CTNF 18/383,849 CTNF 101793 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-30 AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: In Paragraph [0017], “which may include silver p-toluenesulfonate, represented by the following Formula 1”, which is followed by an image of the formula for silver heptofluorobutyrate . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular, Claim 1 and 10 claim an “additive that comprises silver p-toluenesulfonate represented by the following Formula:” but has an image of a formula representing silver heptofluorobutyrate. It is unclear whether the claims are directed towards an additive that comprises silver p-toluenesulfonate or silver heptofluorobutyrate. For the purposes of examination, the additive being claimed is taken to refer to silver p-toluenesulfonate. Claims 2-9 and 11-15 are also rejected due to their dependencies on claims 1 and 10, respectively. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1- 3 and 6-15 are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le e et al. (US 2021/0184262) in view of Liew et al. (US 2023/0022046). Re garding Claim 1, Lee meets the claimed, An electrolyte solution (Abstract teaches an electrolyte solution) for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract teaches the electrolyte solution is for a lithium secondary battery) , comprising: a lithium salt (Claim 1 teaches the use of a lithium salt) ; a solvent (Claim 1 teaches the use of a solvent) ; and a functional additive (Paragraph [0037] teaches the use of a functional additive) , wherein the functional additive comprises a first negative-electrode film additive (Paragraph [0037] teaches the use of a functional additive designed to form a protective SEI film on the negative electrode, stopping both side reactions and dendrite growth). Lee does not teach the use of silver p-toluenesulfonate as the functional additive. Liew et al. teaches the use of silver salts to create a thin SEI layer to suppress dendrite formations on the anode. Liew meets the claimed, […] that comprises silver p-toluenesulfonate (Paragraph [0021] teaches the use of silver p-toluenesulfonate as a material for creating a dendrite-suppressing SEI layer on an anode). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the silver salts as a functional additive in the electrolyte solution as the silver salts are easier to scale-up in production and possess a high degree of uniformity while still being able to produce the dendrite-suppressing layer (See Lee et al. Paragraph [0006], “ The current “protective layer” materials have problems such as being difficult to scale-up preparation with a high degree of uniformity. ”) Regarding Claim 2 and 3, Lee/Liew does not directly teach the weight of the first negative-electrode film additive being in an amount between 0.02% and 0.1%, nor does it teach the amount specifically being 0.05%. However, Lee does teach that the percent by weight of a negative-electrode film additive is a result effective variable that affects the cell resistance and cell power of the battery as well as the lifespan of the cell (See Paragraph [0038], “ When the amount of the negative-electrode additive added is greater than about 3.0% by weight […] disadvantageously resulting in high cell resistance and thus decreased cell power. ”) Notably, the weight of the negative-electrode film additive as taught by Lee considers the total weight of all film additives. In the instant application, the various weight% values as recited in claims 2, 3, 5 and 7 are of individual additives as opposed to the sum of the weight% of all additives. It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the percent by weight of the total number of additives, and by extension each individual additive’s percent by weight, in order to reach a desired cell resistance, power, and lifespan. Regarding Claim 6, Lee meets the claimed, The electrolyte solution of claim 1, wherein the functional additive further comprises an electrode film additive (Paragraph [0015] teaches a further functional additive to form a film on an electrode) that comprises lithium difluoro bis(oxalato)phosphate (LiDFBP) or lithium difluorophosphate (Paragraph [0015] teaches the use of lithium difluorophosphate as an additive). Regarding Claim 7, Lee/Liew does not directly teach the weight of the electrode film additive being in an amount between 0.5% and 2%. However, Lee does teach that the percent by weight of a negative-electrode film additive is a result effective variable that affects the cell resistance and cell power of the battery as well as the lifespan of the cell (See Paragraph [0038], “ When the amount of the negative-electrode additive added is greater than about 3.0% by weight […] disadvantageously resulting in high cell resistance and thus decreased cell power. ”) Notably, the weight of the negative-electrode film additive as taught by Lee considers the total weight of all film additives. In the instant application, the various weight% values as recited in claims 2, 3, 5 and 7 are of individual additives as opposed to the sum of the weight% of all additives. It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the percent by weight of the total number of additives, and by extension each individual additive’s percent by weight, in order to reach a desired cell resistance, power, and lifespan. Regarding Claim 8, Lee meets the claimed, The electrolyte solution of claim 1, wherein the lithium salt comprises one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4 , ,LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiB10Cl10, LiCF3SO3, LiCF3CO2, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, CH3SO3Li, CF3SO3Li, LiN(S02C2F5)2, Li(CF3SO2)2N, LiC4F9SO3, LiB(C6H5)4, LiB(C2O4)2, LiPO2F2, Li(SO2F)2N, LiFSI, and (CF3SO 2 ) 2 NLi (Paragraph [0013] teaches the following lithium salts: LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiB10Cl10, LiCF3SO3, LiCF3CO2, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, CH3SO3Li, CF3SO3Li, LiN(SO2C2F5)2, Li(CF3SO2)2N, LiC4F9SO3, LiB(C6H5)4, Li(SO2F)2N (LiFSI) and (CF3SO2)2NLi). Regarding Claim 9, Lee meets the claimed, The electrolyte solution of claim 1, wherein the solvent comprises one or a mixture of two or mor selected from the group consisting of a carbonate-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, and a ketone-based solvent (Paragraph [0014] teaches the use of a solvent selected from a group consisting of a carbonate-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, and a ketone-based solvent). Regarding Claim 10, Lee meets the claimed, A lithium secondary battery (Paragraph [0016] teaches a lithium secondary battery) comprising: a lithium salt (Claim 1 teaches the use of a lithium salt) ; a solvent (Claim 1 teaches the use of a solvent) ; and a functional additive (Paragraph [0037] teaches the use of a functional additive) , wherein the functional additive comprises a first negative-electrode film additive (Paragraph [0037] teaches the use of a functional additive designed to form a protective SEI film on the negative electrode, stopping both side reactions and prevents dendrite growth). Lee does not teach the use of silver p-toluenesulfonate as the functional additive. Liew et al. teaches the use of silver salts to create a thin layer to suppress dendrite formations on the anode. Liew meets the claimed, […] that comprises silver p-toluenesulfonate (Paragraph [0021] teaches the use of silver p-toluenesulfonate as a material for creating a dendrite-suppressing SEI layer on an anode). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the silver salts as a functional additive in the electrolyte solution as the silver salts are easier to scale-up in production and possess a high degree of uniformity while still being able to produce the dendrite-suppressing layer (See Lee et al. Paragraph [0006], “ The current “protective layer” materials have problems such as being difficult to scale-up preparation with a high degree of uniformity. ”) Regarding Claim 11, Lee meets the claimed, The lithium secondary battery of claim 10, further comprising: a positive electrode (Paragraph [0016] teaches a positive electrode) comprising a positive0electrode active material containing Ni, Co, and Mn (Paragraph [0016] teaches the cathode comprising Ni, Co, and Mn) ; a negative electrode (Paragraph [0016] teaches a negative electrode) comprising a negative-electrode active material containing one or more selected from a carbon (C)-Based material or a silicon (Si)-based material (Paragraph [0016] teaches a carbon-based negative electrode) ; and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Paragraph [0016] teaches a separator between the cathode and anode). Regarding Claim 12, Lee/Liew does not explicitly teach a Ni content of 60% by weight or more. However, Lee does teach that the Ni content in the positive electrode is a result effective variable that affects the capacity of the positive electrode (See Paragraph [0006], “ The increase in the capacity of the positive electrode can be achieved through […] increasing the Ni content of Ni—Co—Mn-based oxide constituting a positive-electrode active material ”). It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the Ni content in the positive electrode in order to obtain the desired positive electrode capacity. Regarding Claim 13, Lee meets the claimed, The lithium secondary battery of claim 11, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises graphite (Paragraph [0042] teaches the use of graphite for the anode). Regarding Claim 14 and 15, Lee/Liew does not explicitly teach the lithium secondary battery having a particular capacity retention rate of 88% or more after 100 cycles or 80% or more after 200 cycles within particular conditions. However, the lithium secondary battery as taught by Lee/Liew contains all structural elements of the claimed lithium secondary battery, including electrolyte composition, cathode composition, and anode composition. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01). Thus, it is presumed that the lithium secondary battery as taught by Lee/Liew would possess the same electrochemical properties as the claimed lithium secondary battery, including the recited capacity retention rate of 88% or more after 100 cycles at 2.5 to 4.2 V at a charging and/or discharging rate of 1C and 45°C, as well as the recited capacity retention rate of 80% or more after 200 cycles at 2.5 to 4.2 V at a charging and/or discharging rate of 1C and 45°C . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0184262) in view of Liew et al. (US 2023/0022046) and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0366778) . Regarding Claim 4, Lee/Liew do not teach a second negative-electrode film functional additive comprising vinylene carbonate. Liu et al. teaches the use of one or more functional additives in an electrolyte to form one or more SEI layers to protect an electrode. Liu meets the claimed, The electrolyte solution of claim 1, wherein the functional additive further comprises a second negative-electrode film additive (Paragraph [0010] teaches the use of both a first and a second additive to form SEI layers on the anode) that comprises vinylene carbonate (VC) (Paragraph [0022] teaches the use of vinylene carbonate as a functional additive). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to improve the electrolyte solution by adding a second negative-electrode film additive as this allows for the application of a second SEI layer, which further protects the negative electrode from degradation over multiple cycles, and thus increases the battery lifespan. Regarding Claim 5, Lee/Liew/Liu does not directly teach the weight of the first negative-electrode film additive being in an amount between 0.02% and 0.1%, nor does it teach the amount specifically being 0.05%. However, Lee does teach that the percent by weight of a negative-electrode film additive is a result effective variable that affects the cell resistance and cell power of the battery as well as the lifespan of the cell (See Paragraph [0038], “ When the amount of the negative-electrode additive added is greater than about 3.0% by weight […] disadvantageously resulting in high cell resistance and thus decreased cell power. ”) Notably, the weight of the negative-electrode film additive as taught by Lee considers the total weight of all film additives. In the instant application, the various weight% values as recited in claims 2, 3, 5 and 7 are of individual additives as opposed to the sum of the weight% of all additives. It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the percent by weight of the total number of additives, and by extension each individual additive’s percent by weight, in order to reach a desired cell resistance, power, and lifespan . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tamura et al. (US 2007/0178379) teaches the use of vinylene carbonate as a known protective film forming agent. Sun et al. (CN 114927756) teaches the use of a positive electrode film additive and a negative electrode film additive. The positive electrode film additive comprises 0.5% to 2% of lithium difluorophosphate. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW Y. HO whose telephone number is (571)842-1342. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 6:00, Mon - Thurs. 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, Xiao S. Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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. /A.Y.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1744 /XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/383,849 Page 2 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/383,849 Page 3 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/383,849 Page 4 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/383,849 Page 5 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/383,849 Page 6 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/383,849 Page 7 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/383,849 Page 8 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/383,849 Page 9 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/383,849 Page 10 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/383,849 Page 11 Art Unit: 1744
Prosecution Insights