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 .
LITHIUM-ION BATTERY
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/259,300 Art Unit 1727 May 4, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on filed on April 13, 2026 has been received. Claims 1 and 9-18 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-8 have been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin on claims 1-7, 10-12 and 16-17 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin and Wan on claims 2-8 are withdrawn because Applicant has canceled the claims.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin on claim 9 is withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
The claim rejections under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin on claims 13-15 and 18 are withdrawn because Applicant has amended the independent claim.
Claim(s) 1, 9-12 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN 110931863 A; as found in IDS dated 01/21/2025 and using US 2020/0227784 A1 for citation purposes) in view of Wan et al. (CN 111755753 A; using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 1 and 16-17, Lin discloses a lithium-ion battery, comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a nonaqueous electrolyte. The positive electrode comprises an active material represented by formula LiNixCoyMnzL(1-x-y-z)O2 wherein L is at least one of Al, Sr, Mg, Ti, Ca, Zr, Zn, Si or Fe, 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, 0<x+y+z≤1 (paragraphs [0016-0017]). Lin discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a solvent, LiPF6 and a compound represented by formula 2/D2 (reads on claimed formula 1) which is present in an amount of 1 wt% based on the entire electrolyte (Paragraphs [0008, 0085], Table 2, Example 2). Lin does not specifically disclose at least one of the claimed compounds. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active material of Lin to read on the claims because Lin teaches that a battery with improved output performance is provided (Abstract).
However, Wan teaches of an electrolyte additive comprising a compound I-V which are the same as or structurally very close to the claimed compounds (Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
278
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For the compounds that are not the same but structurally very close, the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2144.09, I. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Lin to comprise the claimed compounds because Wan teaches that the cost of the electrolyte can be reduced and a high purity product can be provided (paragraph [0021]).
As to Claim 9, Lin teaches wherein the positive electrode comprises an active material represented by formula LiNixCoyMnzL(1-x-y-z)O2 wherein L is at least one of Al, Sr, Mg, Ti, Ca, Zr, Zn, Si or Fe, 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, 0<x+y+z≤1 (paragraphs [0016-0017]). This overlaps with the claimed materials. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active material of Lin to read on the claims because Lin teaches that a battery with improved output performance is provided (Abstract).
As to Claims 10-12, Lin discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises vinylene carbonate and/or fluoroethylene carbonate (paragraph [0011]).
Claim(s) 13-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN 110931863 A; as found in IDS dated 01/21/2025 and using US 2020/0227784 A1 for citation purposes) in view of Wan et al. (CN 111755753 A; using machine translation for citation purposes) as applied claims 1, 9-12 and 16-17 and in further view of Takahashi et al. (US 2020/0335823 A1).
As to Claims 13-15, modified Lin does not specifically disclose the claimed aromatic additive.
However, Takahashi teaches of an electrolyte solution, comprising at least one additive, such as: difluoroanisole (encompasses the claimed difluoroanisoles), biphenyl, vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, maleic anhydride and/or succinic anhydride (paragraph [0100]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Lin to comprise one of the claimed additives because Takahashi teaches that an overcharge preventing function, negative electrode coating film formation function, positive electrode coating film formation function, etc., can be provided (paragraph [0100]).
As to Claim 18, Takahashi teaches wherein the positive electrode is composed of a current collector coated with the active material (paragraphs [0131-0134]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode of Lin to comprise a current collector because Takahashi teaches that a functioning positive electrode for a battery can be formed (paragraphs [0131-0134]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026, with respect to the rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principle arguments are:
a) Lin does not teach the compounds of amended claim 1 (claim 1).
b) Lin does not teach the claimed positive electrode active material (claim 1).
c) The claimed active material provides for unexpected results (claim 1).
d) The prior arts do not solve the problem addressed from the present invention (claim 1).
e) It would not be obvious to replace the compounds of Lin with those of Wan (claim 1).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
a) 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). Wan renders the claimed compounds obvious as discussed in the rejection above.
b) Lin does teach of an active material that reads on the claims.
c) The results are not persuasive for at least the reason that the claims are not commensurate in scope with the results, which show data for very specific active materials and a compound 1.
d) In response to applicant's argument that Lin and Wan do not solve the problem contemplated by the present invention, 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).
e) In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Wan provides proper teaching and motivation to modify the electrolyte of Lin as discussed in the rejections above. In addition, the claims use open ended “comprising” language and therefore the compound of Wan can also be added to the electrolyte of Lin.
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 ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights