DETAILED ACTION
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 submitted on 28 January 2025, 20 March 2025, 24 July 2025, 14 November 2025, 25 March 2026, 30 July 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Table 1B appears to indicate the concentration of various additives within the example electrolyte fluids, but provides no units. Applicant should include appropriate units.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities.
The claim recites the limitations “20 to 70 wt%” and “10 to 50 wt%”. A number should be followed by its unit. The limitations should be edited to read: “20 wt% to 70 wt%” and “10 wt% to 50 wt%”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities.
The claim recites the limitations “2 to 20 wt%” and “5 to 40 wt%”. A number should be followed by its unit. The limitations should be edited to read: “2 wt% to 20 wt%” and “5 wt% to 40 wt%”.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities. The claim recites the limitation “where the solvent comprises”.
The limitation should be edited to read “wherein the solvent comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 6 and 7 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 6 recites the limitation "the solvent" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18 and 19 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 18 recites the limitation "the additive" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 20 and 21 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 20 recites the limitation "the additive" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation "the solvent comprises ethyl propionate (EP), propyl propionate (PP), and a combination thereof”.
The use of the coordinating conjunction “and” suggests that all recited solvents are required. However, the inclusion of “combination thereof” as an equal member of the group contradicts this, because if both EP and PP are required, “a combination thereof” would be a redundancy.
As such, there is ambiguity as to the required composition of the solvent.
For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted to have been intended to read: "the solvent comprises ethyl propionate (EP), propyl propionate (PP), or a combination thereof”.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0157147, hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a battery cell (100) (paragraph [0042] and figure 1).
The battery cell (100) comprises a positive electrode (“cathode”). The positive electrode (“cathode”) comprises a positive active material (104) disposed on a positive current collector (110) (paragraph [0042] and figure 1).
The battery cell comprises a negative electrode (“anode”). The negative electrode (“anode”) comprises a negative active material (102) disposed on a negative current collector (108) (paragraph [0042] and figure 1).
The negative electrode (“anode”) is oriented towards the positive electrode (“cathode”) such that the negative active material (102) faces the positive active material (104) (figure 1).
A separator (106) is disposed between the negative active material (102) and the positive active material (104) (paragraph [0042] and figure 1).
The battery cell (100) further comprises an electrolyte fluid (paragraph [0042]).
The electrolyte fluid comprises DMC and EMC (paragraph [0077] and Table 1, Samples 3-5).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches that the wt% ratio of DMC:EMC is 2:0.74 (Table 1, Sample 4) or 2:1.11 (Table 1, Sample 4).
In decimal form, these ratios are 2.70 and 1.80.
The instantly claimed ratio range in decimal form is 0.25 to 4.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Li teaches that the electrolyte fluid comprises the lithium salt LiPF6 or LiBF4 (paragraph [0087] and Table 1, Samples 3-5).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches that the electrolyte fluid comprises the lithium salt in an amount in the range 1.05 M to 2 M (paragraph [0087]).
In specific examples, Li teaches 1.32 M, 1.17 M and 1.06 M (Table 1, Samples 3-5).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Li teaches that the electrolyte fluid comprises the additive LiDFOB (paragraph [0091] and Table 1, Samples 3-5).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches that LiDFOB is present at concentrations of 2.73 wt%, 2.5 wt% and 2.31 wt% (Table 1, Samples 3-5).
Claims 1-9, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0006704, hereinafter Ju.
Regarding claim 1, Ju teaches a battery cell (paragraph [0029]).
The battery cell comprises a positive electrode plate (“cathode”). The positive electrode plate (“cathode”) comprises a positive active material disposed on a positive current collector (paragraph [0029]).
The battery cell comprises a negative electrode plate (“anode”). The negative electrode plate (“anode”) comprises a negative active material disposed on a negative current collector (paragraph [0029]).
The positive electrode plate (“cathode”) and the negative electrode plate (“anode”) are laminated with a separator positioned between them such that the positive active material faces the negative active material (paragraphs [0029, 0041]).
The battery cell further comprises an electrolyte fluid (paragraphs [0029, 0041]). The electrolyte fluid comprises DMC and EMC (paragraph [0011] and Table 1, Examples 1-24).
Regarding claim 2, Ju teaches in a specific example including in the electrolyte fluid a lithium salt at 15% of the total mass of the fluid and additives at a total of 1.8% of the total mass of the fluid (paragraphs [0038,0039] and Table 1, Example 1).
The fluid also includes organic solvents. Given the mass of the salt and additives, the amount of the solvents is 83.2% of the total mass of the electrolyte.
DMC is present at 20 parts by mass of the solvents and EMC is present at 45 parts by mass of the solvents (Table 1, Example 1).
Therefore, DMC is present at 37.4% of the total mass of the electrolyte and EMC is present at 16.6% of the total mass of the electrolyte.
Together DMC and EMC are present at 54% of the total mass of the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 3, Ju teaches in an example that the wt% ratio of DMC:EMC is 20:45 (Table 1, Example 1)
In decimal form, this ratio is 0.44
The instantly claimed ratio range in decimal form is 0.25 to 4.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ju teaches in a specific example including in the electrolyte fluid a lithium salt at 15% of the total mass of the fluid and additives at a total of 1.8% of the total mass of the fluid (paragraphs [0038,0039] and Table 1, Example 1).
The fluid also includes organic solvents. Given the mass of the salt and additives, the amount of the solvents is 83.2% of the total mass of the electrolyte.
DMC is present at 20 parts by mass of the solvents and EMC is present at 45 parts by mass of the solvents (Table 1, Example 1).
Therefore, DMC is present at 37.4% of the total mass of the electrolyte and EMC is present at 16.6% of the total mass of the electrolyte.
Together DMC and EMC are present at 54% of the total mass of the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 6, Ju teaches in a specific example that the solvent comprises DMC, EMC, PC and EC (Table 1, Example 24).
Regarding claim 7, Ju teaches in a specific example including in the electrolyte fluid a lithium salt at 15% of the total mass of the fluid and additives at a total of 1.8% of the total mass of the fluid (paragraphs [0038,0039] and Table 1, Example 24).
The fluid also includes organic solvents. Given the mass of the salt and additives, the amount of the solvents is 83.2% of the total mass of the electrolyte.
The organic solvents are DMC, EMC, PC and EC (Table 1, Example 24).
PC is present at 5 parts by mass of the solvents and EC is present at 30 parts by mass of the solvents (Table 1, Example 24).
Therefore, PC is present at 4.2% of the total mass of the electrolyte and EC is present at 25% of the total mass of the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 8, Ju teaches that the electrolyte fluid comprises a lithium salt selected from LiPF6, LiClO4, LiBF4, LiN(SO2F)2 and LiN(SO2CF3)2 (paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, Ju teaches LiPF6 (paragraphs [0026, 0038]).
Regarding claim 20, Ju teaches FEC as an additive (abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Ju teaches that the solvent comprises DMC, EMC and EP (Table 1, Example 24).
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.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0181690, hereinafter Mao in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0157147, hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Mao teaches a lithium-ion battery cell. The lithium-ion battery cell comprises a cathode active material, an anode active material and a separator (abstract, paragraphs [0032, 0042]).
The lithium-ion battery further comprises an electrolyte fluid. The electrolyte fluid comprises DMC and EMC (paragraph [0017] and Table 1, Every example).
Mao fails to explicitly teach current collectors and positioning the separator between the cathode active material and the anode active material.
It is well-known in the art that a cathode active material is positioned on a cathode current collector, an anode active material is positioned on an anode current collector and the separator is disposed between the cathode active material and the anode active material – see, e.g. Li (paragraph [0042] and figure 1).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Mao’s lithium-ion battery with the cathode active material positioned on a cathode current collector, the anode active material positioned on an anode current collector and the separator disposed between the cathode active material and the anode active material for the purpose of being able to flow current in and out of the battery and to prevent a short circuit between the electrodes.
Regarding claim 3, Mao teaches a ratio by mass of DMC to EMC of 4:3 (Table 1, Examples 1-3, 5-20 and Comp Ex. 1-8).
In decimal form this ratio is 1.33.
The instantly claimed ratio range in decimal form is 0.25 to 4.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Mao teaches in a specific example adding 4 parts by weight DMC and 3 parts by weight EMC to an additional solvent to form at total of 79.7 g of solvent (Table 1, Example 1).
This corresponds to 26.6 g of DMC and 19.9 g of EMC.
The total mass of the electrolyte is 100 g (see Table 1, Example 1).
Therefore, DMC is present at 26.6 wt% and EMC is present at 19.9 wt%. The total amount of DMC and EMC is 46.5 wt%.
Regarding claim 6, Mao teaches an electrolyte fluid comprising a solvent. The solvent comprises DMC and EMC (paragraph [0017]).
Mao teaches that the solvent may further include solvents such as PC and EC (paragraph [0017] and Table 1, Example 4).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select PC and EC out of the available solvents to combine with DMC and EMC without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Mao teaches in a specific example using PC at 20% by mass of the total electrolyte and EC at 13% by mass of the total electrolyte (Table 1, Example 4).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include PC at 20% by mass of the total electrolyte and EC at 13% by mass of the total electrolyte in a mixture with DMC and EMC without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Mao teaches that the electrolyte fluid comprises a lithium salt selected from LiPF6, LiBF4, LiBC4O8 (LiBOB), LiN(SO2F)2 (LiFSI) and LiN(SO2CF3)2 (LiTFSI) (paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Mao teaches LiPF6 (paragraph [0016] and Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Mao teaches that the lithium salt is present in the range 0.5 to 2.5 M (paragraph [0016]).
Mao's optimum range overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.1 M to 2 M. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Mao teaches that the electrolyte fluid comprises an additive. The additive may be SN, PS or HTCN (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Mao teaches that the additive comprises PS (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Mao teaches in a specific example that PS is present at 0.5 wt% of the electrolyte (Table 1, Example 20).
Regarding claim 16, Mao teaches that the additive comprises SN (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 17, Mao teaches that SN may be present at 2 wt%, 3 wt%, 4 wt%, 5 wt% of the electrolyte (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 18, Mao teaches that the additive comprises HTCN (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 19, Mao teaches that HTCN may be present at 2 wt%, 3 wt%, 4 wt%, 5 wt% of the electrolyte (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 20, Mao teaches that the electrolyte fluid further comprises FEC (paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 21, Mao teaches that FEC is present at 6 wt% to 10 wt% (paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 22, Mao teaches an electrolyte fluid comprising a solvent. The solvent comprises DMC and EMC (paragraph [0017]).
Mao teaches that the solvent may further comprise additional solvents such as EP and PP (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select EP or PP out of the available solvents to combine with DMC and EMC without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/817,626 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0157147, hereinafter Li.
Claims 1-22 of Application No. 18/817,626 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1-22 except for a battery cell comprising a cathode, anode and separator of the claimed configuration.
Li teaches a battery cell comprising a cathode, anode and separator of the claimed configuration and the claimed electrolyte fluid. It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled to include the electrolyte of claims 1-22 of Application No. 18/817,626 in a battery cell of the configuration taught by Li as the electrolyte of claims 1-22 of Application No. 18/817,626 is an electrolyte suitable for a battery cell of the type taught by Li.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/LILIA NEDIALKOVA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights