Niy2Coz2Mn1-y2-z2O2.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “0.7≤y2 z2≤1” in line 9 (p.3 line 13). This limitation is indefinite as there is no y2z2. Is applicant referring to -- y2+z2 – similar to the other chemical formula? For examination purposes, “0.7≤y2 z2≤1” will be treated as -- 0.7≤y2+z2≤1. –
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, 4-6, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (JP 2021-163706 A, cited in IDS filed 2/6/25).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches an electrolyte (paragraph [0001], non-aqueous electrolyte, paragraph [0095]) comprising:
a non-aqueous organic solvent (paragraph [0061], non-aqueous electrolyte, paragraph [0073], cyclic carbonates, chain carbonates);
a lithium salt (paragraph [0081], electrolyte salt is usually a lithium salt); and
a lanthanide metal imide salt (paragraph [0061], polyvalent metal cation and imide anion, paragraph [0070], may be added as a polyvalent metal imide salt, paragraph [0063], polyvalent metal cations include group 3 elements including La3+, paragraph [0067], imide anions include bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide anion FSI, bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (TFSI), paragraph [0071], La(TFSI)3, La(FSI)2, or La(FSI)3).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi teaches wherein the lanthanide metal of the lanthanide metal imide salt is lanthanum (paragraph [0063], polyvalent metal cations include group 3 elements including La3+, paragraph [0071], La(TFSI)3, La(FSI)2, La(FSI)3).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi teaches wherein the lanthanide metal imide salt is LaFSI or lanthanum (III) bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LaTFSI) (paragraph [0071], La(TFSI)3, La(FSI)2, or La(FSI)3).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi teaches wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a carbonate-based solvent (paragraph [0073-0074]).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi teaches wherein the lithium salt may be LiPF6 (paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (paragraph [0024], positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material); a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (paragraph [0051], negative electrode has a negative electrode active material layer); and the electrolyte according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above, paragraph [0061], non-aqueous electrolyte, contains a polyvalent metal cation and an imide anion).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yushin et al (US 2015/325882, cited in IDS filed 2/6/25).
Regarding claim 1, Yushin et al teaches an electrolyte (abstract, electrolytes) comprising:
a non-aqueous organic solvent (abstract, ether solvent, paragraph [0048]);
a lithium salt (paragraph [0037], mixture including monovalent metal ion salt such as LiPF6); and
a lanthanide metal imide salt (paragraph [0037], mixture including another salt of a rare earth metal, such as La(TFSI)3 or La(FSI)3).
Regarding claim 4, Yushin et al teaches wherein the lanthanide metal of the lanthanide metal imide salt lanthanum (paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 5, Yushin et al teaches wherein the lanthanide metal imide salt is lanthanum(III) bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LA(TFSI)3) or lanthanum (III) bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (La(FSI)3) (paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Yushin et al teaches wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a ether-based solvent (paragraph [0079], electrolyte solvent comprising 10 to about 100 wt% ether).
Regarding claim 9, Yushin et al teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises LiPF6 (paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Yushin et al teaches wherein a concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte is about 1.0 M (paragraph [0038], 1M of LiPF6).
Regarding claim 11, Yushin et al teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract, Li-ion batteries), comprising: a positive electrode (paragraph [0022], positive cathode 103) comprising a positive electrode active material (paragraph [0067], high voltage cathode materials); a negative electrode (paragraph [0022], negative anode 102) comprising a negative electrode active material (paragraph [0027], Si-containing anode); and the electrolyte (paragraph [0022], an electrolyte) according to claim 1 (see above, paragraph [0027], complex electrolyte, paragraph [0037], comprising mixture of monovalent metal ion salt such as LiPF6 and another salt comprising a rare earth metal, such as lanthanum(III) bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LA(TFSI)3) or lanthanum (III) bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (La(FSI)3)).
Regarding claim 12, Yushin et al teaches wherein the positive electrode active material may comprises LCO (paragraph [0064], note that LCO stands for lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2)) or Li2CoMn3O8 (paragraph [0064], which can be rewritten as Li0.5Co0.25Mn0.75O2), which falls under the claimed Chemical Formula 1:
Chemical Formula 1 LixM1yM2zM31-y-zO2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, 0.5≤x≤1.8; 0<y≤1; 0≤z≤1; 0≤y+z≤1; and M1, M2, and M3 are each independently selected from among metals selected from among Co and Mn.
Regarding claim 14, Yushin et al teaches wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a Si-based negative electrode active material (paragraph [0027], Si-containing anode).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al (US 2024/0360062).
Regarding claim 1, Yu et al teaches an electrolyte (abstract, electrolytes) comprising:
a non-aqueous organic solvent (paragraph [0053], halogenated ether component of Formula I, II, or III, and a secondary component which is a solvent that is not a compound of Formula I, II, or III, that may include ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, etc);
a lithium salt (paragraph [0054], one or more salts, including a lithium salt); and
a lanthanide metal imide salt (paragraph [0054], one or more salts, including a lanthanum salt, and any mixtures thereof, note lanthanum bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (La(TFSI)3)).
Regarding claim 4, Yu et al teaches wherein the lanthanide metal of the lanthanide metal imide salt is lanthanum (paragraph [0054], lanthanum bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (La(TFSI)3)).
Regarding claim 5, Yu et al teaches wherein the lanthanide metal imide salt is lanthanum (III) bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Yu et al teaches wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a carbonate-based solvent (paragraph [0053], secondary component is a solvent, such as ethylene carbonate).
Regarding claim 9, Yu et al teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) (paragraph [0054], also note lithium salt may be LiPF6 or LiBF4 or LiBOB, etc).
Regarding claim 11, Yu et al teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraph [0055], electrochemical cell is a battery), comprising: a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (paragraph [0055], cathode, cathode comprises a material such as a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, lithium nickel manganese aluminum oxide, etc); a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (paragraph [0055], anode, anode comprises a material selected from the group lithium metal, graphite, silicon, etc); and the electrolyte according to claim 1 (paragraph [0055], electrolytes described herein).
Regarding claim 12, Yu et al teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (e.g., NMC111, NMC532, NMC622, NMC811, etc) (paragraph [0199]), which falls under the claimed Chemical Formula 1:
Chemical Formula 1 LixM1yM2zM31-y-zO2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, 0.5≤x≤1.8; 0<y≤1; 0≤z≤1; 0≤y+z≤1; and M1, M2, and M3 are each independently selected from among metals selected from among Ni, Co, and Mn.
Regarding claim 13, Yu et al teaches wherein the positive electrode active material may be a NMC811 (paragraph [0199]). Note that NMC811 is represented by Formula 1-2, Lix2Niy2Coz2Mn1-y2-z2O2, in Chemical Formula 1-2, 1≤x2≤1.2; 0.7≤y2≤1; 0≤z2≤0.3; and 0.7≤y2+z2≤1, where x2 is 1, y2 is 0.8, z2 is 0.1, and y2+z2 is 0.9.
Regarding claim 14, Yu et al teaches wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a Si-based negative electrode active material (paragraph [0055], anode comprises a material selected from the group, note silicon, paragraph [0199]).
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.
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) 2-3, 7-8, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (JP 2021-163706 A, cited in IDS filed 2/6/25).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi teaches wherein an amount of the lanthanide metal imide salt is 0.03% by mass to 0.2% by mass of the electrolyte (paragraph [0072]), overlapping the claimed range of about 0.05 to about 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi teaches wherein an amount of the lanthanide metal imide salt is 0.03% by mass to 0.2% by mass of the electrolyte (paragraph [0072]), overlapping the claimed range of about 0.05 to about 0.25 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi teaches wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises the carbonate-based solvent in which a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate are mixed (paragraph [0074], combination of cyclic and chain carbonate) in a range of 5:95 to 50:50 (paragraph [0074], note that 50:50 corresponds to a 1:1 ratio, 5:95 corresponds to a 1:19 ratio), thus encompassing the claimed range of a volume ratio of about 1:1 to about 1:9.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005). MPEP 2144.05(I)¶3.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi teaches wherein the cyclic carbonate comprises ethylene carbonate (paragraph [0075], cyclic carbonates include ethylene carbonate), and the chain carbonate comprises ethyl methyl carbonate and dimethyl carbonate (paragraph [0077], chain carbonate include ethyl methyl carbonate and dimethyl carbonate).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi teaches wherein a concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte is most preferably 0.7 – 1.5 mol/dm3 (paragraph [0082]), thus overlapping the claimed range of about 1.0 M to about 2.0 M.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises known positive electrode active materials (paragraph [0029]) including lithium transition metal composite oxides such as Li[LixNi1-x]O2 (0≤x≤0.5), which overlaps the claimed range as an example at the end point falls within the claimed range represented by Chemical Formula 1: LixM1yM2zM31-y-zO2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, 0.5≤x≤1.8; 0<y≤1; 0≤z≤1; 0≤y+z≤1; and M1, M2, and M3 are each independently selected from among metals selected from among Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Sr, Mg, La, and combinations thereof.
Note that in the case that x=0 (thus LiNiO2), the composition of LiNiO2 corresponds to LixM1yM2zM31-y-zO2 where x=1, M1=Ni, y=1, z=0, y+z=1.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises known positive electrode active materials (paragraph [0029]) including lithium transition metal composite oxides such as Li[LixNi1-x]O2 (0≤x≤0.5), which overlaps the claimed range as an example at the end point falls within the claimed range represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 or Formula 1-2: Chemical Formula 1-1 Lix1Niy1Coz1Al1-y1-z1O2, in Chemical Formula 1-1, 1≤x1≤1.2; 0.7≤y1≤1; 0≤z1≤0.3; and 0.7≤y1+z1≤1; and Chemical Formula 1-2 Lix2Niy2Coz2Mn1-y2-z2O2, in Chemical Formula 1-2, 1≤x2≤1.2; 0.7≤y2≤1; 0≤z2≤0.3; and 0.7≤y2+z2≤1.
Note that in the case that x=0 (thus LiNiO2), the composition of LiNiO2 corresponds to Lix1Niy1Coz1Al1-y1-z1O2 where x1=1, y1=1, z1=0, y1+z1=1, and similar corresponds to Lix2Niy2Coz2Mn1-y2-z2O2 when x2=1, y2=1, z2=0, y2+z2=1.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKY YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5749. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JACKY YUEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights