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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on July 17, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 3 are amended, resulting in claims 1-6 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 30, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito, et al. (US 2021/0074994 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 5, Ito teaches a lithium secondary battery with a positive electrode sheet formed by applying a positive electrode paste onto an electrode current collector and pressing to a predetermined thickness (¶ [0076], Ln. 1-7). The positive electrode paste includes positive electrode active material particles, a conductive agent, and a first binder (¶ [0077], Ln. 1-4). Ito teaches a first example of a positive electrode paste containing LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 as the positive electrode active material, acetylene black as the conductive agent, and polyvinylidene fluoride as the binder (¶ [0078], Ln. 1-4). The example does not include carbon nanotubes. The polyvinylidene fluoride has a molecular weight of 600,000 and is included in a content of 1.2-2.4% by weight with respect to the positive electrode active layer, within the claimed range of 0.01-10% (¶ [0079], Ln. 1-7). The secondary battery further includes a negative electrode sheet including a negative electrode paste and negative electrode current collector (¶ [0084], Ln. 1-3). Ito teaches that a wound electrode assembly is prepared, enclosed in case, and the case is filled with a non-aqueous electrolyte solution containing LiFP6 (fluorine-containing salt), ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate (¶ [0087], Ln. 8-12).
Ito does not expressly teach a specific embodiment including lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte. Ito does teach that an additive agent, such as a fluorophosphate salt and preferably difluorophosphate, may be added to the non-aqueous electrolyte in order to improve input-output characteristics, improve cycle performance, and improve initial charge-discharge efficiency (¶ [0053], Ln. 1-11).
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 electrolyte of the first battery taught by Ito to include lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte containing LiFP6, ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include an additive agent based on the teachings of Ito that an additive agent may be added to the electrolyte to improve the battery characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte containing LiFP6, ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate of the first embodiment taught by Ito in order to improve input-output characteristics, improve cycle performance, and improve initial charge-discharge efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Ito teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the concentration of the additive agent should be set to 0.005 mol/L to 0.1 mol/L (¶ [0053], Ln. 13-15). In the case of lithium difluorophosphate, that results in a content of approximately 0.04-0.9% additive by weight, within the claimed range of 0.01-5%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 4, Ito teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that natural graphite is used as the negative electrode active material (¶ [0085], Ln. 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Ito teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above and further teaches that the battery is charged to 4V (¶ [0088], Ln. 5-8).
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendment to claim 1 requiring that the positive electrode mix layer does not include carbon nanotubes, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Baek, et al. (WO 2019/164343 A1) is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785