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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 November 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-13 are pending
Claim 1 is amended
Claim 8 is canceled
New claim 13 has been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 19 November 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Rejections and Objections of the Office Action from 1 October 2025
The rejections over Thillaiyan in view of Fan are maintained and have been modified in view of Applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thillaiyan (US 20160336615 A1), hereinafter Thillaiyan, in view of Fan et al. (CN 106299324 A), hereinafter Fan.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-5, Thillaiyan teaches a lithium secondary battery, in this case a rechargeable battery [0009], comprising, as required by claims 1 and 13:
a cathode 104 comprising a cathode active material [0013];
an anode 102 comprising an anode active material [0013]; and
an electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent and a lithium salt [0056];
wherein the lithium secondary battery is cylindrical [0019].
Thillaiyan further teaches an additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 (pictured below), in this case triphenyl phosphate [0010], where R1, R2, and R3 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group surrounding the phosphate, which meets the limitations as required by claims 2, 4, and 5.
Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
78
65
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thillaiyan further teaches a cathode active material that is at least one lithium composite oxide, such as LiCoyO2, LiNixCoyMnzO2, LiNixCoyAlzO2, or LiNixMnzO2 [0006]. Thillaiyan does not specify the values of x, y, and z. Therefore Thillaiyan is silent as to whether the positive active material meets the limitation regarding Chemical Formula 3, LiaM11-y1-z1M2y1M3z1O2, where 0.9≤a≤1.8, 0<y1≤0.105, 0≤z1<1, 0≤y1+z1<1, M1 is Ni, M2 is Co, Mn, Sr, Mg, or La, and M3 is Al or Mn. However, Fan teaches a similar electrolyte (pg. 4, ¶ 13) and a positive electrode comprising Li(NixCoyMnz)O2, wherein 0.5<x<0.8, 0<y≤0.1, 0<z≤0.1, and x+y+z=1 (pg. 3, ¶ 7).
Thillaiyan and Fan are both considered to be equivalent to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a secondary battery with a multi-additive electrolyte and a lithium composite oxide cathode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thillaiyan with the cathode taught by Fan. Fan teaches an equivalent compound where M1 is Ni, M2 is Co, M3 is Mn, a=1, which is between the claimed 0.9 and 1.8, 0<y≤0.1, which lies within the claimed 0<y1≤0.105, 0<z≤0.1, which lies within the claimed 0≤z1≤1, 0≤y+z<1, as seen by their respective ranges, and x+y+z=1, which is equivalent to x=1-y1-z1. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a cathode in an electrochemical cell with a similar electrolyte, is supported as a prima facie obviousness determination. In Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Thillaiyan teaches the lithium secondary battery as being cylindrical [0019]. Thillaiyan is silent as to the dimensions of a cylindrical form of the lithium secondary battery. However, Fan teaches placing the battery components into a cylindrical shell of an 18650-type battery (pg. 4, Example 1, ¶ 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an 18650-type battery has a diameter of 1.8 cm, a height of 6.5 cm, and a volume of 16.54 cm3. This overlaps with the claimed range of 1.8 to 3.2 cm for the diameter, 6.5 to 10.5 cm for the height, and 16 to 84 cm3 for the volume. 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).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical form of Thillaiyan with the dimensions taught by Fan. Doing so would have allowed for the production of a battery with improved cycle performance and high temperature performance (Fig. 1)(pg. 9, ¶ 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Thillaiyan teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Thillaiyan further teaches multiple compositions in Table 1 with varying amounts of additive. The table shows that compositions wherein an amount of the additive was 3 wt.% to 10 wt.% based on the total weight of the electrolyte were most effective, as shown by no flame being produced (Table 001). Therefore, multiple data points fall within the claimed range of 0.1 wt.% to 10wt.%. If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Regarding claim 6, modified Thillaiyan teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Thillaiyan further teaches the electrolyte further comprising an additive for improving cycle-life represented by Chemical Formula 2.
[Chemical Formula 2]
PNG
media_image2.png
94
74
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In chemical formula 2, R15 and R16 are each independently selected from hydrogen, a halogen, a cyano group (CN), a nitro group (NO2), or a fluorinated C1 to C5 alkyl group, provided that at least one of the R15 and R16 is selected from a halogen, a cyano group (CN), a nitro group (NO2), or a fluorinated C1 to C5 alkyl group, and R15 and R16 are not simultaneously hydrogen. In this case, Thillaiyan teaches an SEI additive that improves the thermal stability and electrolyte operational temperature [0009] which someone of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be features that would improve the cycle life of the battery. This SEI additive may comprise fluoroethylene carbonate [0011], which would match Chemical Formula 2 with R15 being a hydrogen and R16 being a halogen.
Regarding claim 7, modified Thillaiyan teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 6. Thillaiyan further teaches an amount of the additive for improving cycle-life, in this case the SEI additive, being 0.1 wt.% to 15 wt.% based on the total, 100 wt.% of the electrolyte (claim 6). This overlaps with the claimed range of 10 wt.% to 20 wt.%. 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).
Regarding claim 8, modified Thillaiyan teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Thillaiyan further teaches the lithium secondary battery being a rectangular battery of a thickness of 0.54 cm to 0.7 cm, in this case 0.6 cm, a width of 4.4 cm to 7.4 cm, in this case 6.8 cm, and a height of 5.1 cm to 10 cm, in this case 9.8 cm [0118]. If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Regarding claim 9, modified Thillaiyan teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Thillaiyan further teaches the non-aqueous organic solvent comprising 50 volume% to 95 volume% of linear carbonate, linear ester or a combination thereof, and 5 volume% to 50 volume% of cyclic carbonate. In this case Thillaiyan teaches a non-aqueous organic solvent comprising ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate at a ratio of 1:1 by volume (Table 1). Therefore, the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises 50% linear carbonate (ethyl methyl carbonate) and 50% cyclic carbonate (ethylene carbonate). Thillaiyan also teaches a non-aqueous organic solvent comprising ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and diethyl carbonate at a ratio of 1:1:1 by volume (Table 1). Therefore, the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises 66.66% linear carbonate (ethyl methyl carbonate and dimethyl carbonate) and 33.33% cyclic carbonate (ethylene carbonate). If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Regarding claim 11, modified Thillaiyan teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1. Thillaiyan further teaches the negative active material comprising a Si-composite comprising a Si-based active material and a carbon-based active material [0072].
Regarding claim 12, modified Thillaiyan teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 11. Thillaiyan further teaches the negative active material further comprising crystalline carbon. In this case Thillaiyan teaches a negative active material comprising graphite and graphene [0072] and someone of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that graphite and graphene are forms of crystalline carbon.
Regarding claim 13, Thillaiyan teaches a lithium secondary battery, in this case a rechargeable battery [0009], comprising:
a cathode 104 comprising a cathode active material [0013];
an anode 102 comprising an anode active material [0013]; and
an electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent and a lithium salt [0056].
wherein the lithium secondary battery has a volume of 20 cm3 to 35 cm3, and is a rectangular battery having a thickness of 0.54 cm to 0.7 cm, a width of 4.4 cm to 7.4 cm, and a height of 5.1 cm to 10 cm. In this case an overcharge test was conducted using pouch cells of dimensions 0.52 cm x 4.2 cm x 5.2 cm, with a volume of 11.36 cm3, and 0.6 cm x 6.8 cm x 9.8 cm, with a volume of 39.98 cm3 [0118]. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect these dimensions to indicate a range of dimensions from 0.52 cm to 0.6 cm, 4.2 cm to 6.8 cm, and 5.2 cm to 9.8 cm with a volume range of 11.36 cm3 to 39.98 cm3. 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).
Thillaiyan further teaches an additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 (pictured below), in this case triphenyl phosphate [0010], where R1, R2, and R3 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group surrounding the phosphate.
Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
78
65
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thillaiyan further teaches a cathode active material that is at least one lithium composite oxide, such as LiCoyO2, LiNixCoyMnzO2, LiNixCoyAlzO2, or LiNixMnzO2 [0006]. Thillaiyan does not specify the values of x, y, and z. Therefore Thillaiyan is silent as to whether the positive active material meets the limitation regarding Chemical Formula 3, LiaM11-y1-z1M2y1M3z1O2, where 0.9≤a≤1.8, 0<y1≤0.105, 0≤z1<1, 0≤y1+z1<1, M1 is Ni, M2 is Co, Mn, Sr, Mg, or La, and M3 is Al or Mn. However, Fan teaches a similar electrolyte (pg. 4, ¶ 13) and a positive electrode comprising Li(NixCoyMnz)O2, wherein 0.5<x<0.8, 0<y≤0.1, 0<z≤0.1, and x+y+z=1 (pg. 3, ¶ 7).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thillaiyan with the cathode taught by Fan. Fan teaches an equivalent compound where M1 is Ni, M2 is Co, M3 is Mn, a=1, which is between the claimed 0.9 and 1.8, 0<y≤0.1, which lies within the claimed 0<y1≤0.105, 0<z≤0.1, which lies within the claimed 0≤z1≤1, 0≤y+z<1, as seen by their respective ranges, and x+y+z=1, which is equivalent to x=1-y1-z1. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a cathode in an electrochemical cell with a similar electrolyte, is supported as a prima facie obviousness determination. In Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that both Thillaiyan and Fan are silent as to the lithium secondary battery being a cylindrical cell of the claimed dimensions. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, both sources teach cylindrical cells and Fan further teaches an 18650-type cell that overlaps with the claimed dimensions. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thillaiyan with the dimensions of Fan in order to encourage production of a battery with improved cycle performance and high temperature performance (Fig. 1)(pg. 9, ¶ 1).
Regarding new claim 13, Applicant argues that the dimensions of Thillaiyan do not overlap with the claimed dimensions, likely due to there not being a specific, listed volume that lies within the claimed ranged. However, as noted above, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the two examples of pouch cell dimensions taught by Thillaiyan to be the ends of a range of options for dimensions of the cell. Therefore, the taught volumes would overlap with the claimed volumes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722