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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 4-8, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2021/0194057 A1) and Shimamoto et al. (US 2016/0027592 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 2021/0194057 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator between the electrodes, and an electrolyte (Yamazaki [0593]), where the electrolyte comprises lithium ethyl sulfate (Formula 1 of the instant claim where R is an organic group with 2 carbon atoms, X1 is an alkali metal, and n=1), ethylene carbonate, and fluoroethylene carbonate (Yamazaki [0589]-[0590]).
Yamazaki does not teach that the ratio Vec/Vfec is 2-4. Yamazaki teaches a ratio Vec/Vfec of 5 (Yamazaki [0589]-[0590]), which is close to the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (or results). See MPEP 2144.05 I, citing, e.g., Titanium Metals Co. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Accord, In re Kirsch, Barnby, and Potts, 182 USPQ 286, 290 (CCPA 1974) (finding that prior art teachings lying slightly outside of a claimed range nevertheless negate non-obviousness, especially in the absence of any criticality statements regarding the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any ratio close to the ratio used by Yamazaki, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, X1 is lithium, which is an alkali metal (Yamazaki [0590]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, R is an ethyl group (Yamazaki [0590]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki gives examples of 0.2-2 wt% lithium ethyl sulfate (Table 1), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki does not teach that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium composite oxide with a layered rock salt type structure in which 80 atom% or more of the metals other than lithium is nickel. Yamazaki teaches that the positive electrode active material may be selected from a group including LiNi0.8Co0.5Al0.05O2 (Yamazaki [0467]), which has layered rock salt type structures and 80% nickel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try any of the positive active materials listed by Yamazaki, including LiNi0.8Co0.5Al0.05O2.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokuda et al. (US 2012/0308881 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki does not teach the use of a fluorosulfonic acid salt. Tokuda teaches that adding 0.1 M lithium fluorosulfonate (Formula 2 of the instant claim with X2=lithium and m=1) to an LiPF6 electrolyte significantly reduces internal impedance (Tokuda Example 2, Tables 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add lithium fluorosulfonate to reduce internal impedance. Lithium fluorosulfonate has a molecular weight of approximately 100 g/mol, and carbonate electrolyte solutions have a density of just over 1g/cm3, so 0.1 M is approximately 1 wt%, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, lithium is an alkali metal.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamoto et al. (US 2016/0027592 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shimamoto discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator between the electrodes, and an electrolyte (Shimamoto [0332]), where the electrolyte comprises lithium methyl sulfate (Formula 1 of the instant claim where R is an organic group with 1 carbon atom, X1 is an alkali metal, and n=1), ethylene carbonate, and fluoroethylene carbonate (Shimamoto Example 1-22, Table 2).
Shimamoto does not teach that the ratio Vec/Vfec is 2-4. Shimamoto teaches a ratio Vec/Vfec of 1.9 (Shimamoto Example 1-22, Table 2), which is close to the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (or results). See MPEP 2144.05 I, citing, e.g., Titanium Metals Co. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Accord, In re Kirsch, Barnby, and Potts, 182 USPQ 286, 290 (CCPA 1974) (finding that prior art teachings lying slightly outside of a claimed range nevertheless negate non-obviousness, especially in the absence of any criticality statements regarding the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any ratio close to the ratio used by Yamazaki, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, X1 is lithium, which is an alkali metal (Shimamoto Example 1-22, Table 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, R is a methyl group (Shimamoto Example 1-22, Table 2).
Regarding claim 9, the content of the additive is 0.3 wt% (Shimamoto Example 1-22, Table 2), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Shimamoto gives an example with an electrolyte comprising lithium triflouroethylsulfate (Formula 1 with a C3 organic group and X1=lithium and m=1) and lithium fluorosulfonate (Formula 2 with X2=lithium) at 0.5 wt%, which falls within the range of the instant claim, in a solvent with Vec/Vfec=1.9 (Shimamoto Example III-13, Table 15)
Regarding claim 11, lithium is an alkali metal.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Natarajan et al. ("Concentration Gradient-Driven Aluminum Diffusion in a Single-Step Coprecipitation of a Compositionally Graded Precursor for LiNi0.8Co0.135Al0.065O2 with Mitigated Irreversibility of H2 ↔ H3 Phase Transition," ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 12(31), pp. 34959-34970, July 2020).
Regarding claim 12, Shimamoto does not teach the use of a lithium-containing composite oxide with a layered rock salt structure and at least 80 at% Ni of metals other than Li. Shimamoto teaches the use of NMC111 (Shimamoto [0386]). Natarajan is directed to a cathode active material for a lithium-ion battery. Natarajan teaches that NCA (LiNi0.8Co0.135Al0.065O2, which has 80 at% Ni of metals other than Li and a layered rock salt structure) has a higher specific capacity than NMC111 (Natarajan Introduction, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to replace the NMC111 of Shimamoto with NCA to increase specific capacity.
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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights