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 5-10 and 18 have been amended; support is found in [0025-0030] and [0121-0128].
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
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 1-4, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2024/0030490 A1-with priority date of 6/14/2022) in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0037698 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising
A positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material ([0094] cathode and anode active materials on a current collector);
A negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material ([0094] cathode and anode active materials on a current collector); and
An electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0069-0071] non-aqueous organic solvent), a lithium salt and an additive ([0009] electrolyte has an organic solvent, lithium salt and a phosphorous based cesium salt that can be an additive or provided with an additional additive),
Wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a Si composite ([0102-0104] anode active material can be a silicon compound along with other compounds to make a composite compound),
The additive comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 ([0009-0012,0018-0025] chemical formulas 1-2 and chemical formulas 10-11 read on the claimed material),
The lithium salt comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 ([0026] LiN(CF3SO2)2 reads as the claimed formula 2),
PNG
media_image1.png
308
1012
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein, in chemical formula 1,
X1 is a fluoro group, a chloro group, a bromo group, or an iodo group ([0009-0012,0018-0025] chemical formulas 1-2 and chemical formulas 10-11 read on the claimed material);
R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen, a cyano group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, alkynyl, cycloalkyl, aryl or heteroaryl group ([0009-0012,0018-0025] chemical formulas 1-2 and chemical formulas 10-11 read on the claimed material); and
N is an integer of 0 or 1;
PNG
media_image2.png
246
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein, in Chemical Formula 2,
R7 to R8 are each independently a fluoro group or a C1 to C4 fluoroalkyl group substituted with at least one fluoro group ([0026] LiN(CF3SO2)2 reads as the claimed formula 2).
Yun further discloses wherein the lithium salt can be provided with one more selected form the group listed in [0026]. While, Yun is silent with respect to the salt of formula 2 being provided within 5 to 70 wt% of the lithium salt, it is the examiner’s opinion that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select and adjust the amount of the LiN(CF3SO2)2 salt used to be within 0-100 wt% of the lithium salt and thus would overlap the claimed 5-70 wt%. 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). Even if not, Yun in view of Du would render obvious the amount of lithium salt.
Du discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte containing salt for cast charging/discharging of lithium ion batteries and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same of endeavor. Du discloses wherein an LiFSI salt can be used as a lithium salt in the electrolyte composition. Du discloses wherein LIFSI can be present in combination with one or more other lithium salts at a weight percentage of 30 wt% or greater and 95 wt% as LiFSI has a high conductivity and thus can improve the conductivity of the battery that can lead to fast charging of the battery when depleted ([0017,0030,0040-0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan and substitute the lithium salt of Yun for the lithium salt that contains the LiFSI material between a weight percentage of 30-95 wt% based on the total weight of the lithium salt in order to improve the conductivity of the battery as taught by Du. The resulting modification would render obvious the Chemical Formula 2 as R7 and R8 would be a fluoro group and wherein multiple lithium salts can be provided at a weight percentage of 30-95 % as this range taught by Du would overlap with the limitation of claim 1. 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 2, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein Chemical Formula 1 is represented by chemical formula 1A or 1B,
PNG
media_image3.png
616
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein, in chemical formula 1A and 1B, X1 is a fluoro group, a chloro group, a bromo group, or an iodo group ([0009-0012,0018-0025] chemical formulas 1-2 and chemical formulas 10-11 read on the claimed material);
R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl, alkoxy, alkenyl, alkynyl group([0009-0012, 0018-0025] chemical formulas 1-2 and chemical formulas 10-11 read on the claimed material).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Yun further discloses wherein R3 and R4 of Chemical Formula 1A are each hydrogen and at least one of R5 or R6 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group (Formulas 10-11; [0018-0025]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein the compound represented by chemical formula 1 is in an amount of about 0.1 to about 1 wt% based on 100 wt% of a total amount of the electrolyte solution ([0051] total weight of chemical formulas 1 and 2 based on the weight of the electrolyte solution is between 0.1-20 % by weight).
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 13, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein the amount of the Si composite is about 1.0 to about 60 wt% based on a total weight of the negative electrode active material ([0102-0106] active material can comprise a Si based composite as well as other materials and thus broadly discloses a 0-100 wt% use of the at least one Si composite and thus would render the claim limitation as obvious absent evidence of unexpected results or criticality.).
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 15, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is at least one selected from compounds of Group 1 ([0018-0020] Chemical Formulas 10-11):
PNG
media_image4.png
232
916
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Du further discloses wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formulas 2A-2C or a combination thereof (Du formula LiFSI reads on chemical formula 2A). Examiner notes that Yun’s salts in [0026] LiN(CF3SO2)2 reads as the claimed formula 2B and LiN(C2F5SO2)2 reads on formula 2C. Thus the combination of Yun and Du discloses all the compounds of 2A-2C.
PNG
media_image5.png
830
1186
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Du further discloses wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 is in an amount of about 10 to about 50 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total amount of the lithium salt ([0017,0030,0040-0044] 30 wt% or greater and 95 wt% as LiFSI has a high conductivity and thus can improve the conductivity of the battery that can lead to fast charging of the battery when depleted). 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 18, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein the electrolyte can contain one other additive such as fluoroethylene carbonate or vinylene carbonate ([0027] fluoroethylene carbonate).
Claims 5-6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2024/0030490 A1-with priority date of 6/14/2022) in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0037698 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2022/0149358 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Yun all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun discloses a Silicon carbon composite for the active material, however, is silent with respect to the Si-C composite particle comprises a core comprising Si particles and amorphous carbon.
Moon discloses a negative electrode active material and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Moon discloses a negative electrode active material for a secondary battery comprising a core made of silicon oxide and contains a graphitic material along with amorphous caron that can be positioned on the core and provided in the core ([0008, 0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the active material of Yun for the active material of Moon as a simple substitute of a Silicon based composite made of silicon and amorphous carbon as both references disclose active material made of the same material thus it would have been obvious to substitute one active material for another that would achieve predictable results. The resulting modification would render obvious the claim limitations of claims 5-7. 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 13, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun discloses a composite material, however, is silent with respect to the weight % of the Si composite in the negative electrode active material.
Moon discloses a negative electrode active material and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Moon discloses a negative electrode active material for a secondary battery comprising a core made of silicon oxide and contains a graphitic material along with amorphous caron that can be positioned on the core and provided in the core ([0008, 0012]). Moon further discloses wherein the composite may be included at 50 parts by weight or more with respect to 100 parts by weight of the negative electrode ([0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the active material of Yun for the active material of Moon as a simple substitute of a Silicon based composite made of silicon and amorphous carbon as both references disclose active material made of the same material thus it would have been obvious to substitute one active material for another that would achieve predictable results. The resulting modification would render obvious the claim limitations of claim 13 as Moon discloses wherein the composite is provided at a weight of 50% or more and thus would overlap with the claimed range. 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.). 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).
Claims 7, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2024/0030490 A1-with priority date of 6/14/2022) in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0037698 A1) and Moon et al. (US 2022/0149358 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2019/0312264 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 5, however, is silent with respect to wherein the average particle diameter of the Si particles is 10-200 nm.
Shin discloses a negative electrode active material and is analogous with the instant invention being within the same field of endeavor. Shin discloses a negative electrode material comprising silicon nanoparticles having an average diameter of 5-150 nm and a carbon coating layer having a thickness of 1-100 nm ([0016-0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the size of the silicon core particles of modified Yun to have an average diameter of 5-150 nm and adjust the amorphous carbon coating to be between 1-100 nm as taught by Shin such that the radius of the central portion is 30-50 % of the total composite while having an average particle diameter of Si particles be between 10 -200 nm. The size claimed in claim 7 is thus rendered obvious as the sizes and ratio taught by Shin would read on the claimed sizes for the core and Si-composite. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Moon further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises crystalline carbon such as natural or artificial graphite ([0082] negative electrode active material can include crystalline carbon such as natural or artificial graphite).
Regarding claims 14, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Moon further discloses wherein the amorphous carbon comprises soft carbon, hard carbon, mesophase pitch carbide, calcined coke ([0082] negative electrode active material can include soft carbon, hard carbon, mesophase pitch carbide, calcined coke).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2024/0030490 A1-with priority date of 6/14/2022) in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0037698 A1) and Moon et al. (US 2022/0149358 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Cui et al. (US 2015/0099187 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yun discloses all of the claim limitations of claim 5. Yun is silent with respect to wherein a central portion of the core of the Si-C composite particle comprises voids.
Cui discloses a large volume change lithium battery electrodes and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Cui discloses wherein a secondary particle surface comprises void spaces that allow for the particle to expand without altering the particle morphology while particles without voids had significant decay ([0046,0056,0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the teaching of Cui such that the Si-C composite particles comprises voids in order to allow for space for the particle to expand without altering the particle morphology and allowing for significant decay of the electrode as taught by Cui. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Moon further discloses wherein the central portion does not include any amorphous carbon, and the amorphous carbon is present only on a surface portion of the Si-C composite ([0008] the amorphous carbon can be provided as a shell that coats the core).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2024/0030490 A1-with priority date of 6/14/2022) in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0037698 A1) and Moon et al. (US 2022/0149358 A1), and Cui et al. (US 2015/0099187 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2019/0312264 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8, however, is silent with respect to the radius of the central portion being 30-50 % of the radius of the composite.
Shin discloses a negative electrode active material and is analogous with the instant invention being within the same field of endeavor. Shin discloses a negative electrode material comprising silicon nanoparticles having an average diameter of 5-150 nm and a carbon coating layer having a thickness of 1-100 nm ([0016-0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the size of the silicon core particles of modified Yun to have an average diameter of 5-150 nm and adjust the amorphous carbon coating to be between 1-100 nm as taught by Shin such that the radius of the central portion is 30-50 % of the total composite. The size claimed in claim 9 is thus rendered obvious as the sizes and ratio taught by Shin would read on the claimed sizes for the core and Si-composite. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2024/0030490 A1-with priority date of 6/14/2022) in view of Du et al. (US 2022/0037698 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ouki et al. (US 2021/0367230 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Yun further discloses wherein the cathode active material can be a lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide ([0096-0097]), however, discloses different ranges for the LNMCO material than that of the claimed invention.
Ouki discloses a positive electrode active material for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Ouki discloses wherein the positive electrode can contain a lithium metal oxide comprising LiaNi1-bMbCc wherein M can be cobalt (Co) and manganese (Mn) wherein a is between 0.8-1.2, b is between 0.0-0.4 and c is between 0 and 3 (claim 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the active material of Yun for the active material of Ouki and select M to be Co and Mn, b to be between 0.0-0.4, a to be between 0.8-1.2, and c to be 0-3 as taught by Ouki as a simple substitution and selection of one active material for another. The resulting modification would broadly teach wherein the active material could be LiNi0.9Co0.1Mn0.1O2 and thus would read on the claim chemical formula 4. 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 20, modified Yun discloses all the claim limitations of claim 19. Ouki discloses wherein in chemical formula 4, x is between 0.88-1 (see modification of claim 19 as the active material could be LiNi0.9Co0.1Mn0.1O2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 09/02/2026 have been considered. Applicant’s arguments related to the claimed range are found to be persuasive, however, the rejection has been updated. Examiner further notes applicant’s remark 6 of unexpected results, however, the argument of unexpected results are not found to be persuasive as the results of [0187-0184] and Tables 1-2 are not commensurate in scope with the claims as the examples do not correspond with that of the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoon et al. (US 2015/0249269 A1)-discloses an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery wherein the electrolyte has a plurality of salts provided at different claimed ranges ([0015]).
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
