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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 8 is new.
Claims 1-7 are previously presented.
Claims 1-8 are considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application has specific differences from the cited references as follows:
LiFSI is not a sulfur source for the claimed film.
The claimed film contributes to enhanced battery characteristics.
Regarding applicant’s arguments, Inaba teaches an electrolyte solution comprising LiPF6, LiBF4 ([0153]) and preferably a sulfur-containing compound such as ethylene sulfite, 1,3-propane sultone, sulfolane, tetrahydrofuran sulfite, and sulfolene ([0029]). Newly cited Kawashima is relied upon for teaching one or more of cyclic disulfonic acid anhydrides, such as 1,2-ethanedisulfonic acid anhydride, included in a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0070]-[0076]; [0135]). Kawashima teaches that a protective film containing the cyclic disulfonic acid is formed on the surface of the cathode and thereby, even if a lithium compound providing a high capacity is used as a cathode active material, decomposition reaction of the electrolytic solution resulting from reactivity of the cathode is suppressed ([0073]-[0076]). Modified Inaba teaches a secondary battery where a positive active material is LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 and an electrolyte solution contains LiPF6 at 0.8 mol%, LiBF4 at 0.1 mol%, LiTFSI at 0.1 mol% and a cyclic disulfonic acid anhydride (Inaba [0055], [0099] example A42, A48-A52; Kawashima [0073]-[0076]). Modified Inaba teaches wherein both the sulfur containing component and the boron containing component form a coating on the positive electrode and further teaches LiPF6 present at a higher concentration than both the B containing component and the S containing component ([0099] example A42, A48-A52 [0153]; in the case where the boron containing component is LiBF4 the film would contain fluorine; Kawashima [0073]-[0076]). Modified Inaba teaches where a positive electrode active material is produced by a first firing step of firing at 450-650℃, and a second step of firing at 700-800℃ (Yanagihara [0061]; [0066]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the battery taught by modified Inaba would possess the claimed film and associated XPS surface analysis. Absent specific claimed features that result in the XPS surface analysis spectrum of claim 1, any differences between the instant application and the prior art are a result of something not claimed (see MPEP 2112.01). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (JP2009224097A), in view of Kawashima et al. (US 20120244410 A1), in further view of Yanagihara et al. (JP2012018827A) and Nishi et al. (JP2015046382A). Reference is made to previously enclosed translations.
Regarding claim 1, Inaba teaches a secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode including a lithium-nickel composite oxide; a negative electrode; and an electrolytic solution ([0055] “LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2”; [0030]; [0013]). Inaba teaches where a positive active material comprises LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 ([0055]) and an electrolyte solution comprises LiPF6, LiBF4 ([0153]) and preferably a sulfur-containing compound such as ethylene sulfite, 1,3-propane sultone, sulfolane, tetrahydrofuran sulfite, and sulfolene ([0029]). Inaba teaches that LiBF6 forms a protective coating on a positive electrode plate ([0153]; [0053] “positive electrode plate”) and the sulfur containing compound aids in forming a stable coating on the surface of the positive electrode [(0029]). Inaba teaches a film provided on a surface of the positive electrode active material layer, the film including at least boron and sulfur as constituent elements ([0153] LiBF4 coating; [0155]; [0157] “a coating made of decomposed products of the additive is formed on the surface of the positive electrode plate”; [0029]; electrolyte components form a coating on the positive electrode). Inaba further teaches where a positive active material is calcined at 950℃ during preparation ([0055]).
Inaba does not teach wherein the sulfur additive is, for example, a cyclic disulfonic acid anhydride, an alkynyl sulfonic acid, or both.
However, Kawashima teaches a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode including a lithium-nickel composite oxide, a negative electrode, an electrolytic solution, and a sulfur containing film on a surface of the positive electrode ([0070]-[0076]; [0034]-[0038]; abstract). Kawashima teaches one or more of cyclic disulfonic acid anhydrides, such as 1,2-ethanedisulfonic acid anhydride, included in the non-aqueous electrolyte ([0070]-[0076]; [0135]). Kawashima teaches that a protective film containing the cyclic disulfonic acid is formed on the surface of the cathode and thereby, even if a lithium compound providing a high capacity is used as a cathode active material, decomposition reaction of the electrolytic solution resulting from reactivity of the cathode is suppressed ([0073]-[0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the sulfur containing compound taught by Inaba with the sulfur containing compound taught by Kawashima.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the sulfur containing compound taught by Inaba with the sulfur containing compound taught by Kawashima to form a protective film on the cathode ([0073]).
