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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0265662 A1, hereinafter Kim) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0152981 A1, hereinafter Kim ‘981, previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Kim teaches a secondary battery (para. 96) comprising an electrolyte (para. 96) and a positive electrode plate (para. 96), wherein the electrolyte comprises a compound represented by formula (I) (X-L-N=C=O with X is R4-SO2, para. 33-38):
PNG
media_image1.png
86
228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Q represents S (para. 33-38);
L represents an oxo group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkenylene group (33-38);
when Q is S, m is 2 and n is 1 (33-38); and
the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material (para. 68).
Kim fails to specifically teach that a halogen (R4) is F and that a surface residual lithium content of the positive electrode active material is 20 wt ppm to 2,000 wt ppm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim to employ F as a halogen, since there are limited options for halogen, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
The invention of Kim ‘981 encompasses positive active material for rechargeable lithium battery. Kim ‘981teaches that a surface residual lithium content of the positive electrode active material is less than 1300 ppm (para. 58).
In view of Kim ‘981, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim to have a surface residual lithium content of the positive electrode active material to be less than 1300 ppm, since Kim ‘981 teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to improve the cycle-life and capacity characteristics of the battery (para. 54).
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). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Re Claim 2. The combination teaches wherein the surface residual lithium content of the positive electrode active material is less than 1300 wt ppm (Kim ‘981, para. 58).
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein L represents an oxo group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkenylene group (Kim, para. 33-38).
Re Claim 4. The combination teaches wherein the compound represented by general formula (I) is selected from at least one of the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
71
200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Kim, para. 33-38).
Re Claims 5 and 11. The combination teaches based on total weight of the electrolyte, wherein a percentage of the compound represented by formula (I) in the electrolyte is 0.05 wt% to 1 wt% (Kim, para. 46).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kim ‘981 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tian et al. (CN 112736285 A, hereinafter Tian, previously cited).
The teachings of Kim in view of Kim ‘981 have been discussed above.
Kim in view of Kim ‘981 fails to specifically teach that the electrolyte further comprises one or more positive electrode film-forming additives selected from: vinylene sulfate, polycyclic sulfate, lithium difluorophosphate, and lithium fluorosulfonate.
The invention of Tian encompasses electrolyte and lithium ion battery. Tian teaches that the electrolyte further comprises one or more positive electrode film-forming additives selected from: lithium difluorophosphate, and lithium fluorosulfonate (P2).
In view of Tian, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim in view of Kim ‘981 to employ lithium difluorophosphate or lithium fluorosulfonate, since Tian teaches the advantage of using them, which is to avoid the catalytic oxidation of the electrolyte on the surface of the positive electrode (P2).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Kim ‘981 in view of Shatunov et al. (US 2016/0351963 A1, hereinafter Shatunov, previously cited).
Kim in view of Kim ‘981 teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) but fails to specifically teaches a battery module.
The invention of Shatunov encompasses lithium battery. Shatunov teaches a battery module (para. 113).
In view of Shatunov, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim in view of Kim ‘981 to make a battery module, since it would increase the output by using a plurality of batteries.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Kim view of Kim ‘981 and Shatunov as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zou et al. (US 2021/0119258 A1, hereinafter Zou, previously cited).
Re Claim 8. Kim view of Kim ‘981 and Shatunov fails to specifically teach a battery pack, comprising the battery module.
The invention of Zou encompasses lithium-ion battery and electrical apparatus. Zou teaches a battery pack (Fig. 6, item 30), comprising the battery module (item 20).
In view of Zou, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim view of Kim ‘981 and Shatunov to make a battery pack comprising the battery module, to match the application and capacity (para. 108).
Re Claim 9. The combination teaches an electric apparatus (Shatunov, para. 114 & Zou, Fig. 7), comprising the battery pack according to claim 8.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Kim view of Kim ‘981 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gou et al. (CN 111092256 A, hereinafter Gou).
Kim view of Kim ‘981 fails to specifically teach that particles of the positive electrode active material are of single crystals.
The invention of Guo encompasses high temperature lithium ion battery. Guo teaches that particles of the positive electrode active material are of single crystals (P2).
In view of Guo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kim in view of Kim ‘981 to employ single crystal particles for positive active material; since Guo teaches the advantage of using them, which is to improve high temperature performance of the battery (P5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) Claim 1 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.
Newly cited reference, Kim addresses the new limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, regarding claim 1, applicant argued that when both conditions (A) the electrolyte comprises a compound represented by formula (I), and (B) a surface residual lithium content of the positive electrode active material is 20 to 2,000 wt ppm were satisfied, unexpected results occurred.
The examiner disagrees with this because Table 1 shows that when both conditions (A) and (B) are met, the results are additive, which is expected (Comparative example 2 for condition (B) 285 cycles and 60 days with Example 19 for condition (A) 399 cycles and 45 days adding to 684 cycles and 105 days, which is comparable to results of invention).
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.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
5/6/2026
Prosecution Insights