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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, and 14-17 are pending
Claims 1 and 6 are amended
Claims 2, 4, and 13 have been canceled
New claims 14-17 have been added
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 3 April 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Rejections and Objections of the Office Action from 16 January 2026
The rejections over Thillaiyan in view of Fan are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, a new grounds of rejection over Thillaiyan in view of Lampe-Onnerud further in view of Chen has been set forth, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Chemical Formula 3, “0≤y1+z1<1” should instead read “0<y1+z1<1”. y1 cannot be 0. Therefore, y1+z1 cannot equal 0.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thillaiyan et al. (US 20160336615 A1), hereinafter Thillaiyan, in view of Lampe-Onnerud et al. (CN 106299324 A), hereinafter Lampe-Onnerud.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, 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 [0013] comprising:
a non-aqueous organic solvent [0056]; and
a lithium salt [0056];
Thillaiyan further teaches the electrolyte comprising an additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 (pictured below), in this case triphenyl phosphate [0010], as also required by claim 5, 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
109
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thillaiyan is silent as to the lithium secondary battery specifically having a volume of 16 cm3 to 84 cm3. However, Thillaiyan teaches an overcharge test that was conducted using pouch cells of dimensions 0.6 cm x 4.2 cm x 5.2 cm, with a volume of 13.10 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 of 0.6 cm x 4.2 cm-6.8 cm x 5.2 cm to 9.8 cm with a volume range of 13.10 cm3 to 39.98 cm3. This overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to select a battery volume within the claimed range. 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 a cathode active material that is at least one lithium composite oxide, such as LiNixCoyAlzO2 [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, and M3 is Al. However, Lampe-Onnerud teaches a similar electrolyte [0098-0099, 0106] with a triphenyl phosphate additive [0100] and a positive electrode comprising Lix4Ax5Ni(1-y4-z4)Coy4Qz4Oa, wherein 0.1≤x4≤1.3, x5=0, 0.0<y4≤0.2, 0.0<z4≤0.2, 1.5<a<2.1, and Q may consist of Al [0053]. This formula overlaps with the claimed variable ranges of instant Chemical Formula 3. 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 and Lampe-Onnerud are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary batteries comprising lithium composite oxide cathodes and triphenyl phosphate additive in non-aqueous organic electrolytic solutions. 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 lithium nickelate active cathode material taught by Lampe-Onnerud. The selection of a known material, in this case the taught lithium nickelate formula, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a cathode active material in an electrochemical cell with a similar electrolyte and additive, is supported as a prima facie obviousness determination. In Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Further, doing so would have provided an active material with a high energy density [Lampe-Onnerud 0069].
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 claims 6 and 16, 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
wherein, in chemical formula 2,
R15 and R16 are each independently hydrogen, a halogen, a cyano group (CN), a nitro group (NO2), or a fluorinated C1 to C5 alkyl group,
at least one of R15 or R16 is 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, in this case F, as required by claim 16.
Regarding claim 7, modified Thillaiyan teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 6. Thillaiyan is silent as to an amount of the additive for improving cycle-life being specifically 10 wt.% to 20 wt.% based on the total, 100 wt.% of the electrolyte. However, Thillaiyan 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. This overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to select an additive amount within the claimed range. 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 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). Both of these examples lie within the claimed range. 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.
Claims 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thillaiyan in view of Lampe-Onnerud, as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Chen et al. (US 20030157413 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Modified Thillaiyan teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 6. Thillaiyan is silent as to R15 and R16 each independently being the halogen or the fluorinated C1 to C5 alkyl group, as required by claim 14, wherein the halogen is F, as required by claim 15, or each being F, as required by claim 17. However, Chen teaches a rechargeable battery comprising a lithium transition metal oxide cathode and a non-aqueous electrolyte [0019] having a flame retardant additive, like triphenyl phosphate [0005], and an anode passivation material, such as monofluoroethylene carbonate (claim 12) or difluoroethylene carbonate (claim 18). Therefore, difluoroethylene carbonate is considered to be a functional equivalent to monofluoroethylene carbonate. Further, difluoroethylene carbonate is represented by Chemical Formula 2, wherein, R15 and R16 are each independently the halogen, as required by claim 14, wherein the halogen is F, as required by claim 15, and, thus, R15 and R16 are each F, as required by claim 17.
Thillaiyan and Chen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of non-aqueous organic electrolyte additives. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the monofluoroethylene carbonate additive of Thillaiyan with the functionally equivalent difluoroethylene carbonate additive of Chen. The selection of a known material, in this case difluoroethylene carbonate, based on its suitability for its intended use, in this case as a functional equivalent additive of monofluoroethylene carbonate, supported 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 3 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the example batteries disclosed by Thillaiyan need to have LiNi0.5Co0.3Mn0.2O2 as a cathode active material, 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).
Applicant’s arguments with respect Fan 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.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 3 April 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon Thillaiyan in view of Fan, as set forth in the last Office action, and Thillaiyan in view of Lampe-Onnerud, as set forth in the precent Office action, because the provided evidence is not commensurate in scope with claim 1. Claim 1 currently requires a cathode active material represented by 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, and M3 is Al. However, each example provided by the instant application has used LiNi0.88Co0.105Al0.015O2 as the positive electrode active material, which does not demonstrate criticality of the claimed variable ranges. Further, in the present iteration, Al is not required to be present in the cathode active material, because z1 may be 0. Therefore, a LiNiCoO2 compound with the claimed molar content variables would still meet the claimed limitation.
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 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
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights