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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 02/04/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 5-12 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0251778) in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. 2021/0013546) and further in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No. US 20220102699 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a lithium secondary battery (1, Fig. 5, see [0029], see [0068] details secondary battery) comprising: a positive electrode (3, Fig. 5, [0029]) comprising a positive electrode active material (see [0072]), a negative electrode (2, Fig. 5, [0029]) comprising a negative electrode active material (see [0082]), a separator (4, Fig. 5, [0029]) interposed between (see Fig. 5, separator 4 is between positive electrode 3 and negative electrode 2) the positive electrode (3, Fig. 5, [0029]) and the negative electrode (2, Fig. 5, [0029]), and an electrolyte solution (see [0068]), wherein the electrolyte solution (see [0068]) comprises a lithium salt (see [0060]), a non-aqueous organic solvent (see [0060]), and a difluorophosphite compound (see [0038], Formula 1, see [0052] it is called a difluorophosphate but structurally the same as a difluorophosphite) represented by the following Chemical Formula 1: ##STR00015## (Compound 1, see [0050] the compound represented by Formula 1 may be compound 1) wherein A is C2-C10 alkylene (C2 alkylene, see Compound 1, [0050]), haloC2-C10 alkylene, or C3-C8 cycloalkylene; R is hydrogen, cyano (cyano, see compound 1, [0050]), C1-C5 alkyl, or haloC1-C5 alkyl; and n is an integer of 0 to 3 (0, see compound 1, [0050]).
Choi fails to explicitly teach in the embodiment of Fig. 5 that the negative electrode active material comprises a silicon-based oxide. However, in a different embodiment Choi teaches that a negative electrode active material (see [0082]) comprises a silicon-based oxide (see [0086]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the negative electrode active material be comprised of a silicon-based oxide because Choi teaches it is known in the art to use SiOx wherein (0<x<2) (see [0085]) as a negative electrode active material (see [0082]).
Choi fails to teach wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a mixture of a silicon-based oxide and graphite; and wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate compound.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Kim teaches a lithium secondary battery (rechargeable lithium battery, see [0036]) with an electrolyte solution (see [0036]) that comprises a fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate compound (see [0036], and see [0037] fluorinated ethylene carbonate) added in 5-10 wt % (5-10 wt%, see [0038]) based on the total weight of the electrolyte (see [0038]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi to add a fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate compound in 5-10 wt % with respect to the total weight of the electrolyte as taught by Kim for the benefit of more effectively suppressing the battery resistance and giving the rechargeable lithium battery excellent cycle life characteristics (see [0038] of Kim). Further Choi teaches wherein that organic solvent may include a mixture of solvents including fluoroethylene carbonate (see [0066] of Choi wherein at least one of the organic solvents may be used, including FEC).
Choi in view of Kim fails to teach wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a mixture of a silicon-based oxide and graphite.
However, Lee teaches wherein the negative electrode active material (negative electrode active material, see [0119]) comprises a mixture of a silicon-based oxide (silicon oxide, see [0119]) and graphite (artificial graphite, see [0119]), and wherein the silicon-based oxide (silicon oxide, see [0119]) and the graphite artificial graphite, see [0119]) are included at a weight ratio of 1:9 (1:9, see [0119] where graphite and silicon oxide are in a weight ratio of 9:1) to 3:7.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi in view of Kim such that the negative electrode active material is a mixture of silicon based oxide and graphite in a weight ratio of 1:9 as taught by Lee to achieve improved cycle characteristics (see [0011] of Lee). Further, Choi in view of Kim teaches wherein the negative electrode active material may comprise a mix of silicon oxide and graphite (see [0083] where the negative active material is at least one of a non-transitional metal oxide and a carbonaceous material therefore could be both, see [0086] where the non-transition metal oxide is silicon oxide, see [[0087] where the carbonaceous material is graphite).
Regarding claim 3, Choi in view Kim and further in view of Lee teaches wherein the silicon-based oxide (SiO.sub.x (0<x<2), see [0086], see modifications above) and the graphite (see modification of Choi in view of Kim above) are included at a weight ratio of 1:9 (1:9, see [0119] of Lee, see modifications above) to 3:7.
Regarding claim 6, Choi in view of Kim and further in view of Lee teaches wherein the difluorophosphite compound (see [0038], Formula 1, see [0052] it is called a difluorophosphate but structurally the same as a difluorophosphite) is included at 0.1 to 5 wt % (see [0061]) with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte solution (see [0068], further see [0061]). See modification of Choi above.
Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Kim and further in view of Lee teaches wherein the fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate compound (fluorinated ethylene carbonate, see modification of Choi above) is represented by the following Chemical Formula 3: ##STR00016## (fluorinated ethylene carbonate, see modification of Choi above) wherein R.sub.11 is fluoro (fluoro, fluorinated ethylene carbonate, see modification of Choi above) or fluoroC1-C4 alkyl; and R.sub.12 to R.sub.14 are independently of one another hydrogen (hydrogen, fluorinated ethylene carbonate, see modification of Choi above), fluoro, C1-C4 alkyl, haloC1-C4 alkyl, or C2-C4 alkenyl.
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Kim teaches wherein in Chemical Formula 3 (fluorinated ethylene carbonate, see modification of Choi above), R.sub.11 is fluoro (fluoro, fluorinated ethylene carbonate, see modification of Choi above); and R.sub.12 to R.sub.14 are independently of one another hydrogen (hydrogen, fluorinated ethylene carbonate, see modification of Choi above), fluoro, or C1-C4 alkyl.
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Kim and further in view of Lee teaches wherein the fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate compound (fluorinated ethylene carbonate, see modification of Choi above) is included at 0.1 to 10 wt % (5-10 wt%, see modification of Choi above) with respect to the total weight of the electrolyte solution (see modification of Choi above).
Regarding claim 10, Choi in view of Kim and further in view of Lee fails to teach wherein the positive electrode active material comprises Li.sub.x1(Ni.sub.a1Co.sub.b1Mn.sub.c1)O.sub.2 (0.5<x1<1.3, 0<a1<1, 0<b1<1, 0<c1<1, a1+b1+c1=1), Li.sub.x2(Ni.sub.a2Co.sub.b2Mn.sub.c2)O.sub.4 (0.5<x2<1.3, 0<a2<2, 0<b2<2, 0<c2<2, a2+b2+c2=2), or a mixture thereof.
However, Choi teaches that the positive electrode active material (see [0072]) comprises Li.sub.x1(Ni.sub.a1Co.sub.b1Mn.sub.c1)O.sub.2 (see [0075] LiNi.sub.1-x-yCo.sub.xMn.sub.yO.sub.2 wherein 0≤x≤0.5 and 0≤y≤0.5, x1=1, 0≤a1≤1, 0≤b1≤0.5, 0≤c1≤0.5, a1+b1+c1=1 because a1=1-b1-c1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi in view of Kim in view of Lee such that the range of a1, b1, and c1 as stays in the range of 0<a1<1, 0<b1<0.5, 0<c1<0.5 as further taught by Choi as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 11, Choi in view of Kim and further in view of Lee teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (see [0072]) is Li.sub.x1(Ni.sub.a1Co.sub.b1Mn.sub.c1)O.sub.2 (see [0075] LiNi.sub.1-x-yCo.sub.xMn.sub.yO.sub.2 (wherein 0≤x≤0.5 and 0≤y≤0.5)) wherein 0.95≤x1≤1.10 (see [0075], x1=1), and a1+b1+c1=1 (see [0075], a1=1-b1-c1), but fails to teach 0.5≤a1<0.99. However, Choi teaches the encompassing range of 0≤a1≤1 (see [0075]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the range of a1 as taught by Choi in view of Kim and further in view of Lee to be 0.5≤a1<0.99 as taught by the encompassing range of Choi as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 12, Choi in view of Kim and further in view of Lee teaches the silicon-based oxide (see [0086]) is represented by SiO.sub.x (see [0086]) wherein x is a real number satisfying 0<x≤2 (0<x<2, see [0086]).
5. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0251778) in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. 2021/0013546) in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No. US 20220102699 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (Pub. No. KR 2019/0101876).
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Kim fails and further in view of Lee fails to teach wherein the difluorophosphite compound of Chemical Formula 1 is represented by the following Chemical Formula 2:
R.sub.1—OPF.sub.2 [Chemical Formula 2] wherein R.sub.1 is C3-C8 alkyl.
However, Cho teaches wherein the difluorophosphite compound (see [64]) is represented by the following Chemical Formula 2:
R.sub.1—OPF.sub.2 (Formula 2, see [65]) [Chemical Formula 2] wherein R.sub.1 is C3-C8 alkyl (see [74], R is hydrogen, and n is an integer of 3-8 which is equivalent to R.sub.1 being C3-C8 alkyl).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choi in view of Kim and further in view of Lee to substitute the difluorophosphite compound as taught by Choi in view of Kim in view of Lee for the difluorophosphite compound represented by Formula 2 as taught by Cho as an art effective equivalent electrolyte additive for improving high temperature stability and preventing deterioration characteristics.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the present invention provides an unexpected result of improved cycle life characteristics, high temperature stability, and low temperature performance without capacity degradation even under high voltage conditions by using the specific combination of a negative electrode employing a specific negative electrode active material and an electrolyte solution having a specific composition the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding applicants’ argument that Choi merely discloses the negative electrode active material may include both SiOx and graphite, and said disclosure amounts to nothing more that a listing negative electrode active materials used in the art, and Choi only provides specific examples utilizing graphite and therefore does teach an effect of utilizing a mixture of graphite with another active material. This argument is moot as Choi is not solely relied upon to teach a mixture of silicon based active material and graphite, and a rejection is not based on the individual references, but is instead based on all references combined.
Regarding applicants’ argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to obviously derive or predict a combination of aspects (i) and (ii) by a combination of Choi and Kim. This argument is moot as the rejection is not based on the combination of Choi in view of Kim alone and further relies on Lee to teach the specific combination of active materials of silicon based oxide and graphite mixed together and the rejection is not based on each reference individually, but rather the combination of references.
Regarding applicants’ argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to obviously derive or predict a combination of aspects (i) and (ii) by a combination of Choi and Kim and Matsubara. This argument is moot as the rejection does not rely on the same combination of references as applied in the previous Final-Rejection. Further, the applicant cannot determine what is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding applicants’ arguments that the results provided in Table A the excellent battery performance, including cycle life characteristics, high-temperature stability, and storage stability is attributable not to the combination of (i) and (ii) and could not have been predicted by the combination of Choi, Kim, Cho, and Matsubara. The argument is moot as the rejection of record does not rely on the same combination of references previously applied.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723