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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/7/2026 has been entered.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 3, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20190319269 A1) and further in view of the machine translation of Koseki (WO 2019168035 A1) and Kim (US 20170345581 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Saito teaches a lithium secondary battery (abstract),
- comprising a positive electrode (para. 0008) including a positive electrode current collector (para. 0035 [as also known in the art, the positive and negative electrodes are typically affixed onto current collecting substrates]), and a positive active material layer on the positive electrode current collector (para. 0035 [positive electrode material … (such as lithium oxide compositions mentioned in para. 0035) … are affixed onto the current collecting substrate]);
- a negative electrode (para. 0008) including a negative active material (para. 0034, [the anode includes any of the carbon containing or silicon containing anode materials known in the art dispersed within the above-described crosslinked polymer composition]); and
- an electrolyte solution including a non-aqueous organic solvent (para. 0037, [the non-ionic solvent can be, for example, a carbonate, sulfone … or a mixture thereof) (para. 0038, [ethylene carbonate]) a lithium salt (para. 0037, [lithium electrolyte salt]), and an additive (para. 0039, [examples of sulfone solvents include butadiene sulfone]),
- wherein the positive active material layer includes a positive active material and carbon nanotube (para. 0035, [to improve conductivity at the positive electrode, carbon nanotubes are often admixed with the positive electrode material])
-and the additive includes a cyclic sulfone-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
[Chemical Formula 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
121
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkyl group (para. 0039, [examples of sulfone solvents include butadiene sulfone]).
Saito is silent to the length and weight percent of the carbon nanotube of the positive active material layer.
Koseki, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches the carbon nanotube is included in an amount of greater than or equal to 0.5 wt% and less than 4 wt% based on the total weight of the positive active material layer (para. 9, [carbon nanotube content of 0.1 to 10%]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used Saito’s carbon nanotubes with the weight percentages taught by Koseki, in order to prevent the increase in resistance of the positive electrode material, to prevent the lowering of content of the carbon nanotubes, and to prevent the deterioration of the active material output characteristics, as taught by Koseki (para. 16).
Modified Saito teaches an average length of the carbon nanotube is 1-20 microns, (Koseki, para. 9, [1-20 µm]).
Modified Saito does not teach an average length of the carbon nanotube is greater than or equal to 50 µm and less than 150 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized for the average length of the carbon nanotube, based on specific needs of the battery cell. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”).
Modified Saito does not teach that the cyclic sulfone-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is included in an amount of greater than or equal to 0.1 wt% and less than 3 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, electrolytes and batteries, teaches wherein the cyclic sulfone-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is included in an amount of greater than or equal to 0.1 wt% and less than 3 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution (para. 0027, [electrolyte additives include butadiene sulfone… the content of an additive in the electrolyte composition is preferably 0.1 to 10.0 wt%, relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Saito’s electrolyte to incorporate the specific weight percentage of the butadiene sulfone additive, as taught by Kim, in order to support a battery which can be operated at higher voltages (para. 0004), as taught in the background of Kim’s invention.
Regarding claim 3, modified Saito teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the carbon nanotube are included in an amount of 0.5 wt% to 3 wt% based on the total weight of the positive active material layer (Koeski; para. 9, [carbon nanotube content of 0.1 to 10%]).
Regarding claim 5, Saito teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the cyclic sulfone-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is butadiene sulfone (para. 0039, [examples of sulfone solvents include butadiene sulfone]).
Regarding claims 8-10, modified Saito teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the negative active material includes a Si-C composite including a Si- based active material and a carbon-based active material (para. 0034, [the anode includes any of the carbon-containing and silicon-containing anode materials known in the art … for example, a silicon-carbon (e.g., silicon-graphite, silicon-carbon black, silicon-CNT, or silicon-graphene) composite]).
The graphite in silicon-graphite is a crystalline carbon (para. 0034), reading on claim 9.
The graphite can be either natural or artificial graphite (para. 0034), reading on claim 10.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20190319269 A1), in view of the machine translation of Koseki (WO 2019168035 A1), Kim (US 20170345581 A1), and Chesneau (US 20160164141 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Saito teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the positive active material is at least one type of lithium composite oxide (para. 0035, [LiNiCoAlO2]).
Saito does not teach that the lithium composite oxide is represented by Chemical Formula 2: [Chemical Formula 2] LiaM11-y1-z1M2y1M3z1O2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, 0.9≤a≤1.8, 0≤y1≤1, 0≤z1≤1, 0≤y1+z1<1, and M1, M2, and M3 are each independently any one selected from metals of Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Sr, Mg, or La, and a combination thereof.
Chesneau, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that the lithium oxide is represented by Chemical Formula 2: [Chemical Formula 2] LiaM11-y1-z1M2y1M3z1O2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, 0.9≤a≤1.8, 0≤y1≤1, 0≤z1≤1, 0≤y1+z1<1, and M1, M2, and M3 are each independently any one selected from metals of Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Sr, Mg, or La, and a combination thereof.
(para. 0111 Li(1+g)[NihCoiAlj](1-g)O2+k [g=0; h=0.8; i=0.17; j=0.03; k=0]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Saito’s lithium composite oxide to have the atomic ratios of Chesneau’s lithium oxide, in order to utilize a positive active material that is capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions selected from lithium-ion intercalating transition metal oxides, as taught by Chesneau (para. 0110).
Regarding claim 7, modified Saito teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the positive active material is a lithium composite oxide (para. 0035, [LiNiCoAlO2]).
Saito does not teach that the lithium composite oxide is represented by Chemical Formula 2-1: [Chemical Formula 2-1] Lix2Niy2Coz2Al1-y2-z2O2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 2-1,
PNG
media_image2.png
14
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chesneau teaches that the lithium composite oxide is represented by Chemical Formula 2-1: [Chemical Formula 2-1] Lix2Niy2Coz2Al1-y2-z2O2 wherein, in Chemical Formula 2-1,
PNG
media_image2.png
14
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(para. 0111 Li(1+g)[NihCoiAlj](1-g)O2+k [g=0; h=0.8; i=0.17; j=0.03; k=0])
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20190319269 A1), in view of the machine translation of Koseki (WO 2019168035 A1), Kim (US 20170345581 A1), and Troegel (US 20180342732 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Saito teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 8.
Saito does not teach wherein the Si-C composite further includes a shell surrounding the surface of the Si-C composite, and the shell includes amorphous carbon.
Troegel, in the same field of endeavor, core-shell particles, teaches a Si-C composite includes a shell surrounding the surface of the Si-C composite, and the shell includes amorphous carbon including of soft carbon, hard carbon, and pitch carbonized products (para. 0011).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have coated the core particle in Saito’s anode active material layer, with amorphous carbon, as taught by Troegel, in order to obtain a particle that is mechanically strong, has high compressive stability, and has high shear stability (para. 0090), as taught by Troegel. Troegel teaches that the core-shell particles have less tendency to crumble under mechanical stress than conventional porous composite particles (para. 0090).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20190319269 A1), in view of the machine translation of Koseki (WO 2019168035 A1), Kim (US 20170345581 A1), and Kaneda (US 20030091901 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Saito teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative active material layer comprising the negative active material (Saito, para. 0034, [negative electrode includes any of the carbon or silicon - containing anode materials known in the art dispersed within the above - described crosslinked polymer composition]) and a binder (Saito, para. 0034, [the negative electrode composition is often further admixed with an adhesive]).
Saito teaches that the binder comprises PTFE or PVDF (Saito, para. 0034, [PVDF , PTFE , and co-polymers thereof]).
Saito does not teach that the binder comprises polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyepichlorohydrine, polyphosphazene, polyvinylpyridine, or any combination thereof.
Kaneda, in the same field of endeavor, batteries teaches that the binder includes resins such as PVDF, PTFE, or polyvinylpyridine (Kaneda, para. 0094).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Saito’s binder for the negative active material layer by replacing the PTFE of Saito with polyvinylpyridine as taught by Kaneda. The simple substitution of a known element (PTFE) for another (polyvinylpyridine) would achieve the predictable result of providing a binder that plays a role in connecting an electroconductive material to a current collector, as disclosed by Kaneda. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, modified Saito teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative active material layer comprising the negative active material (Saito, para. 0034, [negative electrode includes any of the carbon or silicon - containing anode materials known in the art dispersed within the above - described crosslinked polymer composition]) and a binder (Saito, para. 0034, [the negative electrode composition is often further admixed with an adhesive]).
Saito is silent regarding the amount of binder included.
Kaneda, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that the binder is included in an amount of 5 wt% based on the total weight of the negative active material layer (Kaneda, para. 0094, [particularly, the amount of the binder … for the negative electrode is more preferably 5 to 15% by weight]).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added Saito’s binder in an amount of 5%, as taught by Kaneda, in order to use a preferable amount to connect an electroconductive material to a current collector (Kaneda, para. 0094, [connecting an electroconductive material to a current collector], para. 0094, [the amount of the binder … for the negative electrode is more preferably 5 to 15% by weight]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20190319269 A1), and further in view of the machine translation of Koseki (WO 2019168035 A1) and Yang (US 20190189987 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Saito teaches:
a lithium secondary battery (abstract),
comprising a positive electrode (para. 0008) comprising a positive electrode current collector (para. 0035 [as also known in the art, the positive and negative electrodes are typically affixed onto current collecting substrates]), and
a positive active material layer on the positive electrode current collector (para. 0035 [positive electrode material … (such as lithium oxide compositions mentioned in para. 0035) … are affixed onto the current collecting substrate)];
a negative electrode (para. 0008) comprising a negative active material (para. 0034, [the anode includes any of the carbon containing or silicon containing anode materials known in the art dispersed within the above-described crosslinked polymer composition]); and
an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (para. 0037, [the non-ionic solvent can be, for example, a carbonate, sulfone … or a mixture thereof) (para. 0038, [ethylene carbonate]), a lithium salt (para. 0037, [lithium electrolyte salt]), and an additive (para. 0039, [examples of sulfone solvents include butadiene sulfone]),
wherein the positive active material layer comprises a positive active material and carbon nanotube (para. 0035, [to improve conductivity at the positive electrode, carbon nanotubes are often admixed with the positive electrode material])
the additive comprises a cyclic sulfone-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
121
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkyl group (para. 0039, [examples of sulfone solvents include butadiene sulfone]).
Saito does not teach:
an average length of the carbon nanotube is greater than or equal to 1 µm and less than 200 µm,
the carbon nanotube is in an amount of greater than or equal to 0.5 wt% and less than 4 wt% based on the total weight of the positive active material layer, and
Koseki, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches the carbon nanotube is included in an amount of greater than or equal to 0.5 wt% and less than 4 wt% based on the total weight of the positive active material layer (Koseki, para. 9, [carbon nanotube content of 0.1 to 10%]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used Saito’s carbon nanotubes with the weight percentages taught by Koseki, in order to prevent the increase in resistance of the positive electrode material, to prevent the lowering of content of the carbon nanotubes, and to prevent the deterioration of the active material output characteristics, as taught by Koseki (para. 16).
Modified Saito teaches an average length of the carbon nanotube is 1-20 microns, (Koseki, para. 9, [1-20 µm]).
Saito does not teach:
the positive active material comprising LiNi0.88Co0.105Al0.01502,
Saito teaches wherein the positive active material is at least one type of lithium composite oxide (para. 0035, [LiNiCoAlO2]).
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches the use of a positive active material comprising LiNi0.88Co0.105Al0.01502 (Yang, para. 0124).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped Saito’s positive material for LiNi0.88Co0.105Al0.01502 as taught by Yang, in order to realize high capacity leading to an improvement of the battery performance, as taught by Yang (Yang, para. 0088).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the unique combination of structure and amount of the cyclic sulfone additive and specific CNT length, the combination of references teach the cyclic sulfone additive and amount and the CNT length as claimed. See Rejection above.
Applicant states that the cited art neither teaches nor suggests the synergistic effects of CNT length, CNT amount, and cyclic sulfone additive amount.
Examiner responds that there are not enough data points regarding the carbon nanotube length and the cyclic sulfone additive weight percentage presented in Table A. For example, for the carbon nanotube length, there is data that shows the resistance increase when the length is above the upper limit (comparative example 7), but there is no data provided to show results of the resistance increase when the length is below the lower limit. Likewise, for the cyclic sulfone additive weight percentage, there is data that shows the resistance increase when the amount is above the upper limit (comparative example 6), but there is no data provided to show results of the resistance increase when the amount is below the lower limit. Therefore, the unexpected results cannot be concluded pertaining to the two aforementioned features. Additionally, based on Table A, the electrolyte solution amount appears to have an effect on the resistance increase, however, this feature is not included within the scope of the claims. Regarding the CNT length, the applicant states that the Office Action’s reliance on Titanium Metals is misplaced and the claimed CNT length range is not close to Koseki’s range.
Applicant is encouraged to set up an interview to discussed the data needed to overcome this rejection with unexpected results.
Applicant states that the cited art broadly teaches CNT content ranges without recognizing the synergistic effect achieved when the claimed sub-range is paired with the distinct CNT length and sulfone additive concentration.
Examiner responds by stating that the combination of references teach the CNT length and sulfone additive concentration limitations as claimed.
Regarding the specific weight percentage of the butadiene sulfone of claim 5, claim 5 does not include a limitation for the specific weight percentage in the claim.
Regarding claims 8-10, the art of record teaches the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claims 6-7, the combination of references teach the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claims 11-12, the combination of references teach the limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights