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 .
Claim Status
Claims 6-7 have been amended with minor editorial amendments.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to claim 1 the voltage being within 4.4 and 4.7 V being critical as seen in the results sections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 04/20/2026 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (Us 2011/0123870 A1) in view of Jang (KR 20130100595 A).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising:
An electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (abstract; an electrolyte includes a lithium slat, an organic solvent, and tris(trialkylsiyl) borate as the additive);
A positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material ([0015] positive electrode with active material); and
A negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material ([0015] negative electrode with active material),
Wherein the additive comprises one or more selected from a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1A or Chemical Formula 1B ([0011-0012] additive can be a tris(trimethylsilyl)borate as seen in Chemical Formula 2 which reads on chemical formula 1B wherein R9-R17 are C1 methyl groups), and
PNG
media_image1.png
210
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein, in Chemical Formula 1A, R1 to R8 are each independently hydrogen, a halogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group, or wherein, in Chemical formula 1A and Chemical Formula 1B, R9 to R17 are each independently hydrogen, a halogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group ([0011-0012] additive can be a tris(trimethylsilyl)borate as seen in Chemical Formula 2 which reads on chemical formula 1B wherein R9-R17 are C1 methyl groups);
The positive electrode active material comprises a lithium nickel manganese based oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2, and
PNG
media_image2.png
78
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein, in Chemical Formula 2,
0.9 ≤a ≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.1, 0≤c≤0.1, 0.7≤x≤0.95 and 0≤y<0.3,
A is one or more elements selected from Li, B, Na, Mg, Al, Ti, and Si, and
X is one or more elements selected from S, F, P, and Cl ([0039-0041] the positive active material layer comprises a lithium metal oxide such as LiaA1-bXbD2 wherein A can be Ni, X can be Mn and D can be O wherein 0.9≤a≤1.8; 0≤b≤0.5 and thus giving the potential formula LiNi0.80Mn0.20O2 that reads on the chemical formula 2 wherein c=0, x=0.80 y=0). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Oh discloses the materials for the electrolyte and the positive electrode active materials, however, is silent with respect to the charging limit voltage being about 4.4 to 4.7 V.
Jang discloses an electrolyte for a high potential Li secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Jang discloses wherein the high voltage secondary battery includes an electrolyte solution having a safety enhanced full charge voltage of 4.5 V or higher to provide a high voltage battery having increasing capacity and high energy for the battery ([5, 9-10]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the upper limit voltage of the battery of Oh such that the upper voltage limit can be 4.5 V or higher as taught by Jang in order to form a high voltage battery with excellent capacity and high energy as taught by Jang. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 3, modified Oh discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Oh further discloses wherein: R9 to R17 in chemical formula 1B are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group ([0023-0024]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Oh discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Oh further discloses wherein: the compound represented by Chemical formula 1A and the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1B are selected from compound listed in Group 1 (Oh discloses in chemical formulas 1-2 a tris(trimethylsilyl)borate).
PNG
media_image3.png
234
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, modified Oh discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Oh further discloses wherein: the additive is included in an amount of about 0.01 parts by weight to about 3.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution for a rechargeable lithium battery ([0012] 0.1-1.5 wt% of the tris(trialkylsilyl)borate within the electrolyte). 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).
Regarding claim 6, modified Oh discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Oh further discloses wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises cyclic carbonate and chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 1:9 to about 9:1 ([0028] carbonate based solvent includes a mixture of cyclic carbonate and linear carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:1 to 1:9). 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).
Regarding claim 7, modified Oh discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Oh further discloses wherein the electrolyte solution further comprises one or more of other additives such as fluoroethylene carbonate or lithium tetrafluoroborate ([0035] electrolyte may include a halogenated carbonate compound such as fluoroethylene carbonate; [0025] lithium tetrafluoroborate).
Regarding claim 8, modified Oh discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Oh further discloses wherein the positive electrode active material comprises, LiaA1-bXbD2, and thus can give a formula of at least LiNi0.80Mn0.20O2 ([0039-0041] the positive active material layer comprises a lithium metal oxide such as LiaA1-bXbD2 wherein A can be Ni, X can be Mn and D can be O wherein 0.9≤a≤1.8; 0≤b≤0.5 and thus giving the potential formula LiNi0.80Mn0.20O2 that reads on the chemical formula 2 wherein c=0, x=0.80 y=0). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (Us 2011/0123870 A1) and Jang (KR 20130100595 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uehara et al. (US 2013/0280600 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Oh discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Oh discloses wherein Chemical Formula 1B was selected according to claim 1 and thus claim 2 is deemed to be an optional limitation as Chemical Formula 1A was not selected in claim 1, nevertheless, for compact prosecution claim 2 has been examined as if being required by the claim. Modified Oh is silent with respect to the Chemical Formula 1A being selected and wherein R1 to R8 are each independently hydrogen or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group.
Uehara discloses a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Uehara discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a cyclic type sulfonate additive wherein the additive comprises the structure of formula 6 and that a cyclic-type sulfonate can be added to an electrolyte in order to improve the preserving property at high temperatures ([0007,0010,0022,0052-0055] and claims 17-18).
PNG
media_image4.png
206
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute at least the lithium bis(oxolato) borate additive or tris(trialkylsilyl) borate additive of Oh for the additive of formula 6 as taught by Uehara as a simple substitution of one electrolyte additive for another. The resulting modification would read on the Chemical Formula 1A wherein n=2, and R101 and R102 are H. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the modification as Uehara discloses an additive that is used to improve the preserving property of the battery at high temperatures and thus a skilled artisan would have been motivated to add or substitute one of the additives of Oh for the additive of Uehara. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 2 are rendered obvious. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Oh discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Oh is silent with respect to the Chemical formula 1A and represented by the compound in Group 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
234
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Uehara discloses a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Uehara discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a cyclic type sulfonate additive wherein the additive comprises the structure of formula 6 and that a cyclic-type sulfonate can be added to an electrolyte in order to improve the preserving property at high temperatures ([0007,0010,0022,0052-0055] and claims 17-18).
PNG
media_image4.png
206
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute at least the lithium bis(oxolato) borate additive or tris(trialkylsilyl) borate additive of Oh for the additive of formula 6 as taught by Uehara as a simple substitution of one electrolyte additive for another. The resulting modification would read on the Chemical Formula 1A wherein n=2, and R101 and R102 are H. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the modification as Uehara discloses an additive that is used to improve the preserving property of the battery at high temperatures and thus a skilled artisan would have been motivated to add or substitute one of the additives of Oh for the additive of Uehara. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 4 are rendered obvious. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (Us 2011/0123870 A1) in view of Jang (KR 20130100595 A), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Sheem et al. (US 2013/0288125 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Oh discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Oh discloses wherein an initial charging can be done at a voltage of 4.4 V or higher (Jang [5,9-11], see modification of claim 1). Modified Oh is silent with respect to a passivation layer being formed having a thickness of about 1-7 nm.
Sheem discloses a positive electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Sheem discloses wherein a lithium battery is charged and discharged several times having a voltage around 3.0-4.2V and discloses a maximum voltage of up to 4.3 V that is used to form an SEI passivation film having an average thickness within the predetermined range (1-20 nm) and density to prevent the SEI passivation film from being detached and for excellent battery performance during high rate charge and discharge ([0033], [0084-0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Sheem such that when the upper voltage is 4.5 V or higher as taught by Jang through the modification of claim 1, a passivation film having a thickness around 1-20 nm in thickness is formed that aids in the performance of the battery as taught by Sheem in order to provide excellent battery performance to the battery. Thus the resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 9.
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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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 J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights