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
In response to the amendment received May 14, 2026:
Claims 1-3 and 6-16 are pending. Claims 4-5 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The previous claim objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2016/0211553).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolytic solution including an electrolyte and a nonaqueous solvent (i.e. an electrolyte composition comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent) (Para. [0020]), a lithium salt (Para. [0389]), a phosphorus-containing organic compound (Para. [0171]) (i.e. a primary additive) comprising the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
189
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Para. [0174]) wherein the phosphorus-containing organic compound is tris(2-acryloyloxyethyl)phosphate (Para. [0192]) (i.e. reading on a compound represented by Formula 1 of the instant claim, as R1 is an alkylene group having 2 carbon atoms, and R2 is an acrylate group) as an additive in an amount of 0.5 mass% or less based on 100 mass% of the electrolytic solution (Para. [0211]) (i.e. the primary additive is included in an amount overlapping with an amount of 0.01 to 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte solution) and comprises monofluoroethylene carbonate (i.e. fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC) (Para. [0100]) as an additive in an amount of 2 mass% or above and 5 mass% or less (Para. [0102]) (i.e. a secondary additive comprising fluoroethylene carbonate) and vinylene carbonate (Para. [0323]) and vinyl ethylene carbonate (Para. [0329]) wherein the total amount of unsaturated cyclic carbonate when two or more kinds are used may be 3 mass% or less (Para. [0332]). Thus, as the primary additive is present in an amount of 0.5 mass% or less as explained above and the second additive fluoroethylene carbonate is in an amount of 2 mass% or above and 5 mass % or less, the amount of secondary additive would be necessarily greater than the amount of primary additive. 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 2, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ito et al. further teaches the phosphorus-containing organic compound is tris(2-acryloyloxyethyl)phosphate (Para. [0192]) (i.e. reading on a compound represented by Formula 1 of the instant claim, as R1 is a methylene group).
Regarding Claim 3, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
wherein the phosphorus-containing organic compound is tris(2-acryloyloxyethyl)phosphate (Para. [0192]) (i.e. reading on a compound represented by, at least, Structural Formula 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ito et al. further teaches the lithium salt includes at least LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4, LiSbF6, CH3SO3Li, LiN(CF3SO2-)2, -LiN(FSO2)-2, CF3CO2Li, (Para. [0389]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ito et al. further teaches the nonaqueous solvent includes ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, butylene carbonate (Para. [0439], [0443]), dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate (Para. [0448]), 2-methyltetrahydrofuran (Para. [0466]) (i.e. the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises at least ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate and 2-methyltetrahydrofuran).
Regarding Claim 8, Ito et al. teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte battery including a negative electrode and a positive electrode capable of storing and releasing lithium ions (Para. [0040]) (i.e. a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode) and a separator disposed between (i.e. interposed between) the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Para. [0656]) a nonaqueous electrolytic solution including an electrolyte and a nonaqueous solvent (i.e. an electrolyte composition comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent) (Para. [0020]), a lithium salt (Para. [0389]), a phosphorus-containing organic compound (Para. [0171]) (i.e. a primary additive) comprising the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
189
197
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Para. [0174]) wherein the phosphorus-containing organic compound is tris(2-acryloyloxyethyl)phosphate (Para. [0192]) (i.e. reading on a compound represented by Formula 1 of the instant claim, as R1 is an alkylene group having 2 carbon atoms, and R2 is an acrylate group) as an additive (Para. [0211]) and comprises monofluoroethylene carbonate (i.e. fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC) (Para. [0100]) as an additive in an amount of 2 mass% or above and 5 mass% or less (Para. [0102]) (i.e. a secondary additive comprising fluoroethylene carbonate) and vinylene carbonate (Para. [0323]) and vinyl ethylene carbonate (Para. [0329]) wherein the total amount of unsaturated cyclic carbonate when two or more kinds are used may be 3 mass% or less (Para. [0332]). Thus, as the primary additive is present in an amount of 0.5 mass% or less as explained above and the second additive fluoroethylene carbonate is in an amount of 2 mass% or above and 5 mass % or less, the amount of secondary additive would be necessarily greater than the amount of primary additive. 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 9, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above.
