DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 14, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 6 is canceled. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are pending and being examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 14, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US 20140242472 A1, hereafter An) in view of Choi et al. (US 20180342757 A1, hereafter Choi).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 7-8, An teaches a lithium secondary battery (e.g., Title), comprising:
an electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 as recited in claim 1, wherein R1 to R8 each may be independently hydrogen ([0013]), resulting in sulfolane ([0016]). The non-aqueous organic solvent may be a propionate-based solvent, such as methyl propionate ([0043]).
An further teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive active material (“cathode active material”: [0048]-[0050]).
An further teaches a negative electrode (“anode”: [0048]) comprising a carbon-based material, such as natural graphite ([0051]), but is silent as to the claimed Si-carbon composite. However, in the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses a negative electrode active material comprising a Si-carbon composite (“secondary particles” in [0097]; See Figs. 1-6) mixed ([0097]) with crystalline carbon (“graphite-based active material particles” in [0097], such as graphite, [0097]), and as such, the charge and discharge characteristics of the battery can be improved ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified An to employ a negative electrode active material comprising a Si-carbon composite and crystalline carbon (e.g., graphite), as taught by Choi, as the negative electrode active material of An in order to achieve advantages stated above.
Regarding claim 4, An in view of Choi teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein an amount of the additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 is 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total weight of the lithium salt and the organic solvent ([0013], An), overlapping the instantly claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, An in view of Choi teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, and further teaches the amount of the Si-carbon composite is 2 wt% to 50 wt% (calculated from the ratios in [0098] of Choi) based on a total weight of the negative active material. The claimed range of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% overlaps the above 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 10, An in view of Choi teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises Si nanoparticles (“111” includes silicon, [0032], Choi) and amorphous carbon (“112”, [0047], Choi).
Regarding claim 11, An in view of Choi teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises a core (“111”, Choi) and a coating layer around on the core (“112”, Choi),
the core comprises a crystalline carbon ([0033]-[0034]: Choi implicitly teaches graphite is included in the core) and silicon nanoparticles (“111” includes silicon, [0032], Choi), and
the coating layer comprises amorphous carbon (See [0046]-[0047], Choi).
Regarding claim 12, An in view of Choi teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 11, wherein the coating layer has a thickness of about 20 nm to about 100 nm ([0054], Choi). The range of 1 nm to 100 nm as claimed overlaps the above 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 13, An in view of Choi teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 11, wherein the “112” (See, e.g., Fig. 1) may be included at 2 wt% to 50 wt% based on 100 wt% of “111” ([0054]). Thus, in the case that “111” contains only silicon, the amount of the Si nanoparticles would be about 67 wt% to about 98 wt% based on a total 100 wt% of the Si-carbon composite. The claimed range of 1 wt% to 60 wt% is close to that of 67 wt% to 98 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges 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. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An in view of Choi, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chiga et al. (US 20070287071 A1, hereafter Chiga).
Regarding claim 9, An in view of Choi teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 7, but appears silent as to the claimed volume ration of propionate-based solvent.
However, absence of persuasive evidence that the claimed volume ratio is critical, selecting a volume ratio involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. For instance, Chiga discloses that a propionated-based solvent, such as methyl propionate, may be in a volume ratio of 50% based on a total volume of the non-aqueous organic solvent formed of FEC and methyl propionate ([0083]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the said 50% may be used in the electrolyte solution of An in view of Jo, since the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the rejections presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights