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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received February 26, 2026:
Claims 1 and 6-12 are pending. Claims 2-5 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of 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). 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 an 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).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu et al. as modified by Lee 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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).
Claim 12 is 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miura (US 2019/0393564A).
Regarding Claim 12, Wu et al. as modified by Lee et al. teaches all of the elements of the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery in claim 1 as explained above.
Wu et al. further teaches a secondary battery a 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).
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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed weight ratio of 1/9 to 9 between the compound of Chemical Formula 1-2 and the compound of Chemical Formula 1-1 provides markedly improved thermal stability as demonstrated by Tables 1-3 and Example 8 comprising a lithium bis(oxalate)borate (LiBOB) salt provides significantly improved capacity retention after 8 weeks, DCIR decrease and delay time before explosion in the hot box test.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to be arguing unexpected results. However, the burden to show unexpected results, as required by MPEP 716.02 has not been provided. Examiner suggests Applicant review MPEP 716.02 in full to see the burden that must be met to show unexpected results. For example, regarding the claimed weight ratio of 1/9 to 9 between the compound of Chemical Formula 1-2 and the compound of Chemical Formula 1-1, the Examples 7-9 and 12, which appear to be the only examples containing both claimed chemical formulas, only provide a weight ratio of 5:5. There are no examples near the lower bounds (1/9) nor the upper bounds (9) nor any examples outside the claimed range. Furthermore, regarding the borate-based lithium salt, it appears as though the only Example commensurate in scope with claim 1 is Example 12, which shows the same hot box test time as Example 9 (which has no LiBOB) and 1% higher capacity retention then Example 11 (which has only one of the clamed additive chemical formulas) and a higher DCIR than Example 9 (which has no LiBOB). Thus, Applicant has not demonstrated how the claimed weight ratio provides an unexpected result as the requirements of MPEP 716.02(d) have not been met. 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. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02(d)(II). Additionally, the requirements of 716.02(b) have not been met as it is unclear how a same hot box test time, a 1% higher capacity retention and lower DCIR is in fact unexpected and unobvious of both statistical and practical significance. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Wu merely mentions LiBOB in a general sense while Wu’s Examples 1-6 use LiPF6, therefore there is no suggestion or motivation in Wu to include a borate-based lithium salt.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wu explicitly teaches the lithium salt is LiBOB in Para. [0028]). "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the references individually there is no reasonable predictability that the proposed modification would result in the results as demonstrated by the present application and that the mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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). The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Regarding the proposed modification, 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]) (i.e. Lee suggest desirability of the modification) (see section 6 above). Thus, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Conclusion
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