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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/13/26 has been entered.
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) 1-4, 6-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (KR 10-2019-0127412 A, hereinafter Lim, cited by applicant) in view of Shatunov et al. (US 2020/0052335 A1, hereinafter Shatunov, cited by applicant) and Son et al. (US 2019/0207221 A1, hereinafter Son, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Lim teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (Fig. 1, item 100), comprising
a positive electrode (item 20) comprising a positive active material layer (P6);
a negative electrode (item 30) comprising a negative active material layer (P7); and
an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (P2),
wherein the positive active material layer comprises a positive active material (P6),
the positive active material is at least one lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, and
the additive comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
Chemical Formula 2-1
LixNi1-y1-z1Coy1M3z1M4w1O2
wherein, in Chemical Formula 2-1,
M3 is Mn, Al, or a combination thereof,
M4 is Ti, Mg, Zr, Ca, Nb, P, F, B, or a combination thereof, and
0.9 ≤ x < 1.2, 0 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.2, 0 ≤ z1 ≤ 0.3, 0.2 < y1+z1 ≤ 0.5, and 0 ≤ w1 ≤ 0.1 (P6, LiaNi1-b-cCobXcDα, , X is Mn or Al, D is O, 0.9 ≤ a ≤ 1.8, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.5, 0 < b+c ≤ 1, w1=0, and α=2).
Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
215
228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(para. 10)
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, X1 is a fluoro group (-F), a chloro group (-Cl), a bromo group (-Br), or an iodo group (-I),
R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen, a cyano group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkynyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 heteroaryl group, and
n is 0 or 1 (P2), and
wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is 1 parts by weight based on a total of 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution (P3 & 9, 1 wt% = 1 parts by weight based on a total of 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution).
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03.
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). "[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 MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Lim fails to specifically teach that the positive active material layer comprises carbon nanotubes, and the carbon nanotubes are greater than 0.1 wt% and less than 3.0 wt% in amount based on a total weight of the positive active material layer, and the negative active material layer comprises a mixture of a Si composite and graphite mixed at a weight ratio of about 3:97 to about 20:80.
The invention of Shatunov encompasses lithium secondary battery. Shatunov teaches that the positive active material layer comprises carbon nanotubes, and the carbon nanotubes are 1 wt% or 2 wt% in amount based on a total weight of the positive active material layer (para. 63-67, 136 & 158).
In view of Shatunov, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lim to employ carbon nanotubes in the positive active material layer in the amount of 1 wt% or 2 wt% based on a total weight of the positive active material layer, since Shatunov teaches the advantage of using it, which is to improve the impregnation of the electrolyte and high-temperature cycle-life characteristics (para. 63-67).
The invention of Son encompasses porous silicon composite cluster and carbon composite. Son teaches the negative active material layer comprises a mixture of a Si composite and graphite (para. 185) mixed at a weight ratio of about 7.7:92.3 (para. 300, 1:12).
In view of Son, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lim in view of Shatunov to have the negative active material layer comprising a mixture of a Si composite and graphite mixed at a weight ratio of about 7.7:92.3, since Son teaches the advantage of using it, which is improved lifespan (Table 2).
Re Claim 2. The combination teaches wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1A or Chemical Formula 1B:
PNG
media_image2.png
215
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1A and Chemical Formula 1B, X1 is a fluoro group (-F), and
R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group (Lim, P4).
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein in Chemical Formula 1A and Chemical Formula 1B, R3 and R4 are each hydrogen, and at least one selected from among R1, R2, R5, and R6 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group (Lim, P4).
Re Claim 4. The combination teaches wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is at least one selected from compounds of Group 1: Group 1
PNG
media_image3.png
74
110
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Lim, P4, Formula 1-1a, R3 to R6 are each hydrogen).
Re Claim 6. The combination teaches wherein the additive further includes at least one other additive selected from among vinylene carbonate (VC) (Lim, P5).
Re Claim 7. The combination teaches wherein an average length of the carbon nanotubes is greater than or equal to about 5 µm and less than about 200 µm (Shatunov, para. 67, 1 to 200 µm).
Re Claim 8. The combination teaches wherein an average length of the carbon nanotubes is about 5 µm to about 100 µm (Shatunov, para. 67).
Re Claim 11. The combination teaches wherein the Si composite (Son, Fig. 2, item 11) comprises a core comprising Si particles (item 10, para. 82) and crystalline carbon (item 10a, para. 82), and an amorphous carbon coating layer (item 12, para. 89) on a surface of the core.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Shatunov and Son as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (EP 3182497 A1, hereinafter Lee).
The teachings of Lim in view of Shatunov and Son have been discussed above.
Lim in view of Shatunov and Son fails to specifically teach that at least one other additive selected from among adiponitrile (AN), lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), and 2-fluoro biphenyl (2-FBP).
The invention of Lee encompasses electrolyte for rechargeable lithium battery. Lee teaches additive comprises adiponitrile (AN) (para. 47) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) (para. 3).
In view of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lim in view of Shatunov and Son to employ adiponitrile (AN) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) as an additive, since using a well-known electrolyte additive is within purview of one skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 12 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.
Newly applied reference, Son, and newly cited reference, Lee address the new limitations.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
5/22/2026
Prosecution Insights