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 1-11 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the word “about” as used in Claims 1, 5, and 11, the term is interpreted as covering the “inherent deviations in measured or calculated values that would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art”, as defined in [0168].
Regarding Claim 6, the compound “nitroethylene carbonate” is interpreted to be the product of reacting nitroethylene (i.e. nitroethene; CAS Number 3638-64-0) alongside carbonate esters.
Regarding Claim 6, the compound “cyanoethylene carbonate” is interpreted to be of the molecular formula C4H3NO3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (KR20190018114A; Global Dossier machine translation furnished in Office Action).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses a rechargeable lithium battery ([0073]), comprising an electrolyte solution ([0107]) comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0104]) and a lithium salt ([0104]); a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material ([0075]); and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material ([0097]), wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent contains less than about 5 wt% of ethylene carbonate ([0105]), based on the total weight of the non-aqueous organic solvent, and the positive electrode active material comprises a cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide ([0035-0036]).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of Claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is composed of a chain carbonate alone ([0105]).
Regarding Claim 3, Choi discloses the rechargeable battery of Claim 2, wherein the chain carbonate can include dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, methylethyl carbonate, and ethylmethyl carbonate ([0105]).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi discloses the rechargeable battery of Claim 1, wherein the electrolyte solution further comprises difluoroethylene carbonate as an additive ([0109]).
Regarding Claim 7, Choi discloses the rechargeable battery of Claim 1, wherein the cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide comprises a lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 3 (LiaNixMnyM1z1M2wO2±bXc). Choi discloses the anticipating lithium composite oxide using the formula LipNi1-(X1+Y1)MnX1MaY1-O2+δ, wherein Ma can be one or more element selected from Al, Ca, and Mg ([0035-0036]). Table 1 illustrates how the ranges of the subscripts of Choi’s disclosed lithium composite oxide fall within the claimed ranges and subsequently anticipate the instant application’s claimed lithium composite oxide.
Table 1: Comparison of the instant application-claimed lithium composite oxide to that disclosed by Choi et al. (KR20190018114A)
Element
Instant application subscript
Instant application claimed range
Choi subscript
Choi disclosed range
Li
a
[0.5, 1.8)
p
[1, 1.5]
Ni
x
[0.6, 1.0)
1-X1-Y1
[0.8, 0.98]
Mn
y
(0, 0.4)
X1
(0, 0.1]
M1 (i.e. Ma)
z
(0, 0.1)
Y1
[0.02, 0.1]
M2
w
[0, 0.1)
N/a
O
2±b
[1.9, 2.1]
2+δ
[1.9, 2.1]
X
c
[0, 0.1]
N/a
Table 1 notes: the ranges in the 3rd and 5th columns reflect the resultant range of mole proportion values possible for the given element, rather than the values for the subscript of the respective document. Additionally, the elemental placeholders M1 (i.e. Ma) and M2 may include Al, Ca, and Mg as disclosed by both the instant application and Choi.
Regarding Claim 8, Choi discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of Claim 7, wherein the lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 3 is represented by Chemical Formula 3-1: LiaNix1Mny1M1z11M2w1O2±bXc. Choi discloses the anticipating lithium composite oxide using the formula LipNi1-(X1+Y1)MnX1MaY1-O2+δ, wherein Ma can be one or more element selected from Al, Ca, and Mg ([0035-0036]). Table 1 illustrates how the ranges of the subscripts of Choi’s disclosed lithium composite oxide overlap and subsequently anticipate the instant application’s claimed lithium composite oxide.
Regarding Claim 10, Choi discloses the rechargeable battery of Claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises graphite, a Si composite, or a mixture thereof ([0097]).
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.
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20190018114A; Global Dossier machine translation furnished in the office action) as applied to Claim 1, in view of Uchida et al. (US20080050295A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Choi discloses the rechargeable battery of Claim 1 and the use of chain carbonate compounds as a non-aqueous organic solvent in an electrolyte solution for their low viscosity and charge/discharge-improving capabilities ([0105]), but does not explicitly disclose 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).
Uchida discloses a rechargeable lithium battery ([0063]) wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is a mixture of dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC) ([0069]). Choi and Uchida are both analogous to the current invention because they are both related to the same field of endeavor, namely rechargeable lithium batteries employing lithium composite oxides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have modified the non-aqueous organic solvent of Choi to be a mixture of dimethyl carbonate and ethylmethyl carbonate as disclosed by Uchida because doing so would amount to nothing more than to utilize known components in a known environments to achieve entirely predictable results, e.g. using known carbonates as electrolyte solvents in lithium secondary batteries.
Regarding Claim 5, Choi discloses the rechargeable battery of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) in a volume ratio of about 10:90 to about 50:50.
Uchida discloses a rechargeable lithium battery ([0063]) wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethylmethyl carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a mass ratio of 3:7, corresponding to a volume ratio of approximately 29.8:65.8 based on the respective densities of EMC (1.006 grams/cubic centimeter, using Sigma Aldrich as an evidentiary reference) and DMC (1.0636 grams/cubic centimeter, using PubChem as an evidentiary reference). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have modified the non-aqueous organic solvent of Choi to be a mixture of dimethyl carbonate and ethylmethyl carbonate as disclosed by Uchida because doing so would amount to nothing more than to utilize known components in a known environments to achieve entirely predictable results, e.g. using known carbonates as electrolyte solvents in lithium secondary batteries.
Claim 9 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20190018114A; Global Dossier machine translation furnished in the office action), as applied to Claim 8 in view of Yi et al. (“Delineating the Roles of Mn, Al, and Co by Comparing Three Layered Oxide Cathodes with the Same Nickel Content of 70% for Lithium-Ion Batteries”).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi discloses the rechargeable battery of Claim 8, but does not disclose wherein in Chemical Formula 3-1 (LiaNix1Mny1M1z11M2w1O2±bXc):
0.6 ≤ x1 ≤ 0.79
0.2 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.39
0.01 ≤ z1 < 0.1
Yi discloses a lithium composite oxide for the cathode of a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract). Yi teaches use of a lithium composite oxide of the form LiNi0.7Mn0.25Al0.05O2 (first sentence of the “Materials” paragraph), highlighting its high specific capacity, stable high-voltage cycling performance, and thermal stability (first paragraph in the “Conclusions” section). Choi and Yi are analogous to the current invention because both are related to the same field of endeavor, namely rechargeable lithium batteries employing lithium composite oxides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have modified the rechargeable lithium battery of Choi to use the composite lithium oxide of Yi in order to improve the specific capacity, cycling performance, and thermal stability of that rechargeable battery, as suggested by Yi.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (KR20190018114A; Global Dossier machine translation furnished in the office action) as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Zhao et al. (CN110010886A – Espacenet translation provided by the applicant).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi discloses the rechargeable battery of Claim 1, but 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.
Zhao discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract), comprising an electrolyte solution ([0091]) comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0091]) and a lithium salt ([0091]); a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (abstract); and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (abstract), wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent contains less than about 5 wt% of ethylene carbonate ([0091]), based on the total weight of the non-aqueous organic solvent, and the positive electrode active material comprises a cobalt-free lithium nickel manganese-based oxide (abstract). Zhao further teaches wherein the rechargeable lithium battery consequently has a charging upper limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.5 V ([0133-0134]) due to the characteristics of a nickel-rich lithium manganese-based positive electrode material ([0133-0135]). Choi and Zhao are analogous to the current invention because both are related to the same field of endeavor, namely rechargeable batteries employing lithium composite oxides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention that the lithium battery of Choi would reasonably exhibit a charging upper limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.5 V because they would find the battery of Choi substantially similar to that of Zhao, which evidences a rechargeable lithium battery having a charging upper limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.5 V.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims (see Tables 2-3 below) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claim (see table below) of copending
Application No. (18/459,306; 18/464,904; 18/497,89818/497,916; 18/494,255; 18/646,736; 18/626,150; 18/457,153; 18/459,225; 18/459,275) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because (see Tables 2-3 below).
Table 2: Nonstatutory double patenting comparisons
Instant app#: 18/464,061
Co-pending app#: 18/459,306
Co-pending app#: 18/464,904
Co-pending app#: 18/497,898
Co-pending app#: 18/497,916
Co-pending app#: 18/494,255
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 11, 17
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 7-13
Claim 2
Claims 2, 3
Claims 11, 17
Claims 2-3
Claims 2-3
Claims 7, 13
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claims 11, 17
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claims 7, 13
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claims 11-12, 17
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claims 7, 13
Claim 5
Claim 5
-
Claim 5
Claim 5
-
Claim 6
Claim 8
Claims 9, 11, 17
Claim 11
Claim 11
-
Claim 7
Claim 9
Claims 11, 17
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claims 7, 13
Claim 8
Claim 10
Claims 11, 17
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claims 7, 13
Claim 9
Claim 11
Claims 11, 17
Claim 14
Claim 14
Claims 7, 13
Claim 10
Claim 12
Claims 11, 17-18
Claim 15
Claim 15
-
Claim 11
Claim 13
Claim 11, 21
Claim 16
Claim 16
-
Table 3: Nonstatutory double patenting comparison
Instant app#: 18/464,061
Co-pending app#: 18/646,736
Co-pending app#: 18/626,150
Co-pending app#: 18/457,153
Co-pending app#: 18/459,225
Co-pending app#: 18/459,275
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 14
Claim 2
Claims 7-9
Claims 2-3
Claims 2-3
Claims 11-12
Claims 2, 3, 14
Claim 3
Claim 9
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 12
Claims 2-3, 14
Claim 4
Claim 9
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 13
Claims 4, 14
Claim 5
Claim 10
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 14
Claims 5, 14
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 11
Claim 8
Claim 15
Claims 12, 14
Claim 7
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claim 9
Claim 16
Claim 14
Claim 8
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claim 10
Claim 17
-
Claim 9
Claim 14
Claim 14
Claim 11
Claim 18
-
Claim 10
-
Claim 15
Claim 12
Claim 19
Claims 14-15
Claim 11
Claim 15
Claim 17
Claim 13
Claim 20
Claims 14-15
References Cited But Not Relied Upon
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Zheng et al. (“Exploring high-voltage fluorinated carbonate electrolytes for LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 cathode in Li-ion batteries”) discloses use of a substituted chain carbonate as an electrolyte in a nickel-manganese oxide lithium-ion battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kent G. Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)482-9953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/K.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 05/30/2026
Prosecution Insights