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 amendments filed 10/22/2025 have been filed. The amendments overcome the 112(b) rejection and the 103 rejection as previously set forth in non-final office action mailed 07/22/2025, grounds of rejection are outlined below.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20210273229 A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’ in view of ‘Capacity Fading of Ni-Rich NCA Cathodes: Effect of Microcracking Extent’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Nam’.
Regarding Claim 1,
Wang teaches a lithium secondary battery (Wang, electrochemical cell, 400, Fig. 4), comprising: a positive electrode (Wang, positive electrode, 414, Fig. 4) ; a negative electrode (Wang, negative electrode, 412, Fig. 4); a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Wang, separator, 422, Fig. 4) ; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Wang, “or example, the electrolyte 30 may be a non-aqueous liquid electrolyte solution”, see [0053]), wherein the positive electrode includes a lithium-transition metal composite oxide, the lithium-transition metal composite oxide contains at least Ni, and has a ratio of Ni to total metal elements other than Li of 90 mol% or more, in the negative electrode (Wang, “comprise one or more lithium-based positive electroactive materials selected from LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0≤x≤1 and 0≤y≤1),”, see [0069]), lithium metal deposits during charge, and the lithium metal dissolves during discharge, and the non-aqueous electrolyte includes a non-aqueous solvent, lithium ions (Wang, “A non-limiting list of lithium salts that may be dissolved in an organic solvent or a mixture of organic solvents”, see [0054]), an oxalate complex anion having fluorine (Wang, “lithium difluorooxalatoborate (LiBF2(C2O4))”, see [0054]), and nitrate anions (Wang, “lithium nitrate (LiNO3)”, see [0054]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0 to 100% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 90% or more. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Wang does not teach the concentration of nickel above 90%.
Nam teaches a high nickel concentration (Nam, “Ni-rich Li[Ni1–x–yCoxAly]O2 (NCA) cathodes (1 – x – y = 0.8, 0.88, and 0.95) are synthesized to investigate the capacity fading mechanism of Ni-rich NCA cathodes”, see Abstract).
Nam teaches that the NCM95 has a high first cycle discharge capacity and that the performance can be improved through modifying the structure (Nam, see Fig. 1(a))(Nam, “To mitigate the microcracking caused by the H2–H3 phase transition, the microstructure of Ni-rich cathodes could be engineered into long rod-shaped primary particles with strong crystallographic texture in order to improve long-term Li interaction stability.”, see Conclusion).
Wang and Nam are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode material to be a high nickel electrode in order to increase the capacity.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Wang teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide further contains Al (Wang, “and/or may be doped (for example by one or more of magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al),”, see [0069]).
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Wang teaches The lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium-transition metal composite oxide further contains Co (Wang, “comprise one or more lithium-based positive electroactive materials selected from LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (where 0≤x≤1 and 0≤y≤1),”, see [0069]).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Wang teaches The lithium secondary battery according to claim1, wherein the oxalate complex anion having fluorine contains boron (Wang, “lithium difluorooxalatoborate (LiBF2(C2O4))”, see [0054]).
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Wang teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein 50% by volume or more of the non-aqueous solvent is an ether compound (Wang, “These and other similar lithium salts may be dissolved in a variety of organic solvents, including, but not limited to…chain structure ethers (e.g., 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME”, see [0055]) (Wang, “liquid electrolyte solution that includes a lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent or a mixture of organic solvents.”, see [0053]) (The examiner notes that if the ether is the only solvent rather than a mixture it would be 100% of the solvent volume)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20210273229 A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’, in view of ‘Capacity Fading of Ni-Rich NCA Cathodes: Effect of Microcracking Extent’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Nam’ in further view of (US20210351437A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kamine’
Regarding Claim 5,
Wang does not teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim1 ,wherein a concentration C1 of the complex anion having fluorine in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.1 mmol/L or more and 500 mmol/L or less.
Kamine teaches wherein a concentration C1 of the complex anion having fluorine in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.1 mmol/L or more and 500 mmol/L or less (Kamine, “The content of the fluorine-containing inorganic lithium salt in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to the present embodiment may be, for example, 0.05 mol or more and 1.0 mol or less as the amount per 1 L of the nonaqueous solvent.”, see [0097]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 50 mm/L to 1000 mm/L broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 mmol/L to 500 mmol/L. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Kamine teaches that within this range the ionic conductivity is improved and therefore battery performance is enhanced (Kamine, “When the content of the fluorine-containing inorganic lithium salt is within the above range, the ionic conductivity tends to increase and high output characteristics can be exhibited”, see [0096])
Wang and Kamine are analogous as they are both of the same field of additives for electrolyte cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte content as taught in Wang to the range as taught in Kamine in order to improve the ionic conductivity.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20210273229 A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’, in view of ‘Capacity Fading of Ni-Rich NCA Cathodes: Effect of Microcracking Extent’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Nam’, in view of (US 20220166066 A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Schmidt’, in further view of ‘Solubility-mediated sustained release enabling nitrate additive in carbonate electrolytes for stable lithium metal anode’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Liu’
Regarding Claim 6,
Wang does not teach The lithium secondary battery according to claim1, wherein a concentration C2 of the nitrate anion in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.1 mmol/L or more and 50 mmol/L or less.
Schmidt teaches wherein a concentration C2 of the nitrate anion in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.1 mmol/L or more and 50 mmol/L or less (Schmidt, “The molar concentration of lithium nitrate (LiNO3) in the electrolyte composition may be between 0.01 and 3 mol/l,see [0031])
Liu teaches that nitrate in the electrolyte at the millimolar level can protect the electrode surface (Liu, “NO3– at millimolar-level in carbonate electrolytes can dramatically transform the morphology of Li nuclei from dendritic to spherical due to the significantly modified SEI properties. Structurally, a bilayered SEI can be observed with a dense inorganic shell, which effectively protects the Li metal surface”, see Discussion)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 10 mm/L to 3000 mm/L broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 mmol/L to 50 mmol/L. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nitrate content of Wang to the nitrate content of Schmidt in order to protect the electrode surface and allow for better cycling.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20210273229 A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang’, in view of ‘Capacity Fading of Ni-Rich NCA Cathodes: Effect of Microcracking Extent’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Nam’, in view of (US20210351437A) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kamine’, in view of (US 20220166066 A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Schmidt’, in further view of ‘Solubility-mediated sustained release enabling nitrate additive in carbonate electrolytes for stable lithium metal anode’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Liu’
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Wang does not teach C1.
Kamine teaches wherein a concentration C1 of the complex anion having fluorine in the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.1 mmol/L or more and 500 mmol/L or less (Kamine, “The content of the fluorine-containing inorganic lithium salt in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to the present embodiment may be, for example, 0.05 mol or more and 1.0 mol or less as the amount per 1 L of the nonaqueous solvent.”, see [0097]).
Kamine teaches that within this range the ionic conductivity is improved and therefore battery performance is enhanced (Kamine, “When the content of the fluorine-containing inorganic lithium salt is within the above range, the ionic conductivity tends to increase and high output characteristics can be exhibited”, see [0096])
Modified Wang and Kamine are analogous as they are both of the same field of additives for electrolyte cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte content as taught in Wang to the range as taught in Kamine in order to improve the ionic conductivity.
Modified Wang teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 6, wherein a ratio C2/C1 of the concentration C2 of the nitrate anion in the non-aqueous electrolyte to a concentration Cl of the oxalate complex anion having fluorine in the non-aqueous electrolytes is 0.01 or more and less than 1 (Kamine, “The content of the fluorine-containing inorganic lithium salt in the nonaqueous electrolyte solution according to the present embodiment may be, for example, 0.05 mol or more and 1.0 mol or less as the amount per 1 L of the nonaqueous solvent.”, see [0097])(Schmidt, “The molar concentration of lithium nitrate (LiNO3) in the electrolyte composition may be between 0.01 and 3 mol/l,.”, see [0031]) (The examiner notes that the lower end of each range would have C1 as 50 mmol/L and C2 as 10 mmol/L which would make the range 10/50 to 30/1000 or 0.2 to 0.03)
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been filed.
On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“Finally, the applicant respectfully asserts the secondary consideration as to at least the remarkable effects of the present invention can be realized when Ni is 90% compared to when Ni is 50% based on the date of Examples.”
This is convincing. The range of the Wang reference is too broad and examples demonstrate the criticality of the claimed range. However, further search and consideration has found Nam which teaches Nickel more directly in the claimed range and demonstrates a clear trend that more nickel is correlated with increased capacity (Nam, see Fig. 1(a)). This would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nickel to be within the claimed range more directly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752