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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 9th 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed May 7th 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. The 112(a) rejection of Claim 2 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s remarks, pointing to support in the specification for the claimed range (Table 1 Examples 8 & 9). The 112(b) & 112(d) rejections of Claim 2 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1. The previous 103 rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Son et al. US 20190020068, in further view of Zhang et al. CN 110429335 A and Xie et al. US 2020/0395612 A1. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. US 2019/0020068 A1 in further view of Zhang et al. CN 110429335 A and Xie et al. US 2020/00395612 A1. Citations to Zhang are mapped to the English translation provided.
Regarding Claim 1, Son discloses a lithium secondary battery [0095] comprising a positive electrode including a positive electrode current collector and a positive active material on the positive electrode current collector [0102], a negative electrode including a negative active material [0112], and an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent and a lithium salt [0039]. Son further discloses that the electrolyte solution can additionally contain an additive [0085]. Son discloses that the positive active material layer includes a lithium composite oxide, a binder, and a solid conductive additive [0102-0103] consisting of carbon nanotubes [0092]. Son discloses that the carbon nanotubes have an average length of 1-200µm [0093], which reads on the claimed range. Son discloses that the carbon nanotubes are includes in an amount of 0.5-2wt% based on the total weight of the cathode mixture [0094], which reads on the claimed range.
Son discloses that the electrolyte can further comprise an additive [0085], and discloses that the amount of additive is 0.01-5wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution [0088]. Son is however silent as to the electrolyte solution comprising an additive that reads on the claimed limitations of the phosphate-based compound, included in an amount within the claimed range of 0.5-2.0wt%.
In a similar disclosure, Zhang discloses an electrolyte for an electrochemical device [Page 1 Lines 14-15] such as a battery further comprising a negative electrode and a positive electrode [Page 8 Lines 52-55], similar to Son. Zhang discloses an additive for the electrolyte comprising a phosphate compound such as triphenyl phosphate [Page 6 Lines 56-60]. Zhang discloses that the phosphate compound is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.1-10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte [Page 2 Lines 49-50], which overlaps with the entire claimed range.
Zhang discloses that a battery comprising an electrolyte such as this has improved energy density [Page 1 Lines 19-26] as well as improved battery capacity retention rate [Page 3 Lines 9-12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the phosphate-based compound in the suggested amount as disclosed by Zhang in the electrolyte of Song to obtain 0.1-10% by weight of phosphate-based compound (triphenyl phosphate) in the electrolyte, to achieve a battery with improved energy density and improved battery capacity retention rate.
Modified Son is silent as to the initial internal resistance of the battery of less than 35 mohms.
Xie discloses a positive electrode material for a lithium battery comprising a positive electrode active material and a conductive agent [0005], similar to the cathode material of modified Son. Xie discloses that the active material is a lithium transition metal oxide [0013], similar to the material of modified Son. Xie discloses that the conductive agent is carbon nanotube [0019] similar to that of modified Son. Xie further discloses that the battery resulted in an internal resistance of 26-28 mohms (Table 2) [0058].
Xie discloses that a battery with these values of internal resistance showed improved rate and cycle performance [0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, in the absence of a direct teaching from Son of the battery’s internal resistance, to use the internal resistance as disclosed by Xie for the benefit of improved cycle and rate performance of the battery.
Thus, modified Son discloses that the battery has an initial DC internal resistance of less than 35 mohms (26-28mohms as modified by Xie).
Additionally, Xie discloses that the battery was also subjected to high temperature storage testing [0057] wherein the battery was stored at 60°C for 14 days and then the internal resistance was measured again to assess the change in the internal resistance [0057-0058], which as shown in Table 2 of Xie, showed a change of 11-14% in the internal resistance from the initial internal resistance to the post-storage testing internal resistance (Table 2) [0058]. Thus, Xie discloses that the battery has a DC internal resistance of 28.9-31.9 mohms after storage at 60°C for 14 days.
Son discloses that in testing, the battery was subjected to a similar test to that of Xie, wherein the battery underwent high temperature stability testing at 60°C for 10 days and 30 days after initially testing the initial internal resistance [0176]. Son discloses that the increase in the internal resistance from initial to 10 days and from initial to 30 days, as shown in Table 6 for one example, is 113% and 125%, respectively [0179]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the analogy between the 14 day testing of Xie and the 10 day testing of Son having similar increases in the internal resistance, and would reasonably expect that the data of Xie extrapolated out to 30 days would see a similar increase in internal resistance as the 30 day test of Son. Thus, Xie’s batteries having initial internal resistances of 26-28 mohms after 30 days at 60°C would then have an internal resistance of ~32.5-35 mohms (26-28 mohms * 125%) based on the suggestion of Son. Therefore modified Son, as modified by Xie, discloses that the battery would have a DC internal resistance of 40mohms or less (~32.5-35 mohms) after storage at 60°C for at least 30 days.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Son discloses that the average length of the carbon nanotube is 1-200µm [0093], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Son discloses that the carbon nanotube is included in an amount of 0.5-2wt%, more specifically 0.5-1.5wt%, based on the total weight of the cathode mixture [0094], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 4, Son discloses a lithium secondary battery [0095] comprising a positive electrode including a positive electrode current collector and a positive active material on the positive electrode current collector [0102], a negative electrode including a negative active material [0112], and an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent and a lithium salt [0039]. Son further discloses that the electrolyte solution can additionally contain an additive [0085]. Son discloses that the positive active material layer includes a lithium composite oxide, a binder, and a solid conductive additive [0102-0103] consisting of carbon nanotubes [0092]. Son discloses that the carbon nanotubes have an average length of 1-200µm [0093], which reads on the claimed range. Son discloses that the carbon nanotubes are includes in an amount of 0.5-2wt% based on the total weight of the cathode mixture [0094], which reads on the claimed range.
Son discloses that the electrolyte can further comprise an additive [0085], and discloses that the amount of additive is 0.01-5wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution [0088]. Son is however silent as to the electrolyte solution comprising an additive that reads on the claimed limitations of the phosphate-based compound, included in an amount within the claimed range of 0.5-2.0wt%.
In a similar disclosure, Zhang discloses an electrolyte for an electrochemical device [Page 1 Lines 14-15] such as a battery further comprising a negative electrode and a positive electrode [Page 8 Lines 52-55], similar to Son. Zhang discloses an additive for the electrolyte comprising a phosphate compound such as triphenyl phosphate [Page 6 Lines 56-60]. Zhang discloses that the phosphate compound is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.1-10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte [Page 2 Lines 49-50], which overlaps with the entire claimed range.
Zhang discloses that a battery comprising an electrolyte such as this has improved energy density [Page 1 Lines 19-26] as well as improved battery capacity retention rate [Page 3 Lines 9-12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the phosphate-based compound in the suggested amount as disclosed by Zhang in the electrolyte of Song to obtain 0.1-10% by weight of phosphate-based compound (triphenyl phosphate) in the electrolyte, to achieve a battery with improved energy density and improved battery capacity retention rate.
Modified Son is silent as to the initial internal resistance of the battery of less than 35 mohms.
Xie discloses a positive electrode material for a lithium battery comprising a positive electrode active material and a conductive agent [0005], similar to the cathode material of modified Son. Xie discloses that the active material is a lithium transition metal oxide [0013], similar to the material of modified Son. Xie discloses that the conductive agent is carbon nanotube [0019] similar to that of modified Son. Xie further discloses that the battery resulted in an internal resistance of 26-28 mohms (Table 2) [0058].
Xie discloses that a battery with these values of internal resistance showed improved rate and cycle performance [0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, in the absence of a direct teaching from Son of the battery’s internal resistance, to use the internal resistance as disclosed by Xie for the benefit of improved cycle and rate performance of the battery.
Thus, modified Son discloses that the battery has an initial DC internal resistance of less than 35 mohms (26-28mohms as modified by Xie).
Additionally, Xie discloses that the battery was also subjected to high temperature storage testing [0057] wherein the battery was stored at 60°C for 14 days and then the internal resistance was measured again to assess the change in the internal resistance [0057-0058], which as shown in Table 2 of Xie, showed a change of 11-14% in the internal resistance from the initial internal resistance to the post-storage testing internal resistance (Table 2) [0058]. Thus, Xie discloses that the battery has a DC internal resistance of 28.9-31.9 mohms after storage at 60°C for 14 days.
Son discloses that in testing, the battery was subjected to a similar test to that of Xie, wherein the battery underwent high temperature stability testing at 60°C for 10 days and 30 days after initially testing the initial internal resistance [0176]. Son discloses that the increase in the internal resistance from initial to 10 days and from initial to 30 days, as shown in Table 6 for one example, is 113% and 125%, respectively [0179]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the analogy between the 14 day testing of Xie and the 10 day testing of Son having similar increases in the internal resistance, and would reasonably expect that the data of Xie extrapolated out to 30 days would see a similar increase in internal resistance as the 30 day test of Son. Thus, Xie’s batteries having initial internal resistances of 26-28 mohms after 30 days at 60°C would then have an internal resistance of ~32.5-35 mohms (26-28 mohms * 125%) based on the suggestion of Son. Therefore modified Son, as modified by Xie, discloses that the battery would have a DC internal resistance of 40mohms or less (~32.5-35 mohms) after storage at 60°C for at least 30 days.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Son discloses that the phosphate-based compound is triphenyl phosphate, as modified by Zhang [Page 6 Lines 56-60].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Son discloses that the lithium composite oxide is LiNixCoyMnzO2 or LiNixCoyAlzO2 wherein 0.6≤x≤0.95, 0<y≤0.2, 0<z≤0.2 [0100], which reads on the claimed formula when M1 is Ni, M2 is Co, M3 is Mn or Al, a = 1, y1 is 0-0.2, z1 is 0-0.2, which fall within the ranges of the claimed subscripts.
Regarding Claim 7, similar to Claim 6, modified Son discloses that the lithium composite oxide is LiNixCoyAlzO2 wherein 0.6≤x≤0.95, 0<y≤0.2, 0<z≤0.2 [0100], which reads on the claimed formula when x2 = 1, y2 = 0-0.2, and z2 = 0-0.2, which fall within the ranges of the claimed subscripts.
Regarding Claim 8, Son discloses that the negative active material can comprise a composition containing an anode active material and a conductive material [0111], wherein the anode active material can be silicon [0113] and the conductive material can be carbon [0116], thus Son discloses that the negative active material can comprise a Si-C composite as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, Son discloses that the negative active material comprises crystalline carbon [0116].
Regarding Claim 10, Son discloses that the crystalline carbon includes graphite such as natural, artificial, or a mixture [0116].
Regarding Claim 13, Son discloses that the solid conductive additive (carbonaceous nanostructure) can be selected from the list of carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, graphene, graphene nanosheets, hollow carbon, porous carbon, or mesoporous carbon [0023], and does not list carbon black, graphite, acetylene black, and metal fibers as alternatives for use as the carbonaceous nanostructure. Thus, Son discloses that the solid conductive additive (carbonaceous nanostructure) is free of carbon black, graphite, acetylene black, and metal fibers.
Claims 11 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son, Zhang, and Xie as applied to claims 1 & 10 above, and further in view of Li et al. US 2021/0399290 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Son is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 1 & 10. However, modified Son fails to disclose that the Si-C composite includes a shell surround the surface of the composite wherein the shell includes amorphous carbon.
Li discloses a silicon-based composite negative electrode material [Abstract] that includes a core comprising a silicon-carbon composite material [0007-0008] and further includes a shell cover that covers the core [0007] wherein the shell comprises amorphous carbon [0009].
Li discloses that a negative electrode material with this configuration improves the strength and toughness of the layers within the electrode material, restricts the volume expansion of the Si-C composite core, and enables a stable interface with the electrolyte, which improves cycle stability and rate performance of the battery [00040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the negative electrode active material of Son to further include the amorphous carbon shell as suggested by Li to achieve a battery with improved cycle stability and rate performance.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Son discloses, with the modification of Li, that the amorphous carbon comprises soft carbon or hard carbon [0019].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose the performance-based features of Claim 1, more specifically that the initial internal resistance is less than 35 mohms and the internal resistance after at least 30 days at 60°C is less than 40 mohms. Examiner respectfully points out that as stated in the rejection above, Thillaiyan, Aria, and Zhang are not relied upon for teaching these newly added limitations. Instead, Xie is used to suggest these performance based features, mainly the initial internal resistance, and provides motivation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Son’s battery to incorporate the initial internal resistance of Xie. Additionally, Examiner points out that Son is used to suggest the change in the internal resistance after high temperature storage (60°C for at least 30 days). Thus, the newly cited references teach the limitations of Claim 1. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach the amended range of Claim 4. Examiner respectfully points that as stated in the rejection above, Zhang discloses a broader range of phosphate-based additive content of 0.1-10wt% [Page 6 Lines 56-60], which overlaps with both the claimed range of claim 1 as well as the new claimed range in Claim 4. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA G NEWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.G.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 16 June 2026
Prosecution Insights