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
Amendments filed on November 20, 2025 in response to the non-Final Office Action mailed on September 25, 2025 have been received and entered. Claims 1-6, 13-16 and 20 have been amended. Claims 7-12 have been cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-6 and 13-22 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito et al. (US 20120082897 A1).
Applicant argues that firstly, cited Fig. 4 is devoid of any identification for the diffraction peaks. As such, a person skilled in the art cannot identify the specific locations of the 004 and 101 peaks. Secondly, even assuming the same space group between Example 6 and Comparative Example 1, their significant compositional differences, particularly in Li/Na content and Ti doping, could readily lead to shifts in diffraction peak positions and alterations in relative intensity ratios (e.g., I(101)/I(004)). Consequently, the peak positions in FIG. 4 cannot be extrapolated from those in FIG. 6. Thirdly, the intensity of XRD diffraction peaks should be quantified by precise calculation of integrated intensity or peak height. In the absence of specific numerical data in Saito, as the vertical axes of both FIG. 4 and FIG. 6 lack identified intensity values, any intensity ratio (such as I(101)/I(004)) derived merely from visual inspection is inherently inaccurate [Remarks p. 7].
In addition, it can be seen from that, Saito merely discloses a number of substances that may potentially serve as solvents for the non-aqueous electrolyte but does not involve any additives in the electrolyte. Moreover, Saito makes no mention whatsoever of sulfonate compounds. Hence, Saito fails to disclose an electrolyte containing the additive 1,3-propane sultone (claim 1) [Remarks p. 8].
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed on November 20, 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 2, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 16-20 on claim 1 the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 3, 4 and 15 on claim 1 the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Miyasaka (JP H06310143 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Yuta et al. (US 20180226683 A1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasaka (JP H06310143 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Yuta et al. (US 20180226683 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Miyasaka teaches a non-aqueous secondar battery comprising a positive electrode, having a current collector and a positive electrode active layer provided on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector [0004, 0034 and 0035]. The positive electrode active material is represented by LixNayCozTimOp (0.8≤x≤1.3, 0.02≤y≤0.1, 0.8≤z≤1.0, 0.02≤m≤0.1 and 0≤p≤2.7) [0004]. From the above teaching a compound with formula Li0.8Na0.1Co0.9Ti0.1O2, which can be obtained from claim 1 formula if n=0.9, x=0.1, y=0.1 and Me=Ti.
Miyasaka further teaches 1,3-propane sultone may be employed on its electrolyte in addition to a mixture of at least one aprotic organic solvent and a lithium salt dissolved in the solvent [0027].
Miyasaka does not teach the feature wherein the electrolyte additive (1, 3-propane sultone) “has a mass being 0.1-10% of a total mass of the electrolyte”.
Yuta teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery having a non-aqueous electrolyte containing a lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent [Abstract]. Yuta further teaches that its non-aqueous electrolyte may include conventional lithium salts, saturated acyclic carbonate compounds (generally aprotic solvents) and propane sultone as an additive [0063, 0072 and 0076]. The non-aqueous electrolyte of Yuta is on the same field of endeavor of Miyasaka. The total content of the additives is preferably 0.005-10 mass% relative to the nonaqueous electrolyte [0065]. By employing this additive content range adverse effects on the non-aqueous electrolyte may be prevented [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the additive range disclosed by Yuta because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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. In addition, by employing this additive content range adverse effects on the non-aqueous electrolyte may be prevented.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Miyasaka in view of Yuta. However, Miyasaka teaches that its positive electrode material is represented by LixNayCozTimOp (0.8≤x≤1.3, 0.02≤y≤0.1, 0.8≤z≤1.0, 0.02≤m≤0.1 and 0≤p≤2.7) [0004], from which Li0.8Na0.1Co0.9Ti0.1O2 can be obtained, falling within the recited claim 1 formula if n=0.9, x=0.1, y=0.1 and Me=Ti.
According to the original specification, a first aspect of the disclosure provides a positive electrode material having claim 1 formula, which has a X-ray diffraction pattern as the one recited [0007]. XRD results on Table 1, show that Examples 1-22, which followed the method to obtain a positive electrode material with claim 1 recited formula [0012-0017], has the claimed X-ray diffraction pattern [0086]. Therefore, the claimed X-ray diffraction pattern, would expectedly be achieved by Miyasaka positive electrode material composition. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 2, Miyasaka and Yuta teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except the recited diffraction angles.
