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 .
LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY HAVING IMPROVED CYCLE CHARACTERISTICS
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 17/606,892 Art Unit: 1727 June 8, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response filed on March 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koto and Kim on claims 1, 3 and 5-14 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koto, Kim and Fukui on claims 2 and 4 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koto (JP 2005-078820; using machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0069267 A1).
As to Claims 1 and 6-11, Koto discloses a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode (paragraph [0030]; a negative electrode that can comprise carbon or a lithium-silicon alloy or oxides (paragraph [0031]); a separator (paragraph [0032]); an electrolyte comprising LiPF6 and a nonaqueous solvent including FEC and FEMC (Abstract and paragraphs [0033 and 0043]). The electrolyte solution of Koto does not comprise a sulfate-based compound or the SiOx negative electrode material (paragraph [0050], Examples). Koto does not specifically disclose wherein the electrolyte comprises LiN(FSO2)2.
However, Suzuki teaches of a battery, comprising an electrolyte having LiPF6 and LiN(FSO2)2 and a negative electrode comprising carbon and SiOx wherein 0.05<x<1.95, or silicon compounds or metal alloys (paragraphs [0077-0082, 0087 and 0132]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative electrode of modified Koto to comprise the claimed negative electrode material and claimed electrolyte salts because Suzuki teaches that a battery with improved safety can be provide (paragraph [0021]). In addition, the courts have held that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see KSR, MPEP 2143, I, B.
As to Claim 5, Suzuki teaches of using a mixture of comprising LiPF6, LiN(FSO2)2 which encompasses any possible range (paragraph [00132]). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05, I, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte mixture of modified Koto to read on the claims because Suzuki teaches that a battery with improved safety can be provide (paragraph [0021]) (paragraph [0072]).
As to Claims 12-14, Koto teaches of using a combination of FEC and FEMC, which reads on any possible mixture combination, which encompasses any possible range (paragraph [0033 and 0043]). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05, I, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical, see MPEP 2144.05, II, A. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte mixture of modified Koto to read on the claims because Koto teaches that a battery with improved cycle performance is provided (Abstract).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koto (JP 2005-078820; using machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0069267 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5-14 above and in further view of Fukui et al. (US 2007/0054190 A1).
As to Claims 2 and 4, modified Koto does not specifically disclose the claimed carbon material or the claimed weight ratio (claims 2 and 4).
However, Fukui teaches of a lithium secondary battery, wherein the anode comprises graphite (crystalline carbon) and a silicon-based material such as a silicon at a ratio of 13.5 wt% graphite and 90 wt% silicon (Abstract and paragraph [0089]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the anode of modified Koto to comprise crystalline carbon and a silicon-based material because Fukui teaches that a battery with improved initial performance and cycle performance can be obtained (paragraph [0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights