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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted December 18, 2025 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 2/25/2026:
Claims 1-7 and 10-12 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 is amended and Claims 8-9 are canceled.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been maintained in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
The references of the rejection have been clarified in the new rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been fully considered.
Arguments directed at obviousness rejection of Lim in view of Hwang and Oh
Applicant argues that Hwang teaches against excluding 1,3-PS from the electrolyte composition, and as such constitutes a teaching away.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hwang discloses appropriate alkane sultones for the electrolyte composition include 1,3-propane sultone, butane sultone, and 1,3-(1-propene sultone) (see paragraph [0029]). Although Hwang specifically uses 1,3-propane sultone in the Examples, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As such, it is within the ambit of a skilled artisan to substitute butane sultone or 1,3-(1-propene sultone) into the electrolyte composition as an appropriate alkane sultone.
Arguments directed at obviousness rejection of Lim in view of Hwang, Oh, and Kim
Applicant argues that the electrolyte composition of Kim is entirely different than that of the present application and that the synergistic effects of the present application could never have been anticipated from the claimed references.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. 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). Lim discloses multiple examples of a positive electrode material, including various lithium transition metal oxides (see paragraphs [0098]-[0100]). Kim discloses a positive active material with the composition of LiNi0.9Co0.05Al0.05O2 that is less expensive and exhibits excellent capacity properties (see paragraphs [0005], [0039], and [0139]-[0140]). It is within the ambit of a skilled artisan to use the positive electrode composition of Kim with the electrolyte composition of Lim as it is a known lithium transition metal oxide for imparting excellent capacity properties to batteries.
Further, a skilled artisan is capable of achieving synergistic effects by combining the teachings of the cited references. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Additionally, arguments presented by applicant (i.e., synergistic effects cannot be achieved) cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. KR-20190127412-A (hereinafter referred to as Lim) in view of Hwang et al. US-20100255369-A1 (hereinafter “Hwang”), Oh et al. US-20200185773-A1 (hereinafter “Oh”), and Kim et al. US-20170125809-A1 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lim discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (lithium secondary battery) (see paragraphs [0002] and [0009]) comprising
a positive electrode comprising a positive active material (see paragraphs [0003] and [0094]-[0096]);
a negative electrode comprising a negative active material (see paragraphs [0003], [0094], and [0096]); and
an electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 (see image below) and one or more other additives (see paragraphs [0009]-[0011], [0074]-[0075], [0082], and [0086]);
PNG
media_image1.png
315
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1,
X1 is a fluoro group (-F), a chloro group (-Cl), a bromo group (-Br), or an iodo group (-I) (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013]),
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 (see paragraphs [0010]-[0015]), and
n is 0 or 1 (see paragraphs [0010]-[0015]).
Lim is silent on the electrolyte being free from propane sultone (PS) and comprising one or more other additives comprising succinonitrile (SN), adiponitrile (AN), 1,3,6- hexane tricyanide (HTCN), lithiumtetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), 2-fluoro biphenyl (2-FBP), or a combination thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrolyte additives (see abstract), Hwang discloses alkane sultones may be appropriately used with additives such as succinonitrile and vinylethylene carbonate (see paragraphs [0027]-[0029] and [0081]). Hwang additionally discloses appropriate alkane sultones include 1,3-propane sultone, butane sultone, 1,3-(1-propene sultone) (see paragraph [0029]). As such, a skilled artisan would recognize that butane sultone and 1,3-(1-propene sultone) are appropriate alkane sultones to use in an electrolyte. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Hwang further discloses using the aforementioned additives results in a rechargeable lithium battery that does not have any decrease in the standard capacity and has high capacity retention when it is stored at high pressure and high temperature (see paragraphs [0027]-[0028] and [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Lim wherein the electrolyte is free from propane sultone (PS) and comprises succinonitrile (SN), as disclosed by Hwang, as various alkane sultones are appropriate materials to achieve a rechargeable lithium battery that does not have any decrease in the standard capacity and has high capacity retention when it is stored at high pressure and high temperature.
Lim is silent on a volume of the rechargeable lithium battery being about 5 cm3 to about 200 cm3.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrolytes in rechargeable lithium batteries (lithium secondary batteries) (see paragraphs [0016]-[0020]), Oh discloses using the fluorophosphonate electrolyte in a pouch battery with the dimensions of a thickness of 8 mm × width of 60 mm × length of 90 mm (see paragraph [0150]). This results in a volume of the battery of 43,200 mm3, which is equivalent to 43.2 cm3. This value falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a volume of the rechargeable lithium battery being about 5 cm3 to about 200 cm3.
Additionally, Oh discloses this battery is small and lightweight and therefore can be used in portable electronic devices (see paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rechargeable lithium battery disclosed by Lim wherein a volume of the rechargeable lithium battery is about 5 cm3 to about 200 cm3, as disclosed by Oh, in order to use the battery in portable electronic devices.
Lim also discloses the positive electrode active material may comprise a lithium composite oxide (compound oxide of lithium) and a metal selected from cobalt, manganese, nickel, and combinations thereof (see paragraphs [0096]-[0097]), but Lim, Hwang, and Oh are not sufficiently specific on the positive active material comprising at least one lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2: LiaNixCoyM1zM2tO2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, 0.9≤a≤1.2, 0.9≤x≤1.0, 0≤y≤0.2, 0≤z≤0.2, 0≤t≤0.1, x+y+z+t=1, M1 is Mn, Al, or a combination thereof, and M2 is B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mg, Mo, Nb, P, S, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, Zr, or a combination thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positive active materials (see abstract), Kim discloses a positive active material with the composition of LiNi0.9Co0.05Al0.05O2 (see paragraph [0039]). This composition falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed Chemical Formula 2.
Kim further discloses a battery with this composition is less expensive and exhibits excellent capacity properties (see paragraphs [0005] and [0139]-[0140]).
Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rechargeable lithium battery disclosed by Lim, Hwang, and Oh with the cathode active material of Chemical Formula 2, as disclosed by Kim, in order to achieve excellent capacity properties in the battery and lower the cost.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lim further discloses the additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1A or Chemical Formula 1B (see image below) (see paragraphs [0065]-[0068]):
PNG
media_image2.png
405
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1A and Chemical Formula 1B,
X1 is a fluoro group (-F) (see paragraphs [0010]-[0013], [0065]-[0068], and [0071]), 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 (see paragraphs [0065]-[0069]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Lim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lim further discloses that in Chemical Formula 1A, R3 to R6 (since there are no R1 and R2 groups in Chemical Formula 1A) can each independently be hydrogen or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group (see paragraphs [0065]-[0070]).
It would be within the ambit of a skilled artisan to choose R3 and R4 to be hydrogen and R5 and/or R6 to be a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, as the classes of substituents of Lim’s teaching are sufficiently limited or well delineated. As such, the claimed species can be “at once envisaged” from the disclosure of Lim, and therefore anticipates the claimed species (see MPEP 2131.02, III).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lim further discloses the additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 is at least one of compounds of Group 1 (see paragraph [0071]). Lim specifically discloses using 2-fluoro-1,3,2-dioxaphospholane (see paragraph [0071]), which is equivalent to the first claimed structure of Group 1.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Lim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). It will be shown that the amounts of the additive disclosed by Lim anticipate the claimed range of the additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 being about 0.1 parts by weight to about 10 parts by weight in amount based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte excluding the additive.
The claimed range results in 100.1 to 110 parts total of the electrolyte, making the wt% of the additive based on the total amount of the electrolyte range from about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt%.
Lim specifically discloses the additive may be included in an amount of 0.5 wt%, 1 wt%, or 1.5 wt% based on the total amount of the electrolyte for the lithium secondary battery (see paragraphs [0137]-[0142]). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of the additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 being about 0.1 parts by weight to about 10 parts by weight in amount based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte excluding the additive.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Lim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lim further discloses the electrolyte may further comprise one or more other additives, and the one or more other additives comprise vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), difluoroethylene carbonate (DFEC), chloroethylene carbonate (CEC), dichloroethylene carbonate (DCEC), bromoethylene carbonate (BEC), dibromoethylene carbonate (DBEC), nitroethylene carbonate, cyanoethylene carbonate, or propanesultone (PS) (see paragraphs [0009], [0082], and [0086]).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Lim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Lim is silent on the one or more other additives being about 0.2 parts by weight to about 20 parts by weight in amount based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte excluding the additive and the one or more other additives.
However, it will be shown that the amount of the additive disclosed by Hwang anticipates the claimed range of the one or more other additives being about 0.2 parts by weight to about 20 parts by weight in amount based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte excluding the additive and the one or more other additives.
The claimed range results in 100.3 to 130 parts total of the electrolyte (taking into account the claimed range for the additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 in the electrolyte in Claim 5 (see rejection of Claim 5 above)), making the wt% of the additive based on the total amount of the electrolyte range from about 0.2 wt% to about 20 wt%.
Hwang discloses including 2 to 6 wt % of succinonitrile, 2 to 6 wt % of alkane sultone, and 1 to 3 wt % of vinylethylene carbonate to achieve a rechargeable lithium battery that does not have any decrease in the standard capacity and has high capacity retention when it is stored at high pressure and high temperature (see paragraph [0027]). These ranges fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of the one or more other additives being included in amount of about 0.2 parts by weight to about 20 parts by weight in amount based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte excluding the additive and the one or more other additives.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rechargeable lithium battery of Lim wherein the additives are included in amounts of 2 to 6 wt%, as disclosed by Hwang, in order to achieve a rechargeable lithium battery that does not have any decrease in the standard capacity and has high capacity retention when it is stored at high pressure and high temperature.
Furthermore, the total wt% of additives combined would be 14 wt% or less, which also substantially overlaps with and therefore renders obvious the claimed range of the one or more other additives being included in amount of about 0.2 parts by weight to about 20 parts by weight in amount based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte excluding the additive and the one or more other additives.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Hwang, Oh, and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek et al. KR-20190100059-A (hereinafter “Baek”) .
Regarding Claim 10, modified Lim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lim further discloses the positive electrode comprises a current collector and a positive active material layer on the current collector and the positive active material layer comprises the positive active material (see paragraphs [0003] and [0094]-[0096]).
Lim, Hwang, Oh, and Kim are silent on the positive active material layer comprising a carbon nanotube and the carbon nanotube being about 0.1 wt% to about 3.0 wt% in amount based on a total weight of the positive active material layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor of positive electrode active materials (see abstract), Baek discloses using carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material in an amount of 0.7 wt%, 0.9 wt%, 0.8 wt%, and 0.6 wt% (see paragraphs [0022]-[0023] and Table 1). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of the carbon nanotube being about 0.1 wt% to about 3.0 wt% in amount based on a total weight of the positive active material layer.
Baek additionally discloses controlling the BET surface area of the carbon nanotubes and the amount ratio of polyvinylidene fluoride and the carbon nanotubes improves the conductivity and adhesiveness of the positive electrode as well as restrains excessive increase or excessive decrease of the positive electrode slurry during manufacturing (see paragraph [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rechargeable lithium battery disclosed by Lim, Hwang, and Oh wherein the positive active material layer comprises a carbon nanotube and the carbon nanotube is about 0.1 wt% to about 3.0 wt% in amount based on a total weight of the positive active material layer, as disclosed by Baek, in order to improve the conductivity and adhesiveness of the positive electrode as well as restrain excessive increase or excessive decrease of the positive electrode slurry during manufacturing.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Hwang, Oh, and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US-20190027781-A1 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, modified Lim discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Lim further discloses the negative active material may comprise a carbon-based active material and a silicon-based active material (see paragraphs [0109]-[0112]).
Lim is not sufficiently specific on and Hwang, Oh, and Kim are silent on the negative active material comprising about 70 wt% to about 99 wt% of a carbon-based active material and about 1 wt% to about 30 wt% of a silicon-based active material and the carbon-based active material being crystalline carbon and the silicon-based active material being a silicon nanoparticle, a silicon-carbon composite, or a combination thereof.
However, in the same field of endeavor of negative (anode) active materials (see abstract), Lee discloses an example with a negative active material with 11 wt% of amorphous silicon particle and 76 wt% of graphite (which a skilled artisan would recognize is a carbon-based material) (see paragraph [0113]). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of the negative active material comprising about 70 wt% to about 99 wt% of a carbon-based active material and about 1 wt% to about 30 wt% of a silicon-based active material.
Additionally, Lee discloses the carbon-based active material is graphite (which a skilled artisan would recognize is a crystalline carbon) and the silicon-based active material is an amorphous silicon particle having an average particle diameter of 200 nm (which a skilled artisan would recognize is a silicon nanoparticle) (meeting Claim 12) (see paragraph [0113]).
Lee further discloses the negative active material has good discharge capacity and excellent life characteristics (see paragraph [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rechargeable lithium battery disclosed by Lim, Hwang, and Oh wherein the negative active material comprises about 70 wt% to about 99 wt% of a carbon-based active material and about 1 wt% to about 30 wt% of a silicon-based active material wherein the carbon-based active material is a crystalline carbon and the silicon-based active material is a silicon nanoparticle, as disclosed by Lee, in order to achieve a good discharge capacity and excellent life characteristics.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729