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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/04/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claim 1 amended to include the subject matter of previously presented claims 4 and 13
Claims 14 and 15 amended to depend on claim 1, among other slight changes
Claims 3, 4, and 13 cancelled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, by amending the claim to include the subject matter of previously presented claims 4 and 13, and removing Li6CoO4 as an option as the positive lithium supplementing agent as well as sulfoxide as an option for the sulfur of the electrolyte, the amended claim 1 overcomes the previously applied prior art as it stands. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Serizawa (US 20210210785 A1), which teaches a positive lithium supplementing agent and sulfur material in an electrolyte that meets the limitations of amended claim 1. Thus, when combined with Kim, all of the new limitations of claim 1 are met, and there is currently considered to be no allowable subject matter present in the claim. Regarding dependent claims 5-11, 14, 16-20, since no argument is presented other than their dependency on claim 1, the rejections remain in place and unchanged, other than now further depending on Serizawa. Due to the amendments made, Claim 15 is now rejected in view of Serizawa and further in view of Uhm (US 20160149194 A1), which teaches a positive lithium supplementing agent that meets the limitations of the amended claim.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 regarding the rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, examiner believes that the previously applied logic of optimizing the amount of the irreversible compensating additive—in this case, the positive lithium supplementing agent—would lead to the discovery of the same results as depicted in the instant invention, without needing to specifically note the ratio of the positive supplementing agent and the sulfide within the electrolyte. Given that the sulfide is present in the electrolyte, as taught by Kim modified by Serizawa, by optimizing the amount of positive lithium supplementing agent, the optimum workable range would be achieved and the benefits described in the instant specification would be achieved. Therefore, the rejections for claims 2 and 12 remain in place and unchanged, other than now further depending on Serizawa.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10-11, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230361278 A1) in view of Serizawa (US 20210210785 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches all of the following elements:
A secondary battery, comprising a positive electrode plate and an electrolytic solution, (“According to the ninth embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a lithium ion secondary battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, an insulating separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte,” Kim [0020])
wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive current collector and a positive film layer, (“According to the first embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided a positive electrode for a secondary battery, which includes a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector,” Kim [0010])
the positive film layer comprises a positive lithium supplementing agent, (“According to the second embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided the positive electrode for a secondary battery as defined in the first embodiment, wherein the sacrificial positive electrode material in the lower layer includes at least one of Li6CoO4” Kim [0012])
Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 1:
and the positive lithium supplementing agent is selected from one or more of the group consisting of Li5FeO4, Li3VO4, Li2MoO3, Li2RuO3, Li2MnO3, Li2MnO2, Li2NiO2, Li2CuO2, or Li2CuxNi1-xT’yO2, wherein - < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 0.1, and T’ is one or more selected from Zn, Sn, Mg, Fe, or Mn
and the electrolytic solution comprises a sulfide selected from one or more of the group consisting of SO2, CS2, sulfoether, sulfite, or thiocarbonate.
However, Serizawa teaches all of the elements of claim 1 that are not found in Kim. Specifically, Serizawa teaches a positive lithium supplementing agent and electrolytic solution comprising a sulfide which meet the limitations of amended claim 1:
and the positive lithium supplementing agent is selected from one or more of the group consisting of Li5FeO4, Li3VO4, Li2MoO3, Li2RuO3, Li2MnO3, Li2MnO2, Li2NiO2, Li2CuO2, or Li2CuxNi1-xT’yO2, wherein - < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 0.1, and T’ is one or more selected from Zn, Sn, Mg, Fe, or Mn (“Examples of the positive electrode active materials other than the above include lithium manganate having a layered structure or a spinel structure such as … Li2MnO3” Serizawa [0054])
and the electrolytic solution comprises a sulfide selected from one or more of the group consisting of SO2, CS2, sulfoether, sulfite, or thiocarbonate. (“The electrolyte solution comprises a solvent, a supporting salt and an additive.” Serizawa [0013] and “Other additives may be used in combination with the multifunctional monomer comprising two or more epoxy groups. Other additives are not particularly limited, and conventional additives used in an electrolytic solution may be used. Examples of other additives include … sulfites, such as ethylene sulfite (ES), vinyl ethylene sulfite, butylene sulfite, dimethyl sulfite, and diethyl sulfite,” Serizawa [0019])
Serizawa is considered to be analogous to Kim because they are both within the same field of lithium secondary batteries with an electrolyte comprising a sulfide material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Kim to substitute the positive lithium supplementing agent from Li6CoO4 to Li2MnO3, and to substitute the sulfide in the electrolyte from a sulfoxide to a sulfite, as these would both be simple substitutions of one commonly known material in the art for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kim additionally teaches all of the following elements:
The secondary battery according to claim 1. wherein a mass percent of the positive lithium supplementing agent in the positive film layer is 0.1% ≤ W1 ≤ 10%. (“First, a positive electrode active material (LiNi0.89Co0.07Mn0.4Al0.01O2), a binder (PVDF), a conductive material (Bundle carbon CNT) and a sacrificial positive electrode material (Li6CoO4) were introduced to NMP at a weight ratio of 96.65:1.34:0.84:1.17” Kim [0102]. In this case, the mass % of Li6CoO4 in the film layer is 1.17%, which anticipates the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kim additionally teaches all of the following elements:
A battery module. comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1. (“In yet another aspect of the present disclosure, there are provided a battery module which includes the battery including the electrode assembly as a unit cell, a battery pack including the battery module,” Kim [0100])
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 10, as shown above. Kim additionally teaches all of the following elements:
A battery pack. comprising the battery module according to claim 10. (“In yet another aspect of the present disclosure, there are provided a battery module which includes the battery including the electrode assembly as a unit cell, a battery pack including the battery module,” Kim [0100])
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 14:
The secondary battery according to claim 1. wherein the sulfide is one or more selected from SO2 CS2, dimethyl sulfide. ethylene sulfite, or thiocarbonate.
However, Serizawa teaches all of the elements of claim 14 that are not found in Kim:
The secondary battery according to claim 1. wherein the sulfide is one or more selected from SO2 CS2, dimethyl sulfide. ethylene sulfite, or thiocarbonate. (“The electrolyte solution comprises a solvent, a supporting salt and an additive.” Serizawa [0013] and “Other additives may be used in combination with the multifunctional monomer comprising two or more epoxy groups. Other additives are not particularly limited, and conventional additives used in an electrolytic solution may be used. Examples of other additives include … sulfites, such as ethylene sulfite (ES), vinyl ethylene sulfite, butylene sulfite, dimethyl sulfite, and diethyl sulfite,” Serizawa [0019])
No further modification/motivation required as the modification to meet amended claim 1 would meet the limitations of claim 14 as well, specifically, if ethylene sulfite were chosen as the sulfide.
Regarding claim 17, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 6, as shown above. Kim additionally teaches all of the following elements:
The secondary battery according to claim 6. wherein the mass percent of the positive lithium supplementing agent in the positive film layer is 1% ≤ W1 ≤ 5%. (“First, a positive electrode active material (LiNi0.89Co0.07Mn0.4Al0.01O2), a binder (PVDF), a conductive material (Bundle carbon CNT) and a sacrificial positive electrode material (Li6CoO4) were introduced to NMP at a weight ratio of 96.65:1.34:0.84:1.17” Kim [0102]. In this case, the mass % of Li6CoO4 in the film layer is 1.17%, which anticipates the claimed range.)
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230361278 A1) in view of Serizawa (US 20210210785 A1) and further in view of Lee (US 20200083525 A1).
Regarding the amendments to claim 1: for the rejections of claims 2 and 12, the positive supplementing agent of Kim, Li6CoO4, is substituted with Li2MnO3 in order to meet the limitations of amended claim 1. However, since both are positive lithium supplementing agents, the arguments used for the rejections of claims 2 and 12 remain in place, as only a simple substitution of one positive supplementing agent of another is required and the reasoning of this being a result-effective variable, as taught by Lee, remains sound.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 2:
The secondary battery according to claim 1. wherein a molar ratio A of the sulfide to the positive lithium supplementing agent satisfies 0.01 ≤ A ≤ 10.
However, Lee teaches the use of Li6CoO4 as a result effective variable, which can be adjusted in order to optimize the converting of the desorbed lithium ions caused by the initial charging of the lithium secondary battery into an irreversible state so that the lithium ions are not occluded (“The irreversible compensating additive desorbs lithium ions upon initial charging of the lithium secondary battery to supply the lithium ions to the single layer of an anode current collector, and the irreversible compensating additive in which the lithium ions have been desorbed may be converted into an irreversible state so that the lithium ions are not occluded.” Lee [0016] and “The irreversible compensating additive may be contained in an amount of 1 to 50 wt % based on a total weight of the cathode mixture.” Lee [0018]) The fact that Li6CoO4, the lithium supplementing agent, is taught to be a result effective variable means that would be obvious to optimize the ratio/quantity present in order to get the best results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a molar ratio of between 0.01 and 10 between the sulfide and the lithium supplementing agent because it has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Lee and Kim are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of using lithium supplementing agents, specifically Li6CoO4, as additives in positive electrode materials for secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim by optimizing the amount/ratio of supplementing agent in order to achieve the best results, as it is shown to be a result effective variable.
The same reasoning is used for the rejection of claim 12 below, and no further modifications or motivation is required.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 12:
The secondary battery according to claim 2. wherein the molar ratio A of the sulfide to the positive lithium supplementing agent satisfies: 0.05 ≤ A ≤ 5
However, Lee teaches the use of Li6CoO4 as a result effective variable, which can be adjusted in order to optimize the converting of the desorbed lithium ions caused by the initial charging of the lithium secondary battery into an irreversible state so that the lithium ions are not occluded (“The irreversible compensating additive desorbs lithium ions upon initial charging of the lithium secondary battery to supply the lithium ions to the single layer of an anode current collector, and the irreversible compensating additive in which the lithium ions have been desorbed may be converted into an irreversible state so that the lithium ions are not occluded.” Lee [0016] and “The irreversible compensating additive may be contained in an amount of 1 to 50 wt % based on a total weight of the cathode mixture.” Lee [0018]) The fact that Li6CoO4, the lithium supplementing agent, is taught to be a result effective variable means that would be obvious to optimize the ratio/quantity present in order to get the best results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a molar ratio of between 0.01 and 10 between the sulfide and the lithium supplementing agent because it has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230361278 A1) in view of Serizawa (US 20210210785 A1) and further in view of Hua (US 20240170649 A1)
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 5:
The secondary battery according to claim 1. wherein a specific surface area SI of the positive lithium supplementing agent is less than or equal to 2.0 m2/g.
However, Hua teaches all of the elements of claim 5 that are not found in Kim. Specifically, Hua teaches:
The secondary battery according to claim 1. wherein a specific surface area SI of the positive lithium supplementing agent is less than or equal to 2.0 m2/g. (“Preferably, the specific surface area B1 of the lithium supplementing material is 0.3-15 m.sup.2/g;” Hua [0018])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.3-15 m2/g for the specific surface area of a lithium supplementing material overlaps the claimed range of 2 m2/g or less for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Hua and Kim are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of using a lithium supplementing agent in the positive electrode of a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium supplementing agent of Kim to have the same specific surface area of Hua in order to optimize the effect of the lithium supplementing agent (“This is mainly because the lithium supplementing effect is affected by a variety of factors, the specific surface area of the lithium supplementing material,” Hua [0076]) which would improve the first cycle efficiency (“according to the design of the present disclosure, by means of adding the lithium supplementing material, the conductive agent, the binder and the dispersing agent, a better dispersion effect may be achieved, and after the lithium supplementing slurry is coated on the positive electrode coating, the obtained positive electrode plate is lower in impedance and more excellent in lithium supplementing effect, such that the first cycle efficiency may be effectively improved,” Hua [0077]). These changes would be obvious as they are clearly known in the art and therefore one skilled in the art would understand that by optimizing the specific surface area of the material the properties would be improved.
No further modifications or motivation would be required to meet the additional limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 5, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 16:
The secondary battery according to claim 5. wherein the specific surface area SI of the positive lithium supplementing agent ranges from 0.4 m2/g to 1.2 m2/g.
However, Hua teaches all of the elements of claim 16 that are not found in Kim. Specifically, Hua teaches:
The secondary battery according to claim 5. wherein the specific surface area SI of the positive lithium supplementing agent ranges from 0.4 m2/g to 1.2 m2/g. (“Preferably, the specific surface area B1 of the lithium supplementing material is 0.3-15 m.sup.2/g;” Hua [0018])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.3-15 m2/g for the specific surface area of a lithium supplementing material encompasses the claimed range of 0.4-1.2 m2/g for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230361278 A1) in view of Serizawa (US 20210210785 A1) and further in view of Tang (US 20180342758 A1)
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 7:
The secondary battery according to claim 1. wherein a mass percent of the sulfide in the electrolytic solution is 0.1% ≤ W2 ≤ 10%.
However, Tang teaches all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Kim. Specifically, Tang teaches:
The secondary battery according to claim 1. wherein a mass percent of the sulfide in the electrolytic solution is 0.1% ≤ W2 ≤ 10%. (Tang table 7 teaches the use of dimethyl sulfoxide as an electrolyte additive with a weight % of 5, which anticipates the claimed range.)
Kim and Tang are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries containing sulfide additives in the electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Kim to include the specific mass percent of sulfide additive of Tang in order to form a stable membrane so that the current collector is not damaged when reacting as an active material (“The additive added in the electrolyte can form a stable solid electrolyte salt membrane on the surface of the negative current collector, so that the negative current collector is not damaged when reacting as an active material and can maintain its function and shape and increase the number of times of cycles of the battery.” Tang [0039]). While Tang speaks on specific the benefit regarding a negative electrode, it would accomplish the same results for a positive electrode and one skilled in the art would understand this. Table 7 of Tang shows that the usage of 5% by mass of dimethyl sulfoxide provides benefits in both the number of cycles before capacity decays to 90% and the energy density of the battery.
No further modification or motivation would be required to meet the additional elements of claim 18.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 7, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 18:
The secondary battery according to claim 7. wherein the mass percent of the sulfide in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% ≤ W2 ≤ 5%
However, Tang teaches all of the elements of claim 18 that are not found in Kim. Specifically, Tang teaches:
The secondary battery according to claim 7. wherein the mass percent of the sulfide in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% ≤ W2 ≤ 5% (Tang table 7 teaches the use of dimethyl sulfoxide as an electrolyte additive with a weight % of 5, which anticipates the claimed range.)
Claim(s) 8-9, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230361278 A1) in view of Serizawa (US 20210210785 A1) and further in view of Nakazawa (US 20160013517 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 8:
The secondary battery according to claim1, wherein the electrolytic solution further comprises fluorosulfonate.
However, Nakazawa teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Kim. Specifically, Nakazawa teaches:
The secondary battery according to claim1, wherein the electrolytic solution further comprises fluorosulfonate. (“The nonaqueous electrolyte solution of the present invention may contain a fluorosulfonate as well as an electrolyte and a nonaqueous solvent.” Nakazawa [0051])
Nazakawa and Kim are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Kim to include the fluorosulfonate additive of Nakazawa in the range taught by Nakazawa in order to improve cycle characteristics while avoiding possible disadvantages (“When the concentration [of fluorosulfonate] is within the above range, it is likely that the resultant nonaqueous electrolyte battery exhibits a satisfactory effect to improve the cycle characteristics, and that the battery avoids a disadvantage in that the high-temperature storage characteristics become poor to increase the amount of the gas generated, lowering the discharge capacity maintaining ratio or causing battery expansion.” Nakazawa [0057]). This modification would be desirable as improving cycle characteristics without any disadvantages would clearly improve battery performance as a whole.
No further modification or motivation would be needed to meet the limitations of claims 9, 19, and 20, as all that is required is the fluorosulfonate and mass percentage of fluorosulfonate taught by Nakazawa.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 9:
The secondary battery according to claim 8. wherein a mass percent W3 of the fluorosulfonate in the electrolytic solution is less than or equal to 5%.
However, Nakazawa teaches all of the elements of claim 9 that are not found in Kim. Specifically, Nakazawa teaches:
The secondary battery according to claim 8. wherein a mass percent W3 of the fluorosulfonate in the electrolytic solution is less than or equal to 5%. (“the concentration of the fluorosulfonate contained in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution (100% by mass) is generally 0.001% by mass or more, preferably 0.01% by mass or more, more preferably 0.1% by mass or more, and is generally 10% by mass or less, preferably 5% by mass or less, more preferably 3% by mass or less, further preferably 2% by mass or less, most preferably 1% by mass or less.” Nakazawa [0057])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01% by mass or more and 10% or less of a fluorosulfonate electrolyte additive encompasses the claimed range of 5% or less for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 19:
The secondary battery according to claim 8 . wherein the fluorosulfonate is one or more selected from lithium fluorosulfonate, sodiumfluorosulfonate. or potassium fluorosulfonate.
However, Nakazawa teaches all of the elements of claim 19 that are not found in Kim. Specifically, Nakazawa teaches:
The secondary battery according to claim 8 . wherein the fluorosulfonate is one or more selected from lithium fluorosulfonate, sodiumfluorosulfonate. or potassium fluorosulfonate. (“Specific examples of fluorosulfonates include lithium fluorosulfonate, sodium fluorosulfonate, potassium fluorosulfonate, rubidium fluorosulfonate, and cesium fluorosulfonate, and preferred is lithium fluorosulfonate.” Nakazawa [0056])
Regarding claim 20, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Kim is silent on the following elements of claim 20:
The secondary battery according to claim 9. wherein the mass percent W3 of the fluorosulfonate in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% ≤ W3 ≤ 3%
However, Nakazawa teaches all of the elements of claim 20 that are not found in Kim. Specifically, Nakazawa teaches:
The secondary battery according to claim 9. wherein the mass percent W3 of the fluorosulfonate in the electrolytic solution is 0.5% ≤ W3 ≤ 3% (“the concentration of the fluorosulfonate contained in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution (100% by mass) is generally 0.001% by mass or more, preferably 0.01% by mass or more, more preferably 0.1% by mass or more, and is generally 10% by mass or less, preferably 5% by mass or less, more preferably 3% by mass or less, further preferably 2% by mass or less, most preferably 1% by mass or less.” Nakazawa [0057])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.01% by mass or more and 10% or less of a fluorosulfonate electrolyte additive encompasses the claimed range of 0.05% or more and 3% or less for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20230361278 A1) in view of Serizawa (US 20210210785 A1) and further in view of Uhm (US 20160149194 A1)
Regarding claim 15, modified Kim teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Kim and Serizawa are silent on the following elements of claim 15:
The secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the positive lithium supplementing agent comprises one or more of the group consisting of Li2NiO2, Li2CuO2, Li5FeO4, or Li2CuxNi1-xT’yO2, wherein 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 0.1, and T’ is one or more selected from Zn, Sn, Mg, Fe, or Mn,
However, Uhm teaches all of the elements of claim 15 that are not found in Kim or Serizawa. Specifically, Uhm teaches Li2CuO2 as a positive electrode active material (i.e., positive lithium supplementing agent).
The secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the positive lithium supplementing agent comprises one or more of the group consisting of Li2NiO2, Li2CuO2, Li5FeO4, or Li2CuxNi1-xT’yO2, wherein 0 < x < 1, 0 ≤ y < 0.1, and T’ is one or more selected from Zn, Sn, Mg, Fe, or Mn, (“The positive electrode active material may include, other than a lithium transition metal oxide represented by Formula 1 or 2 below, … lithium copper oxide (Li2CuO2);” Uhm [0033])
Uhm is considered to be analogous to Kim because it is within the same field of a lithium secondary battery containing a positive lithium supplementing agent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to substitute the positive lithium supplementing agent with the positive lithium supplementing agent of Uhm, Li2CuO2, as this is a material known in the art and would only require the simple substitution of one known material for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
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 BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752