According to the original specification, XRD results on Table 1, show that Examples 1-22, which followed the method to obtain a positive electrode material with claim 1 recited formula [0012-0017], has the claimed diffraction angles. Therefore, the recited diffraction angles, would expectedly be achieved by Miyasaka positive electrode material composition. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claims 3 and 4 (depends on claim 2), Miyasaka and Yuta teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1 (on which claim 2 depends). Miyasaka further teaches that its positive electrode material is preferably composed mainly of secondary particles having an average particle diameter of 0.1-15 µm [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the average particle diameter range disclosed by Miyasaka because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 6 (depends on claim 2), Miyasaka and Yuta teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1 (on which claim 2 depends), except the recited gram capacity and the C1/C0 and C2/C0 limitations.
According to the original specification, the gram capacity for Examples 1-22 positive electrode materials was recorded according to the recited test conditions on claims 5 and 6 [0088]. From Table 2, can be seen that Examples 1-22, met the claimed gram capacity and the C1/C0 and C2/C0 limitations. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the claimed gram capacity and the C1/C0 and C2/C0 limitations, would expectedly be achieved by Miyasaka positive electrode material composition. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claims 13, 14 (depends on claim 2) and 15 (depends on claim 3) Miyasaka and Yuta teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1 (on which claim 2 and 3 depends). Miyasaka further teaches on Example 1 a positive electrode mixture prepared by mixing 82% by weight of a positive electrode active material [0037].
Regarding claims 16, 17 (depends on claim 13) and 18 (depends on claim 16) Miyasaka and Yuta teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1 (on which claims 13 and 16 depends). Miyasaka further teaches that its positive electrode mixture can have a conductive agent, which may be carbon black, acetylene black and/or Ketjen black, among other candidates [0025]. Also the positive electrode mixture can include a binder such as tetrafluoroethylene and/or polyvinylidene fluoride, among other candidates [0026].
Regarding claim 19 Miyasaka and Yuta teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 16. Miyasaka further teaches that the taught conductive agent and binder may be employed as part of the positive electrode mixture in an amount of 2-15% by weight and 2-30% by weight respectively [0025 and 0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the conductive agent and binder amount ranges disclosed by Miyasaka because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Regarding claim 20 Miyasaka and Yuta teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Miyasaka further teaches that by using the positive electrode active material of the present invention, a lithium ion secondary battery excellent in charge/discharge characteristics, discharge potential, and cycle characteristics was obtained [0050]. From the general knowledge of lithium ion secondary batteries and the teaching above, could be reasonable to consider the employment of the obtained battery on an electronic device.
Regarding claim 21 Miyasaka and Yuta teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Miyasaka further teaches that the cut-off voltage of the charge/discharge cycle is not uniquely determined because it varies depending on the type and combination of the positive electrode active material and the negative electrode active material to be used, but a voltage capable of increasing the discharge voltage and substantially maintaining the cycle property is preferable [0021]. From Example 1, the charge/discharge cycle property was evaluated by cycling between 4.5 V and 3.0 V with a charge cutoff voltage of 4.5 V and a discharge cutoff voltage of 3.0 V [0037]. From the above teaching could be possible to set the “charging cut-off voltage ≥ 4.55V” for a specific combination type and combination of the positive electrode active material and the negative electrode active material to be used.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasaka (JP H06310143 A, see machine translation for citation) in view of Yuta et al. (US 20180226683 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Intan, N. and Pfaendtner, J. (Effect of fluoroethylene carbonate additives on the initial formation of the solid electrolyte interphase on an oxygen-functionalized graphitic anode in lithium-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 22, Miyasaka and Yuta teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Miyasaka further teaches that its electrolyte could include a mixture of at least one aprotic organic solvent. As examples of the possible solvents, propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate are mentioned [0027].
Miyasaka does not teach the employment of fluoroethylene carbonate as an organic solvent.
Intan teaches that it has been found that the addition of fluoroethylene carbonate on electrolyte systems improve the stability of an SEI and is capable of extending both the performance and life cycle of lithium-ion batteries [p. 8170; col. 1; line 33-38]. Because Miyasaka electrolyte system is related to the manufacture of a lithium-ion battery, the teachings of Intan can be considered to be on the same field of endeavor. Intan further teaches that in comparison to other electrolytes, the reduction potential of this additive is higher, which leads to easier reduction and decomposition on the surface of the anode [p. 8170; col. 2; line 1-3].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the organic solvent system of Miyasaka and Yuta to include “fluoroethylene carbonate”, because Intan teaches that its addition can improve the stability of an SEI and is capable of extending both the performance and life cycle of lithium-ion batteries and its reduction potential is higher, which leads to easier reduction and decomposition on the surface of the anode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 02/18/2026