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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted June 25th, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claims 1, 8, and 12 are amended, claims 4, 7, 13, and 16-17 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-3, 56, 8-12, and 14-15 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed June 25th, 2026 have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the instant claim as amended recites that a proportion of the trinitrile compound is 1 wt% to 4 wt%. There is no support in the instant specification as filed for the claimed limitation.
Applicant indicates in their response filed June 25th, 2026 that the support for the aforementioned amendment may be found in, for example, Table 5. As seen in Table 5 of the instant disclosure, a trinitrile compound that is 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane or 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile (as required in the instant claim 1), Examples 24 and 26 provide the presently claimed 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile (HTCN) at 3 wt% and 1 wt%, respectively. Table 5 also provides evidence that Example 27 provides the presently claims 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane (TCEP) at 3 wt%.
Therefore, Table 5 of applicant’s disclosure provides very specific examples of HTCN and TCEP as trinitrile compounds which are present at specific weight percentages in the electrolyte composition. As such, applicant’s claimed limitation of a general range of 1 wt% to 4 wt% is a broader scope that what is supported in the disclosure as originally filed. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-11, 14-15, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8, 12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annaka (cited in the previous office action, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190198878 A1) in view of Saruwatari (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160268604 A1), Xu (Chinese Patent Publication No. 109687025 A), Shen (Chinese Patent Publication No. 109704324 A), and Choi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020153045 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Annaka teaches an electrochemical apparatus (non-aqueous secondary battery), comprising: a positive electrode, a negative electrode and an electrolyte (Paragraph 0028); wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode mixture layer formed on the positive electrode current collector (Paragraph 0106).
Annaka discloses a slurry for a positive electrode of a battery comprising a positive electrode active material and a copolymer (Abstract). Annaka teaches that the copolymer includes a nitrile group-containing monomer unit and a basic group-containing monomer unit, and may include other monomer units, including a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit and or an acidic group-containing monomer unit (Paragraph 0049). The instant additive of the positive electrode mixture layer is equated with the basic group, acidic group, and (meth)acrylic acid ester group-containing monomers of the copolymer.
Annaka teaches that the basic group-containing monomer units have a nitrogen-containing functional groups such as amino or amide residues (Paragraph 0055). Monomers which contain amino and amide groups are known in the art to be hydrophilic, thus the copolymer additive of Annaka (including a basic-group containing monomer unit) has a hydrophilic group, meeting the instant claimed limitations of the positive electrode mixture layer comprising an additive having a hydrophilic group.
Annaka further teaches that 2-ethylhexyl acrylate is a preferable (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer (Paragraph 0079). Annaka teaches that when the copolymer additive to the positive electrode comprises 2-ethylhexyl acrylate monomer in addition to the nitrile group-containing monomer and basic group-containing monomer, the reactivity and polymerization stability in the production of the copolymer is improved, providing the resultant positive electrode flexibility. 2-ethylhexyl acrylate is listed as a possible additive of the instant disclosure (Paragraph 0040) and is further known in the art to be lipophilic. Thus the copolymer additive of Annaka (including a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit) has a lipophilic group, meeting the instant claimed limitations meeting the instant claimed limitations of the positive electrode mixture layer comprising an additive having a lipophilic group.
Annaka further teaches that two of more (meth)acrylic acid ester units may be used in combination. Annaka teaches examples of suitable (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer units in the copolymer additive of the positive electrode layer including lauryl methacrylate (dodecyl methacrylate) (Paragraphs 0078-0079). Thus, Annaka teaches the additive comprising dodecyl methacrylate, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Further, Annaka discloses the proportion in which the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer additive is present in the copolymer when all repeating units of the copolymer are taken to be 100 mass % is preferably 1 mass% or more and 20 mass% or less. Annaka teaches when the percentage content of the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit in the copolymer is larger than 20 mass%, the binding capacity of the copolymer and battery cycle characteristics cannot be improved. When the percentage content of the (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit in the copolymer is less than 1 mass%, Annaka teaches the flexibility and peel strength of the positive electrode cannot be improved (Paragraph 0080).
Further, Annaka discloses the proportion in which the acid group-containing monomer additive is present in the copolymer when all repeating units of the copolymer are taken to be 100 mass % is preferably 0.1 mass% or more and 10 mass% or less. Annaka teaches when the percentage content of the acid group-containing monomer unit in the copolymer is larger than 10 mass%, the positive electrode flexibility, positive electrode peel strength, and secondary battery cycle and output characteristics cannot be improved. When the percentage content of the acid group-containing monomer unit in the copolymer is less than 0.1 mass%, Annaka teaches the binding capacity of the copolymer and peel strength of the positive electrode cannot be improved (Paragraph 0076).
Further, Annaka discloses the proportion in which the basic-group containing monomer additive is present in the copolymer when all repeating units of the copolymer are taken to be 100 mass % is preferably 0.1 mass% or more and 3 mass% or less. Annaka teaches when the percentage content of the basic-group containing monomer additive in the copolymer is larger than 3 mass%, the positive electrode peel strength and secondary battery cycle characteristics cannot be improved. When the percentage content of the basic-group containing monomer additive in the copolymer is less than 0.1 mass%, Annaka teaches the polymerization stabilization of the copolymer and the stability of the slurry cannot be improved (Paragraph 0060).
Annaka discloses the proportion in which the copolymer (comprising the (meth)acrylic acid ester, acidic, and basic monomer additive units) is present in the positive electrode slurry composition per 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material is preferably 0.3 parts by mass or more and 4 parts by mass or less. Annaka teaches when the content of the copolymer unit in the slurry is larger than 4 parts by mass, the secondary battery internal resistance and output characteristics cannot be improved. When the percentage content of the copolymer in the slurry is less than 0.3 parts by mass, Annaka teaches the peel strength of the positive electrode cannot be improved (Paragraph 0080).
Thus, the range of (meth)acrylic acid ester, basic-group containing, and acid-group containing monomer additive units present in the positive electrode mixture layer may be calculated to be:
1
%
m
e
t
h
a
c
r
l
y
i
c
a
c
i
d
e
s
t
e
r
m
o
n
o
m
e
r
+
0
.
1
%
b
a
s
i
c
g
r
o
u
p
m
o
n
o
m
e
r
+
0
.
1
%
a
c
i
d
i
c
g
r
o
u
p
m
o
n
o
m
e
r
100
%
o
f
c
o
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
*
0.3
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
c
o
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
100
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
=
0.000036
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
o
f
m
e
t
h
a
c
r
y
l
i
c
a
c
i
d
p
e
r
100
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
=
36
p
p
m
a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
20
%
m
e
t
h
a
c
r
l
y
i
c
a
c
i
d
e
s
t
e
r
m
o
n
o
m
e
r
+
3
%
b
a
s
i
c
g
r
o
u
p
m
o
n
o
m
e
r
+
10
%
a
c
i
d
i
c
g
r
o
u
p
m
o
n
o
m
e
r
100
%
o
f
c
o
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
*
4
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
c
o
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
100
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
=
0.0132
p
a
r
t
s
b
y
m
a
s
s
o
f
m
e
t
h
a
c
r
y
l
i
c
a
c
i
d
p
e
r
100
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
=
13200
p
p
m
a
d
d
i
t
i
v
e
Therefore, it was determined in the calculations that Annaka teaches the concentration of additive monomers (basic group-containing, meth(acrylic) group-containing, and acidic group-containing) to the copolymer present in the positive electrode mixture later between 36 and 13200 ppm.
The range of additive monomers to the copolymer of Annaka overlaps the instant claimed range of the proportion of additive, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Annaka teaches aspects of the claimed invention discussed above but does not expressly teach the positive electrode mixture layer after being immersed in diethyl carbonate at 85°C for 120 hours has a thickness change rate of less than 10%.
However, it is reasonable to presume that the thickness change rate of the positive electrode mixture layer after being immersed in diethyl carbonate is inherent to Annaka.
The instant application discloses the thickness change rate of the positive electrode mixture layer being dependent on the additive included in the positive electrode slurry (Paragraph 0032), the additive having a hydrophilic group and a lipophilic group in some embodiments (Paragraph 0035). In other embodiments, the instant application discloses the additive including an unsaturated carboxylic group including at least one of vinyl ester, vinyl chloride, acrylate, vinyl ether acrylate, crotonate, propiolate, butynoate, or carboxylate modified with acrylamide, acrylonitrile, and vinyl ether groups (Paragraph 0039). In some embodiments, the instant application discloses the addition includes at least one of 2- dodecyl acrylate, polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether acrylate, polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate, acrylic acid (2-ethylhexyl) acrylate, acrylate non-ionic fluorocarbon acrylate surfactant, dodecyl methacrylate, acrylic acid ester copolymer, copolymer of maleic and acrylic acid, or ethylene acrylic acid copolymer (Paragraph 0040).
Support for the aforementioned presumption with respect to thickness change rate is found in that Annaka teaches the positive electrode mixture layer comprises an additive which shares the following features with the instant disclosure, as discussed above:
Comprising a hydrophilic group (basic group-containing monomer units, more specifically amino and amide group)
Comprising a lipophilic group ((meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit)
Comprising 2-ethylhexyl acrylate
Comprising dodecyl methacrylate
Comprising an unsaturated carboxylic acid group (more specifically acrylic acid or crotonic acid)
Present at a proportion of the range taught which is less than 3000 ppm
Annaka teaches the copolymer additive to the positive electrode may comprise an acid group-containing monomer unit, including carboxy-group, sulfo group, and phosphate group containing monomers (Paragraph 0062). The presence of the acid group-containing monomers is taught by Annaka to increase positive electrode peel strength and improve secondary battery cycle characteristics. Annaka teaches the carboxy-group containing monomers include monocarboxylic acids (Paragraph 0063), including acrylic acid and crotonic acid (Paragraph 0064) which are listed as examples of unsaturated carboxylic acids in the instant disclosure described above (Paragraph 0039). Acrylic acid and crotonic acid are known in the art to be examples of unsaturated carboxylic acids, so the additive of Annaka shares this feature with the additive of the instant disclosure.
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the thickness change rate of less than 10% of the positive electrode mixture layer after being immersed in diethyl carbonate at 85ºC for 120 hours is inherent to Annaka, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Annaka teaches the supporting electrolyte in the electrolytic solution of the battery may be a lithium salt, with suitable examples including LiPF6, LiAsF6, LiBF4, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, LiClO4, CF3SO3Li, C4F9SO3Li, CF3COOLi, (CF3CO)2NLi, (CF3SO2)2NLi, and (C2F5SO2)NLi.
Annaka is silent as to the electrolyte contains lithium difluorophosphate.
However, Saruwatari discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte battery (Abstract) including a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a solvent and an electrolyte salt (Paragraph 0070). Saruwatari teaches suitable examples of the electrolyte salt including LiPF6, LiBF4, (CF3SO2)2NLi, CF3SO3Li, LiAsF6, LiClO4, LiSbF6, and lithium difluorophosphate (Paragraph 0071). Saruwatari teaches suitable examples of the nonaqueous solvent including propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, 1,2-dimethoxyethane, γ-butyrolactone, tetrahydrofuran, sulfolane, diethyl carbonate (DEC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), methylethyl carbonate (MEC) (Paragraph 0072), which overlap with the solvents disclosed by Annaka (Paragraph 0125).
Therefore, given the general teachings of Saruwatari, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrolyte salt of Annaka, exemplified by at least one of LiPF6, LiBF4, (CF3SO2)2NLi, CF3SO3Li, LiAsF6, LiClO4, LiSbF6 because Saruwatari teaches the variable may suitably be selected as lithium difluorophosphate. The substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified lithium-based salt would be useful as an electrolyte salt in the electrolyte of the nonaqueous battery of Saruwatari. See MPEP § 2143.I.(B).
Annaka in view of Saruwatari is silent as to a proportion of lithium difluorophosphate based on a total weight of the electrolyte is 0.001 wt% to 2 wt%.
However, Xu discloses an electrolyte that have improve the high temperature storage and cycle performance of an electrochemical device such as a lithium ion battery (Paragraph 3). Xu teaches in some embodiments, the electrolyte comprising lithium difluorophosphate present in an amount from 0.001% to about 2% by weight, based on the total weight of the electrolyte. Xu teaches when lithium difluorophosphate is included in the electrolyte in the aforementioned range, a sufficient protective film can be formed on the surface of the positive electrode, and the cycle performance of the electrochemical device can be improved while taking into consideration the low temperature (Paragraph 73).
Therefore, 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 lithium difluorophosphate of Annaka in view of Saruwatari to incorporate the teachings of Xu in which it is included in a proportion of 0.001 wt% to 2 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte. Doing so would advantageously result in a desirable protective film on the positive electrode and improved cycle performance of the electrochemical device, as recognized by Xu. The result of the modification is a range of lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte of Annaka which corresponds to the instant claimed range, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Annaka is silent as to the electrolyte containing a trinitrile compound, the trinitrile compound comprises at least one of 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane or 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile, a proportion of the trinitrile compound is 1 wt% to 4 wt%.
Choi discloses an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery including a solvent, a lithium salt, and additives (Paragraph 0008), including auxiliary additives such as hexane tricyanide (1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile) at 0.1 wt% to 15 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte in order to effectively suppress battery resistance and provide a lithium secondary battery having good cycle-life characteristics (Paragraph 0050).
In the disclosure, Annaka teaches that the organic solvent used in the electrolyte solution may be any organic solvent, so long as the supporting electrolyte can dissolve therein (Paragraph 0125). Annaka is thus open to the modification by Choi to include an additional organic solvent, such as hexane tricyanide (HTCN) of Choi. Further, Choi provides evidence that it is known in the art to include auxiliary additives such as HTCN in addition to lithium salts and organic solvents (materials taught by Choi ¶0053-0056 and ¶0067 that overlap with those of Annaka) in an electrolyte composition to achieve the aforementioned desirable effects.
Therefore, 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 composition of Annaka to incorporate the teachings of Choi in which hexane tricyanide (1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile) is a component present at 0.1 wt% to 15 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte. Doing so would advantageously suppress battery resistance and provide a lithium secondary battery having good cycle-life characteristics, as recognized by Choi.
The result of the modification is hexane tricyanide (1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile) present in the electrolyte composition of Annaka as a trinitrile compound at a range which overlaps the instant claimed range and therefore establishes prima facie obviousness and meets the instant claimed limitations. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Annaka is silent as to X mg of lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte and a reaction area Y m2 of the positive electrode mixture layer satisfy the following relationship: 10≤X/Y≤100.
However, Shen discloses an electrode material and a secondary battery using the same (Paragraph 1). Shen teaches that in order to improve battery performance, the specific surface area of the electrode material is preferably from 0.5 to 3.0 m2/g. Shen teaches when the surface area is less than this range, the reaction area of the material is too small and the electrochemical reaction rate is slow, resulting in poor rate performance of the battery. Shen teaches when the surface area is more than this range, the reaction area is too large and side reactions occur, resulting in rapid decay of battery capacity and poor cycle performance (Paragraph 15).
Therefore, 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 specific surface area of the electrode material of Annaka to incorporate the teachings of Shen in which the area lies within the aforementioned range in order to ensure desirable performance and characteristics of a battery employing the electrode material, as recognized by Shen.
As discussed above, Shen discloses the effect of the specific surface area of the electrode material on the reaction area of the electrode material, particularly the desire to strike a balance between having a sufficiently sized area to perform an electrochemical reaction and too large of an area that promotes undesirable side reactions.
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the reaction area (by adjusting the specific surface area of the electrode material) of positive electrode mixture layer, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. By adjusting the reaction area of the positive electrode mixture layer, represented by Y (m2) in the instant claim, it follows that the ratio of X to reaction area of the positive electrode mixture layer Y (m2), X/Y, would also be adjusted and could be optimized.
In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize reaction area (Y) of the positive electrode mixture layer so that the ratio X/Y between the mg of lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte and the m2 reaction area of the positive electrode mixture layer to be within the claimed ranges of the instant claim in order to achieve the desired rate/cycle performance and capacity retention rate of the battery.
