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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received September 15, 2026:
Claims 1-3, 6 and 8-17 are pending. Claims 4-5 and 7 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new prior art rejection has been made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim requires for Formula 1 as claimed that at least one of R1 is |-R3-(OCH2CH2)a-|, R2 is each independently hydrogen, an acrylate group or a methacrylate group, R3 is an alkylene group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms and a is an integer of 1 to 10. There is no description of a species for this genus in the specification. If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP 2163.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watabe et al. (JP2012084384A). The English machine translation of Watabe et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Watabe et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. an electrolyte composition) (Para. [0469]) consisting of 1% by mass of trisacryloyloxyethyl phosphate (i.e. a primary additive consisting of a compound represented by Formula 1 wherein R1 is an alkylene group having 2 carbon atoms and R2 is an acrylate group), 2% by mass of vinylene carbonate (i.e. a secondary additive consisting of vinylene carbonate) and LiPF6 (i.e. a lithium salt) mixed in a solvent of ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (i.e. a non-aqueous organic solvent which is at least ethylene carbonate) (Para. [0473]).
Regarding Claim 2, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Watabe et al. teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. an electrolyte composition) (Para. [0469]) consisting of trisacryloyloxyethyl phosphate (i.e. wherein R1 is each an ethylene group) (Para. [0473]).
Regarding Claim 3, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Watabe et al. teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. an electrolyte composition) (Para. [0469]) consisting of trisacryloyloxyethyl phosphate (i.e. wherein the compound represented by Formula is Structural Formula 1) (Para. [0473]).
Regarding Claim 6, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Watabe et al. teaches LiPF6 (i.e. a lithium salt is LiPF6) (Para. [0473]).
Regarding Claim 8, Watabe et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery capable of intercalating and releasing lithium ions(i.e. a lithium secondary battery) (Para. [0015]) comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, and separator stacked between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (i.e. a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode) (Para. [0472]) a non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. an electrolyte composition) (Para. [0469]) consisting of 1% by mass of trisacryloyloxyethyl phosphate (i.e. a primary additive consisting of a compound represented by Formula 1 wherein R1 is an alkylene group having 2 carbon atoms and R2 is an acrylate group), 2% by mass of vinylene carbonate (i.e. a secondary additive consisting of vinylene carbonate) and LiPF6 (i.e. a lithium salt) mixed in a solvent of ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (i.e. a non-aqueous organic solvent which is at least ethylene carbonate) (Para. [0473]).
Regarding Claim 9, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Watabe et al. further teaches a positive electrode comprises a current collector (Para. [0463]) to which a positive electrode active material slurry is applied (Para. [0460]) (i.e. the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode mixture layer) that comprises LiNi0.5Co0.3Mn0.2O2 (Para. [0454]) (i.e. comprises a lithium metal oxide represented by claimed formula 2 wherein x = 1.0, y = 0.5, z = 0.3, w = 0.2, v = 0 and y+z+w+v=1.0).
Regarding Claim 11, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Watabe et al. further teaches a negative electrode comprises a current collector (Para. [0463]) to which a negative electrode active material slurry is applied (Para. [0460]) (i.e. the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode mixture layer) such as artificial graphite (Para. [0471]) (i.e. comprises a negative electrode active material including a carbon material of artificial graphite).
Regarding Claim 12, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Watabe et al. further teaches negative electrode active materials include silicon (Para. [00438], [0443]).
Regarding Claim 16, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Watabe et al. teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. an electrolyte composition) (Para. [0469]) consisting of trisacryloyloxyethyl phosphate (i.e. wherein at least two R2 is each independently an acrylate group) (Para. [0473]).
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al. (JP2012084384A). The English machine translation of Watabe et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 10, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Watabe et al. further teaches a positive electrode comprises a current collector (Para. [0463]) to which a positive electrode active material slurry is applied (Para. [0460]) (i.e. the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode mixture layer) that comprises LiNi1-a-bMnaCobO2 wherein 0 ≤ a ≤ 0.4 and 0 ≤ v ≤ 0.4 (Para. [0454]) (i.e. the lithium metal oxide is at the very least overlapping with the claimed lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxides). 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 14, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Watabe et al. teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. an electrolyte composition) (Para. [0469]) consisting of 1% by mass of trisacryloyloxyethyl phosphate (i.e. a phosphate ester compound) and consisting of 2% by mass of vinylene carbonate (i.e. a secondary additive consisting of vinylene carbonate) (Para. [0473]).
Watabe et al. does not explicitly teach the secondary additive consists of a fluorine-based secondary additive of the fluoroethylene carbonate.
However, Watabe et al. teaches cyclic carbonate compounds having a fluorine compound are suitable for use in combination with phosphate ester compounds (Para. [0105]) such as fluoroethylene carbonate (Para. [0108]).
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 electrolyte composition as taught by Watabe et al. in Para. [0473] to incorporate the teaching of fluoroethylene carbonate, as such a compound improves cycle and storage characteristics (Para. [0108]).
Claims 13 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al. (JP2012084384A) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2023/0420661). The English machine translation of Watabe et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 13, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12 as explained above.
Watabe et al. does not explicitly teach the silicon material is included in an amount of 1 to 20 wt% with respect to a total weight of the negative electrode active material.
However, Zhao et al. teaches a mass ratio of silicon content to carbon content is 15.47 to 246 based on the total mass of the negative electrode active material (i.e. about 9.6 wt% of silicon material included with a respect to a total weight of the negative electrode active material as 15.47/(15.47+246) = 0.958).
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 silicon amount of Watabe et al. to incorporate the teaching of Zhao et al., as such a silicon amount provides improved cycling performance of the battery (Para. [0012]).
Regarding Claim 15, Watabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14 as explained above
Watabe et al. does not explicitly teach the secondary additive comprises 50 to 200 parts by weight of the fluorine-base secondary additive with respect to 100 parts by weight of the non-fluorine-based secondary additive.
However, Zhao et al. teaches when an electrolyte solution contains fluoroethylene carbonate and vinylene carbonate, the mass ratio of the content of the fluoroethylene carbonate to the content of vinylene carbonate (i.e. the fluorine-based secondary battery to the non-fluorine-based secondary additive), the mass ratio to the content of the fluoroethylene carbonate to the content of the vinylene carbonate can be within 0.5 and 2.0 (i.e. equivalent to the secondary additive comprises 50 to 200 parts by weight of the fluorine-based secondary additive with respect to 100 parts by weight of the non-fluorine-based secondary additive) (Para. [0121]).
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 Watabe et al. to incorporate the teaching of the mass ratio to the content of the fluoroethylene carbonate to the content of the vinylene carbonate can be within 0.5 and 2.00 (i.e. equivalent to the secondary additive comprises 50 to 200 parts by weight of the fluorine-based secondary additive with respect to 100 parts by weight of the non-fluorine-based secondary additive), as it would have the effect of improving cycling performance of the battery (Para. [0121]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 15, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
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