Inaba does not teach wherein a positive active material is fired at a temperature of 650-800℃.
However, Yanagihara teaches a positive electrode active material comprised of lithium composite oxide particles having at least nickel and cobalt dissolved therein ([0015]; [0023]). Yanagihara teaches a method for producing a positive electrode active material including a first firing step of firing at 450-650℃, and a second step of firing at 700-800℃ ([0015]-[0016]; [0066]). Yanagihara teaches that a first firing should be conducted at a temperature in the range of 450-650℃ to prevent insufficient diffusion of the lithium compound or insufficient diffusion of the metal compound added ([0061]) and the second firing should be conducted at a temperature in the range of 700-800℃ to prevent poor crystallinity or a mixing of nickel atoms into the lithium crystal layer ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the preparation method of the positive active material taught by Inaba by using the first and second firing temperature as taught by Yanagihara.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the preparation method of the positive active material taught by Inaba by using the first and second firing temperature as taught by Yanagihara to prevent insufficient diffusion of the lithium compound or insufficient diffusion of the metal compound added and to prevent poor crystallinity or a mixing of nickel atoms into the lithium crystal layer ([0061]; [0066]).
Modified Inaba does not explicitly teach wherein a film is formed from the electrolytic solution due to stabilization during an initial-cycle charging and discharging of the secondary battery, the film further includes fluorine, and wherein a surface analysis of the positive electrode by the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy comprises an analysis of the film.
However, modified Inaba teaches that a film is formed from electrolyte additives and that the additive is decomposed and consumed in this process (Inaba [0154], [0157]; Kawashima [0073]). One of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect this to occur during an initial-cycle charging and discharging.
Further, in light of the instant specification ([0155], [0051], [0089]-[0096], Table 1; [0108]-[0110]; [0082]-[0088]) the battery taught by modified Inaba teaches all aspects of a battery according to the instant application. For example, modified Inaba teaches a secondary battery where a positive active material is LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 and an electrolyte solution contains LiPF6 at 0.8 mol%, LiBF4 at 0.1 mol%, LiTFSI at 0.1 mol% and a cyclic disulfonic acid anhydride (Inaba [0055], [0099] example A42, A48-A52; Kawashima [0073]-[0076]). Modified Inaba teaches wherein both the sulfur containing component and the boron containing component form a coating on the positive electrode and further teaches LiPF6 present at a higher concentration than both the B containing component and the S containing component ([0099] example A42, A48-A52 [0153]; in the case where the boron containing component is LiBF4 the film would contain fluorine; Kawashima [0073]-[0076]). Modified Inaba teaches where a positive electrode active material is produced by a first firing step of firing at 450-650℃, and a second step of firing at 700-800℃ (Yanagihara [0061]; [0066]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the battery taught by modified Inaba would possess a film further containing fluorine and a surface analysis of the positive electrode would comprise an analysis of the film. Absent specific claimed features that result in the film further including fluorine as a constituent element and a surface analysis of the positive electrode comprising an analysis of the film, any differences between the instant application and the prior art are a result of something not claimed (see MPEP 2112.01).
Modified Inaba does not teach wherein a first Ols spectrum, a second Ols spectrum, a Bls spectrum, a S2p spectrum, a Fls spectrum, and a Ni3p spectrum are detectable by a surface analysis of the positive electrode by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, the first Ols spectrum having a peak within a range of binding energy that is greater than or equal to 528 electron volts and less than or equal to 531 electron volts, the second Ols spectrum having a peak within a range of binding energy that is greater than 531 electron volts and less than or equal to 535 electron volts, a ratio of an intensity of the first Ols spectrum to an intensity of the second Ols spectrum is greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 0.8, a ratio of an intensity of the BIs spectrum to an intensity of the Ni3p spectrum is greater than or equal to 0.9 and less than or equal to 1.8, a ratio of an intensity of the S2p spectrum to the intensity of the Ni3p spectrum is greater than or equal to 0.4 and less than or equal to 1.2, and a ratio of an intensity of the FIs spectrum to the intensity of the Ni3p spectrum is greater than or equal to 8 and less than or equal to 13.
However, in light of the instant specification ([0155], [0051], [0089]-[0096], Table 1; [0108]-[0110]; [0082]-[0088]) the battery taught by modified Inaba teaches all aspects of a battery according to the instant application (see above). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the battery taught by Inaba would possess the XPS surface analysis spectrum as claimed. Absent specific claimed features that result in the XPS surface analysis spectrum of claim 1, any differences between the instant application and the prior art are a result of something not claimed (see MPEP 2112.01). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Further, Nishi supports this conclusion as Nishi teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode including the same lithium-nickel composite oxide as modified Inaba, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution ([0013]; [0033] “LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2”) where a positive electrode is stable when it meets conditions determined by XPS surface analysis ([0048]; [0050); namely, where a positive active material has two O1s peaks, one within a range where the binding energy E satisfies 531 eV≦ E≦ 535 eV and a second within a range where the binding energy E satisfies 529 eV≦E<531eV, where the spectral intensity of the peak within a range where the binding energy E satisfies 529 eV≦E<531eV is smaller than the spectral intensity of peak P1 ([0048]; [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Inaba teaches wherein the lithium-nickel composite oxide includes a compound represented by Formula (1) below, LiwNi(1-x-y-z)CoxM1yM2zO2 …(1) where M1 is Al, Mn, or both, M2 is at least one of elements belonging to groups 2 to 15 in a long period periodic table of elements excluding Ni, Co, Al, and Mn, w, x, y, and z 0.8 ≤w ≤1.2, 0 ≤ x ≤0.3, 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.1, 0≤ z≤ 0.1 ([0055] “LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2”; [0013])
Inaba does not explicitly teach that a composition of lithium differs depending on a charge and discharge state, and w is a value of a fully discharged state.
However, Nishi teaches that positive active materials have a lithium composition that differs depending on charge/discharge ([0030]-[0032]; [0033] “LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2”). Nishi teaches that a lithium subscript value is between 0.8-1.2 in a fully discharged state, for example, LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 ([0033]; [0030]-[0032]; see [0030]-[0033] of original document for correct formulas).
Therefore, since Nishi and Inaba teach the same compound (LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2) and Nishi teaches that a lithium subscript value is between 0.8-1.2 in a fully discharged state ([0033]; [0030]-[0032]), the compound taught by modified Inaba teaches the lithium-nickel composite oxide according to claim 3. Absent specific claimed features that result a composition of lithium differing depending on a charge and discharge state, any differences between the instant application and the prior art are a result of something not claimed (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 4, Inaba further teaches wherein the electrolytic solution includes a boron-containing compound, a sulfur-containing compound, and a fluorine-containing compound (Inaba [0099] Examples A42, A48-52; Kawashima [0073]-[0076], [0135]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Inaba teaches the secondary battery according to claim 4. Inaba teaches wherein the boron-containing compound includes a boron-containing lithium salt, the fluorine-containing compound includes a fluorine-containing lithium salt (Inaba [0099] LiBF4 and LiPF6), and the sulfur-containing compound includes a cyclic disulfonic acid anhydride (Kawashima [0073]-[0076]; [0135]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Inaba teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1. Inaba teaches wherein the secondary battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery ([0013]; [0020] “lithium-ion”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Inaba teaches the secondary battery according to claim 5. Modified Inaba further teaches wherein the sulfur-containing compound includes one or more of 1,3-propanedisulfonic anhydride (PSAH), 1,2- ethanedisulfonic anhydride (ESAH) (Kawashima [0073]-[0076]; [0135]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba et al. (JP2009224097A), in view of Kawashima et al. (US 20120244410 A1), in further view of Yanagihara et al. (JP2012018827A) and Nishi et al. (JP2015046382A), as applied above, in further view of Downie et al. (US20190036180A1). Reference is made to previously enclosed translations.
Regarding claim 6, modified Inaba teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1. Inaba teaches outer package member containing the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolytic solution ([0051]).
Modified Inaba does not teach an outer package member having flexibility.
However, Downie teaches a lithium-based electrochemical cell ([0030]) where the packaging can be a soft pack laminate ([0016]; [0052]; there is no additional structure associated with the claimed flexibility, therefore soft pack laminate meets the limitation of “having flexibility”; see [0017] of instant specification).
Various electrochemical cell packing, such as soft pack laminate casing is known in the art (Downie [0016]; [0052]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the outer packaging member taught by modified Inaba for a soft pack laminate casing as taught by Downie.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the outer packaging member taught by modified Inaba for a soft pack laminate casing as taught by Downie to achieve the predictable result of forming a housed electrochemical cell.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NEI HIROMICHI (JP 2017157327 A) teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte characterized by containing a boric acid compound, sulfonic acid salt, ester, or a sulfonic acid anhydride consisting of tetraboric acid, its salt, metaboric acid, or its salt (abstract). Reference is made to applicant provided translation. Cited on IDS filed 9/20/2022.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights