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 04/14/2026 have been filed. The amendments do not overcome the rejection in non-final office action mailed 01/16/2026, 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 04/14/2026 have been filed.
On pg. 5, the applicant argues:
“Moreover, Wang only mentions that metal lithium can be used as the negative electrode active material, and pays no attention to the problems unique to a metal secondary battery in which ‘lithium metal deposits during charging and the lithium metal dissolves during discharging.’ Furthermore, LiFOB and LiNO3 are merely mentioned as examples of the lithium salt, and nothing in mentioned in detail about using them in combination, much less the effect obtained by using them in combination.”
Wang teaches the range of Nickel as 90% mole or more, but as the applicant previously noted, the range overlap is broad and does not necessarily imply a strong case for obviousness of a high nickel content. Therefore, Nam has been added which further explains the advantage of the higher Nickel content to one of ordinary skill in the art. Wang teaches a lithium metal anode (Wang, “the negative electrode 22 may include a negative electroactive material that is lithium-based comprising, for example, a lithium metal and/or lithium alloy”, see [0065]). Considering Wang teaches a lithium battery, it is inherent to the feature of the battery that lithium deposits and dissolves during charging and discharging, as the lithium ions move from anode to cathode and vice versa (see MPEP 2163.07(a) ). For further evidence, the examiner points to Liu which states, “The physiochemical properties of the solid-electrolyte interphase, primarily governed by electrolyte composition, have a profound impact on the electrochemical cycling of metallic lithium... As such, effective dendrite suppression and remarkably enhanced cycling stability are achieved in corrosive carbonate electrolytes.” (See Abstract). In Liu, the dendritic formation of Li during cycling is acknowledged as known to one of ordinary skill in the art as a part of cycling. In addition to the inherent teachings of Wang, Liu demonstrates that the unique properties of metal anodes are known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding the electrolyte, Wang teaches that the electrolytes can be used, “ In various aspects, the electrolyte may include greater than or equal to about 0.5 M to less than or equal to about 4.0 M of the one or more lithium salts” (see [0055]). Here, Wang allows for various solvent and salts in combination. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try the combination as claimed as there are a limited amount of testable options (see MPEP 2143 (I)(E) ). Therefore, Wang also teaches the electrolyte as claimed.
On pg. 6 the applicant argues:
“Newly cited secondary reference Nam merely shows a "trade-off' relationship when the Ni content in the lithium-transition metal composite oxide is increased: the initial capacity increases on one hand, and the cycle characteristics and the safety deteriorated on the other hand. See, for example, p. 3000, right column. Nam only indicates that the lithium transition metal composite oxide with higher Ni content is more difficult to handle. Nam does not mention FOB or nitrate anions (or even ether-based solvent). As discussed in paragraph [0025] of the present specification, FOB refers to difluoro oxalate borate anion (BF2(C204)-) an example of a F- containing oxalate complex anion containing boron.”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner acknowledges that there are draw backs to high nickel material, as acknowledged in Nam. However, Nam demonstrates that there are benefits to the capacity in high Nickel materials (Nam, see Fig. 1(a)). Further, the presence of a trade offs does not preclude obviousness of the combination of references ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (see MPEP 2141.02 (VI)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have noticed the advantages of high capacity and would have attempted to combine a high-capacity cathode with the electrolytes as taught in Wang. Nam does not mention FOB or nitrate anions, but Wang does (Wang, see [0054]), and considering the Nam attributes the degradation to electrolytes (Nam, “these microcracks undermine the mechanical integrity of the cathode and facilitate electrolyte penetration into the particle core, which accelerates surface degradation of the internal primary particles”, see Abstract), One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the cathode of Nam to a different electrolyte regime in order to reduce the capacity fade due to electrolyte penetration. Further Nam and Wang demonstrate that the results in Table 1 and Table 2 are not unexpected, as nickel content and the claimed electrolytes solution are known in the art to have favorable results individually.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights