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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 7 and 12-17 have been amended, Claims 11 and 18-19 have been canceled and Claims 1, 3-10, 12-17 and 20-26 are pending.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 2 has been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed on 03/09/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-17 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the additive includes at least one of a first compound and a second compound in Lines 11-12. This language creates ambiguity as to whether the additive of claim 1 requires either a first compound or a second compound, or requires one first compound and one second compound. It is noted, for examination purposes an additive comprising a first and second compound was used as the limitation of Claim 1. However, appropriate correction is required for clarification.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and Claims 3-10, 12-17 and 20-26 ultimately depend from claim 1 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 3, 5-8, 9-10, 16-17, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 110400961 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Guo” in view of Tochio et al. (US 20220393165 A1), hereinafter “Tochio” and Hidaka et al. (US 20180294515 A1), hereinafter “Hidaka”. Guo, Tochio and Hidaka et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium battery material and electrolyte additives.
In regard to Claims 1, 3 and 17 Guo et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising an electrolyte including a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (Guo, Abstract]) and a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material and a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material (Guo, Paragraph [8]). Guo et al. also discloses, wherein the additive includes at least one of a first compound with specific examples of 1, 3, 6 hexane nitrile, succinonitrile, adiponitrile, methoxy acetyl nitrile which fall within the claimed groups (Guo, Example 4).
Further, Guo et al. discloses wherein the additive also includes at least one of a second compound and the second compound is a cyclic phosphazene with a specific example of pentafluoro ethoxy cyclotriphosphazene (Guo, Example 1) but is silent as to the second compound having R4 as a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group. However, the skilled artisan would be aware of variations in electrolyte additives to include compounds having R4 as a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group as evidenced by Hidaka et al. which discloses a beneficial electrolyte additive comprising pentafluoro(phenoxy)cyclotriphosphazene which has the benefit of contributing to an electrochemical device that is less likely to generate gas even in high-temperature storage and has high capacity retention even after high-temperature storage (Hidaka, [0057, 0194]) and which falls within the claimed constraints and explicitly within formula 3 and group 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide pentafluoro(phenoxy)cyclotriphosphazene as taught in Hidaka as the second compound of Guo et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hidak and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Guo et al. also discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide (Guo, Example 1) but is silent as to the specific composition of the cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide, for example wherein the cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide includes a lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1.
Tochio et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising an electrolyte including a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and a nitrile additive (Tochio, Paragraphs [0007,0058, 0062]) where the positive electrode active material includes a lithium transition metal composite oxide containing 85 mol % or more of Ni and 1 mol % or more and 15 mol % or less of Al (which is a common doping element), and having a total content of Ni, Al, and Mn of 99.9 mol % or more, with respect to a total number of moles of metal elements excluding Li as well as a specific example of LiNi0.92Al0.05Mn0.03O2, which falls within the boundaries set by the claimed formulas 1 and 1-1 (Tochio, [0007], Example 1).
In addition, when a material such as the LiNi0.92Al0.05Mn0.03O2 taught in Tochio is selected as the cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide there is a disclosed benefit of achieving a high electrode density while minimizing particle cracking (Tochio, Paragraphs [0006, 0023-0031]). The skilled artisan of Guo understands the requirement for the positive electrode active material to be a cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide in order to successfully combine with the electrolyte comprising the additives of Guo and would thus need to select an appropriate and beneficial material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a positive electrode active material comprising the cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide taught in Tochio to the rechargeable lithium battery disclosed in Guo, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Tochio, and as doing so would be nothing more than a variation of an active material for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 5, Guo in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1. Guo et al. also discloses wherein the first compound is selected from 1, 3, 6 hexane nitrile, succinonitrile, and adiponitrile, which by definition fall within the claimed constraints and explicitly within formula 2-3 (Guo, Example 4). The same additives disclosed by Guo are also used within examples in the original specification (Original Specification, Page 6).
In regard to Claims 6-8, Guo in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of Claim 5. Claim 5 requires the first compound to be represented by "any one of Chemical Formula 2-1 to Chemical Formula 2-3" and Guo et al. also discloses wherein the first compound is selected from 1, 3, 6 hexane nitrile, succinonitrile, and adiponitrile, which by definition fall within the claimed constraints and explicitly within formula 2-3 (Guo, Example 4). With respect to Claims 6-8, it is noted that the limitations are directed to non-selected options of parent Claim 5, which allows for additives that also fall within Formula 2-2 and 2-3 and would not be affected by a change in the Formula 2-1 constraints. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 6-8 are reasonably considered to be optional limitations which depend upon the selection of Formula 2-1 recited in claim 5, and which in this case have not been selected because Guo et al. discloses the use of compounds covered under Formula 3, as noted above.
In regard to Claim 9, Guo in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of Claim 5. Guo et al. also discloses wherein the first compound is selected from 1, 3, 6 hexane nitrile, succinonitrile, and adiponitrile, and of these, 1, 3, 6 hexane nitrile by definition falls within the claimed constraints and explicitly within formula 2-3 (Guo, Example 4). The 1, 3, 6 hexane nitrile additive disclosed by Guo is also used within examples in the original specification (Original Specification, Page 6).
In regard to Claim 10, Guo in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1. Guo et al. also discloses wherein the first compound is selected from 1, 3, 6 hexane nitrile, succinonitrile, and adiponitrile, which by definition fall within the claimed group (Guo, Example 4). The same additives disclosed by Guo are also used within examples in the original specification (Original Specification, Page 6).
In regard to Claim 16, Guo in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1. Guo et al. also discloses wherein the additive includes a second compound of pentafluoro ethoxy cyclotriphosphazene, which falls within the claimed constraints and explicitly within formula 3 and within Group 1 (Guo, Example 1).
In regard to Claim 20, Guo in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1. Guo et al. also discloses the volume % of the additives in the range of 1-5% based on a total of 100 volume % of the electrolyte (Guo, Paragraph [8]). Further, Guo et al. discloses a specific example of the use of both a first nitrile compound and a second phosphazene compound in the electrolyte (Guo, Example 1) with a combined 5 volume % of additives based on 100 volume % of the electrolyte. Given the commonly known densities of the materials of the electrolyte and using the disclosed methoxyl acetyl nitrile and pentafluoro ethoxy cyclotriphosphazene as the first and second compound, the parts by weight can be calculated for the 5 volume % of additive, which is equivalent to 4.22 parts by weight of the first and second compound based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte, which falls within the claimed range.
In regard to Claim 21, Guo in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1. Guo et al. also discloses, wherein the additive further includes fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (Guo, Example 2).
In regard to Claim 22, Guo in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1. While Guo discloses the use of a negative electrode active material of lithium titanate combined in a slurry with graphite (Guo, Example 3) the graphite has a role of a conductive agent and not an active material and thus Guo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the negative electrode active material is graphite.
Tochio et al. discloses a specific example of a negative electrode active material of natural graphite (Tochio, Paragraph [0091]) and when combined with the positive electrode comprising the cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide falling within Chemical Formula 1 and 1-1 (Tochio, Example 1) and the electrolyte comprising a first compound comprising a nitrile additive, the experimental results show the capacity retention was higher, and the direct current resistance was lower (Tochio, Paragraph [0098]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a negative electrode with an active material comprising graphite, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Tochio and as doing so would be nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claims 23-25, Guo et al. in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of Claim 22. Claim 22 requires the negative electrode active material to be comprised of graphite or a Si composite and graphite together and Tochio et al. discloses the negative electrode active material is natural graphite (Tochio, Paragraph [0091]) which by definition falls within the claimed constraints. With respect to Claims 23-25, it is noted that the limitations are directed to non-selected options of parent Claim 22, which allows for a negative electrode active material comprising only graphite such as in Tochio et al. and would not be relevant to the constraints of Claims 23-25. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 23-25 are reasonably considered to be optional limitations which depend upon the selection of a negative active material of Si composite and graphite together recited in claim 22, and which in this case have not been selected because Tochio et al. discloses the use of a negative electrode active material of natural graphite, as noted above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 110400961 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Guo” in view of Tochio et al. (US 20220393165 A1), hereinafter “Tochio” and Hidaka et al. (US 20180294515 A1), hereinafter “Hidaka”as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yi et al. (Chem. Mater., vol 34, pgs 629−642), hereinafter “Yi”. Guo, Tochio, Hidaka and Yi et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium battery material and electrolyte additives.
In regard to Claim 4, Guo et al. in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 3. Guo et al. discloses a positive electrode active material comprising a cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide but is silent as to the specific composition of the cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide, for example wherein the cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide includes a lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 wherein in Chemical Formula 1-1, x1 is 0.6≤x1≤0.79, y1 is 0.2≤y1≤0.39, and z1 is 0.01≤z1<0.1. While Tochio et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising an electrolyte including a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and a nitrile additive (Tochio, Paragraphs [0007,0058, 0062]) where the positive electrode active material comprises LiNi0.92Al0.05Mn0.03O2 which falls within the claimed formula 1-1, it fails to explicitly comply with the constraints of x1 is 0.6≤x1≤0.79, y1 is 0.2≤y1≤0.39, and z1 is 0.01≤z1<0.1 (Tochio, Example 1).
Although the stochiometric ratios in Tochio differ slightly from the claimed constraints, such a variation falls within a predictable range of values that would have been obvious to the skilled artisan as held in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP § 2144.05. Nevertheless, Yi et al. discloses a cobalt-free, high-nickel cathode LiNi0.7Mn0.25Al0.05O2 (NMA70) which falls within the claimed formula and constraints and also displays a high initial C/10 capacity of 210 mA h g−1, matching that of NMC70 in half cells with a cutoff voltage of 4.5 V. and also exhibits an impressive high-voltage full cell cycling performance with a cutoff voltage of 4.4 V with a nearly identical capacity retention of 83% compared to that of 82% for NMC70 after 300 cycles (Yi, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a positive electrode active material comprising the cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide taught in Yi to the rechargeable lithium battery disclosed in Guo as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yi, and as doing so would be nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 110400961 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Guo” in view of Tochio et al. (US 20220393165 A1), hereinafter “Tochio” and Hidaka et al. (US 20180294515 A1), hereinafter “Hidaka” as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hidaka 2 et al. (US 20210391597 A1), hereinafter “Hidaka 2”. Guo, Tochio, and Hidaka 2 et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium battery material and electrolyte additives.
In regard to Claims 12-15, Guo in view of Tochio and Hidaka et al. discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1. Guo et al. also discloses wherein the additive includes a second compound of pentafluoro ethoxy cyclotriphosphazene, which falls explicitly within formula 3 (Guo, Example 1). However, Guo et al. fails to explicitly disclose a second compound that falls within Formula 3 when at least one of Y1 to Y5 is a halogen group, Y1 to Y5 are each a halogen group, Y1 to Y5 are each a fluoro group, and where in Formula 3, Z is NR2R3 wherein R2 and R3 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group or a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkyl group.
Hidaka 2 et al. discloses a lithium ion battery with an electrolyte that comprises at least one additive, a first nitrile compound and a second additive comprising a phosphazene-based compound, including dimethylaminopentafluorocyclotriphosphazene (Hidaki, Abstract, Paragraphs [0646, 0680]). Dimethylaminopentafluorocyclotriphosphazene or PFDN falls withing the claimed constraints and explicitly within formula 3 and provide the benefits of improved high temperature performance by acting as fireproofing/flameproofing agents (Hidaki 2, Paragraph [0645]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the PFDN taught in Hidaki 2 to the electrolytic solution disclosed in Guo as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Hidaki 2, and as doing so would be nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot as the new ground of rejection relies on a reference not previously presented Hidaka et al. (US 20180294515 A1) which in combination with Guo and Tochio disclose all of the limitations of amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights