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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 01/13/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-12 and 14-16 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,051,779 in view of Son et al. (Pub. No. US 20190207221 A1) in view of Park et al. (Pub. No. KR 20190123136 A).
Regarding claim 1, 779’ teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive, and the additive comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, X.sup.1 is a fluoro group (—F), a chloro group (—Cl), a bromo group (—Br), or an iodo group (—I), R.sup.1 to R.sup.6 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 (see claims 1 and 9 of 779’).
779’ fails to disclose the positive electrode comprises a positive active material, the negative electrode comprises a negative active material, and the negative active material comprises a silicon (SI) composite mixed with graphite at a weight ratio of about 1:99 to about 50:50, and the electrolyte solution being free from propane sultone.
However, Son teaches positive electrode (positive electrode, see [0233]) comprises a positive active material (positive active material, see [0233]), the negative electrode (negative electrode, see [0221]) comprises a negative active material (negative active material composition, see [0221]), and the negative active material (negative active material composition, see [0221]) comprises a silicon (SI) composite (silicon-containing composite, see [0181] where the carbon composite comprises silicon-containing composite, see [0221] where the negative electrode active material comprises carbon composite) mixed with graphite (graphite, see [0184] where the carbonaceous material is graphite, see [0181] where the carbon composite is a mix of silicon-containing composite and a carbonaceous material, see [0221] where the negative electrode active material comprises carbon composite) at a weight ratio of about 1:99 to about 50:50 (3:97 to 50:50, see [0183] where the amount of the carbonaceous material is 50-97 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon composite, see [0300] gives specific example of graphite to silicon-containing composite at a ratio of 1:12 which is equivalent to about 8:92).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify 779’ such that the positive electrode comprises a positive active material and the negative electrode comprises negative active material wherein the negative active material comprises a silicon (Si) composite mixed with graphite at a ratio of 3:97 to 50:50 as taught by as taught by Son to improve volume energy density and reduce volume expansion of an electrode (see [0181]), and suppress volumetric expansion of silicon (see [0003]).
Park teaches the electrolyte solution (electrolyte, see [00143]) being free from propane sultone (see [00153-00161] specific examples 1-5 do not contain propane sultone).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrolyte solution of 779’ in view of Son such that the electrolyte solution does not includes propane sultone as taught by Park to improve battery performance by ensuring high temperature stability and improving resistance characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, 779’ in view of Son in view of Park teaches wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1A or Chemical Formula 1B: ##STR00010## wherein, in Chemical Formula 1A and Chemical Formula 1B, X.sup.1 is a fluoro group (—F), and R.sup.1 to R.sup.6 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 (see claim 10 of 779’).
Regarding claim 5, 779’ in view of Son in view of Park teaches wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is at least one selected from compounds of Group 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
138
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see claim 11 of 779’). The examiner would like to note that 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphospholane disclosed by 779’ is the same as the first compound of Group 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Pub. No. KR 20190123136 A) in view of Son et al. (Pub. No. US 20190207221 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (100, Fig. 1, see [00143]), comprising a positive electrode (114, Fig. 1, see [00143]) comprising a positive active material (positive electrode active material, see [00114]); a negative electrode (112, Fig. 1, see [00143]) comprising a negative active material (negative electrode active material, see [00127]); and an electrolyte solution (electrolyte, see [00143], further see [00111] the lithium secondary comprises the electrolyte solution described above) comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (non-aqueous organic solvent, see [0046]), a lithium salt (lithium salt, see [0046]), and an additive (additives, see [0046]), the electrolyte solution (electrolyte, see [00143], further see [00111] the lithium secondary comprises the electrolyte solution described above) being free from propane sultone (PS) (see [00153-00161] specific examples 1-5 do not contain propane sultone), wherein the negative active material (negative electrode active material, see [00127]) comprises a silicon (Si) composite (Si-C Composite, see [00131]), and the additive (additives, see [0046]) comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (Formula 1, see [0049]): wherein, in Chemical Formula 1 (Formula 1, see [0049]), X.sup.1 (X.sup.1, see [0049]) is a fluoro group (—F) (fluoro group, see [0051]), a chloro group (—Cl) (chloro group, see [0051]), a bromo group (—Br) (bromo group, see [0051]), or an iodo group (—I) (iodo group, see [0051]), R.sup.1 to R.sup.6 (R.sup.1 to R.sup.6, see [0049]) are each independently hydrogen (hydrogen, see [0052]), a cyano group (cyano group, see [0052]), a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group (see [0052]), a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkoxy group (see [0052]), a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkenyl group (see [0052]), a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkynyl group (see [0052]), a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkyl group (see [0052]), a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group (see [0052]), or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 heteroaryl group (see [0052]), and n (n, see [0049]) is 0 or 1 (0 or 1, see [0053]), but fails to teach wherein the negative active material comprises a silicon (Si) composite mixed with graphite at a weight ratio of about 1:99 to about 50:50.
However, Son teaches wherein the negative active material (negative active material composition, see [0221]) comprises a silicon (Si) composite (silicon-containing composite, see [0181] where the carbon composite comprises silicon-containing composite, see [0221] where the negative electrode active material comprises carbon composite) mixed with graphite (graphite, see [0184] where the carbonaceous material is graphite, see [0181] where the carbon composite is a mix of silicon-containing composite and a carbonaceous material, see [0221] where the negative electrode active material comprises carbon composite) at a weight ratio of about 1:99 to about 50:50 (3:97 to 50:50, see [0183] where the amount of the carbonaceous material is 50-97 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon composite, see [0300] gives specific example of graphite to silicon-containing composite at a ratio of 1:12 which is equivalent to about 8:92).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park by forming the negative electrode active material as a mixture of the Si-C composite and graphite in a weight ratio of 3:97 to 50:50 as taught by Son to improve the volume energy density and reduce volume expansion of an electrode (see [0181] of Son). Further, Park teaches that modifications can be made (see [00177] of Park).
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Son teaches wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (Formula 1, see [0049]) is represented by Chemical Formula 1A (Formula 1-1A, see [0077], see [0072] where chemical formula 1 is represented by chemical formula 1-1, see [0076] Chemical Formula 1-1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1A) or Chemical Formula 1B (Formula 1-1B, see [0077], see [0072] where Chemical Formula 1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1, see [0076] Chemical Formula 1-1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1B): wherein, in Chemical Formula 1A (Formula 1-1A, see [0077]) and Chemical Formula 1B (Formula 1-1B, see [0077]), X.sup.1 (F, see [0077]) is a fluoro group (—F) (fluoro group, see [0077] where the X.sup.1 is a fluoro group), a chloro group (—Cl), a bromo group (—Br), or an iodo group (—I), and R.sup.1 to R.sup.6 (R.sup.1-R.sup.6, see [0077]) are each independently hydrogen (see [0079]), a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group (see [0079]), a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group (see [0079]), a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group (see [0079]), or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group (see [0079]).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Son fails to teach wherein in Chemical Formula 1A and Chemical Formula 1B, R.sup.3 and R.sup.4 are each hydrogen, and at least one selected from among R.sup.1, R.sup.2, R.sup.5, and R.sup.6 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.
However, Park does teach wherein in Chemical Formula 1A (Formula 1-1A, see [0077]) and Chemical Formula 1B (Formula 1-1A, see [0077]), R.sup.3 and R.sup.4 (R.sup.3 and R.sup.4, see [0077]) are each hydrogen (see [0077] where each R.sup.3 and R.sup.4 are independently hydrogen), and at least one selected from among R.sup.1, R.sup.2, R.sup.5, and R.sup.6 (see [0079] R.sup.1, R.sup.2, R.sup.5, and R.sup.6 are independently determined) is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group (see [0079]), a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group (see [0079]), a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group (see [0079]), or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group (see [0079]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park in view of Son such that Formula 1-1A and Chemical Formula 1-1B as taught Park have the specific makeup R.sup.3 and R.sup.4 each being hydrogen and at least one of R.sup.1, R.sup.2, R.sup.5, and R.sup.6 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 as Park teaches it is known in the art to do so. Further, Park in view of Son teaches that modifications can be made (see [00177] of Park).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Son teaches wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (Formula 1, see [0049]) is about 0.1 parts by weight to about 10 parts by weight (0.1wt%-10wt%, see [0067]) in amount based on 100 parts by weight (total amount of the electrolyte, see [0067]) of the electrolyte solution (electrolyte, see [00143], further see [00111] the lithium secondary comprises the electrolyte solution described above, see [0067]).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Son teaches wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (Formula 1, see [0049]) is at least one selected from compounds of Group 1 (2-fluoro-1,3,2-diosaphospholane, see [0081] where Chemical Formula 1 is represented by 2-fluoro-1,3,2-diosaphospholane.
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Son teaches wherein the additive (additives, see [0046]) further comprises at least one other additive (additive, see [0087], see [0046] the additive is plural, see [00156] gives a specific example of the multiple components of the additive together) selected from among vinylene carbonate (VC) (vinylene carbonate (VC), see [0087]), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), see [0087]), difluoroethylene carbonate, chloroethylene carbonate, dichloroethylene carbonate, bromoethylene carbonate, dibromoethylene carbonate, nitroethylene carbonate, cyanoethylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate (VEC), adiponitrile (AN), succinonitrile (SN) (succinonitrile (SN), see [0087]), 1,3,6-hexane tricyanide (HTCN), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF.sub.4) (lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF.sub.4), see [0087]), lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO.sub.2F.sub.2) (lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO.sub.2F.sub.2), see [0087]), and 2-fluoro biphenyl (2-FBP) (2-fluoro biphenyl (2-FBP), see [0087]).
8. Claims 7-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Pub. No. KR 20190123136 A) in view of Son et al. (Pub. No. US 20190207221 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No. KR 20090109225 A).
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Son fails to teach wherein the Si composite comprises a core comprising Si-based particles and an amorphous carbon coating layer.
However, Lee teaches a Si composite (200, Fig. 1B, see [17] and see [10] layer 100 includes Si making it a silicon composite) comprises a core (100, Fig. 1B/1A, see [17]) comprising Si-based particles (20, Fig. 1A, see [10]) and an amorphous carbon coating layer (210, Fig. 1B, see [17]) wherein a void (110, Fig. 1A, see [7]) is included in a center portion (area encompassed by the void 110, Fig. 1A) of the core (100, Fig. 1B/1A, see [17]). The core (100, Fig. 1B/1A, see [17]) comprises Si-based particles (20, Fig. 1A, see [10]) and an amorphous carbon (50, Fig. 1A, see [15]), the amorphous carbon comprising hard carbon (hard carbon, see [16]). The Si-based particles (20, Fig. 1A, see [10]) comprise Si particles (nanosilicon particles, see [26]) and carbon fibers (30, Fig. 1A, [8]) are embedded in the vicinity of the void (110, Fig. 1A, see [7], see [8] embedded in vicinity).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park in view of Son to substitute the Si composite (Si-C composites, see [00131] of Park) as taught by Park in view of Son for the Si composite as taught by Lee as an art effective equivalent negative active material having improved conductivity, suppressed volume expansion, and large charge/discharge capacity (see [4] of Lee). Further, Park in view of Son teaches that modifications can be made (see [00177] of Park).
PNG
media_image2.png
228
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
250
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Son in view of Lee teaches wherein the core (100, Fig. 1B/1A, see [17] of Lee, see modification above) comprises the Si-based particles (20, Fig. 1A, see [10] of Lee, see modification above) and an amorphous carbon (50, Fig. 1A, see [15] of Lee, see modification above).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Son in view of Lee teaches wherein the Si-based particles (20, Fig. 1A, see [10] of Lee, see modification above) comprises at least one selected from among Si particles (nanosilicon particles, see [26] of Lee, see modification above), Si—C composite, SiO.sub.x (0<x≤2), and a Si alloy, and the Si—C composite comprises Si particles and a crystalline carbon.
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Son in view of Lee teaches wherein a void (110, Fig. 1A, see [7] of Lee, see modification above) is included in a center portion (area encompassed by the void 110, Fig. 1A of Lee, see modification above) of the core (100, Fig. 1B/1A, see [17] of Lee, see modification above).
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Son in view of Lee fails to teach wherein a radius of the center portion corresponds to about 30% to about 50% of a radius of the negative active material, and an average particle diameter of the Si-based particles is about 10 nm to about 200 nm.
However, Lee further teaches wherein the radius of the void (110, Fig. 1A, see [7]) is 0.1 to 10 micrometers (0.1 to 10 micrometers, see [6]), and in Example 3 a particle with a core-shell structure as described in Fig. 1B has an average particle diameter of 18 micrometers (18 micrometers, see [28]), making the radius of the center portion (area encompassed by the void 110, Fig. 1A) between 0.56% and 55.6% of the radius of the Si-composite (200, Fig. 1B, see [17] and see [10] layer 100 includes Si making it a silicon composite) which encompasses the claimed range (see calculations detailed below), and the Si-based particles (20, Fig. 1A, see [10]) have a particle size of 5 nm to 1 micrometer (5 nm to 1 micrometer, see [12]) which encompasses the claimed range and when using Si particles (nanosilicon particles, see [26]) as described in Example 1 the particle size is 50 nm (50 nm, see [26]).
(Radius of void/center portion = (1/2)*Diameter of void = (1/2)*0.1 to (1/2)*10 = 0.05 to 5 micrometers. Total Particle Radius = (1/2)*Diameter of particle = (1/2)*18 = 9 micrometers. Percentage of Radius = (Radius of Void/Total Particle Radius)*100 = (0.05/9)*100 = 0.55556% which rounds to 0.56%, (5/9)*100 = 55.5556% which rounds to 55.6%)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park in view of Son in view of Lee such that the radius of the center portion is between 0.56% to 55.6% of the Si composite and the Si-based particles have a particle size between 5 nm to 1 micrometer specifically 50 nanometers as further taught by Lee to provide sufficient buffer space (see [6] of Lee), prevent loss of irreversible capacity (see [12] of Lee) and prevent severe volumetric expansion during reaction with lithium (see [12] of Lee). Further Park in view of Son in view of Lee teaches that modifications can be made (see [00177] of Park).
It would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park in view of Son in view of Lee such that the radius of the center portion is between 30% to 50% of the negative active material as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I). Further Park in view of Son in view of Lee teaches that modifications can be made (see [00177] of Park).
It is the examiners position that the modification of Park in view of Son in view of Lee teaches the claimed range of an average particle diameter of the Si-based particles is about 10 nm to about 200 nm as the range taught by Park in view of Son in view of Lee encompasses the claimed range and further gives Lee gives a specific example of Si particles having an average particle size of 50 nm (50 nm, see [26] of Lee, see modification above) which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Park in view of Son in view of Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the center portion does not include any amorphous carbon, and the amorphous carbon is present only in a surface portion of the negative active material.
However, as apparent in Fig. 1A and 1B of Lee, the amorphous carbon (50, Fig. 1A, see [15] of Lee, see modification above) is not present in the void (110, Fig. 1A, see [7] of Lee, see modification above) which makes up the center portion of the particle. Further, although carbon fibers (30, Fig. 1A, [8] of Lee, see modification above) appear to be present in the void (110, Fig. 1A, see [7] of Lee, see modification above) in Fig. 1A and 1B, Lim in view of Lee teaches carbon fibers (30, Fig. 1A, [8] of Lee, see modification above) are embedded in the vicinity of the void (110, Fig. 1A, see [7], see [8] embedded in vicinity of Lee, see modification above). Therefore, it is the examiners position that this teaches the limitation of wherein the center portion does not include any amorphous carbon, and the amorphous carbon is present only in a surface portion of the negative active material.
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Son in view of Lee teaches wherein the amorphous carbon (50, Fig. 1A, see [15] of Lee, see modification above) comprises soft carbon, hard carbon (hard carbon, see [16] of Lee, see modification above), a mesophase pitch carbonized product, calcined coke, or a combination thereof.
9. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (Pub. No. KR 20190123136 A) in view of Son et al. (Pub. No. US 20190207221 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (Pub. No. 2020/0266490).
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Son teaches wherein the positive active material (positive electrode active material, see [00114]) comprises at least one lithium composite oxide (Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dG.sub.eO.sub.2, see [00118]), but fails to teach that the lithium composite oxide is represented by Chemical Formula 3:
Li.sub.xM.sup.1.sub.yM.sup.2.sub.zM.sup.3.sub.1−y−zO.sub.2−aX.sub.a Chemical Formula 3 wherein, in Chemical Formula 3, 0.5≤x≤1.8, 0≤a≤0.05, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, 0≤y+z≤1, M.sup.1, M.sup.2, and M.sup.3 are each independently selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, Mo, Nb, Si, Sr, Mg, Ti, V, W, Zr, La, and a combination thereof, and X is at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, S, P, and Cl.
However, Cho teaches a positive active material (cathode active material, see [0093]) comprising a lithium composite oxide (see where the cathode active material is LiNi.sub.0.88Co.sub.0.0105Al.sub.0.015O.sub.2, see [0093]) represented by the Chemical Formula 3 (LiNi.sub.0.88Co.sub.0.0105Al.sub.0.015O.sub.2, see [0093]):
Chemical Formula 3 Li.sub.xM.sup.1.sub.yM.sup.2.sub.zM.sup.3.sub.1−y−zO.sub.2−aX.sub.a (LiNi.sub.0.88Co.sub.0.0105Al.sub.0.015O.sub.2, see [0093]) wherein, in Chemical Formula 3 (LiNi.sub.0.88Co.sub.0.0105Al.sub.0.015O.sub.2, see [0093]), 0.5≤x≤1.8 (x=1, see [0093]), 0≤a≤0.05 (a=0, see [0093]), 0≤y≤1 (y=0.88, see [0093]), 0≤z≤1 (z=0.0105, see [0093]), 0≤y+z≤1 (y+z=0.8905, see [0093]), M.sup.1, M.sup.2, and M.sup.3 (M.sup.1 = Ni, M.sup.2=Co, M.sup.3=Al, see [0093]) are each independently selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, Mn, Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, Mo, Nb, Si, Sr, Mg, Ti, V, W, Zr, La, and a combination thereof (M.sup.1 = Ni, M.sup.2=Co, M.sup.3=Al, see [0093]), and X (X is not present as a=0, see [0093]) is at least one element selected from the group consisting of F, S, P, and Cl (X is not present as a=0, see [0093]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park in view of Son to substitute the positive active material as taught by Lim for the positive active material as taught by Cho as an art effective equivalent positive active material for improving lifetime characteristics and high temperature stability (see [0008] of Cho). Further, Park in view of Son teaches that modifications can be made (see [00177] of Park).
Regarding claim 16, Park in view of Son in view of Cho teaches wherein in Chemical Formula 3 (LiNi.sub.0.88Co.sub.0.0105Al.sub.0.015O.sub.2, see [0093] of Cho, see modification above), 0.8≤y≤1 (y=0.88, see [0093] of Cho, see modification above), 0≤z≤0.2 (z=0.0105, see [0093] of Cho, see modification above), and M.sup.1 is Ni (M.sup.1=Ni, see [0093] of Cho, see modification above).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 14-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723