Ito et a. further teaches the positive electrode comprises a slurry applied to an aluminum foil (i.e. a positive electrode mixture layer applied to a positive electrode current collector (Para. [01023]) wherein the slurry comprises a positive electrode active material (Para. [0605]) containing LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 (Para. [0608]) (i.e. a lithium metal oxide represented by instant claim Formula 2, wherein x = 1.0, y = 0.5, z = 0.2, w = 0.3, v = 0 and y+z+w+v=1).
Regarding Claim 10, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9 as explained above.
Ito et al. further teaches the positive electrode active material comprises LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4 (i.e. LiNi0.5Mn1.4O4) (Para. [0608]).
Regarding Claim 11, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 8 as explained above
Ito et al. further teaches the negative electrode comprises a current collector on which the negative electrode active material is held (Para. [0580]) (i.e. the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode mixture layer that comprises a negative electrode active material) wherein the negative electrode active material comprises natural graphite (Para. [0510]), artificial graphite, acetylene black and furnace black (i.e. carbon black) (Para. [0515]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above
Ito et al. further teaches the negative electrode active material contains elemental silicon (i.e. Si) (Para. [0519]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12 as explained above
Ito et al. further teaches a negative electrode active material comprises a silicon content of 2.0 mass % (Para. [0885]) (i.e. wherein 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).
Regarding Claim 14, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above
Ito et al. further teaches an unsaturated cyclic carbonate used in an amount of 0.1 mass% or above, and 5 mass% or less (Para. [0332]) (i.e. the secondary additive comprises a non-fluorine-based secondary additive) comprising vinylene carbonate and vinylethylene carbonate (Para. [0329]) and comprises monofluoroethylene carbonate (i.e. fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC) (Para. [0100]) as an additive (Para. [0102]) (i.e. a secondary additive comprising fluoroethylene carbonate).
Regarding Claim 16, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above
Ito et al. further teaches the phosphorus-containing organic compound is tris(2-acryloyloxyethyl)phosphate (Para. [0192]) (i.e. all three R2 are each an acrylate group) as an additive (Para. [0211]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2016/0211553) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2023/0420661)
Regarding Claim 15, Ito et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 14 as explained above
Ito 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 Ito 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 May 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been considered but are moot because the 102 rejection has been withdrawn as necessitated by the amendment.
Applicant argues the combination of primary and secondary additives significantly lowers the resistance increase rate during high-temperature storage and reduced gas generation, Ito does not disclose the specific combination of the claimed primary and secondary additives, Ito merely provides a generation range of 0.01 to 20 wt% for each compound and provides no motivation or suggestion to maintain the secondary additive content at a higher level than the primary additive to achieve the improved stability demonstrated in the present application, and that one would not have been motivated to pick the phosphate ester with the combination of VC, VEC and FEC amount innumerous possibilities of various combinations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach the improved stability or beneficial effects of the claimed 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). Furthermore, Ito provides ranges of wherein the phosphorus-containing organic in an amount of 0.5 mass% or less based on 100 mass% of the electrolytic solution (Para. [0211]) (i.e. primary additive range overlapping with the claimed range), monofluoroethylene carbonate (i.e. fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC) (Para. [0100]) as an additive in an amount of 2 mass% or above and 5 mass% or less (Para. [0102]) (i.e. a secondary additive comprising fluoroethylene carbonate) and vinylene carbonate (Para. [0323]) and vinyl ethylene carbonate (Para. [0329]) wherein the total amount of unsaturated cyclic carbonate when two or more kinds are used may be 3 mass% or less (Para. [0332]). Thus, as the primary additive is present in an amount of 0.5 mass% or less as explained above and the second additive fluoroethylene carbonate is in an amount of 2 mass% or above and 5 mass % or less, the amount of secondary additive would be necessarily greater than the amount of primary additive and the secondary additive range is at the very least overlapping with the claimed range. Furthermore, Ito teaches monofluoroethylene is particularly preferable for high ion conductivity and easily forming a stable protective interfacial film (Para. [0101]), vinylene carbonate and vinylethylene carbonate are particularly preferable because they form a highly stable protective film (Para. [0329]) and tris(2-acryloyloxyethyl) phosphate is more preferable as it would enhance battery characteristics (Para. [0193]) and thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage the claimed combination. A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." One may look to the preferred embodiments to determine which compounds can be anticipated. See MPEP 2131.02. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art used to render obvious the rejected claims (Zhao) do not cure the deficiencies of the rejection applied to the independent claim. Applicant does not argue how the combination is not proper. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the obviousness rejections and upholds the rejection to the independent claim, as above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights