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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 15 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 13 are currently amended, claims 2-4 and 7 are canceled. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8-15 are pending and examined herein.
All previous rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 15- 16, “parts by” is recited twice consecutively. The claim is treated as though it recited “. . . greater than 0 parts by weight to 0.1 parts by weight . . .” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. “Stabilizing interface layer of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 cathode materials under high voltage using p-toluenesulfonyl isocyanate as film forming additive” in view of Nakazawa (US 2016/0013517 A1) and Sun et al. “Engineering of Hollow Core-Shell Interlinked Carbon Spheres for Highly Stable Lithium-Sulfur Batteries”. Supporting evidence is provided by the “Thomas Scientific” website information sheet on MilliporeSigma ALDRICH Lithium hexafluorophosphate solution in ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate.
Regarding Claim 1, Dong discloses a cathode material for a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive active material (LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 cathode material) and an additive [Page 2 Left Column Par 2]. Dong further discloses that the additive is PTSI [Page 2 Left Column Par 2] which corresponds to Formula 2, where R2 is a methyl group. Thus, Dong discloses an additive compound that reads on the limitations of Claim 1. Dong refers to the PTSI additive as an additive in the electrolyte [Abstract], however Dong specifies that the PTSI forms a film on the surface of the cathode [Abstract, Page 2 Left Column Par 2], and because of this the PTSI is considered a “cathode material”. Dong teaches that the PTSI additive is present at 0.5 wt.% in the electrolyte. [Page 2, Left column, paragraph 3], and teaches that the test cells were 2025-type coin cells, in which 14 mm diameter cathodes with 1.8 mg/cm2 active material loading were employed. [Page 2, Left column, paragraph 4]
Dong does not explicitly disclose an amount of the compound represented by formula 2 being greater than 0 parts by weight to 0.1 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the positive active material.
Nakazawa is cited as teaching conventional additive concentration ranges known to be useful for isocyanate additives in lithium ion batteries having nonaqueous electrolytes, in addressing issues with electrolyte decomposition similar to those studied by Dong. (Abstract, Para 0039) Nakazawa teaches a range of concentrations from 0.001 to 10% by mass (Para 0104) with p-toluenesulfonyl isocyanate an especially preferred additive. (Para 0099)
As Dong is silent on the electrolyte volume within the test cells, Sun is cited for teaching a conventional electrolyte volume for use in a 2025-type coin cell, which is 20 µL. (Methods Section, p 8511 under “Electrochemical Characterization”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the electrolyte of Dong by adjusting the PTSI concentration as low as 0.001 wt.% up to 10 wt.% as taught by Nakazawa, because Nakazawa teaches the additive to be effective in improving output characteristics, load characteristics, low temperature, characteristics, cycle characteristics, high-temperature storage characteristics, and battery expansion (Para 0105), while seeking to address problems of solvent decomposition (Para 0039), similar to those studied by Dong.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cell of Dong by using an electrolyte volume of 20 µL, as taught by Sun, because Sun teaches this as a suitable electrolyte volume for a 2025-type coin cell. This amounts to selection of an electrolyte volume known to be suitable for such a cell, which would have involved only known methods, employing each element to perform the same function as taught in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. (MPEP 2143(I)(A))
Within the cell of modified Dong, the cathodes include 2.77 mg of positive active material. With a minimum of 0.001 wt.% PTSI in the electrolyte and presuming an electrolyte density of about 1.3 g/mL (see e.g. Thomas Scientific for a similar electrolyte composition with a density of 1.27 g/mL), 20 µL of electrolyte would contain about 0.26 g of PTSI. If (hypothetically) all the PTSI were deposited/bound to the cathode material, this would correspond to a maximum of 0.009 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode material. Certainly, although Dong does not teach a specific amount of PTSI within the cathode material, some amount less than this maximum must be present on/within the cathode material. Accordingly, the prior art is considered to teach a range of the amount PTSI present in the cathode material that overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 0 to 0.1 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the positive active material. 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)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Dong teaches a cathode material as described above in addressing claim 1. Dong further discloses that the additive is PTSI which has a structure according to Formula 2 where R2 is a methyl group (i.e. a C1 alkyl group), which meets the limitations of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Dong teaches a cathode material as described above in addressing claim 1. Dong further discloses that the additive is PTSI which has the same structure as Formula 2-1 of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Dong discloses that the range of the PTSI present in the cell at the low end of the concentration range would provide at most 0.009 parts by weight PTSI with respect to 100 parts by weight of the positive active material. (See rejection of claim 1 above) This overlaps the claimed range. 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)
Regarding Claim 9, modified Dong teaches a cathode material as described above in addressing claim 1. Dong further discloses that the positive active material (cathode active material) is lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide with the formula LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 [Page 2 Left Column Par 4]. Thus Dong discloses that the positive active material is a material that reads on Claim 9 wherein x = 0.2 & y = 0.3.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Dong teaches a cathode material as described above in addressing claim 1. Dong further discloses that the cathode material further comprises a binder (PVDF) and a conductive material (Super P carbon) [Page 2 Left Column Par 4].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Dong teaches a cathode material as described above in addressing claim 1. Dong further discloses a cathode comprises the cathode material of Claim 1 [Page 2 Left Column Par 4].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Dong teaches a cathode material as described above in addressing claim 1. Dong further discloses a lithium secondary battery [Page 2 Left Column Par 3-4 Preparation of electrolyte and electrode] that comprises the cathode comprising the cathode material, as mentioned in addressing Claim 11 above, and further discloses an anode comprising a negative active material (lithium foil as counter electrode) [Page 2 Left Column Par 4], and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode [Page 2 Left Column Par 3].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Dong teaches a lithium secondary battery as described above in addressing claim 12. Dong further discloses that the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt (LiPF6) [Page 2 Left Column Par 3] and an organic solvent (ethylene carbonate) [Page 2 Left Column Par 3]. Dong further discloses that the electrolyte comprises the additive compound [Page 2 Left Column Par 3], which is PTSI. This corresponds to Formula 1 where Ar is a methyl-substituted C6-aryl group, R1 and R2 are single bonds, and Y is an isocyanate group.
Regarding Claims 14 & 15, modified Dong teaches a lithium secondary battery as described above in addressing claim 13. Modified Dong further teaches a range of PTSI concentration between 0.001 wt.% to 10 wt.% in the electrolyte (See rejection of claim 1 above). This range overlaps the claimed ranges. 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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, the examiner agrees that Dong lacks the teaching of the claimed range of the amount of the compound represented by Formula 2. However, the amount is considered to have been obvious based on the further teachings of Nakazawa and Sun, as described above.
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 Jeffrey Barton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1307. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 AM – 6:00 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.
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.
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 4 September 2026
Prosecution Insights