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
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 are currently pending. Claim 1, 7, and 10 are amended. Claims 12-13 are cancelled. Support for the amended claims is found in the claims as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-13 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.
The term “about” in claims 1, 5-7, and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the examined application identifies the term “about” to account for inherent deviations (see paragraph 00169), it fails to provide clear and objective boundaries for the claimed limitations, rendering the ranges indefinite. Claims 2-4 and 8-12, which are dependent on the rejected claims, are subsequently rejected.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram et al. (US 20210305564 A1) in view of Matsui et al. (JP 2009163971 A) and Liang (US 20210202998 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Manthiram discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraph 0050), comprising an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (paragraphs 0008, 0085), an additive, and a lithium salt (paragraph 0074); a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (paragraph 0006-0007); and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (paragraph 0007-0008), the additive comprises vinylene carbonate (VC), vinylethylene carbonate (VEC), or a mixture thereof (paragraph 0085, VC additive), and the positive electrode active material comprises a cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide (paragraphs 0012, 0050), the negative electrode active material comprises graphite, a Si composite, or a mixture thereof (paragraphs 0008, 0051), and the rechargeable lithium battery has a charging upper limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.35 V (paragraph 0091, figure 10). Manthiram is silent regarding wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent contains less than about 5 wt% of ethylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the non-aqueous organic solvent. Manthiram does not explicitly disclose wherein the rechargeable lithium battery has a charging upper limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.35 V when the negative electrode material comprises graphite, a Si composite, or a mixture thereof.
Matsui discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising an electrolyte including a solvent consisting only of a chain carbonate (Matsui paragraph 0014, equivalent to 0% ethylene carbonate as it is cyclic). Matsui explicitly discloses compositions including DMC and other chain carbonates (Matsui paragraph 0016). The reference teaches that the electrolyte improves the cycle efficiency and can extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery (Matsui paragraph 0014). Matsui and Manthiram are analogous because they both disclose non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Manthiram by including the solvent disclosed by Matsui. Doing so would improve cycle efficiency and extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery.
Liang discloses a battery comprising a positive active material without cobalt (Liang paragraph 0102) and a negative electrode comprising graphite (Liang paragraph 0104). Liang further discloses that the battery is charged to an upper limit of 4.9 V (Liang paragraph 0112). Liang and Manthiram are analogous because they both disclose cobalt free active materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the upper charge limit of Liang in the battery disclosed by Manthiram, as Manthiram recognizes the need for high voltage active materials resistant to overcharge (Manthiram paragraph 0051), and Liang teaches that higher voltage of the battery improves charge and discharge capacity and energy density (Liang paragraph 0081). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding claim 2, modified Manthiram discloses the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram is silent regarding wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is composed of a chain carbonate alone.
Matsui discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising an electrolyte including a solvent consisting only of a chain carbonate (Matsui paragraph 0014). Matsui explicitly discloses compositions including DMC and other chain carbonates (Matsui paragraph 0016). The reference teaches that the electrolyte improves the cycle efficiency and can extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery (Matsui paragraph 0014). Matsui and Manthiram are analogous because they both disclose non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Manthiram by including the solvent disclosed by Matsui. Doing so would improve cycle efficiency and extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery.
Regarding claim 3, modified Manthiram discloses the limitations of claim 2. Manthiram is silent regarding wherein the chain carbonate is represented by Chemical Formula 1.
Matsui discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising an electrolyte including a solvent consisting only of a chain carbonate (Matsui paragraph 0014). Matsui explicitly discloses compositions including DMC and other chain carbonates (Matsui paragraph 0016, the chain carbonates include the carbonate group and unsubstituted alkyl groups, meeting the claimed formula). The reference teaches that the electrolyte improves the cycle efficiency and can extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery (Matsui paragraph 0014). Matsui and Manthiram are analogous because they both disclose non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Manthiram by including the solvent disclosed by Matsui. Doing so would improve cycle efficiency and extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery.
Regarding claim 4, modified Manthiram discloses the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram is silent regarding wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is a mixture of two or more solvents selected from dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dipropyl carbonate (DPC), methylpropyl carbonate (MPC), ethylpropyl carbonate (EPC), and ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC).
Matsui discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising an electrolyte including a solvent consisting only of a chain carbonate (Matsui paragraph 0014). Matsui explicitly discloses compositions including DMC and other chain carbonates including EMC (Matsui paragraph 0016). The reference teaches that the electrolyte improves the cycle efficiency and can extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery (Matsui paragraph 0014). Matsui and Manthiram are analogous because they both disclose non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Manthiram by including the solvent disclosed by Matsui. Doing so would improve cycle efficiency and extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery.
Regarding claim 5, modified Manthiram discloses the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram is silent regarding wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) in a volume ratio of about 0:100 to about 50:50.
Matsui discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising an electrolyte including a solvent consisting only of a chain carbonate (Matsui paragraph 0014). Matsui explicitly discloses a mixture of EMC and DMC is preferred, wherein DMC>other chain carbonate in terms of molar ratio (Matsui paragraph 0016). Matsui teaches molar ratios of EMC/DMC of 0/10, 1/9, 2/8, and 3/7 (Matsui Table 1, within the claimed range of volume ratios as follows, for a 3/7 ratio for example:
3
m
o
l
×
104.1
g
m
o
l
1.006
g
m
L
≈
310.4
m
L
E
M
C
,
7
m
o
l
×
90.08
g
m
o
l
1.07
g
m
L
≈
589.3
m
L
D
M
C
,
310.4
:
589.3
≈
34.48
:
65.52
v
o
l
r
a
t
i
o
). The reference teaches that the electrolyte improves the cycle efficiency and can extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery (Matsui paragraph 0014). Matsui and Manthiram are analogous because they both disclose non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Manthiram by including the solvent disclosed by Matsui. Doing so would improve cycle efficiency and extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery.
Regarding claim 6, modified Manthiram discloses the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram further discloses wherein the additive is included in an amount of about 0.05 to about 5.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution (paragraph 0085, 2% by weight, within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, modified Manthiram discloses the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram further discloses wherein the additive is included in an amount of about 0.05 to about 3.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution (paragraph 0085, 2% by weight, within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, modified Manthiram discloses the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram further discloses wherein the electrolyte solution further comprises one or more other additives selected from lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) (paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 9, modified Manthiram discloses the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram further discloses wherein the cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide comprises a lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 3 (paragraphs 0012, 0088, LiNi1-c1-c2Mnc1Alc2Od, where c1 and c2 total to 0 to 0.67, specifically LiNi0.9Mn0.05Al0.05O2 within the claimed formula when a=1, x=0.9, y=0.05, z=0.05, w=0, b=0, c=0, and M1 is Al).
Regarding claim 10, modified Manthiram discloses the limitations of claim 9. Manthiram further discloses wherein the lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 3 is represented by Chemical Formula 3-1 (paragraphs 0012, 0088, LiNi1-c1-c2Mnc1Alc2Od, where c1 and c2 total to 0 to 0.67, specifically LiNi0.9Mn0.05Al0.05O2 within the claimed formula when a=1, x1=0.9, y1=0.05, z1=0.05, w1=0, b=0, c=0).
Regarding claim 11, modified Manthiram discloses the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram further discloses that wherein in Chemical Formula 3-1, 0.6 ≤ x1 ≤ 0.79, 0.2 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.39, and z1 is 0.01 ≤ z1 < 0.1 (paragraphs 0012, 0088, LiNi1-c1-c2Mnc1Alc2Od where c1 and c2 total to 0 to 0.67, overlapping the claimed formula when for example, c1= 0.3, c2=0.05, therefore, c1+c2 is less than 0.67). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specification provides sufficient context for one of ordinary skill in the art. However, while the examined application identifies the term “about” to account for inherent deviations (see paragraph 00169), it fails to provide clear and objective boundaries for the claimed limitations, rendering the ranges indefinite. When a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357, 1367, 94 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Enzo Biochem, Inc., v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1332, 94 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim (e.g., a standard that is recognized in the art for measuring the meaning of the term of degree). For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), the phrases "relatively shallow," "of the order of," "the order of about 5mm," and "substantial portion" were held to be indefinite because the specification lacked some standard for measuring the degrees intended. See also MPEP 2173.05(b). In this case, the disclosure fails to provide a standard of measuring or ascertaining the term of degree, rendering the claims indefinite.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Matsui clearly teaches the electrolyte improves the cycle efficiency and can extend the charge/discharge cycle life of the battery. Furthermore, both Matsui and Manthiram disclose Si as a negative active material. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Matsui with the battery of Manthiram to improve cycle characteristics.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitations of claims 12-13, incorporated into amended claim 1, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues that Manthiram does not disclose values within the claimed ranges. However, 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP 2144.05.
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 BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 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, 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
