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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-24 in the reply filed on 6/25/26 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 13-17, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (CN 110896140 A, hereinafter Zhou).
Re Claim 1. Zhou teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract), comprising
a positive electrode (P3), a negative electrode (P3), a separator (P3) between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte (P3),
wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer on the negative electrode current collector (P3), and the negative electrode active material layer includes a carbon material (P4 & 5) capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium as a negative electrode active material (functional limitation), the negative electrode further includes a lithiophilic element on the surface of the negative electrode current collector and/or inside the negative electrode active material layer, and the lithiophilic element includes one or more elements selected from Si, Sn (P4),
the negative electrode is one in which lithium is electrodeposited (product-by-process limitation) between the negative electrode current collector and the negative electrode active material layer (P5),
the electrolyte includes an organic solvent and a lithium salt (P11), and
the organic solvent includes an ether-based solvent and a carbonate-based solvent (P11 & P12).
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2112- 2112.02.
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
Re Claim 3. Zhou teaches wherein the carbon material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium as the negative electrode active material is in a form of particles (P4 & 5), and the lithium electrodeposited by charging in the negative electrode is electrodeposited at one or more locations: (i) between the negative electrode current collector and the negative electrode active material layer (P5).
Re Claim 5. Zhou teaches wherein the carbon material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium as the negative electrode active material is crystalline carbon (P4 & 5) having spherical shape, plate-shaped, flake-shaped, or fibrous shape (P4 & 5).
Re Claim 7. Zhou teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer further includes a Si-based negative electrode active material and/or a Sn-based negative electrode active material (P4).
Re Claim 13. Zhou teaches wherein in the electrolyte, the ether-based solvent includes tetrahydrofuran (P12).
Re Claim 14. Zhou teaches wherein in the electrolyte, the carbonate-based solvent includes dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC) (P11).
Re Claim 15. Zhou teaches wherein the carbonate-based solvent in the electrolyte is cyclic carbonate (P12).
Re Claim 16. Zhou teaches wherein in the electrolyte, the lithium salt includes LiPF6 (P11).
Re Claim 17. Zhou teaches wherein the lithium salt in the electrolyte is an imide-based lithium salt including LiFSI (P11).
Re Claim 22. Zhou teaches wherein the electrolyte further includes a fluorine-based additive (P11).
Re Claim 23. Zhou teaches wherein the fluorine-based additive includes LiPF6 (P11).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 13-16, 18, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 10-2010-0121874 A, hereinafter Lee, cited by applicant) in view of Zhou.
Re Claim 1. Lee teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract), comprising
a positive electrode (P3), a negative electrode (P3), a separator (P3)between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and an electrolyte (P3),
wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector (P4) and a negative electrode active material layer (P4) on the negative electrode current collector, and the negative electrode active material layer includes a carbon material (P4) capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium as a negative electrode active material (functional limitation),
the negative electrode further includes a lithiophilic element on the surface of the negative electrode current collector and/or inside the negative electrode active material layer, and the lithiophilic element includes one or more elements selected from Al, Ag, In, Mg, Pd, Si, Sn, and Zn (P4),
the negative electrode is one in which lithium is inside the negative electrode active material layer by charging (P9),
the electrolyte includes an organic solvent and a lithium salt (P5), and
the organic solvent includes a carbonate-based solvent (P6).
Lee fails to specifically teach that the organic solvent includes an ether-based solvent.
The invention of Zhou encompasses lithium ion battery and negative electrode. Zhou teaches that the organic solvent includes an ether-based solvent (P11 & P12).
In view of Zhou, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Lee to further employ an ether-based solvent, since using a well-known electrolyte for lithium ion battery would be within purview of one skill in the art.
Re Claim 2. The combination does not expressly disclose that in the negative electrode, the carbon negative electrode active material and the lithium electrodeposited by charging both implement capacity, and a specific capacity of a negative electrode implemented by the carbon material negative electrode active material and electrodeposited lithium is about 400 mAh/g to about 1000 mAh/g.
However, since Lee in view of Zhou and the claimed battery employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (the carbon negative electrode active material and the lithium electrodeposited by charging both implement capacity, and a specific capacity of a negative electrode implemented by the carbon material negative electrode active material and electrodeposited lithium is about 400 mAh/g to about 1000 mAh/g) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Lee in view of Zhou. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Re Claim 3. The combination teaches wherein the carbon material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium as the negative electrode active material is in a form of particles (Lee, P4), and the lithium electrodeposited by charging in the negative electrode is electrodeposited at one or more locations (iii) pores inside the carbon material particles (P9).
Re Claim 5. The combination teaches wherein the carbon material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium as the negative electrode active material is crystalline carbon (Lee, P4) having spherical-shaped, plate-shaped, flake-shaped, or fibrous shape (P4).
Re Claim 7. The combination teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer further includes a Si-based negative electrode active material and/or a Sn-based negative electrode active material (Lee, P4).
Re Claim 8. The combination teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer has a thickness of about 100 µm (Lee, P8).
Re Claim 9. The combination teaches wherein the lithiophilic element is included in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% based on 100 wt% of the negative electrode active material layer (Lee, P4).
Re Claim 13. The combination teaches wherein in the electrolyte, the ether-based solvent includes tetrahydrofuran (Zhou, P12).
Re Claim 14. The combination teaches wherein in the electrolyte, the carbonate-based solvent includes dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC) (Lee, P6).
Re Claim 15. The combination teaches wherein the carbonate-based solvent in the electrolyte is cyclic carbonate (Lee, P6).
Re Claim 16. The combination teaches wherein in the electrolyte, the lithium salt includes LiPF6, LiBF4, LiSbF6, LiClO4 (Lee, P5).
Re Claim 18. The combination teaches wherein a concentration of the lithium salt is about 0.4 M to about 1.5 M (Lee, P5).
Re Claim 22. The combination teaches wherein the electrolyte further includes a fluorine-based additive (Lee, P5).
Re Claim 23. The combination teaches wherein the fluorine-based additive includes LiPF6, LiBF4, LiSbF6 (Lee, P5).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou or Lee in view of Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Azami (US 2014/0087249 A1).
The teachings of Zhou and Lee in view of Zhou have been discussed above.
Re Claim 4. Zhou and Lee in view of Zhou further teach wherein the carbon material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium as the negative electrode active material is in a form of particles (Zhou, P4 & 5 and Lee, P4) but fails to specifically teach having an average particle diameter (D50) of about 1 µm to about 50 µm.
The invention of Azami encompasses lithium ion battery. Azami teaches an average particle diameter (D50) of about 15 µm (para. 114).
In view of Azami, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhou or Lee in view of Zhou to have an average particle diameter (D50) of about 15 µm, since using a well-known size of carbon particle is within purview of one skill in the art.
Re Claim 6. The combination teaches wherein the carbon material capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium as the negative electrode active material is spherical graphite (Azami, para. 114).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou or Lee in view of Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2022-0060804 A, hereinafter Lee ‘804, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 10. Zhou and Lee in view of Zhou fails to specifically teach that the negative electrode includes a coating layer disposed on the surface of the negative electrode current collector and including the lithiophilic element.
The invention of Lee ‘804 encompasses anode for lithium secondary battery. Lee ‘804 teaches that the negative electrode includes a coating layer disposed on the surface of the negative electrode current collector and including the lithiophilic element (P3).
In view of Lee ‘804, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhou or Lee in view of Zhou to employ a coating layer disposed on the surface of the negative electrode current collector and including the lithiophilic element, since Lee ‘804 teaches the advantage of using it, which is to improve capacity retention and performance (P10).
Re Claim 11. The combination teaches wherein the coating layer including the lithiophilic element has a thickness of about 30 nm (Lee ‘804, P8).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou or Lee in view of Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (KR 10-2014-0065712 A, hereinafter Choi, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 12. Zhou and Lee in view of Zhou wherein in the electrolyte, the organic solvent includes about 55 vol% to about 95 vol% of an ether-based solvent and about 5 vol% to about 45 vol% of a carbonate-based solvent.
The invention of Choi encompasses electrolyte for lithium battery. Choi teaches that the organic solvent includes about 50 vol% to about 95 vol% of an ether-based solvent (P3).
In view of Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhou or Lee in view of Zhou to employ about 50 vol% to about 95 vol% of an ether-based solvent, since using a well-known amount of ether-based solvent is within purview of one skill in the art.
As Zhou or Lee in view of Zhou teaches that the organic solvent includes an ether-based solvent and a carbonate-based solvent (see rejection of claim 1), the amount of a carbonate-based solvent would be 5 vol% to 50 vol%.
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). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Claim(s) 19-21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou or Lee in view of Zhou as applied to claims 1 and 22 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (KR 10-2021-0105152 A, hereinafter Choi ‘152, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 19. Zhou and Lee in view of Zhou fails to specifically teach that the electrolyte further includes a nitrogen-based additive.
The invention of Choi ‘152 encompasses electrolyte for lithium battery. Choi teaches that the electrolyte further includes a nitrogen-based additive (P5).
In view of Choi ‘152, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhou or Lee in view of Zhou to employ a nitrogen-based additive, since Choi ‘152 teaches the advantage of using it, which is to suppress the formation of lithium dendrite at the lithium metal interface (P5).
Re Claim 20. The combination teaches wherein the nitrogen-based additive includes LiNO3 (Choi ‘152, P5)
Re Claim 21. The combination teaches wherein the nitrogen-based additive is included in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte (P5).
Re Claim 24. Choi ‘152 teaches wherein the fluorine-based additive is included in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 10 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte (P5).
In view of Choi ‘152, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zhou or Lee in view of Zhou to employ the fluorine-based additive in the amount of 1 wt% to about 10 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte, since using a well-known amount of fluorine-based additive would be within purview of one skill in the art.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
7/11/2026
Prosecution Insights