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 .
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 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-17, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/492677 (US 2024/0405276) in view of Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045 A1).
Regarding claim 1, copending Application No. 18/492677 (US 2024/0405276) claims all the limitations of claim 1 (see claims 1, 17, and 19) exception the claim limitation of “the negative electrode comprising a first negative electrode active material and a second negative electrode active material, the first negative electrode active material comprising a Si—C composite and a first carbon-based negative electrode active material, the Si—C composite comprising a Si-based active material, and the second negative electrode active material comprising a second carbon-based negative electrode active material”.
However, copending Application No. 18/492677 (US 2024/0405276)) claims that the rechargeable lithium battery wherein: the electrode assembly comprises: a positive electrode comprising a positive active material layer; a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer; and a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see claim 17); and wherein: the negative electrode active material layer comprises at least one selected from graphite and a Si composite (see claim 19).
Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045 A1) discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (lithium secondary battery, see Abstract), comprising a positive electrode,
a negative electrode,
and an electrolyte (see paragraphs 0010, 0023, and 0029),
the electrolyte comprising
a non-aqueous organic solvent,
a lithium salt,
a first additive,
and a second additive (see paragraph 0023),
the negative electrode comprising
a first negative electrode active material and
a second negative electrode active material,
the first negative electrode active material comprising
a Si—C composite and
a first carbon-based negative electrode active material (at least one part of the silicon-carbon composite may include an amorphous carbon layer (see paragraph 0091) and the negative active material may include the silicon-carbon composite and crystalline carbon (see paragraph 0092),
the Si—C composite comprising a Si-based active material, and
the second negative electrode active material comprising a second carbon-based negative electrode active material (see paragraphs 0086-0088 and 0090-0094).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the claims of copending Application No. 18/492677 (US 2024/0405276)) with the teachings of Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045 A1) resulting in the negative electrode comprising a first negative electrode active material and a second negative electrode active material, the first negative electrode active material comprising a Si—C composite and a first carbon-based negative electrode active material, the Si—C composite comprising a Si-based active material, and the second negative electrode active material comprising a second carbon-based negative electrode active material.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the negative electrode comprising a first negative electrode active material and a second negative electrode active material, the first negative electrode active material comprising a Si—C composite and a first carbon-based negative electrode active material, the Si—C composite comprising a Si-based active material, and the second negative electrode active material comprising a second carbon-based negative electrode active material, since applicant has not disclosed that having the negative electrode comprising a first negative electrode active material and a second negative electrode active material, the first negative electrode active material comprising a Si—C composite and a first carbon-based negative electrode active material, the Si—C composite comprising a Si-based active material, and the second negative electrode active material comprising a second carbon-based negative electrode active material solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the negative electrode comprising a first negative electrode active material and a second negative electrode active material, the first negative electrode active material comprising a Si—C composite and a first carbon-based negative electrode active material, the Si—C composite comprising a Si-based active material, and the second negative electrode active material comprising a second carbon-based negative electrode active material.
Regarding claims 2-14, copending Application No. 18/492677 (US 2024/0405276)) claims a rechargeable lithium battery (see claims 1, 4-17 and 19).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-13, 15-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045 A1) in view of Shatunov et al. (KR 20170018739 A, machine translation provided) and Saidi et al. (US 2021/0111432 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (lithium secondary battery, see Abstract), comprising a positive electrode,
a negative electrode,
and an electrolyte (see paragraphs 0010, 0023, and 0029),
the electrolyte comprising
a non-aqueous organic solvent,
a lithium salt,
a first additive,
and a second additive (see paragraph 0023),
the negative electrode comprising
a first negative electrode active material and
a second negative electrode active material,
the first negative electrode active material comprising
a Si—C composite and
a first carbon-based negative electrode active material (at least one part of the silicon-carbon composite may include an amorphous carbon layer (see paragraph 0091) and the negative active material may include the silicon-carbon composite and crystalline carbon (see paragraph 0092),
the Si—C composite comprising a Si-based active material, and
the second negative electrode active material comprising a second carbon-based negative electrode active material (see paragraphs 0086-0088 and 0090-0094).
Choi et al. fails to disclose a rechargeable lithium battery the electrolyte comprising a first additive, and a second additive, the first additive comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second additive comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2,
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, X1 is a halogen atom; Y1 and Y2 are each independently O or S; and R1 and R2 are each independently H, a halogen atom, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a vinyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C10 aryl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 heteroaryl group comprising a hetero atom that is N, O, or P; and wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, Z is N or CH.
Shatunov et al. discloses an electrolyte additive of chemical formula 1 (see description of embodiments specifically chemical formulas 2, and 4-5 and Manufacturing example 1: Synthesis of compound of formula 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Choi et al. with the teachings of Shatunov et al. resulting in a first electrolyte additive of chemical formula 1 for stability of the SEI layer.
Saidi et al. discloses an energy storage device is provided, comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and an electrolyte; the electrolyte comprises a polycyclic amine; and the cyclic amine is selected from a quinuclidine, a 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane (DABCO), and a hexamethylenetetramine (methenamine) (see paragraphs 0014 0093) wherein a 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane (DABCO) is an electrolyte additive of chemical formula 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Choi et al. and Shatunov et al. with the teachings of Saidi et al. resulting in a second electrolyte additive of chemical formula 2 for stability of the SEI layer.
Regarding claims 2-4, the combined teachings of Choi et al., Shatunov et al., and Saidi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery wherein X1 is a fluorine atom; wherein Y1 and Y2 are simultaneously O; and wherein Chemical Formula 1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1:
PNG
media_image3.png
152
180
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and wherein, in Chemical Formula 1-1, Z1 and Z2 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C5 alkylene group, since Shatunov et al. discloses
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see description of embodiments specifically chemical formulas 2, and 4-5 and Manufacturing example 1: Synthesis of compound of formula 4).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Choi et al., Shatunov et al., and Saidi et al. fails to explicitly disclose a rechargeable lithium battery wherein Z1 is *—CH2—*, and Z2 is *—CHCH3—*.
However, Shatunov et al. discloses
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see description of embodiments specifically chemical formulas 2, and 4-5 and Manufacturing example 1: Synthesis of compound of formula 4), which is similar structure.
It would have been obvious before theeffective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical structure disclosed in Shatunov et al. such that Z1 is *—CH2—*, and Z2 is *—CHCH3—*, since chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities (see MPEP 2144.09).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of Choi et al., Shatunov et al., and Saidi et al. fail to disclose a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the first additive is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1-1:
PNG
media_image5.png
134
102
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
However, Shatunov et al. disclose
PNG
media_image6.png
358
223
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see description of embodiments specifically chemical formulas 2, and 4-5 and Manufacturing example 1: Synthesis of compound of formula 4).
It would have been obvious before theeffective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical structure disclosed in Shatunov et al. such that the first additive is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1-1:
PNG
media_image5.png
134
102
media_image5.png
Greyscale
since chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities (see MPEP 2144.09).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings of Choi et al., Shatunov et al., and Saidi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery wherein an amount of the first additive in 100 wt% of the electrolyte is about 0.05 to about 3 wt%, since Shatunov et al. discloses an electrolyte additive of chemical formula 1; and an amount of the first additive in 100 wt% of the electrolyte is about 0.05 to about 3 wt% (0.1 by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte) (see description of embodiments specifically chemical formulas 2, and 4-5 and Manufacturing example 1: Synthesis of compound of formula 4).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings of Choi et al., Shatunov et al., and Saidi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery herein an amount of the second additive in 100 wt % of the electrolyte is about 0.05 to about 3 wt %, since Saidi et al. discloses an electrolyte; the electrolyte comprises a polycyclic amine; and the cyclic amine is selected from a quinuclidine, a 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane (DABCO), and a hexamethylenetetramine (methenamine) (see paragraphs 0014 0093) wherein a 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane (DABCO) is an electrolyte additive of chemical formula 2, the electrolyte additive comprises the nitrogen-containing additive, the nitrogen-containing additive may be 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane, and the electrolyte comprises about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt% of the nitrogen-containing additive (see paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings of Choi et al., Shatunov et al., and Saidi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery wherein a weight ratio of the first additive and the second additive is about 1:0.1 to about 1:3, since Shatunov et al. discloses an electrolyte additive of chemical formula 1; and an amount of the first additive in 100 wt% of the electrolyte is 0.1 by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte (see description of embodiments specifically chemical formulas 2, and 4-5 and Manufacturing example 1: Synthesis of compound of formula 4); and Saidi et al. discloses an electrolyte; the electrolyte comprises a polycyclic amine; and the cyclic amine is selected from a quinuclidine, a 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane (DABCO), and a hexamethylenetetramine (methenamine) (see paragraphs 0014 0093) wherein a 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane (DABCO) is an electrolyte additive of chemical formula 2, the electrolyte additive comprises the nitrogen-containing additive, the nitrogen-containing additive may be 1,4-diazabicyclo[2.2.2]octane, and the electrolyte comprises about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt% of the nitrogen-containing additive (see paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 13, Choi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a carbonate-based, ester-based, ether-based, ketone-based, alcohol-based, and/or aprotic solvent (see paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings of Choi et al., Shatunov et al., and Saidi et al. fail to explicitly disclose a rechargeable lithium battery wherein a weight ratio of the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material is about 1: 99 to about 99:1.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a weight ratio of the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material is about 1: 99 to about 99:1, since applicant has not disclosed that having a weight ratio of the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material is about 1: 99 to about 99:1 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with a weight ratio of the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material is about 1: 99 to about 99:1.
Regarding claim 16, Choi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery wherein an average particle diameter of the Si-based active material is about 50 nanometer (nm) to about 200 nm (see paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 17, Choi fails to explicitly disclose a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the first carbon-based negative electrode active material is crystalline carbon; however Choi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the second carbon-based negative electrode active material is crystalline carbon (see paragraph 0094).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the first carbon-based negative electrode active material is crystalline carbon, since applicant has not disclosed that having the first carbon-based negative electrode active material is crystalline carbon solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the first carbon-based negative electrode active material is crystalline carbon.
Regarding claim 19, Choi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the second carbon-based negative electrode active material is crystalline carbon (see paragraph 0094).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045 A1) in view of Shatunov et al. (KR 20170018739 A, machine translation provided) and Saidi et al. (US 2021/0111432 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuzuki (US 2020/0099091 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Choi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:1 to 1:9 (see paragraphs 0051-0059).
Choi et al. fails to a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 5:95 to about 50:50.
Tsuzsuki discloses a lithium ion secondary battery in which multiple additives are added to the electrolytic solution including a non-aqueous organic solvent, an imide-based lithium salt, and LiPF6 (see paragraph 0007) and a non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 5:95 to about 50:50 (see paragraph 0030).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 5:95 to about 50:50, since applicant has not disclosed that having the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 5:95 to about 50:50 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 5:95 to about 50:50.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045 A1) in view of Shatunov et al. (KR 20170018739 A, machine translation provided) and Saidi et al. (US 2021/0111432 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2020/0321615 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Choi et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:1 to 1:9 (see paragraphs 0051-0059).
Choi et al. fails to a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 5:95 to about 50:50.
Shin et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 5:95 to about 50:50 (see Abstract and paragraph 0070).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 5:95 to about 50:50, since applicant has not disclosed that having the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 5:95 to about 50:50 solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate in a volume ratio of about 5:95 to about 50:50.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2020/0153045 A1) in view of Shatunov et al. (KR 20170018739 A, machine translation provided) and Saidi et al. (US 2021/0111432 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 6,555,272 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Choi et al. fails to disclose a rechargeable lithium battery wherein an average particle diameter of the second carbon-based negative electrode active material is about 5 micrometer (µm) to about 30 µm.
Suzuki et al. discloses that the behavior as powder of the carbon material powder substantially determines the behavior as powder of a negative electrode-active material for the lithium secondary battery; the powder of the carbon material mentioned above is preferred to have the behavior as powder thereof in terms of average particle diameter, particle size distribution, specific surface area, tap density, powder particles, distribution of particle shapes, and angle of repose so adjusted as to satisfy the behavior as powder required of the negative electrode-active material for the lithium secondary battery; and for example, the average particle diameter of the powder of the carbon material is preferred to be not less than 10 µm and not more than 50 µm (see column 9, lines 47-60) resulting in wherein an average particle diameter of the carbon-based negative electrode active material is about 5 micrometer (µm) to about 30 µm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have an average particle diameter of the second carbon-based negative electrode active material is about 5 micrometer (µm) to about 30 µm, since applicant has not disclosed that having an average particle diameter of the second carbon-based negative electrode active material is about 5 micrometer (µm) to about 30 µm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform well with an average particle diameter of the second carbon-based negative electrode active material is about 5 micrometer (µm) to about 30 µm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA E YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3163. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 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, Wang Claire can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
NATASHA E. YOUNG
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/NATASHA E YOUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
