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 .
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.
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 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 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2020-0061293 A (refer to equivalent US 2021/0242502 for paragraph numbers), both references of which were cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated November 30, 2022, and further in view of CN 106784770 A, of which a complete copy of the Chinese document with an English abstract was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated November 4, 2024, and with a machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding independent claim 1, KR ‘293 (US ‘502) discloses a lithium secondary battery (abstract; and paragraphs [0007]-[0012], [0019]-[0051], [0058]-[0069], and [0072]-[0081]; and claims 1, 5, and 11), in which the lithium secondary battery comprises the following components:
a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte,
wherein the negative electrode comprises a lithium-based metal, of which a lithium-magnesium (Li-Mg) alloy is one of many options listed as a lithium-based alloy (see paragraphs [0041] and [0062] of US ‘502), and
wherein the electrolyte comprises a furan-based solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (see paragraphs [0019]-[0021], [0025], and [0032] of US ‘502).
Although several elements are among the group of which the lithium-based alloy would be formed (see paragraphs [0041] and [0062] of US ‘502), one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selection of magnesium (Mg) as one of the elements to be used in combination with lithium (Li) to form a lithium-magnesium (Li-Mg) alloy would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success of forming an efficient lithium secondary battery with reduced lithium dendrite formation, thus improving lifetime characteristics (see paragraph [0012] of US ‘502).
In addition, KR ‘293 (US ‘502) discloses/suggests the features of independent claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the Li-Mg alloy is a solid solution containing Mg in an amount of between 0 to 90 wt.%. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have provided the Li-Mg alloy as a solid solution that covers the nearly complete range of Mg in the lithium-based alloy of between 0 to 90 wt.%, for the purpose of forming an efficient lithium secondary battery with reduced lithium dendrite formation, thus improving lifetime characteristics (see paragraph [0012] of US ‘502). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
KR ‘293 (US ‘502) does not disclose the new limitation “in which Mg atoms are uniformly distributed in Li atoms without forming a separate intermetallic compound”.
However, CN ‘770 discloses a Li-Mg alloy of a secondary battery (abstract; pages 2 and 3 of translation under the heading “invention contents”; and Embodiment 1), in which the Li-Mg alloy is a magnesium lithium solid solution that is formed (in the four steps under Embodiment 1) of a lithium-magnesium alloy with uniform magnesium distribution in a surface thereof without forming a separate intermetallic compound (see steps 1 and 4 of Embodiment 1), for the purpose of obtaining a secondary battery having high specific capacity and cycle stability (see abstract; and the 3rd full paragraph on page 3 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to modify the Li-Mg alloy solid solution of the lithium secondary battery, as disclosed by KR ‘293 (US ‘502), by uniformly distributing Mg atoms in Li atoms without forming a separate intermetallic compound, as taught by CN ‘770, in order to obtain a secondary battery having high specific capacity and cycle stability (CN ‘770; abstract; and the 3rd full paragraph on page 3 of translation).
Regarding claim 3, KR ‘293 (US ‘502) discloses that the lithium-based metal (Li-Mg alloy) is in the form of a foil (see paragraph [0063] of US ‘502).
Regarding claim 4, KR ‘293 (US ‘502) discloses that a thickness of the negative electrode is between 3 and 500 µm, which almost completely covers the claimed range of between 0 and 200 µm (see paragraph [0061] of US ‘502).
Regarding claim 5, KR ‘293 (US ‘502) discloses that the furan-based solvent comprises one or more of furan and furan-based heterocyclic compounds set forth in paragraph [0025] of US ‘502.
Regarding claim 6, KR ‘293 (US ‘502) discloses that the lithium salt comprises one or more of LiCl, LiBr, LiI etc., as set forth in paragraph [0032] of US ‘502.
Regarding claim 7, KR ‘293 (US ‘502) discloses that the additive comprises one or more of lithium nitrate (LiNO3), potassium nitrate (KNO3), cesium nitrate (CsNO3) etc., as set forth in paragraph [0039] of US ‘502.
Regarding claim 8, KR ‘293 (US ‘502) discloses that the positive electrode comprises one or more of inorganic sulfur, an organic sulfur compound, and a carbon-sulfur polymer (see paragraph [0051] of US ‘502).
Regarding new claim 9, KR ‘293 (US ‘502) discloses that the furan-based solvent comprises one or more of furan and furan-based heterocyclic compounds set forth in paragraph [0025] of US ‘502, inclusive of 2-methylfuran (see the 3rd line of paragraph [0025)] and an ether-based solvent that includes dimethoxyethane (see the 5th line of paragraph [0035]).
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges the applicants’ amendment provided with the request for continued examination received by the USPTO on January 12, 2026. The amendment overcomes the prior objection to the abstract. Although the applicants’ amendment to independent claim 1 overcomes the prior 35 USC 103 rejection set forth in the final rejection mailed October 10, 2025, a new 35 USC 103 rejection is provided for all claims of record in view of KR 10-2020-0061293 A in combination with the new reference to CN 106784770 A. The applicants have added new claim 9. Claims 1 and 3-9 are currently under consideration in the application.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes a new secondary reference to CN 106784770 A, as also provided in the newly underlined portions of the above 35 USC 103 rejection, and thus does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 March 17, 2026