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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 21, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received November 21, 2025:
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-15, 20 and 25-28 are pending. Claims 5, 8-9, 16-19 and 21-24 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “diethy carbonate” appears to contain a typographical error and should recite “diethyl carbonate”.
In claim 10, line 9, “diethy carbonate” appears to contain a typographical error and should recite “diethyl carbonate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-11, 15 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN109860703A) in view of Morris (US 2007/0015053), Tokutake et al. (JP2007179765A), Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0280210) and Cheng et al. (CN101170200A). The U.S. version of Zhang et al. (US2020/0243907) is used as the English machine translation and is referenced below. The English machine translations of Tokutake et al. and Cheng et al. are attached in prior Office actions and are referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches an electrochemical device comprising a cathode, an electrolyte and an anode (Para. [0083]) wherein the electrolyte comprises lithium difluorophosphate (Para. [0019]) (i.e. a phosphorous and oxygen containing compound), a lithium salt (Para. [0055]), a carbonate used as a solvent which is one or more of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate (Para. [0059]) (i.e. a solvent, the solvent is one or more selected from the group consisting of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate), and the electrolyte additives further comprise catechol sulfate (Para. [0019]) (i.e. an additive is a sulfur-oxygen double-bond containing compound), the anode comprises an anode current collector and an anode active material layer including carbon formed on the current collector (i.e. the anode comprises an anode current collector and an anode mixture layer formed on the surface of the anode current collector) (Para. [0088]) wherein the anode active material comprises a binder (Para. [0091]) (i.e. the anode mixture layer comprises an anode binder) wherein lithium precipitation is less than 2% (Para. [0132] and Table 1) and the carbon material includes amorphous carbon and graphite (Para. [0088]).
Zhang et al. does not teach the anode mixture layer comprises a carbon material having a specific surface area of less than 5 m2/g and amorphous carbon on a surface of the carbon material or the anode mixture layer comprises an auxiliary agent that comprises the following (a) at least one selected from the group consisting of trisiloxane surfactant, N-β-(aminoethyl)-γ-aminopropyl methyl dimethoxysilane and hydroxy-terminated polydimethylsiloxane; (b) an oxidation potential of not less than 4.5 V and a reductive potential of not greater than 0.5 V; and (c) a surface tension of an aqueous solution containing 0.1 wt% of the auxiliary agent being not greater than 30 mN/m nor does Zhang et al. teach a content of the auxiliary agent is 1000 ppm or below based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer nor a phosphorus and oxygen containing compound comprising phosphocyclic anhydride..
However, Morris teaches a lithium battery comprising a carbon anode (Para. [0022]) (i.e. an electrochemical device comprising an anode) wherein the anode comprises a surfactant (i.e. an auxiliary agent) (Para. [0024]) such as organosilicone surfactants (Para. [0035]) such as trisiloxane surfactants (Para. [0038]) (i.e. the auxiliary agent comprises trisiloxane surfactant).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode mixture layer Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of a surfactant such as trisiloxane surfactant (i.e. auxiliary agent), as a carbon anode modified with such a surfactant results in improved lithium ion storage capacity (Para. [0022]) and precludes development of the solid electrolyte interface, thereby improving the chemical stability of the interface [of the electrolyte with the electrode] and improving the safety of the resulting battery (Para. [0021]).
Zhang et al. as modified by Morris does not teach a content of the auxiliary agent is 1000 ppm or below based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer.
However, Tokutake et al. teaches a negative electrode active material containing graphite (i.e. a carbon anode) and a surfactant (i.e. auxiliary agent) wherein the ratio of the surfactant to the natural graphite (i.e. a content of an auxiliary agent) is preferably 10 ppm by mass or more and 2% by mass or less and if the proportion of the surfactant is small, the effect of improving the permeability of the electrolyte is insufficient, whereas if the proportion is large, the peel strength of the negative electrode active material layer decreases, resulting in deterioration characteristics (i.e. surfactant [auxiliary agent] content affects electrolyte permeability and peel strength of the anode mixture layer) (Para. [0022]). Thus, a content of the auxiliary agent is recognized as a result effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) and modifying the content of the auxiliary agent (based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer) to be 1000 ppm or below is optimization involving only routine skill in the art (achieving desirable peel strength for the active material layer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the content of the surfactant to be 1000 ppm or below based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer in modified Zhang et al. as if the proportion of the surfactant (i.e. auxiliary agent) is too high, the peel strength decreases and thus a lower portion would be expected to achieve desirable battery characteristics (Para. [0022]). Zhang et al. also teaches the anode active material may be natural graphite (Para. [0088]). It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Zhang et al. does not teach the anode mixture layer comprises a carbon material having a specific surface area of less than 5 m2/g and amorphous carbon on a surface of the carbon material.
However, Yamamoto et al. teaches a negative electrode for a negative electrode active material for a lithium ion battery (i.e. electrochemical cell) (Para. [0029]) wherein the negative electrode active material comprises carbonaceous material obtained by covering their surface with amorphous carbon (i.e. a carbon material with amorphous carbon on a surface of the carbon material) (Para. [0100], [0101]) and a specific surface area of 0.8 to 1.5 m2/g (i.e. having a specific surface area of less than 5 m2/g) (Para. [0102]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the carbon material with an amorphous surface and a specific surface area of 0.8 to 1.5 m2/g as such a surface covering makes it possible to prevent a reaction between graphite and an electrolytic solution during charge/discharge (Para. [0101]) and the specific surface area provides improved cycle characteristics (Para. [0102]).
Zhang et al. does not teach the phosphorus and oxygen containing compound comprises a phosphocyclic anhydride that includes one or more of compounds of Formula 3 of the instant claim and a content of the phosphocyclic anhydride is 0.5 wt% to 1 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte.
However, Cheng et al. teaches a battery (i.e. electrochemical cell) comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte mixed additive including 1-propanephosphonic acid cyclic anhydride [PPACA] (Para. [0007]) (i.e. a phosphorus and oxygen containing compound comprising a phosphocyclic anhydride including one or more compounds of Formula 3, wherein R10, R11, and R12 are the same as each other and each are a C--3 alkyl) wherein 0.8 parts by weight of PPACA are used in 100 parts by weight of non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0026]) (i.e. a content of the phosphocyclic anhydride is 0.8 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte, within the claimed range of 0.5 wt% to 1 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of 0.8 wt% 1-propanephosphonic acid cyclic anhydride [PPACA] mixed additive as taught by Cheng et al., as PPACA can reduce the expanded thickness of the battery during high-temperature storage (Para. [0049]) and can inhibit the formation of carbon dioxide which protects the SEI film and inhibits expansion of battery thickness (Para. [0050]).
Accordingly, the characteristics of the auxiliary agent having an oxidation potential of not less than 4.5 V and a reductive potential of not greater than 0.5 V and a surface tension of an aqueous solution containing 0.1 wt% of the auxiliary agent being not greater than 30 mN/m would either (a) be expected, or (b) differences in the claimed characteristics would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious.
With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the secondary lithium battery (i.e. electrochemical device) structure of Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. is identical to that of the instant claim, the auxiliary agent is the same, and the porosity is 5% to about 85% (Para. [0090]), overlapping with the porosity of instant claim 7, therefore it is expected that the secondary lithium battery of Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al would result in the claimedprima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the auxiliary agent characteristics) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches the electrolyte comprises lithium difluorophosphate (Para. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches the anode is formed by a conductive skeleton of a twisted spherical shape having a porosity of about 5% to about 85% (Para. [0090]), overlapping with the porosity range of instant claim 7. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang et al. teaches an electronic device including the electrochemical device (Para. [0022]) (i.e. an electronic device comprising an electrochemical device) comprising a cathode, an electrolyte and an anode (Para. [0083]) (i.e. the electrochemical device comprises a cathode, an electrolyte and an anode) wherein the electrolyte comprises lithium difluorophosphate (Para. [0019]) (i.e. wherein the electrolyte comprises a phosphorous and oxygen containing compound), a lithium salt (Para. [0055]), a carbonate used as a solvent which is one or more of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate (Para. [0059]) (i.e. a solvent, the solvent is one or more selected from the group consisting of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate), and the electrolyte additives further comprise catechol sulfate (Para. [0019]) (i.e. an additive is a sulfur-oxygen double-bond containing compound), the anode comprises an anode current collector and an anode active material layer including carbon formed on the current collector (i.e. the anode comprises an anode current collector and an anode mixture layer formed on the current collector and the anode mixture layer comprises a carbon material) (Para. [0088]) wherein the anode active material comprises a binder (Para. [0091]) (i.e. an anode binder) wherein lithium precipitation is less than 2% (Para. [0132] and Table 1) and the carbon material includes amorphous carbon and graphite (Para. [0088]).
Zhang et al. does not teach the anode mixture layer comprises a carbon material having a specific surface area of less than 5 m2/g and amorphous carbon on a surface of the carbon material or the anode mixture layer comprises an auxiliary agent
However, Morris teaches a lithium battery comprising a carbon anode (Para. [0022]) (i.e. an electrochemical device comprising an anode) wherein the anode comprises a surfactant (i.e. an auxiliary agent) (Para. [0024]) such as organosilicone surfactants (Para. [0035]) such as trisiloxane surfactants (Para. [0038]) (i.e. the auxiliary agent comprises trisiloxane surfactant).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the anode mixture layer Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of a surfactant such as trisiloxane surfactant (i.e. auxiliary agent), as a carbon anode modified with such a surfactant results in improved lithium ion storage capacity (Para. [0022]) and precludes development of the solid electrolyte interface, thereby improving the chemical stability of the interface [of the electrolyte with the electrode] and improving the safety of the resulting battery (Para. [0021]).
Zhang et al. as modified by Morris does not teach a content of the auxiliary agent is 1000 ppm or below based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer.
However, Tokutake et al. teaches a negative electrode active material containing graphite (i.e. a carbon anode) and a surfactant (i.e. auxiliary agent) wherein the ratio of the surfactant to the natural graphite (i.e. a content of an auxiliary agent) is preferably 10 ppm by mass or more and 2% by mass or less and if the proportion of the surfactant is small, the effect of improving the permeability of the electrolyte is insufficient, whereas if the proportion is large, the peel strength of the negative electrode active material layer decreases, resulting in deterioration characteristics (i.e. surfactant [auxiliary agent] content affects electrolyte permeability and peel strength of the anode mixture layer) (Para. [0022]). Thus, a content of the auxiliary agent is recognized as a result effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) and modifying the content of the auxiliary agent (based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer) to be 1000 ppm or below is optimization involving only routine skill in the art (achieving desirable peel strength for the active material layer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the content of the surfactant to be 1000 ppm or below based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer in modified Zhang et al. as if the proportion of the surfactant (i.e. auxiliary agent) is too high, the peel strength decreases and thus a lower portion would be expected to achieve desirable battery characteristics (Para. [0022]). Zhang et al. also teaches the anode active material may be natural graphite (Para. [0088]). It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Zhang et al. does not teach the anode mixture layer comprises a carbon material having a specific surface area of less than 5 m2/g and amorphous carbon on a surface of the carbon material.
However, Yamamoto et al. teaches a negative electrode for a negative electrode active material for a lithium ion battery (i.e. electrochemical cell) (Para. [0029]) wherein the negative electrode active material comprises carbonaceous material obtained by covering their surface with amorphous carbon (i.e. a carbon material with amorphous carbon on a surface of the carbon material) (Para. [0100], [0101]) and a specific surface area of 0.8 to 1.5 m2/g (i.e. having a specific surface area of less than 5 m2/g) (Para. [0102]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the carbon material with an amorphous surface and a specific surface area of 0.8 to 1.5 m2/g as such a surface covering makes it possible to prevent a reaction between graphite and an electrolytic solution during charge/discharge (Para. [0101]) and the specific surface area provides improved cycle characteristics (Para. [0102]).
Zhang et al. does not teach the phosphorus and oxygen containing compound comprises a phosphocyclic anhydride that includes one or more of compounds of Formula 3 of the instant claim and a content of the phosphocyclic anhydride is 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte.
However, Cheng et al. teaches a battery (i.e. electrochemical cell) comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte mixed additive including 1-propanephosphonic acid cyclic anhydride (Para. [0007]) (i.e. a phosphorus and oxygen containing compound comprising a phosphocyclic anhydride including one or more compounds of Formula 3, wherein R10, R11, and R12 are the same as each other and each are a C--3 alkyl) wherein 0.1 parts by weight of PPACA are used in 100 parts by weight of non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a content of the phosphocyclic anhydride is 0.1 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte, within the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte) .
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of 0.1 wt% 1-propanephosphonic acid cyclic anhydride [PPACA] mixed additive as taught by Cheng et al., as PPACA can reduce the expanded thickness of the battery during high-temperature storage (Para. [0049]) and can inhibit the formation of carbon dioxide which protects the SEI film and inhibits expansion of battery thickness (Para. [0050]).
Accordingly, the characteristics of the auxiliary agent has an oxidation potential of not less than 4.5 V and a reductive potential of not greater than 0.5 V and a surface tension of an aqueous solution containing 0.1 wt% of the auxiliary agent being not greater than 30 mN/m would either (a) be expected, or (b) differences in the claimed characteristics would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious.
With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the secondary lithium battery (i.e. electrochemical device) structure of Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. is identical to that of the instant claim, the auxiliary agent is the same, and the porosity is 5% to about 85% (Para. [0090]), overlapping with the porosity of instant claim 7, therefore it is expected that the secondary lithium battery of Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. would result in the claimed auxiliary agent characteristics which are dependent upon the auxiliary agent composition and the porosity of the anode mixture layer. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the auxiliary agent characteristics) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches the electrolyte comprises lithium difluorophosphate (Para. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the phosphorus and oxygen containing compound comprises a phosphocyclic anhydride that includes one or more of compounds of Formula 3 of the instant claim and a content of the phosphorus and oxygen containing compound is 0.001 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte.
However, Cheng et al. teaches a battery (i.e. electrochemical cell) comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte mixed additive including 1-propanephosphonic acid cyclic anhydride (Para. [0007]) (i.e. a phosphorus and oxygen containing compound comprising a phosphocyclic anhydride including one or more compounds of Formula 3, wherein R10, R11, and R12 are the same as each other and each are a C--3 alkyl) wherein 0.1 parts by weight of PPACA are used in 100 parts by weight of non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a content of the phosphocyclic anhydride is 0.1 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte, within the claimed range of 0.001 wt% to 10 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte) .
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of 0.1 wt% 1-propanephosphonic acid cyclic anhydride [PPACA] mixed additive as taught by Cheng et al., as PPACA can reduce the expanded thickness of the battery during high-temperature storage (Para. [0049]) and can inhibit the formation of carbon dioxide which protects the SEI film and inhibits expansion of battery thickness (Para. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 25, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. does not teach a content of the auxiliary agent is 500 ppm or below based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer.
However, Tokutake et al. teaches a negative electrode active material containing graphite (i.e. a carbon anode) and a surfactant (i.e. auxiliary agent) wherein the ratio of the surfactant to the natural graphite (i.e. a content of an auxiliary agent) is preferably 10 ppm by mass or more and 2% by mass or less and if the proportion of the surfactant is small, the effect of improving the permeability of the electrolyte is insufficient, whereas if the proportion is large, the peel strength of the negative electrode active material layer decreases, resulting in deterioration characteristics (i.e. surfactant [auxiliary agent] content affects electrolyte permeability and peel strength of the anode mixture layer) (Para. [0022]). Thus, a content of the auxiliary agent is recognized as a result effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) and modifying the content of the auxiliary agent (based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer) to be 500 ppm or below is optimization involving only routine skill in the art (achieving desirable peel strength for the active material layer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the content of the surfactant to be 500 ppm or below based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer in modified Zhang et al. as if the proportion of the surfactant (i.e. auxiliary agent) is too high, the peel strength decreases and thus a lower portion would be expected to achieve desirable battery characteristics (Para. [0022]). Zhang et al. also teaches the anode active material may be natural graphite (Para. [0088]). It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 26, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. does not teach a content of the auxiliary agent is 500 ppm or below based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer.
However, Tokutake et al. teaches a negative electrode active material containing graphite (i.e. a carbon anode) and a surfactant (i.e. auxiliary agent) wherein the ratio of the surfactant to the natural graphite (i.e. a content of an auxiliary agent) is preferably 10 ppm by mass or more and 2% by mass or less and if the proportion of the surfactant is small, the effect of improving the permeability of the electrolyte is insufficient, whereas if the proportion is large, the peel strength of the negative electrode active material layer decreases, resulting in deterioration characteristics (i.e. surfactant [auxiliary agent] content affects electrolyte permeability and peel strength of the anode mixture layer) (Para. [0022]). Thus, a content of the auxiliary agent is recognized as a result effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) and modifying the content of the auxiliary agent (based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer) to be 500 ppm or below is optimization involving only routine skill in the art (achieving desirable peel strength for the active material layer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the content of the surfactant to be 500 ppm or below based on a total weight of the anode mixture layer in modified Zhang et al. as if the proportion of the surfactant (i.e. auxiliary agent) is too high, the peel strength decreases and thus a lower portion would be expected to achieve desirable battery characteristics (Para. [0022]). Zhang et al. also teaches the anode active material may be natural graphite (Para. [0088]). It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 27, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Accordingly, the characteristic of an area of lithium precipitation of a surface of the anode mixture layer is 2% or below based on a total surface of the anode mixture layer after 100 charge and discharge cycles wherein the 100 charge and discharge cycles are performed at 12 degrees Celsius, would either (a) be expected, or (b) differences in the claimed characteristics would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious.
With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the secondary lithium battery (i.e. electrochemical device) structure of Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. is identical to that of the instant claim, the auxiliary agent is the same, and the porosity is 5% to about 85% (Para. [0090]), overlapping with the porosity of instant claim 7, therefore it is expected that the secondary lithium battery of Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al would result in the claimed lithium precipitation property which is dependent upon the auxiliary agent composition and the porosity of the anode mixture layer. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the area of lithium precipitation on a surface of the anode mixture layer) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 28, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Accordingly, the characteristic of an area of lithium precipitation of a surface of the anode mixture layer is 2% or below based on a total surface of the anode mixture layer after 100 charge and discharge cycles according to a test method area of lithium precipitation of the anode mixture layer at 12 degrees Celsius, would either (a) be expected, or (b) differences in the claimed characteristics would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious.
With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the secondary lithium battery (i.e. electrochemical device) structure of Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. is identical to that of the instant claim, the auxiliary agent is the same, and the porosity is 5% to about 85% (Para. [0090]), overlapping with the porosity of instant claim 7, therefore it is expected that the secondary lithium battery of Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al would result in the claimed lithium precipitation property which is dependent upon the auxiliary agent composition and the porosity of the anode mixture layer. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the area of lithium precipitation on a surface of the anode mixture layer) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN109860703A) in view of Morris (US 2007/0015053), Tokutake et al. (JP2007179765A), Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0280210) and Cheng et al. (CN101170200A), as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Shatunov et al. (US 2019/0252724).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach the electrolyte comprises a compound of Formula 1.
However, Shatunov et al. teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery (abstract) wherein an electrolyte additive includes a difluorophosphate compound of the instant claim Formula 1a (Para. [0029], Chemical Formula 1-1 of Shatunov et al.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of Chemical Formula 1-1 of Shatunov et al. (i.e. instant claim Formula 1a), as when applied to a lithium secondary battery the cycle-life characteristics may be improved and the generation of gas at a high temperature may be greatly reduced (Para. [0030]).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach the electrolyte comprises a compound of Formula 1.
However, Shatunov et al. teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery (abstract) wherein an electrolyte additive includes a difluorophosphate compound of the instant claim Formula 1a (Para. [0029], Chemical Formula 1-1 of Shatunov et al.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of Chemical Formula 1-1 of Shatunov et al. (i.e. instant claim Formula 1a), as when applied to a lithium secondary battery the cycle-life characteristics may be improved and the generation of gas at a high temperature may be greatly reduced (Para. [0030]).
Claim 4, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN109860703A) in view of Morris (US 2007/0015053), Tokutake et al. (JP2007179765A), Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0280210) and Cheng et al. (CN101170200A), as applied to claim 2 and 10 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 108365265A). The English machine translation of Zhao et al. is attached in a prior Office Action and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprises a phosphate having the structure of Formula 2 of the instant claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
210
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Zhao et al. teaches an electrolyte solution for a lithium ion battery (Para. [0010]) of a cyclic phosphate or cyclic phosphite comprising the following formula:
wherein R is an alkoxy group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (reading on X of the instant claim Formula 2 being a linear or non-linear alkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms) and A may be a halogen, alkyl/alkenyl substituted alkylene with 1 to 5 carbon atoms (reading on R1 of the instant claim Formula 2 being an alkylene group having 2 to 3 carbon atoms substituted with a substituent selected from at least one fluorine atom or an alkyl group containing at least one fluorine atom and having 1 to 3 carbon atoms) (Para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the cyclic phosphate as taught by Zhao et al., as it can improve the interface between the positive and negative electrode and the electrolyte while maintaining good performance at high temperature, and can still discharge well at low temperature (Para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprises a phosphate having the structure of Formula 2 of the instant claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
210
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Zhao et al. teaches an electrolyte solution for a lithium ion battery (Para. [0010]) of a cyclic phosphate or cyclic phosphite comprising the following formula:
wherein R is an alkoxy group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (reading on X of the instant claim Formula 2 being a linear or non-linear alkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms) and A may be a halogen, alkyl/alkenyl substituted alkylene with 1 to 5 carbon atoms (reading on R1 of the instant claim Formula 2 being an alkylene group having 2 to 3 carbon atoms substituted with a substituent selected from at least one fluorine atom or an alkyl group containing at least one fluorine atom and having 1 to 3 carbon atoms) (Para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the cyclic phosphate as taught by Zhao et al., as it can improve the interface between the positive and negative electrode and the electrolyte while maintaining good performance at high temperature, and can still discharge well at low temperature (Para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al., Cheng et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprises a phosphate having the structure of Formula 2 of the instant claim.
Zhao et al. further teaches an electrolyte solution for a lithium ion battery (Para. [0010]) of a cyclic phosphite comprising the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
241
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 can be an alkoxy with 1 carbon atom, and R2 and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen atom or halogens (Para. [0017]) (reading on Formula 2a of the instant claim).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the cyclic phosphate as taught by Zhao et al., as it can improve the interface between the positive and negative electrode and the electrolyte while maintaining good performance at high temperature, and can still discharge well at low temperature (Para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al., Cheng et al. and Zhao et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprises a phosphate having the structure of Formula 2 of the instant claim.
Zhao et al. further teaches an electrolyte solution for a lithium ion battery (Para. [0010]) of a cyclic phosphite comprising the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
241
210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 can be an alkoxy with 1 carbon atom, and R2 and R3 are independently selected from hydrogen atom or halogens (Para. [0017]) (reading on Formula 2a of the instant claim).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the cyclic phosphate as taught by Zhao et al., as it can improve the interface between the positive and negative electrode and the electrolyte while maintaining good performance at high temperature, and can still discharge well at low temperature (Para. [0033]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN109860703A) in view of Morris (US 2007/0015053), Tokutake et al. (JP2007179765A), Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0280210) and Cheng et al. (CN101170200A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (US 2019/0341612). The U.S. version of Zhang et al. (US2020/0243907) is used as the English machine translation and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang et al. as modified by Morris, Tokutake et al., Yamamoto et al. and Cheng et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches the negative electrode active material comprises graphite (Para. [0088]) (i.e. the anode mixture layer comprises a carbon material).
Zhang et al. does not explicitly teach the carbon material comprises a median particle size to 4 to 30 micrometers.
However, Shen et al. teaches a negative electrode plate (i.e. anode) for a lithium ion battery (Para. [0012]) wherein the negative electrode active material comprises graphite (Para. [0011]) (i.e. carbon material) and has an average particle diameter of 5 to 12 micrometers (i.e. a median particle size within the instant claimed range of 5 to 30 micrometers) (Para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphite of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the average particle diameter of the graphite of Shen et al., as it would provide improved battery performance (Para. [0031]) and provide long cycle life, high energy density and excellent dynamics performance (Para. [0060]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in Cheng the electrolyte include vinyl ethylene carbonate and ethyl acetate both of which are not among the list of solvents in amended claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The proposed modification incorporates the additive 1-propanephosphonic acid cyclic anhydride [PPACA] from Cheng. It is unclear where Cheng teaches incorporating vinyl ethylene carbonate and ethyl acetate are necessary in order to incorporate PPACA. Furthermore, the claim language does not preclude vinyl ethylene carbonate and ethyl acetate from the electrolyte and “comprises” is open-ended language. The benefits in Para. [0050] of Cheng are directed towards PPACA content. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the rejection to claim 1 is based on a combination of 5 different references, it would not be obvious to combine these, and the Examiner’s position is thus improper hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As the current rejection of record takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not rely upon knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, no improper hindsight reasoning was used. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the arguments regarding the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the prior art used to render obvious the rejected claims (Zhang, Morris, Tokutake, Yamamoto, Zhao and Shen) do not cure the deficiencies of the rejection applied to the independent claim (Cheng). Applicant does not argue how the combination is not proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the obviousness rejections and upholds the rejection to the independent claim, as above.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claims have been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729