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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatunov et al. (US 2016/0351963 A1, hereinafter Shatunov, cited by applicant) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0152981 A1, hereinafter Kim).
Re Claim 1. Shatunov teaches a secondary battery (para. 87, 88 & 109-114) comprising an electrolyte (para. 87, 88 & 109-114) and a positive electrode plate (para. 87, 88 & 109-114), wherein the electrolyte comprises a compound represented by formula (I) (para. 58):
PNG
media_image1.png
86
228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein Q represents S (para. 58);
L represents a single bond (para. 58);
when Q is S, m is 2 and n is 1 (para. 58); and
the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material (para. 88).
Shatunov fails to specifically teach that a surface residual lithium content of the positive electrode active material is 20 wt ppm to 2,000 wt ppm.
The invention of Kim encompasses positive active material for rechargeable lithium battery. Kim teaches that a surface residual lithium content of the positive electrode active material is less than 1300 ppm (para. 58).
In view of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Shatunov to have a surface residual lithium content of the positive electrode active material to be less than 1300 ppm, since Kim 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, para. 58).
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein L represents a single bond (Shatunov, para. 58).
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
74
162
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Shatunov, para. 58).
Re Claim 5. The combination teaches based on total weight of the electrolyte, wherein a percentage of the compound represented by formula (I) in the electrolyte is 0.00l wt% to 10 wt% (Shatunov, para. 61).
Re Claim 7. The combination teaches a battery module (Shatunov, para. 113), comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatunov in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tian et al. (CN 112736285 A, hereinafter Tian).
The teachings of Shatunov in view of Kim have been discussed above.
Shatunov in view of Kim 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 Shatunov in view of Kim 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) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatunov in view of Kim as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Zou et al. (US 2021/0119258 A1, hereinafter Zou).
Re Claim 8. Shatunov in view of Kim 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 Shatunov in view of Kim 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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
2/10/2026