Regarding claim 2, Annaka teaches the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Annaka teaches suitable examples of the organic solvent used in the electrolyte solution including dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate as well as ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and butylene carbonate. Further, Annaka teaches a mixture of the aforementioned carbonate solvents may be employed (Paragraph 0125). Thus, Annaka teaches the instant claimed limitations of the electrolyte comprising a cyclic carbonate (ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and butylene carbonate) and a linear carbonate (dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate).
Regarding claim 3, Annaka teaches the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises a carbonate (Paragraph 1685).
Annaka teaches the organic solvent used in the electrolyte solution may be any organic solvent, and that a mixture of solvents is permitted (Paragraph 0125). In the examples of suitable examples of solvent, Annaka teaches methyl formate (Paragraph 0125) Thus, Annaka teaches an embodiment in which the electrolytic solution comprises a carboxylate.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and combined the suitable solvents taught by Annaka in which the electrolyte comprises a carbonate and a carboxylate (methyl formate). The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would perform with no inventive effort required. Furthermore, the resulting electrolytic solution would yield predictable results in electrochemical apparatus. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Annaka teaches the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Annaka teaches the copolymer additive to the positive electrode may comprise an acid group-containing monomer unit, including carboxy-group, sulfo group, and phosphate group containing monomers (Paragraph 0062). The presence of the acid group-containing monomers is taught by Annaka to increase positive electrode peel strength and improve secondary battery cycle characteristics. Annaka teaches the carboxy-group containing monomers include monocarboxylic acids (Paragraph 0063), including acrylic acid and crotonic acid (Paragraph 0064) which are listed as examples of unsaturated carboxylic acids in the instant disclosure described above (Paragraph 0039). Acrylic acid and crotonic acid are known in the art to be examples of unsaturated carboxylic acids, meeting the instant claimed limitations of the additive comprising an unsaturated carboxylic acid group
Annaka is silent as to the additive having at least one of the following characteristics: (a) an oxidation potential of not less than 4.5 V and a reduction potential of not greater than 0.5 V; (b) a surface tension of not greater than 40 mN/m.
However, it is reasonable to presume that the aforementioned properties (a) and (b) of the additive are inherent to Annaka.
As discussed above, the instant additive to the positive electrode mixture layer is equated with the basic group, acidic group, and (meth)acrylic group-containing monomers of the copolymer, as these monomers provide the features of hydrophilicity, lipophilicity, and the presence of an unsaturated carboxylic acid group as specified in the features of the instant additive.
Support for this presumption is found in that Annaka teaches the positive electrode mixture layer comprises an additive which shares the following features with the instant disclosure, as discussed above:
Comprising a hydrophilic group (basic group-containing monomer units, more specifically amino and amide group)
Comprising a lipophilic group ((meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit)
Comprising 2-ethylhexyl acrylate
Comprising dodecyl methacrylate
Comprising an unsaturated carboxylic acid group (more specifically acrylic acid or crotonic acid)
Present at a proportion of the range taught which is less than 3000 ppm
Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the additive which comprises features which overlap the additive of the instant claim would share the following characteristics: (a) an oxidation potential of not less than 4.5 V and a reduction potential of not greater than 0.5 V; (b) a surface tension of not greater than 40 mN/m, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Annaka teaches the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed previously, Annaka teaches the monomer units of (meth)acrylic acid ester, including 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (Paragraph 0079) into the copolymer additive, meeting the instant claimed limitation of the additive comprising acrylic acid (2-ethylhexyl) acrylate or acrylic acid ester copolymer
Further, as discussed above, Annaka also teaches the copolymer may contain an acidic group-containing monomer unit (Paragraph 0049). Annaka further teaches the acidic group-containing monomers that can be used to form the acidic group-containing monomer unit include carboxy group-containing monomers (Paragraph 0062) such as monocarboxylic acids and dicarboxylic acids (Paragraph 0063). Annaka teaches examples of monocarboxylic acids including acrylic acid (Paragraph 0064) and examples of dicarboxylic acids including maleic acid (Paragraph 0066). Annaka teaches that two or more acidic-group containing monomers may be used in combination in the copolymer (Paragraph 0075) in order to ensure positive electrode flexibility and peel strength as well as secondary battery output characteristics (Paragraph 0076). Thus, Annaka further teaches the additive comprising a copolymer of maleic and acrylic acid, further meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Annaka teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1.
Annaka teaches the electrolyte solution of the disclosure may include a known additive (Paragraph 0126). Annaka teaches in the examples of the disclosure, vinylene carbonate added to the electrolyte solution (Paragraph 0179). As vinylene carbonate is known in the art to be an unsaturated ethylene carbonate compound, the instant claimed limitation of the electrolyte comprising an unsaturated ethylene carbonate is met.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Annaka modified by Saruwatari, Xu, Shen, and Choi teaches:
an electrochemical apparatus, comprising: a positive electrode, a negative electrode and an electrolyte; wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode mixture layer formed on the positive electrode current collector; wherein,
the electrolyte contains lithium difluorophosphate and a trinitrile compound, the trinitrile compound comprises at least one of 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane or 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile, and
based on a total weight of the electrolyte, a proportion of the lithium difluorophosphate is 0.001 wt% to 2 wt%,
a proportion of the trinitrile compound is 1 wt% to 4 wt%; and
the positive electrode mixture layer after being immersed in diethyl carbonate at 85°C for 120 hours has a thickness change rate of less than 10%;
wherein X mg of lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte and a reaction area Y m2 of the positive electrode mixture layer satisfy the following relationship: 10≤X/Y≤100
wherein the positive electrode mixture layer comprises an additive having a hydrophilic group and a lipophilic group;
wherein the additive comprises at least one of 2-dodecyl acrylate, polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether acrylate, polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate, acrylate non-ionic fluorocarbon acrylate surfactant, or dodecyl methacrylate;
wherein the additive is present in a proportion of not greater than 3000 ppm, based on a total weight of the positive electrode mixture layer.
Annaka does not expressly teach an embodiment in which the electrochemical apparatus is in an electronic apparatus. However, Annaka recites “non-aqueous secondary batteries…have characteristics such as compact size, light weight, high energy density, and the ability to be repeatedly charged and discharged, and are used in a wide variety of applications” (Paragraph 0002).
Further, Annaka in view of Xu teaches an electrochemical device comprising an electrolyte which comprises lithium difluorophosphate as the lithium salt as discussed above. Xu teaches the electrochemical device may be a lithium secondary battery (Paragraphs 117-120). Xu teaches that such an electrochemical device is suitable for use in electronic equipment across various fields, for example portable phones, mobile computers, and power tools (Paragraph 150).
Since Annaka teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery and that these batteries can be used in a wide variety of applications, and Xu exemplifies some applications such as in various electronic equipment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate an electronic apparatus comprising the electrochemical device of Annaka in order to obtain an electronic apparatus suitable for a desired application.
Regarding claim 14, Annaka teaches an electronic apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 5, Annaka teaches the additive having at least one of the following characteristics:
a) an oxidation potential of not less than 4.5 V and a reduction potential of not greater than 0.5 V;
(b) a surface tension of not greater than 40 mN/m;
(c) comprising an unsaturated carboxylic acid group
meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Annaka teaches an electronic apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 12.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 6, Annaka teaches the additive further comprises acrylic acid (2-ethylhexyl) acrylate or a copolymer of maleic and acrylic acid, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annaka as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 12, 14-15 above, further in view of Liu (European Patent Publication No. 3435454 A2).
Regarding claim 9, Annaka teaches the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode mixture layer comprises a positive electrode active material, and the positive electrode active material comprises lithium-containing transition metal oxides (lithium-containing composite metal oxide) (Paragraph 0021).
Annaka teaches a lithium-containing composite metal oxide represented by a formula (A1): LiNiaCobMncO2 and a lithium-containing composite metal oxide represented by a formula (A2): LiNixCoyAlzO2 can suitably be used as positive electrode active material which does not readily deteriorate and has excellent capacity per unit volume (Paragraph 0042). Further, Annaka teaches the amount and particle diameter of the positive electrode active material is not specifically limited (Paragraph 0045).
Thus, Annaka teaches two different compositions of lithium-containing composite metal oxides which may be used together as positive electrode active material implemented in a battery.
Annaka does not explicitly teach the lithium-containing transition metal oxides of the positive electrode active material have different median particle sizes.
However, Liu discloses a positive active material for a lithium ion battery (Paragraph 0001) comprising a first lithium transition metal oxide represented by formula Lia(NibCocMnd)1-eMeO2 and a second lithium transition metal oxide represented by formula LixNiyCozM"sO2, wherein 0.9<a<1.1, 0.6≤b<0.9, 0.1≤c<0.4, 0.05≤d<0.4, 0≤e≤0.1, b+c+d=1, M is at least one of Al, Mg, Ti, Zr, M' is at least one of Mg, Ti, Zr, 0.9<x<1.1, 0.4≤y<0.6, 0.2≤z<0.5, 0.2≤s<0.5, y+z+s=1, M"is at least one of Mn, Al, Mg, Ti, Zr, Fe, Cr, V, Ti, Cu, B, Ca, Zn, Nb, Mo, Sr, Sb, W, Bi (Paragraph 0006). Thus, Liu discloses lithium, nickel, and cobalt-containing metal oxides which differ in that they may also contain aluminum and manganese, similar to Annaka described above.
Liu teaches the second lithium transition metal oxide represented by the above formula has a particle size of 6µm<D50≤10µm while the first lithium transition metal oxide represented by the above formula has a large median particle size D50 (>10µm) (Paragraph 0013). Liu teaches that by using a combination of lithium transition metal oxides having different median particle sizes, the gap between adjacent particles may be utilized to attain high levels of compacted density, thereby increasing volumetric energy density (Paragraph 0013).
Therefore, 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 lithium-containing composite metal oxides represented by Formula (A1) and (A2) of Annaka to incorporate the teachings of Liu in which the median particle sizes of the two compositions differs. Doing so would advantageously result in high compacted and volumetric energy density, as recognized by Liu.
The result of the modification is the positive electrode active material comprising lithium-containing transition metal oxides having different median particle sizes, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Annaka teaches the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 9.
Annaka teaches the lithium-containing composite metal oxide represented by a formula (A2) LiNixCoyAlzO2 where 0.7≤x≤1.0, 0≤y≤0.3, 0≤z≤0.1, and 0.9≤x+y+z≤1.1
The following equivalences between the elements and their subscript variables is denoted in the table below, where the underline denotes an inclusive boundary of a range:
Element in Formula (A2) of Annaka
Subscript of Formula (A2) Annaka
Subscript Range of Formula (A2) Annaka
Element of Instant Compositional Formula
Subscript of Instant Compositional Formula
Subscript Range of Instant Compositional Formula
Li
1
1
Li
a
0.5 – 1.1
Ni
x
0.7 - 1
M1=Ni
y
0.8 – 1.2
Co
y
0 – 0.3
M1=Co
z
0.8 – 1.2
Al
z
0 – 0.1
M2=Al
c
0.002 – 0.05
O
2
2
O
2
2
As is illustrated in the table above, the subscripts of the elements in Formula A2 of Annaka overlap the range of the subscripts of the elements in the instant compositional formula. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
As the instant claim defines M3 but does not require that its subscript d is non-zero, Annaka meets the claimed limitations.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annaka as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 12, 14-15 above, further in view of Kondo (Non-Patent Literature, “Effects of Mg-substitution in Li(Ni,Co,Al)O2 positive electrode materials on the crystal structure and battery performance”).
Regarding claim 11, Annaka teaches the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As mentioned previously, Annaka teaches the lithium-containing composite metal oxide represented by a formula (A2) LiNixCoyAlzO2.
Thus, Annaka teaches the lithium-containing transition metal oxide comprises Al, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Annaka is silent as to the lithium-containing transition metal oxide comprises Mg. However, Kondo discloses magnesium-substituted lithium-containing transition metal oxides, particularly lithium-containing transition metal oxides comprising nickel, cobalt, and aluminum (Abstract), which overlaps with the components disclosed by Annaka. Kondo compares the battery performance between LiNi0.80Co0.15Al0.05O2 with substituted LiNi0.75Co0.15Al0.05Mg0.05O2 (Page 1132, Column 1, Paragraph 1). Kondo teaches that when a portion of the nickel in the lithium-containing transition metal oxide is substituted by Mg, the performance of the battery is improved, particularly the capacity retention increased and the suppression of battery resistance (Page 1135, Column 2, Paragraph 2).
Therefore, 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 lithium-containing transition metal oxide of Annaka to incorporate the teachings of Kondo in which a portion of the nickel-containing lithium transition metal oxide of the formula (A2) of Annaka is substituted with magnesium. Doing so would advantageously result in improved battery performance, as recognized by Kondo.
Response to Arguments
Response – Rejections Under 35 USC § 103
In the remarks submitted June 25th, 2026, applicant argues that the Office is relying on two different references to teach lithium difluorophosphate in the contemplated proportion. Applicant argues that the lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte composition of Xu provides a different benefit than that disclosed by Saruwatari and Annaka.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that per MPEP 2141.01(a), A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). As Xu is in the same field of endeavor as Saruwatari and Annaka, namely electrolyte compositions for electrochemical devices such as lithium-ion batteries, the teachings of Xu may be applied to Saruwatari and Annaka. The benefits of Xu relating to the inclusion of lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte composition are not required to be the same as those of Saruwatari and Annaka in order to make such a combination.
In the remarks submitted June 25th, 2026, applicant argues that Annaka and Saruwatari each require a sufficient amount of lithium salt to achieve the goal of improving high load current performance based on Xu, which provides a small amount of lithium salt as an additive. Applicant argues that the proposed combination is made without any indication that the modified amount of lithium difluorophosphate would maintain the high load current performance. Applicant argues that Annaka provides that the electrolyte may be formed entirely from the lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent and that Annaka makes allowances for multiple lithium salts to be used in a consistent ratio but doesn’t indicate any benefit to one electrolyte being added in a particularly small amount, indicating that the best possible performance is achieved when all lithium salt is LiPF6. Applicant argues that similar to Saruwatari, a combination of multiple electrolyte salts may be made, but doesn’t indicate that there is any benefit to adding only a small amount of one particular electrolyte salt.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that firstly, with respect to applicant’s arguments that Annaka requires a “sufficient amount of lithium salt”, as set forth above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 25th, 2026, Annaka is silent with respect to the quantity of lithium salt present in the electrolyte, which is why the prior art of Saruwatari and Xu modified this primary reference. Therefore, applicant’s arguments directed toward Annaka requiring a specified amount of lithium salt are not founded.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that the proposed modification of Annaka in view of Saruwatari by Xu is made without any indication that the modified amount of lithium difluorophosphate would maintain the high load current performance (as described in Saruwatari), the Examiner presents that applicant has not provided why this the modified amount of lithium difluorophosphate would not maintain the high load current performance. Such burden is applicant’s. As described above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 25th, 2026, the teachings of Saruwatari exemplified how lithium difluorophosphate, in addition to lithium hexafluorophosphate, are known and suitable examples of electrolyte salts to use in an electrolyte composition while the teachings of Xu established how lithium difluorophosphate at a range of 0.001% to 2% by weight results in formation of a sufficient protective film and improved cycle performance. Further, the rejection of record did not rely on the high load current performance advantage of Saruwatari, thus the arguments relating to the breakdown of this advantage when modifying the amount of lithium difluorophosphate by Xu are not founded.
In the remarks submitted June 25th, 2026, applicant argues that Annaka provides that the electrolyte may be formed entirely from the lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent and that Annaka makes allowances for multiple lithium salts to be used in a consistent ratio but doesn’t indicate any benefit to one electrolyte being added in a particularly small amount, indicating that the best possible performance is achieved when all lithium salt is LiPF6. Applicant argues that similar to Saruwatari, a combination of multiple electrolyte salts may be made, but doesn’t indicate that there is any benefit to adding only a small amount of one particular electrolyte salt.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not only for what is indicated as preferred.” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) and a reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)). Therefore, while Annaka may teach LiPF6 as a particularly preferably electrolyte salt, Annaka teaches the electrolyte salt may suitably also be LiPF6, LiBF4, (CF3SO2)2NLi, CF3SO3Li, LiAsF6, LiClO4, LiSbF6, which were also disclosed by Saruwatari and used in the rejection above to substitute lithium difluorophosphate for any of the aforementioned suitable salts. The Examiner provided in this rejection that the substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified lithium-based salt of Annaka would be useful in an electrolyte composition, as the teachings of Saruwatari exemplified how lithium difluorophosphate, in addition to lithium hexafluorophosphate (most preferred by Annaka, as argued by applicant), are known and suitable examples of electrolyte salts to use in an electrolyte composition.
The Examiner agrees with applicant that the prior art of Annaka and Saruwatari does not indicate a benefit to including lithium difluorophosphate at a small amount, which is why the Examiner cited Xu to teach this limitation, as outlined above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 25th, 2026. Xu clearly and explicitly states that by providing lithium difluorophosphate in an electrolyte composition at an amount between 0.001 wt% and 2 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte, a sufficient protective film can be formed on the surface of the positive electrode and the cycle performance of the electrochemical device can be improved while taking into consideration the low temperature.
In the remarks submitted June 25th, 2026, applicant argues that the Office’s assertion that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Xu to incorporate lithium difluorophosphate as an additive, Saruwatari provides a list of additives that does not include lithium difluorophosphate. Applicant further argues that there is no particular reason why a person of ordinary skill would specifically target the claimed range rather than simply using it in the electrolyte at 100 wt%, for example. Applicant alleges that an attempt to bring in the isolated teaching of Xu into Annaka/Saruwatari would amount to improperly picking and choosing features from different references without regard to the teachings of the reference as a whole.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that applicant’s arguments regarding the way in which the references were combined above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 25th, 2026 does not reflect the rejection of record.
As described above, the teachings of Saruwatari exemplified how lithium difluorophosphate, in addition to LiPF6, LiBF4, (CF3SO2)2NLi, CF3SO3Li, LiAsF6, LiClO4, LiSbF6, are known and suitable examples of electrolyte salts to use in an electrolyte composition while the teachings of Xu established how lithium difluorophosphate at a range of 0.001% to 2% by weight results in formation of a sufficient protective film and improved cycle performance. The Examiner established that the substitution of any of the lithium salts of Annaka LiPF6, LiBF4, (CF3SO2)2NLi, CF3SO3Li, LiAsF6, LiClO4, LiSbF6 with lithium difluorophosphate of Saruwatari is obvious to the ordinary artisan because Saruwatari teaches that the lithium salt of an electrolyte composition may suitable be LiPF6, LiBF4, (CF3SO2)2NLi, CF3SO3Li, LiAsF6, LiClO4, LiSbF6, or lithium difluorophosphate and thus the substitution would have been one known element for another and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the predictable result that the modified lithium-based salt of Annaka would be useful in an electrolyte composition, as the teachings of Saruwatari exemplified how lithium difluorophosphate, in addition to lithium hexafluorophosphate (most preferred by Annaka, as argued by applicant), are known and suitable examples of electrolyte salts to use in an electrolyte composition.
As Annaka is silent as to the quantity of lithium salt and the modification of Annaka by Saruwatari included only the use of lithium difluorophosphate as a suitable salt in the electrolyte position, the Examiner established that Annaka in view of Saruwatari is silent as to the quantity of lithium difluorophosphate present in the electrolyte based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition, Xu was used to further modify Annaka in view of Saruwatari. Xu clearly and explicitly states that by providing lithium difluorophosphate in an electrolyte composition at an amount between 0.001 wt% and 2 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte, a sufficient protective film can be formed on the surface of the positive electrode and the cycle performance of the electrochemical device can be improved while taking into consideration the low temperature.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments with respect to there being no particular reason to why a person of ordinary skill would provide the lithium difluorophosphate in the claimed range are not founded, as Annaka in view of Saruwatari and Xu established a range of lithium difluorophosphate present in the electrolyte composition which overlapped the instant claimed range for the purposes of forming a sufficient protective film and improving cycle performance of the electrochemical device.
With respect to applicant’s argues relating to the additives of Saruwatari and Xu, the examiner presents that the inclusion of lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte composition is a structural feature (lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte). While applicant appears to be arguing that because Xu refers to lithium difluorophosphate as an additive in the disclosure and Saruwatari refers to lithium difluorophosphate as a lithium salt (and therefore it does not appear in the list of electrolyte additives of Saruwatari), the Examiner provides that the differences in what the prior art calls lithium difluorophosphate in the disclosure is merely a matter of naming convention. The Examiner’s rejection of record relies on the teachings of Xu and Saruwatari with respect to the inclusion of lithium difluorophosphate in the composition of an electrolyte for the battery, irrespective of how the prior art refers to LiPO2F2. Both Xu and Saruwatari disclose lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolytes of their batteries.
In the remarks submitted June 25th, 2026, applicant argues that if the Office is intending to provide a mixture of lithium salts including lithium difluorophosphate, the Office must provide specific reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to select the claimed species or subgenus, citing MPEP 2144.08(II).
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that in the rejection above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 25th, 2026, the office established that due to Saruwatari teachings relating to LiPF6, LiBF4, (CF3SO2)2NLi, CF3SO3Li, LiAsF6, LiClO4, LiSbF6 with lithium difluorophosphate being suitable lithium salts usable in the electrolyte composition, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to substitute one known element for another. In the rejection of record, the Examiner did not state that the modification would necessarily provide a mixture of lithium salts including lithium difluorophosphate – while a preferred embodiment of Annaka included LiPF6 as the lithium salt, this salt remains in the list of suitable salts taught by Saruwatari and therefore remains obvious to substitute with lithium difluorophosphate. The Examiner is unsure if applicant is attempting to argue that in the case that lithium difluorophosphate is the only lithium salt, there is no particular reason why a person of ordinary skill would specifically target the claimed range rather than simply using it in the electrolyte at 100 wt%, for example, as described above. If this is the case, the Examiner presents that Annaka is open to the electrolyte composition comprising one or a combination of electrolyte salts, in addition to an organic solvent and known additives (Paragraphs 00124-00126). Therefore, the Examiner presents that if, for the sake of argument, lithium difluorophosphate is the only lithium salt used (100% of the lithium salt composition if lithium difluorophosphate), the instant claimed limitation recites lithium difluorophosphate at 0.001 wt% to 2 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte. Therefore, the modification by Xu to provide the lithium difluorophosphate salt of Annaka in view of Saruwatari at 0.001 wt% to 2 wt% to achieve the benefits of film formation and improved cycle performance may, for example, be obtained by tuning the amount of solvent and additional additives (which Annaka is open to, as described above) in the electrolyte composition.
In the remarks submitted June 25th, 2026, applicant argues that as shown in Table 3, there is no inherent teaching of having the additives of the disclosure produce the desired thickness change rate in any positive electrode active material, since their performance varies significantly by what positive electrode active material is used. Applicant goes on to argue that Annaka does not disclose the positive electrode active material of the instant applicant, which affects the thickness change rate outcome substantially. Applicant emphasizes that the thickness change rate requires a pairing of an additive and a positive electrode active material, and so the additive present in a similar quantity but a different positive electrode active material of Annaka does not amount to an inherent disclosure of the claimed property.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)(II). While applicant cites Table 3 in their arguments, the Examiner notes that the scope of the conclusions drawn by applicant with respect to the variables which affect the thickness change rate are not necessarily provided for in the instant disclosure. The Examiner provides that the specification must be evaluated for all that it discloses, including, as noted above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 25th, 2026, Paragraph 0032 in which the specification explicitly states that the thickness change rate of the positive electrode mixture layer is dependent on the additive included in the positive electrode slurry. Further, and in direct contrast to applicant’s arguments, the instant disclosure teaches:
“The type of the positive electrode active material and the sizes of the positive electrode active material particles have little influence on the thickness change rate of the positive electrode mixture layer”
Therefore, the Examiner presents that applicant arguments that the thickness change rate is significantly related to the composition of the positive electrode active material which is not taught by Annaka and thus not inherent to Annaka, is not founded as these allegations are directed in opposition to what is very clearly and explicitly taught by the instant disclosure.
In the remarks submitted June 25th, 2026, applicant argues that measurements of specific surface area (SSA) is known in the art and Shen appears to contemplate measuring SSA of particles generally, while the instant applicant is measuring reaction area of the composition (SSA x weight of the positive electrode mixture layer). Applicant argues that Shen is not looking at the same measure as the instant claimed application, and thus a person of ordinary skill would not contemplate applicant’s characteristics X/Y based on the teachings of Shen without any other references.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that in the rejection in view of Shen presented above, the Examiner provided the teachings of Shen related to the specific surface area. While the Examiner recognizes applicant’s arguments that the specific surface area of Shen is different from the reaction area of the instant claim, the rejection of record included the teachings of Shen which correlated the specific surface area of the electrode material to the reaction area. As indicated above and in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 25th, 2026, Shen teaches a range of the specific surface area which is considered to provide sufficient reaction area of the electrode material (Paragraph 15). Therefore, the ordinary would recognize that by modifying the specific surface area of the electrode material in accordance with Shen as described in the rejection, the reaction area, and thus the X/Y, would also be affected. The rejection indicates this modification guided by the teachings of Shen in which it is desirable to strike a balance between having a sufficiently sized reaction area to perform an electrochemical reaction and too large of a reaction area that promotes undesirable side reasons. These fundamental teachings of Shen established the claimed limitation as being unpatentable over the prior art, because where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
In the remarks submitted June 25th, 2026, applicant argues that Table 4 of the instant disclosure, particularly Examples 3 and 18-21 show the beneficial unexpected results arising from the claimed X/Y relationship. Applicant argues that Example 3 demonstrates how a X/Y relationship smaller than the claimed range results in a markedly lower time until failure and Example 21 having an X/Y relationship larger than the claimed range results in a markedly lower interval cycling capacity retention rate.
These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents the following points with respect to allegations of unexpected results:
Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is noted that it is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I).
Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II).
It is further noted that in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d) II.
As applicant’s arguments are directed toward the X/Y ratio in Example 3 being 1 and the X/Y ratio in Example 21 being 110, applicant presents only two values that lie outside of the claimed range (one greater than the upper limit and one less than the lower limit) and a three values that lies within the claimed range (Examples 18-20), this is certainly not a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside of the claimed range.
Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d).
As applicant’s arguments are directed toward the superior results due to the X/Y ratio in Examples 3, 18-21, applicant presents findings of the disclosure which specify the additive as a Type 1 additive (2-ethylhexyl acrylate) present at 2000 ppm (Table 1) while the instant claim 1 generally claims:
“the additive comprises at least one of 2-dodecyl acrylate, polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether acrylate, polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate, acrylate non-ionic fluorocarbon acrylate surfactant, or dodecyl methacrylate; wherein the additive is present in a proportion of not greater than 3000 ppm, based on a total weight of the positive electrode mixture layer.”
Therefore, applicant’s arguments with respect to unexpected results of the claimed X/Y are related to Examples whose scope is narrower than the instant claim. As such, applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
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 OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./ Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights