DETAILED ACTION
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
The indicated allowability of claims 1-26 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Kim et al. (US 2019/0198924). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "chemical formula 4" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, instant claim 5 will be interpreted as dependent on claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-8 and 12-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatunov et al. (US 2019/0252724) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0198924).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 8, 14, and 26, Shatunov teaches an electrolyte for lithium secondary battery comprising:
a nonaqueous organic solvent;
a lithium salt (e,g., LiPF6; para 0093); and
an additive comprising a compound which contains a difluorophosphite (abstract; Applicant’s claimed “second compound”, chemical formula 1).
For example, the additive may be chemical formula 1-1 (para 0029).
PNG
media_image1.png
144
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shatunov does not teach a first compound, wherein the first compound is a cesium salt compound.
Kim, directed to an electrolyte additive and lithium secondary battery, teaches an electrolyte additive including (1) a lithium compound for film formation and (2) a salt of an anion, derived from a nitrogen-atom-containing compound, with Cs+ or Rb+ (abstract). For example, cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (chemical formula 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
144
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further comprise cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, a cesium salt, because the electrolyte additive comprising the salt of an anion with Cs+, the anion being derived from a nitrogen atom-containing compound, simultaneously includes a lithium compound for forming a coating film, and thus the salt of the anion derived from a nitrogen atom-containing compound with Cs+ may induce the formation of a more uniform SEI coating film on the anode and cathode, formed from the lithium compound for forming a coating film. This uniform formation of the coating film facilitates the movement of lithium ions, thus making it possible to secure more improved output characteristics (para 0030).
Regarding claim 5, instant claim is proviso upon limitation chemical formula 4 not required by the dependent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the cesium compound used in an amount of 0.1 to 3 wt.% (para 0032).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, instant claim is proviso upon limitation chemical formula 2 not required by the dependent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claim 15, Shatunov teaches the second compound used in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt.% (para 0039).
Regarding claims 16-18, Kim teaches the first compound used in an amount of 0.1 to 3 wt.% (para 0032) and Shatunov teaches the second compound used in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt.% (para 0039), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 1:0.1 to 1:10, 1:0.5 to 1:2, and 0.2 to 8 parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited ratios because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. 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). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 19, Shatunov further teaches a positive electrode and a negative electrode (para 0091-0092).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Shatunov teaches nickel and 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 0.98 (para 066). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 22, Shatunov teaches graphite (para 0076).
Regarding claims 23-25, instant claim is proviso upon limitation Si composite not required by the dependent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (KR 2019-0123136), machine translation, in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0198924).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, and 14, Jin teaches an electrolyte for lithium secondary battery comprising:
a nonaqueous organic solvent;
a lithium salt; and
an additive (abstract; Applicant’s claimed “second compound”, chemical formula 1).
For example, the additive may be chemical formula 1-1 (para 0085). R1-R6 each independently may be hydrogen, and (un)substituted C1-C10 alkyl group.
PNG
media_image3.png
166
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jin does not teach a first compound, wherein the first compound is a cesium salt compound.
Kim, directed to an electrolyte additive and lithium secondary battery, teaches an electrolyte additive including (1) a lithium compound for film formation and (2) a salt of an anion, derived from a nitrogen-atom-containing compound, with Cs+ or Rb+ (abstract). For example, cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (chemical formula 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
144
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further comprise cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, a cesium salt, because the electrolyte additive comprising the salt of an anion with Cs+, the anion being derived from a nitrogen atom-containing compound, simultaneously includes a lithium compound for forming a coating film, and thus the salt of the anion derived from a nitrogen atom-containing compound with Cs+ may induce the formation of a more uniform SEI coating film on the anode and cathode, formed from the lithium compound for forming a coating film. This uniform formation of the coating film facilitates the movement of lithium ions, thus making it possible to secure more improved output characteristics (para 0030).
Regarding claim 5, instant claim is proviso upon limitation chemical formula 4 not required by the dependent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the cesium compound used in an amount of 0.1 to 3 wt.% (para 0032).
Regarding claim 15, Jin teaches chemical formula 1 may be used in an amount of 0.05-20 wt.% (para 0023), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 to 5 parts by weight. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 16-18, Kim teaches the first compound used in an amount of 0.1 to 3 wt.% (para 0032) and Jin teaches the second compound used in an amount of 0.05 to 20 wt.% (para 0023), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of 1:0.1 to 1:10, 1:0.5 to 1:2, and 0.2 to 8 parts. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Jin further teaches a positive electrode and a negative electrode (para 0124).
Regarding claim 20, Jin teaches positive active materials (para 0131).
Regarding claim 22, Jin teaches positive active materials including graphite (para 0142).
Regarding claims 23-25, instant claim is proviso upon limitation Si composite not required by the dependent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights