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 July 7, 2026:
Claims 1 and 6-11 are pending. Claims 2-5 and 12 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new prior art rejection has been made below. 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 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2017/0207486) in view of Lee et al. (KR 2016/0135513A), Akikusa et al. (US 2017/0256777) and Miura et al. (US 2019/0393564A). The English machine translation of Lee et al. is attached in a prior Office action and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Wu et al. teaches a secondary lithium ion battery (Para. [0009]) comprising an anode and cathode (Para. [0011]) (i.e. electrode assembly) and an electrolyte solution injected into the dried cell (Para. [0068]) (i.e. the electrolyte solution accommodated together with the electrode assembly), a lithium transition metal phosphate such as LiFePO4 (i.e. the cathode comprises a cathode active material) the electrolyte composition for a lithium ion battery (Para. [0009]) (i.e. an electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery) comprising an organic solvent (Para. [0003]) wherein the amount of solvent is between 70 to 95% of the total electrolyte weight (Para. [0033]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of an organic solvent ranging from 90 wt% to 96% wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution), wherein the solute of the electrolyte solution contains lithium salts (Para. [0026]) and the amount of salt is between 5% to 20% of the total electrolyte weight (Para. [0031]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of an amount ranging from 0.01 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution), the lithium salt comprises lithium salts of LiBF4 (i.e. lithium tetrafluoro borate), lithium bis(oxalate)borate and lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate (Para. [0028]) (i.e. the electrolyte solution comprises a borate-based lithium salt) and a phosphorus containing compound in an amount of between 1% to 4% of the total electrolyte weight (Para. [0047]) which includes triphenyl phosphate (i.e. a triphenyl phosphate-based additive in an amount overlapping with the claimed range of from 3 wt% to 7 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution and the triphenyl phosphate-based additive comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 of the instant claim), and further teaches tris(4-fluorophenyl) phosphate (Para. [0041]) (i.e. a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-2). 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).
Wu et al. does not teach a weight ratio of the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-2 to the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 is in a range from 1/9 to 9.
However, Lee et al. teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising a phosphate-based compound (Para. [0011]) wherein the phosphate-based compound is tris(4-fluorophenyl) phosphate (Para. [0036]) (i.e. Chemical Formula 1-2) in an amount of 2 to 10 wt% based on the total amount of the electrolyte (Para. [0037]).
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 amount of tris(4-fluorophenyl) phosphate in Wu et al. to incorporate the teaching of comprising tris(4-fluorophenyl) phosphate in an amount of 2 wt% to 10 wt% as taught by Lee et al., as such a content would provide sufficient output improvement and prevent resistance increase and side reactions from occurring at excessively high temperatures (Para. [0037]). Thus, the modified electrolyte solution would comprise a weight ratio of the Chemical Formula 1-2 to the compound Chemical Formula 1-1 of 2-10:3-7 (i.e. a range from 0.29 to 3.33, within the claimed range of 1/9 to 9).
Wu et al. does not explicitly teach an electrode assembly in which a plurality of cathodes and anodes are repeatedly stacked, or a case accommodating the electrode assembly), nor the cathode active material comprising a lithium-transition metal oxide including nickel.
However, Akikusa et al. teaches a cathode for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0037]) wherein the cathode includes LiNiO2 (i.e. comprising a lithium-transition metal oxide including nickel) and LiFePO4 (Para. [0030]).
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 cathode of Wu et al. to incorporate the teaching of LiNiO2 (i.e. comprising a lithium-transition metal oxide including nickel) in addition to LiFePO4, as such active materials can provide high capacity (Para. [0045]). Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lithium transition-metal oxide containing nickel as taught by Akikusa et al. for use as a cathode active material in a lithium secondary battery, as combing equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP §2144.06(I).
Wu et al. does not explicitly teach an electrode assembly in which a plurality of cathodes and anodes are repeatedly stacked, or a case accommodating the electrode assembly).
However, Miura teaches a secondary battery assembly by a multilayer-type electrode body which can be constructed by alternately stacking a plurality of positive electrode plates and a plurality of negative electrode plates (i.e. an electrode assembly in which a plurality of cathodes and anodes are repeatedly stacked) and an electrolyte solution inside a battery case (Para. [0031], [0032]) (i.e. a case accommodating the electrode assembly, the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery accommodates together with the electrode assembly in the case).
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 battery of Wu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the multilayer battery of Miura, as it would allow for optimally managing the charging voltage and high-temperature aging time of the individual batteries independently from each other, providing suitability for coping with battery production variability (Para. [0080]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu et al. as modified by Lee et al., Akikusa et al. and Miura et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Wu et al. further teaches the lithium salt comprises lithium salts of LiBF4 (i.e. lithium tetrafluoro borate), lithium bis(oxalate)borate and lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate (Para. [0028]) (i.e. the lithium salt includes at least one borate-based lithium salt selected from the group consisting of LiBF4 (i.e. lithium tetrafluoro borate), lithium bis(oxalate)borate and lithium difluoro(oxalate)borate).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu et al. as modified by Lee et al., Akikusa et al. and Miura et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6 as explained above.
Wu et al. further teaches the lithium salt comprises lithium bis(oxalate)borate (Para. [0028]) (i.e. the borate-based lithium salt includes lithium bis(oxalate)borate).
Regarding Claim 8, Wu et al. as modified by Lee et al., Akikusa et al. and Miura et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6 as explained above.
Wu et al. further teaches the amount of salt (which may be a borate-based lithium salt, Para. [0028])) is between 5% to 20% of the total electrolyte weight (Para. [0031]) (i.e. the amount of the borate-based lithium salt overlapping with the claimed range of an amount ranging from 0.01 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution). 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).
Regarding Claim 9, Wu et al. as modified by Lee et al., Akikusa et al. and Miura et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Wu et al. further teaches the electrolyte additive (i.e. wherein the electrolyte solution further comprises at least one auxiliary additive) can further comprise prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone (Para. [0024]).
Regarding Claim 10, Wu et al. as modified by Lee et al., Akikusa et al. and Miura et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Wu et al. further teaches the prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone provided in an amount of 0.1 to 5.0% by weight of the electrolyte solution (Para. [0046]) (i.e. within the claimed range of the auxiliary additive is included in an amount ranging from 0.01 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution).
Regarding Claim 11, Wu et al. as modified by Lee et al., Akikusa et al. and Miura et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Wu et al. further teaches the solvent comprises ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate (Para. [0023]), dimethyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate (Para. [0033]) (i.e. the organic solvent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of EC, EMC, DMC and DEC as claimed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly amended limitation have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument regarding the new limitation.
Applicant argues Wu does not teach a working example using TPP (Chemical Formula 1-1) or TFFP (Chemical Formula 1-2), nothing in Wu suggests combining them at any weight ratio and the mechanism described in the published application is not applicable to Wu.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Furthermore, when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named. See MPEP 2131.02. Wu is not relied upon for teaching the claimed weight ratio. Rather, Lee et al. teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising a phosphate-based compound (Para. [0011]) wherein the phosphate-based compound is tris(4-fluorophenyl) phosphate (Para. [0036]) (i.e. Chemical Formula 1-2) in an amount of 2 to 10 wt% based on the total amount of the electrolyte (Para. [0037]) wherein incorporating the teaching of comprising tris(4-fluorophenyl) phosphate in an amount of 2 wt% to 10 wt% as taught by Lee et al., as such a content would provide sufficient output improvement and prevent resistance increase and side reactions from occurring at excessively high temperatures (Para. [0037]), with the teachings of Wu et al., wherein the natural result of the combination would provide the electrolyte solution which would comprise a weight ratio of the Chemical Formula 1-2 to the compound Chemical Formula 1-1 of 2-10:3-7 (i.e. a range from 0.29 to 3.33, within the claimed range of 1/9 to 9). A proper finding of inherency does not require that all limitations are taught in a single reference, and that inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." See MPEP 2112(IV). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the mechanism described in the specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Lee discloses neither TPP (i.e. Chemical Formula 1-1) nor a borate-based lithium salt, the core of Lee employs LiFSI as an essential component, and TFPP is one example but expresses TFEP as the preferred compound.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Furthermore, Lee is not relied upon for teaching TPP nor the borate-based lithium salt as explained above in the rejection to claim 1. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Regarding LiFSI, Wu et al. teaches the electrolyte solution comprises LiFSI (Para. [0039], [0043]) and thus, there is a reasonable expectation of success and applicability of the teachings of Lee. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the proposed combination is hindsight reconstruction that is impermissible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As the current rejection of record takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not rely upon knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, no improper hindsight reasoning was used.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
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
Prosecution Insights