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
In response to the amendment received January 16, 2026:
Claims 1-5 and 8-19 are pending. Claims 6-7 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new prior art rejection has been made in view of Fujimoto (US 2018/0034104), Jeon et al. (US 2019/0165412A) and Zhao et al. (CN 1877897B) as necessitated by the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 110854382A) in view of Liang et al. (US 2021/0119260) and Fujimoto (US 2018/0034104). The U.S. version of Zhou (US 2022/0223859) is used as the English machine translation and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0051]) formed by applying as a coating on a current collector lithium supplementing material and positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode slurry) comprising lithium iron phosphate (i.e. LiFePO4), lithium iron manganese phosphate (I.e. LiFeMnPO4) (Para. [0017]) (i.e. comprising a lithium-containing phosphate material) and positive electrode lithium supplementing material (i.e. additives) such as Li2NiO2 (i.e. a second positive electrode additive) (Para. [0011]) and a binder (Para. [0014]) wherein the binder includes fluorine-containing resin and polypropylene resin (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a binder).
Zhou does not teach the first positive electrode additive includes at least one of a compound represented by structural formula 1 or a compound represented by structural formula 2 as claimed nor the binder comprises at least one selected from vinylidene fluoride-acrylic acid copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-acrylate copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-pentafluoropropylene copolymer, vinylidene fluoride- pentafluoropropylene-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-perfluoromethyl vinyl ether-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, and vinylidene fluoride-chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer.
However, However, Liang et al. teaches a lithium ion battery (Para. [0003]) comprising an additive including a second compound of the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
83
97
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R3 represented an alkylene group having 1-4 carbon carbons, a fluoroalkylene group having 1-4 carbon atoms , an alkenylene group having 2-4 carbon atoms (Para. [0046]) (i.e. an additive reading on the structural formula 1 of the instant claim 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode slurry of Zhou (i.e. a base device) to incorporate the teaching of the additive as taught by Liang et al., as such an additive compound provides for reduced reactivity of the positive electrode active material, thereby inhibiting the oxidative decomposition of the electrolytic solution (Para. [0009]) (i.e. improved in the same way as the claimed invention). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding the pH value of the second positive electrode additive is greater than or equal to 10.0, as the pH value is a material property of the second positive electrode additive, and the second positive electrode active material of Zhou is the same composition as taught in instant claim 12, the second positive electrode additive would be expected to be greater than or equal to 10.0. "Products of identical chemical
composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and
its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical
structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See
MPEP 2112.01.
Zhou as modified by Liang et al. does not teach the binder comprises at least one selected from vinylidene fluoride-acrylic acid copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-acrylate copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-pentafluoropropylene copolymer, vinylidene fluoride- pentafluoropropylene-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, vinylidene fluoride-perfluoromethyl vinyl ether-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, and vinylidene fluoride-chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer.
However, Fujimoto teaches a positive electrode mixture layer contains a binder (Para. [0037]) wherein the binder includes vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (Para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the teaching of vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer as a binder as taught by Fujimoto, as such a binder can improved the bonding strength between materials contained in the electrode (Para. [0040]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou as modified by Liang et al. does not explicitly teach a mass ratio of the first positive electrode additive to the second positive electrode additive. However, Liang et al. further teaches the second compound (i.e. the first positive electrode additive) is present in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 3 wt% wherein if the content of the second compound is too small, it is difficult to form a stabler interface face film on the cathode interface and the decomposition of the electrolytic solution cannot be effectively suppressed and if the content of the second compound is too large, the power performance of the battery will deteriorate (Para. [0060] (i.e. the content amount of the first additive affects electrolytic solution decomposition suppression and power performance), therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the mass ratio of the first positive electrode additive to other components (in this case, the second positive electrode additive) in order to achieve desirable electrolytic decomposition suppression and power performance. Thus, a mass ratio of the first positive electrode additive to the second positive electrode additive is 0.01:100 – 10:100 is a result effective variable (i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result) and modifying the ratio to be 0.01:100 – 10:100 would be discovering the optimum range through routine experimentation.
It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (See MPEP §2144.05).
Absent any showing of critical or unexpected results, such limitations appear to be routine optimization within the skill of the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the invention are therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou further teaches the second compound of the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
83
97
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprises one or more of:
PNG
media_image2.png
96
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
100
211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
111
168
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Para [0057]) (i.e. R1 is ethylene, propylene, butylene, vinylene, or propenylene, substituted or unsubstituted by halogen). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific examples of Zhou cited herein.
Regarding Claim 5, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou further teaches the second compound of the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
83
97
media_image1.png
Greyscale
comprises one or more of:
PNG
media_image2.png
96
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
75
168
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
100
211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
140
155
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Para [0057]) (i.e. Compounds 1-4 and 6 as claimed). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific examples of Zhou cited herein.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou further teaches the positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode slurry) comprising lithium iron phosphate (i.e. LiFePO4), lithium iron manganese phosphate (I.e. LiFeMnPO4) (Para. [0017]) (i.e. comprising a lithium-containing phosphate material).
Regarding the pH value of the lithium-containing phosphate material is greater than or equal to 10.0, as the pH value is a material property of the lithium-containing phosphate material, and the lithium-containing phosphate material of Zhou is the same composition as taught in instant claim 9, the lithium-containing phosphate material would be expected to be greater than or equal to 10.0. "Products of identical chemical
composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and
its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical
structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See
MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 9, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou further teaches the positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode slurry) comprising lithium iron phosphate (i.e. LiFePO4), lithium iron manganese phosphate (I.e. LiFeMnPO4) (Para. [0017]).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou further teaches the positive electrode lithium supplementing material (i.e. a second positive electrode additive) is Li2NiO-2-, Li-2MoO3, Li5FeO4 (Para. [0011]).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou further teaches the positive electrode lithium supplementing material (i.e. a second positive electrode additive) is Li2NiO-2- and Li5FeO4 (Para. [0011]).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. and Fujimoto teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode slurry in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou further teaches a lithium-ion battery (i.e. a secondary battery) comprising a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0051]) formed by applying as a coating and drying on a current collector lithium supplementing material and positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode sheet obtained by coating and drying the positive electrode slurry) (Para. [0020]).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. and Fujimoto teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Zhou further teaches an electronic apparatus (i.e. electrical apparatus) comprising the electrochemical apparatuses (Para. [0022]) which are the lithium-ion batteries (Para. [0051]) (i.e. comprising the secondary batteries according to claim 13).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. and Fujimoto teaches all of the elements of the secondary battery in claim 13 as explained above.
Zhou further teaches a soft-packaged lithium-ion battery (i.e. a battery module comprising the secondary battery) (Para. [0075]).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Zhou further teaches a soft-packaged lithium-ion battery (i.e. a battery pack comprising the battery module according to claim 15) (Para. [0075])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 110854382A) in view of Liang et al. (US 2021/0119260) and Fujimoto (US 2018/0034104) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 1877897B). The English machine translation of Zhao et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou as modified by Liang et al. does not teach first positive electrode additive comprises the compound represented by structural formula 2.
However, Zhao et al. teaches a secondary battery with non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0002]) having active material which can adsorb and release lithium (Para. [0037]) (i.e. a lithium ion battery) comprising an additive of sulfonic anhydride represented by General Formula (1) (Para. [0021] and see pg. 6 of original version of Zhao et al.):
PNG
media_image7.png
166
290
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 (equivalent to R2 and R3 of the instant claim formula) include methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl groups in which some or all of the hydrogen atoms can be replaced by fluorine atoms (i.e. substituted or unsubstituted by halogen) (Para. [0053]) (i.e. a compound represented by structural formula 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode slurry of Zhou (i.e. a base device) to incorporate the teaching of the additive as taught by Zhao et al., as such an additive compound inhibits the oxidative decomposition of the electrolytic solution caused by reaction with positive electrode active material (Para. [0043]) (i.e. improved in the same way as the claimed invention). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 110854382A) in view of Liang et al. (US 2021/0119260) and Fujimoto (US 2018/0034104) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2017/0133684).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou as modified by Liang et al. does not teach wherein the second positive electrode additive comprises a material represented by the general formula of instant claim 11.
However, Han et al. teaches an additive for a positive electrode active material of a lithium ion battery (Para. [006]) wherein the additive comprises Li1+xL-1-y-zMyNzO2 wherein L, M and N are independently selected from Co, Mn, Ni, Mg, Ti, Al, Mo and B, wherein -0.1≤x≤0.2, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1 0≤y+z≤1.0 (Para. [0055]) (i.e. at the very least, teaches a composition with an overlapping with the range of the general formula claimed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou to incorporate the teaching of the additive as taught by Han et al., as this would provide the effect of lithium ions being enriched in the negative electrode of the battery (Para. [0057]) provide supplemental lithium (Para. [0006]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 110854382A) in view of Liang et al. (US 2021/0119260) and Fujimoto (US 2018/0034104) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2019/0165412A).
Regarding Claim 17, Zhou as modified by Liang et al. and Fujimoto teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhou et al. does not teach the second positive electrode additive comprise a material represented by the general formula of instant claim 17.
However, Jeon et al. teaches a cathode additive for a lithium secondary battery including LiCo1-xMxO2 wherein M may comprise one or more of Ni and Zr and 0≤x≤1.0 (Para. [0030]) (i.e. may be LiNi0.8Co0.1Zr0.1O2 which is very close to the claimed compound).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou et al. to incorporate the teaching of the additive as taught by Jeon et al., as such an additive would improve the capacity characteristics of the cathode (Para. [0040]). It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 110854382A) in view of Zhao et al. (CN 1877897B). The English machine translation of Zhao et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhou teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0051]) formed by applying as a coating on a current collector lithium supplementing material and positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode slurry) comprising lithium iron phosphate (i.e. LiFePO4), lithium iron manganese phosphate (I.e. LiFeMnPO4) (Para. [0017]) (i.e. comprising a lithium-containing phosphate material) and positive electrode lithium supplementing material (i.e. additives) such as Li2NiO2 (i.e. a second positive electrode additive) (Para. [0011]) and a binder (Para. [0014]) wherein the binder is PVDF (Para. [0036]) (i.e. the binder includes a polymer having a repeating unit represented by structural formula 3 of the instant claim).
Zhou does not teach the first positive electrode additive includes at least one of a compound represented by structural formula 1 or a compound represented by structural formula 2.
However, Zhao et al. teaches a secondary battery with non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0002]) having active material which can adsorb and release lithium (Para. [0037]) (i.e. a lithium ion battery) comprising an additive of sulfonic anhydride represented by General Formula (1) (Para. [0021] and see pg. 6 of original version of Zhao et al.):
PNG
media_image7.png
166
290
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 (equivalent to R2 and R3 of the instant claim formula) include alkyl or aryl groups in which some or all of the hydrogen atoms can be replaced by fluorine atoms (i.e. substituted or unsubstituted by halogen) (Para. [0053]) (i.e. a compound represented by structural formula 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode slurry of Zhou (i.e. a base device) to incorporate the teaching of the additive as taught by Zhao et al., as such an additive compound inhibits the oxidative decomposition of the electrolytic solution caused by reaction with positive electrode active material (Para. [0043]) (i.e. improved in the same way as the claimed invention). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding the pH value of the second positive electrode additive is greater than or equal to 10.0, as the pH value is a material property of the second positive electrode additive, and the second positive electrode active material of Zhou is the same composition as taught in instant claim 12, the second positive electrode additive would be expected to be greater than or equal to 10.0. "Products of identical chemical
composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and
its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical
structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See
MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding Claim 19, Zhou teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0051]) formed by applying as a coating on a current collector lithium supplementing material and positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode slurry) comprising lithium iron phosphate (i.e. LiFePO4), lithium iron manganese phosphate (I.e. LiFeMnPO4) (Para. [0017]) (i.e. comprising a lithium-containing phosphate material) and positive electrode lithium supplementing material (i.e. additives) such as Li2NiO2 (i.e. a second positive electrode additive) (Para. [0011]) and a binder (Para. [0014]) wherein the binder is PVDF (Para. [0036]) (i.e. the binder includes a polymer having a repeating unit represented by structural formula 3 of the instant claim).
Zhou does not teach the first positive electrode additive includes at least one of a compound represented by structural formula 1 or a compound represented by structural formula 2.
However, Zhao et al. teaches a secondary battery with non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0002]) having active material which can adsorb and release lithium (Para. [0037]) (i.e. a lithium ion battery) comprising an additive of sulfonic anhydride represented by General Formula (1) (Para. [0021] and see pg. 6 of original version of Zhao et al.):
PNG
media_image7.png
166
290
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 (equivalent to R2 and R3 of the instant claim formula) include alkyl or aryl groups in which some or all of the hydrogen atoms can be replaced by fluorine atoms (i.e. substituted or unsubstituted by halogen) (i.e. a compound represented by structural formula 2), such as an alkyl group with 1 carbon atom such as methyl group (i.e. Compound 7 of the instant claim), such as an alkyl group with 1 carbon atom such as methyl group wherein all hydrogen atoms can be replaced by fluorine atoms (i.e. Compound 10 of the instant claim such as an aryl group having 6 carbons (i.e. Compound 11 of the instant claim) (Para. [0053]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode slurry of Zhou (i.e. a base device) to incorporate the teaching of the additive as taught by Zhao et al., as such an additive compound inhibits the oxidative decomposition of the electrolytic solution caused by reaction with positive electrode active material (Para. [0043]) (i.e. improved in the same way as the claimed invention). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding the pH value of the second positive electrode additive is greater than or equal to 10.0, as the pH value is a material property of the second positive electrode additive, and the second positive electrode active material of Zhou is the same composition as taught in instant claim 12, the second positive electrode additive would be expected to be greater than or equal to 10.0. "Products of identical chemical
composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and
its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical
structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See
MPEP 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729