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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 16th 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to Claim 5 overcomes the previous 112(b) rejection, thus that rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments to the 103 rejections of the claims were fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the rejections were withdrawn. However upon further consideration, a new rejection is made in view of Dong. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al. “Stabilizing interface layer of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 cathode materials under high voltage using p-toluenesulfonyl isocyanate as film forming additive”.
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 has the structure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
527
947
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dong Annotated Partial Figure 7
PTSI reads on the limitations of Claim 1 wherein Ar is toluene (substituted aryl), R1 is a single bond, R2 is a single bond, and Y is isocyanate. 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”.
Regarding Claim 2, Dong discloses that the additive is PTSI which has the structure as shown above in Dong Annotated Partial Figure 7 wherein “Ar” is toluene, which is meets the limitations of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Dong discloses that the additive is PTSI, which is an isocyanate-based compound as recited in Claim 3, and has the structure as shown above in Dong Annotated Partial Figure 7 wherein “Ar” is methyl-substituted toluene, which meets the limitations of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 introduces Formula 2 having “R2” as indicated below:
PNG
media_image2.png
165
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Instant Application Claim 4 Formula 2
Dong discloses that the additive is PTSI, which has the structure as shown above in Dong Annotated Partial Figure 7, wherein “R2” is a methyl group, as further shown below in Dong Annotated Partial Figure 7 – Formula 2 “R2”, which meets the limitations of Claim 4.
PNG
media_image3.png
566
1090
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dong Annotated Partial Figure 7 – Formula 2 “R2”
Regarding Claim 5, as mentioned above regarding Claim 4, Dong discloses that the additive is PTSI which has the structure as shown above in Dong Annotated Partial Figure 7 wherein “R2” is a methyl group as shown above in Dong Annotated Partial Figure 7 – Formula 2 “R2”, which meets the limitations of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, Dong discloses that the additive is PTSI which has the same structure as Formula 2-1 of Claim 6, as shown above in Dong Annotated Partial Figure 7.
Regarding Claims 7 & 8, Dong discloses that the additive is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.5wt% [Page 2 Left Column Par 3], and the positive active material (LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2) is included in an amount of 80wt% [Page 2 Left Column Par 4], thus it would be understood that the film formed of the PTSI on the cathode would comprise less than 0.5wt%.
0.5wt% additive : 80wt% positive active material
0.5 parts by weight additive : 80 parts by weight positive active material
0.5
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
x
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
w
e
i
g
h
t
a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
=
80
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
w
e
i
g
h
t
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
100
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
w
e
i
g
h
t
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
100
*
0.5
80
=
x
=
0.625
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
w
e
i
g
h
t
a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
100
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
w
e
i
g
h
t
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
Therefore the amount of the additive is less than 0.5wt% or less than 0.5 parts by weight with respect to 80 parts by weight of the positive active material, or 0.625 parts by weight additive with respect to 100 parts by weight of the positive active material, which falls within the range set forth in the claims. In regards to the amount of the additive in the cathode mixture, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Chu because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, Dong discloses that the compound represented by Formula 1 is included in the cathode mixture within the claimed amounts in Claims 7 & 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Dong 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], as mentioned with regards to Claim 1. 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, Dong 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, Dong discloses a cathode comprises the cathode material of Claim 1 [Page 2 Left Column Par 4].
Regarding Claim 12, Dong 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 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, Dong 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 the same additive compound in the cathode as mentioned with regards to Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 14 & 15, Dong discloses that the additive is included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.5wt% [Page 2 Left Column Par 3] or 0.5 parts by weight based on the total weight (i.e. 100 parts) of the electrolyte, which falls within the claimed ranges of Claims 14 & 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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. Examiner respectfully points out that as stated in the new rejections above, Dong is no longer used to modify Chu’s additive, thus the arguments to the modification of Chu with Dong and the analogy of Chu and Dong are irrelevant. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Claim 5 should be allowable as the amendment to the claim now clarifies the mapping of “R”. Applicant clarifies that “R2” in Claim 5 is now clearly mapped to “R2” of Formula 2 as defined in Claim 4. Examiner respectfully points out that “R2” of amended Claim 5, which is dependent from Claim 4, can be an unsubstituted C1-C10 alkyl group, such as a methyl group, as claimed in Claims 4 & 5. Examiner points out that Dong discloses “R2”, as defined in Claim 4 Formula 2, is a methyl group, as pointed out in the rejection above shown in Dong Figure 7. Thus Dong’s additive discloses the limitations of Claim 4 & Claim 5. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 23 February 2026