CTNF 18/492,677 CTNF 101825 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 10-12 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. Claim 10 recites “an adduct obtained by”. It is not clear the recited “adduct” is the same or different than the previously recited adduct. Claim 11 recites “the adduct of chemical formula 2 is a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-2 or 2-2”. To which of the previously recited adducts does “the adduct” refer? Claim 12 recites “the second additive comprises at least one selected from a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1-1, a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1-1”. A possible amendment is “compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1-1; a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1-2”. Additionally, two chemical structures are labeled Chemical Formula 2-3-2. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al.( US 2020350568 A1) in view of Lim et al.( KR 20190127412 A, see attached machine translation for text citation), and further in view of Liang et al (CN113328141A) . Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a rechargeable lithium battery 100 (fig. 1), comprising: a cylindrical can having a volume of greater than or equal to about 15 cms (claim 4), an electrode assembly accommodated in the cylindrical can (claim 4), and an electrolyte impregnated in the electrode assembly (para 31; fig. 1), wherein the electrolyte comprises: a non-aqueous organic solvent and a lithium salt (para 60). Lee fails to disclose a first additive comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1; wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, Xi is a halogen atom; Y1 and Y2 are each independently O or S; 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 of N, O, or P. Lim discloses a first additive comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, Xi is a halogen atom; Y1 and Y2 are each independently O or S; 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 PNG media_image1.png 364 630 media_image1.png Greyscale heteroaryl group comprising a hetero atom of N, O, or P. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the rechargeable lithium battery of Lee such that electrolyte comprised an additive represented by chemical formula 1 as taught by Lim above as doing such “serves to serves to stabilize the LiPF 6 salt in the electrolyte to prevent hydrolysis” (para 38). Lee and Lim fail to disclose a second additive comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2, a derivative thereof, and/or an adduct thereof, a content of the second additive is less than about 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte: wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, Z is N or CH. Liang discloses a second additive comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 (claim 3, “acid-binding agent” hereinafter referred to as DABCO), ,a content of the second additive is less than about 5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte (claim 2). PNG media_image2.png 222 637 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the rechargeable lithium battery of Lee and Lim such that electrolyte comprised a second additive represented by chemical formula 2 as taught by Liang above as doing such reduces the consumption of the electrolyte (para 23). Regarding claim 2 and 3, Lee discloses the volume of cylindrical can is greater than or equal to about 24 cm 3 . Regarding claim 4, Lim discloses X is a fluoro group (para 10). Regarding claim 5, Y 1 and Y 2 are oxygen in Chemical formula 1 provided by Lim. Regarding claims 6, Lim discloses R1 to R6 can be each independently substituted or unsubstituted C2 To C20 alkynyl group (para 11) PNG media_image3.png 364 630 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 7and 8, Lim discloses Z 1 is *-ch2- *and Z 2 is *-ChCh3-*. Regarding claim 9, Lim discloses a content of the first additive is about 0.05 to about 3 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrolyte (para 15). Claims 10-11 are optional since the adduct is not required by claim 1. Lee, Lim and Liang disclose the chemical formula 2 of claim 1 as detailed above and thus meet the optional limitations of claims 10-11. Regarding claim 12, Liang teaches a second additive comprising compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1-1 (claim 3). Regarding claim 13, Liang discloses that the amount of DABCO added is 0.5-1% of the total mass of the electrolyte (claim 2). Regarding claim 14, Lee, Lim and Liang do not explicitly disclose the weight ratio of the first additive to the second additive is about 1:0.1 to about 1:3. Lim teaches that “ when the content of the compound represented by Formula 1 is less than 0.05% by weight, there is a problem in that the effect of improving the high temperature storage and swelling is reduced, and when the content is more than 3% by weight, there is a problem in that the life is reduced by increasing the interface resistance” (para 47). Liang teach that when the adding amount of DABCO is too small, it does not completely absorb the acidic substance formed by the oxidation of the positive electrode; and then it cannot completely avoid the acidic substance to the SEI film; when the adding amount of DABCO is too large, it causes the internal resistance of electrolyte to increase, but it will react to the performance of the battery (para 31). The weight ratio of the first additive to the second additive is result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the weight ratio through routine experimentation to achieve an electrolyte with “improved temperature storage” (Lim, para 47). The MPEP notes that finding workable or optimum ranges for an art recognized result effective variable generally do not amount a patentable distinction (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a carbonate-based, ester-based, ether-based, ketone-based, alcohol-based, and/or aprotic solvent (para 62). Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a carbonate-based solvent comprising a mixture of a cyclic carbonate and a linear carbonate (para 64). Lee discloses the cyclic carbonate and the chain carbonate are mixed together at a volume ratio of about 1:1 to about 1:9 (para 64). The ratio disclosed by Lee overlaps with instant application’s ratio of about 5:95 (1:19) to about 50:50 (1:1). It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ratio as it enhances electrolyte performance (para 64). Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the electrode assembly comprises: a positive electrode 114 comprising a positive active material layer; a negative electrode 112 comprising a negative electrode active material layer and a separator 113 between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para 31; claim 1 and fig. 1). Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses the positive active material layer comprises a lithium nickel-based composite oxide represented by Li b M 1 1--y1-z1 M 2 y1 M 3 z1 O 2 wherein, in. 0.9≤b≤1.8, 0≤y1≤1, 0≤z1≤1, 0≤y1+z1≤1, M 1 , M 2 , and M 3 are independently a metal of Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Sr, Mg, or La), and a combination thereof (claim 10). Instant Application: Li a1 Ni X1 M 1 y1 M 2 z1 O 2-b1 X b1 Wherein, 0.9≤a1≤1.2, 0.7≤x1≤1, 0≤y1≤0.2, 0≤z1≤0.2, 0.9≤x1+y1+z1≤1.1, 0≤b1≤0.1 X = F, P, and S M 1 and M 2 = Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, and Zr Lee Reference: Li b M 1 1-y1-z1 M 2 y1 M 3 z1 O 2 Wherein, 0.9≤b≤1.8, 0≤y1≤1, 0≤z1≤1, 0≤y1+z1≤1, M 1 , M 2 , and M 3 = Ni, Co, Mn, Al, Sr, Mg, or La b1 = 0 Li a1 Ni X1 M 1 y1 M 2 z1 O 2 M 1 = Ni Li b Ni 1-y1-z1 M 2 y1 M 3 z1 O 2 a1= 0.9 X1 = 0.8 M 1 = Al M 2 = Mn Y1 = 0.1 Z1 = 0.1 Li 0.9 Ni 0.8 Al 0.1 Mn 0.1 O 2 b=0.9 M 2 = Al M 3 = Mn Y1 = 0.1 Z1 = 0.1 Li 0 . 9 Ni 0 . 8 Al 0 . 1 Mn 0 . 1 O 2 Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses the negative electrode active material layer comprises at least one selected from graphite and a Si composite (para 96). Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses the rechargeable lithium battery further comprises a sealing member 140 that seals the battery case 120 (fig 1, para 31) . Double Patenting 08-29 Claims 2-8, 15-20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 2-8 of Application No. 18/487,948. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822. 08-35 Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/487,948 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the range in instant application lies within the range disclosed by reference application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm. 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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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. /A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746 /CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/492,677 Page 2 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/492,677 Page 3 Art Unit: 1746
Prosecution Insights