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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 3 and 4 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (KR 20190030987 A, “Chae”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes) in view of Chika et al. (US 20180159173 A1, “Chika”).
Regarding claim 1, Chae discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (see [0003] “secondary batteries” & “rechargeable batteries” & “lithium secondary batteries”), comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte (see FIG. 5 & [0123] “positive electrode (370)”; “negative electrode (340)”; see [0123] “electrolyte (350)”) comprising a smoothing additive (see [0140] “electrolyte (11) contains organic additives” & see [0156] “first leveling agent (component C) is thiourea (TU)” & leveling agent reads on smoothing additive).
Regarding the limitation having a reduction potential between -0.5 V and less than 0.9 V, Chae does not explicitly disclose, however, reduction potential is a property of the electrolyte material as evidenced by the instant specification on P4 par 1 lines 4-5 “the smoothing additive has a reduction potential of -0.5 V or more and less than 0.9 V”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the battery of Chae would exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention including a smoothing additive exhibiting the same properties of reduction potential between -0.5 and less than 0.9 V as evidenced by the instant specification (see P4 par 1 lines 4-5).
Regarding the limitation and wherein an amount of the smoothing additive is 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total, 100 wt%, of the electrolyte, Chae discloses in [0154] “the first leveling agent (component C) has a concentration of 1 to 10 ppm”. Chae does not explicitly disclose 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%.
Chika teaches butynediol in electrolyte as an additive and mass % (see Table 2 “1,4-butynediol dimethanesulfonate (1)” & describes “other additive (content in nonaqueous electrolytic solution (% by mass))” & describes “results of high-temperature cycle test” & “output characteristics (%)” & see [0064] “1,4-butynediol dimethanesulfonate) is more preferred”). Chika teaches “the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of the present invention is excellent in high-temperature cyclic property and output characteristics after high-temperature cycles and is capable of suppressing metal elution from a positive electrode or the like” (see abstract).
Chae and Chika are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrolyte (see Chika abstract).
Chika teaches a range of 1% (see Table 2), which lies within the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an amount of 1% electrolyte additive, as suggested by Chika (see Table 2) into the rechargeable lithium battery of Chae because doing so improves the output characteristics, as suggested by Chika (see abstract & Table 2).
Regarding claim 5, Chae discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the electrolyte further comprises a lithium salt and a non-aqueous organic solvent (see [0142] “metal salt” & see [0024] describes “lithium ions” & see [0140] “electrolyte (11) contains organic additives” & see [0207] “non-aqueous organic solvent” & “LiPF6” reads on lithium salt).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (KR 20190030987 A, “Chae”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes) in view of Chika et al. (US 20180159173 A1, “Chika”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20160261000 A1, “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 2, Chae discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the smoothing additive is thiourea (see [0156] “first leveling agent (component C)” & “thiourea (TU)”).
Regarding claim 6, Chae discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (see [0003] “secondary batteries” & “rechargeable batteries” & “lithium secondary batteries”), comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte (see FIG. 5 & [0123] “positive electrode (370)”; “negative electrode (340)”; see [0123] “electrolyte (350)”) comprising a smoothing additive (see [0140] “electrolyte (11) contains organic additives” & see [0156] “first leveling agent (component C) is thiourea (TU)” & leveling agent reads on smoothing additive).
Regarding the limitation having a reduction potential between -0.5 V and less than 0.9 V, Chae does not explicitly disclose, however, reduction potential is a property of the electrolyte material as evidenced by the instant specification on P4 par 1 lines 4-5 “the smoothing additive has a reduction potential of -0.5 V or more and less than 0.9 V”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the battery of Chae would exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention including a smoothing additive exhibiting the same properties of reduction potential between -0.5 and less than 0.9 V as evidenced by the instant specification (see P4 par 1 lines 4-5).
Regarding the limitation and wherein an amount of the smoothing additive is 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total, 100 wt%, of the electrolyte, Chae discloses in [0154] “the first leveling agent (component C) has a concentration of 1 to 10 ppm”. Chae does not explicitly disclose 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%.
Chika teaches butynediol in electrolyte as an additive and mass % (see Table 2 “1,4-butynediol dimethanesulfonate (1)” & describes “other additive (content in nonaqueous electrolytic solution (% by mass))” & describes “results of high-temperature cycle test” & “output characteristics (%)” & see [0064] “1,4-butynediol dimethanesulfonate) is more preferred”). Chika teaches “the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of the present invention is excellent in high-temperature cyclic property and output characteristics after high-temperature cycles and is capable of suppressing metal elution from a positive electrode or the like” (see abstract).
Chae and Chika are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrolyte (see Chika abstract).
Chika teaches a range of 1% (see Table 2), which lies within the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an amount of 1% electrolyte additive, as suggested by Chika (see Table 2) into the rechargeable lithium battery of Chae because doing so improves the output characteristics, as suggested by Chika (see abstract & Table 2).
Regarding the limitation wherein the negative electrode comprises a coating layer including a current collector, Chae discloses (see [0080] “coating an active material on the copper foil (100) & see [0111] “copper foil (100) has a first surface (S1) and a second surface (S2), and the active material layer (310) is disposed on at least one of the first surface (S1) and the second surface (S2) or the copper foil (100)”) and a polymer (see [0146] “nonionic water-soluble polymer”). Chae does not explicitly disclose positioned on the current collector and between the current collector and the electrolyte.
Zhang teaches SEI (see [0041] “selected electrolyte can form a stable SEI layer” & see FIG. 1 & [0037] “anode 150 is formed in situ on the surface of the anode current collector 140 facing the separator 130” & see [0038] “polymer electrolyte”). Zhang teaches “selected electrolyte can form a stable SEI layer to minimize the side reactions between the electrolyte and in situ formed Li metal which largely reduces the consumption of active materials, solvent and salt during the charge/discharge processes of the batteries”.
Chae and Zhang are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries (see Zhang [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the battery of Chae would exhibit the same SEI formation upon battery cycling as suggested by Zhang (see [0041]) which would minimize side reactions between the electrolyte and in situ formed Li metal, as suggested by Zhang (see [0041]) because Chae discloses the same battery material which would exhibit the same in situ battery reactions upon cycling of the battery.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (KR 20190030987 A, “Chae”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes) in view of Chika et al. (US 20180159173 A1, “Chika”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20160261000 A1, “Zhang”) and Bae et al. (US 20110177388 A1, “Bae”).
Regarding claim 7, Chae discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (see [0003] “secondary batteries” & “rechargeable batteries” & “lithium secondary batteries”), comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte (see FIG. 5 & [0123] “positive electrode (370)”; “negative electrode (340)”; see [0123] “electrolyte (350)”) comprising a smoothing additive (see [0140] “electrolyte (11) contains organic additives” & see [0156] “first leveling agent (component C) is thiourea (TU)” & leveling agent reads on smoothing additive).
Regarding the limitation having a reduction potential between -0.5 V and less than 0.9 V, Chae does not explicitly disclose, however, reduction potential is a property of the electrolyte material as evidenced by the instant specification on P4 par 1 lines 4-5 “the smoothing additive has a reduction potential of -0.5 V or more and less than 0.9 V”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the battery of Chae would exhibit the same properties as the claimed invention including a smoothing additive exhibiting the same properties of reduction potential between -0.5 and less than 0.9 V as evidenced by the instant specification (see P4 par 1 lines 4-5).
Regarding the limitation and wherein an amount of the smoothing additive is 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total, 100 wt%, of the electrolyte, Chae discloses in [0154] “the first leveling agent (component C) has a concentration of 1 to 10 ppm”. Chae does not explicitly disclose 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%.
Chika teaches butynediol in electrolyte as an additive and mass % (see Table 2 “1,4-butynediol dimethanesulfonate (1)” & describes “other additive (content in nonaqueous electrolytic solution (% by mass))” & describes “results of high-temperature cycle test” & “output characteristics (%)” & see [0064] “1,4-butynediol dimethanesulfonate) is more preferred”). Chika teaches “the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of the present invention is excellent in high-temperature cyclic property and output characteristics after high-temperature cycles and is capable of suppressing metal elution from a positive electrode or the like” (see abstract).
Chae and Chika are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrolyte (see Chika abstract).
Chika teaches a range of 1% (see Table 2), which lies within the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'."
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an amount of 1% electrolyte additive, as suggested by Chika (see Table 2) into the rechargeable lithium battery of Chae because doing so improves the output characteristics, as suggested by Chika (see abstract & Table 2).
Regarding the limitation wherein the negative electrode comprises a coating layer including a current collector, Chae discloses (see [0080] “coating an active material on the copper foil (100) & see [0111] “copper foil (100) has a first surface (S1) and a second surface (S2), and the active material layer (310) is disposed on at least one of the first surface (S1) and the second surface (S2) or the copper foil (100)”) and a polymer (see [0146] “nonionic water-soluble polymer”). Chae does not explicitly disclose positioned on the current collector and between the current collector and the electrolyte.
Zhang teaches SEI (see [0041] “selected electrolyte can form a stable SEI layer” & see FIG. 1 & [0037] “anode 150 is formed in situ on the surface of the anode current collector 140 facing the separator 130” & see [0038] “polymer electrolyte”). Zhang teaches “selected electrolyte can form a stable SEI layer to minimize the side reactions between the electrolyte and in situ formed Li metal which largely reduces the consumption of active materials, solvent and salt during the charge/discharge processes of the batteries”.
Chae and Zhang are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries (see Zhang [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the battery of Chae would exhibit the same SEI formation upon battery cycling as suggested by Zhang (see [0041]) which would minimize side reactions between the electrolyte and in situ formed Li metal, as suggested by Zhang (see [0041]) because Chae discloses the same battery material which would exhibit the same in situ battery reactions upon cycling of the battery.
Regarding the limitation and wherein the coating layer is distinct from the electrolyte and has a thickness of 1 to 10 µm, Chae does not explicitly disclose.
Bae teaches coating layer thickness (see [0020] “an anode active material layer on a current collector using an anode active material composition including an anode active material, a binder, a conductive material and a solvent.” &
see abstract “LiF-based coating layer has a thickness of 0.05 to 1 µm”).
Bae teaches a range of 0.05 to 1 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 10 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Chae and Bae are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium secondary batteries (see Bae abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate coating layer has a thickness of 0.05 to 1 µm as suggested by Bae (see [0020]) into the battery of Chae because doing so elongates the life cycle of the battery as suggested by Bae (see abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Chae discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the polymer is a polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer (see [0209] “PVDF”).
Regarding claim 9, Chae discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the polymer is polyvinylidene fluoride (see [0209] “PVDF [poly(vinylidenefluoride)]”).
Regarding claim 10, Chae discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the coating layer further comprises LiF.
Bae teaches “a coating layer made of LiF-based particles is formed on the anode surface” (see [0029]) “elongating the life cycle of a lithium ion secondary battery” (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the coating layer further comprises LiF as suggested by Bae (see [0029]) into the battery of Chae because doing so elongates the life cycle of the battery as suggested by Bae (see abstract).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see P6 par 1, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20160261000 A1) in view of Chae et al. (KR 20190030987 A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chae et al. (KR 20190030987 A, “Chae”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes) in view of Chika et al. (US 20180159173 A1, “Chika”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/05/2026
Prosecution Insights