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 .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1–12 are pending.
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 paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2024/0372142 A1.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03 August 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections to the drawings.
Specification
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections to the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C4 alkyl group." The term "substituted" has been defined in paragraph [0025]. The term "substituted" refers to replacement of at least one hydrogen of a substituent or a compound by deuterium, a halogen, a C1 to C30 alkyl group, a C1 to C10 alkylsilyl group, a C6 to C30 arylsilyl group, a C3 to C30 cycloalkyl group, a C3 to C30 heterocycloalkyl group, a C6 to C30 aryl group, a C2 to C30 heteroaryl group, a C1 to C10 fluoroalkyl group, or a cyano group.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein a density of the negative electrode is greater than or equal to about 1.6 g/cc."
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the ethyl butyrate is included in an amount of about 50 vol % to about 90 vol % based on 100 vol % of the non-aqueous organic solvent."
Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein the ethyl butyrate is included in an amount of about 60 vol % to about 80 vol % based on 100 vol % of the non-aqueous organic solvent."
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein: the borate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is included in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 10 wt % based on a total weight of the electrolyte."
Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein: the Ag salt is included in an amount of about 0.1 wt % to about 10 wt % based on a total weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery."
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein: the borate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and the Ag salt are included in a weight ratio of about 1:0.1 to about 1:1."
The relative term "about" that is used in conjunction with numerical ranges in claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 is being treated in the broadest reasonable interpretation. The instant specification does not describe the degree of the term nor provide a definition for the term. As such, the term "about" will be interpreted as +30% of the stated value as evidenced by Kim (US 2019/0198865 A1), which provides a standard of degree for the term "about" in the art (see about, [0022]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2021/0043974 A1, hereinafter Kinoshita) in view of Choi et al. (WO 2022/128233 A1, hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claims 1 and 4–8, Kinoshita discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium ion secondary battery, [0823]), comprising:
a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (see positive electrode, [0824]),
a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (see negative electrode, [0871]),
a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (se separator, [0907]), and
an electrolyte (see above electrolyte solution, [0823]),
wherein a density of the negative electrode is greater than or equal to about 1.6 g/cc (see density, [0896]),
the electrolyte comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent (see non-aqueous electrolyte solution, [0479]), a lithium salt (see electrolyte salt, [0520]), and an additive (see additives, [0643]),
the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethyl butyrate (see acyclic carboxylate, [0754]), and
wherein the ethyl butyrate is included in an amount of about 50 vol % to about 90 vol % based on 100 vol % of the non-aqueous organic solvent (see acyclic carboxylate, [0471]).
Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose:
the additive comprises a borate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and an Ag salt:
LiBF2[O2C(CFX)nCO2] Chemical Formula 1
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, X is hydrogen, a halogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C4 alkyl group, or a C1 to C4 fluoroalkyl group substituted with at least one fluoro group, and n is an integer of 1 to 4;
wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is represented by any one selected from Chemical Formula 1-1 to Chemical Formula 1-6:
PNG
media_image1.png
2125
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
wherein the borate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is included in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 10 wt % based on a total weight of the electrolyte;
wherein the Ag salt comprises at least one selected from AgNO3, AgNO2, AgN3, AgCN, AgPF6, AgFSI, AgTFSI, AgF, AgSO3CF3, and AgBF4;
wherein the Ag salt is included in an amount of about 0.1 wt % to about 10 wt % based on a total weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery; and
wherein the borate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and the Ag salt are included in a weight ratio of about 1:0.1 to about 1:1.
Choi discloses an electrolyte comprising the additive comprises a borate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (see LiFMDFB, P12/L22–P13/L5) and an Ag salt (see silver nitrate, P12/L22–P13/L5; see silver hexafluorophosphate, P12/L22–P13/L5; see mixture, P12/L22–P13/L50): LiBF2[O2C(CFX)nCO2] Chemical Formula 1 (see LiFMDFB, P12/L22–P13/L5); wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, X is hydrogen, a halogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C4 alkyl group, or a C1 to C4 fluoroalkyl group substituted with at least one fluoro group, and n is an integer of 1 to 4 (see LiFMDFB, P12/L22–P13/L5); wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is represented by any one selected from Chemical Formula 1-1 to Chemical Formula 1-6 (see LiFMDFB, P12/L22–P13/L5):
PNG
media_image1.png
2125
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see LiFMDFB, P12/L22–P13/L5); wherein the borate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is included in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 10 wt % based on a total weight of the electrolyte (see LiFMDFB, P12/L22–P13/L5); wherein the Ag salt comprises at least one selected from AgNO3, AgNO2, AgN3, AgCN, AgPF6, AgFSI, AgTFSI, AgF, AgSO3CF3, and AgBF4 (see silver nitrate, P12/L22–P13/L5; see silver hexafluorophosphate, P12/L22–P13/L5); wherein the Ag salt is included in an amount of about 0.1 wt % to about 10 wt % based on a total weight of the electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery (see total amount, P19/L4–7); and wherein the borate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and the Ag salt are included in a weight ratio of about 1:0 to about 0:1 (see mixtures, P12/L22–P13/L5) to improve capacity retention and Coulombic efficiency (P4/L4–7).
Although Choi does not explicitly disclose a range of 1:0.1 to about 1:1, Choi does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Kinoshita and Choi are analogous because they are directed to rechargeable lithium batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the electrolyte of Kinoshita with the borate compound and Ag salt of Choi in order to improve capacity retention and Coulombic efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kinoshita discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery:
wherein the ethyl butyrate is included in an amount of about 30 vol % to about 100 vol % based on 100 vol % of the non-aqueous organic solvent (see acyclic carboxylate, [0471]).
Although Kinoshita does not explicitly disclose a range of about 60 vol % to about 80 volt %, Kinoshita does disclose an overlapping range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kinoshita discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery:
wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises a carbonate-based solvent (see non-fluorinated saturated cyclic carbonate, [0471]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kinoshita discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery:
wherein the electrolyte further comprises other additives (see additives, [0643]), and
the other additives comprise at least one selected from vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), difluoroethylene carbonate (DFEC), chloroethylene carbonate (CEC), dichloroethylene carbonate (DCEC), bromoethylene carbonate (BEC), dibromoethylene carbonate (DBEC), nitroethylene carbonate, cyanoethylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate (VEC), succinonitrile (SN), adiponitrile (AN), 1,3,6-hexane tricyanide (HTCN), propene sultone (PST), propane sultone (PS), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), 2-fluoro biphenyl (2-FBP), and a combination thereof ([0531], [0605], [0631], [0644], [0648], [0678], [0808]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kinoshita discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery:
wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium cobalt-based oxide (see lithium-cobalt complex oxides, [0832]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kinoshita discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a rechargeable battery:
wherein the lithium cobalt-based oxide is represented by Chemical Formula 3 (see lithium-cobalt complex oxides, [0832]):
Lia1Cox1M1(1-x1)O2 Chemical Formula 3 (see lithium-cobalt complex oxides, [0832])
wherein, in Chemical Formula 3, 0.9≤a1≤1.8, 0.7≤x1≤1, and M1 is one or more element selected from Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Cu, F, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Ni, P, S, Se, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, Y, Zn, and Zr (see lithium-cobalt complex oxides, [0832]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kinoshita discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery:
wherein the negative electrode active material comprises crystalline carbon (see carbonaceous material, [0874]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Kinoshita lacks recognition of the discoloration issue (P12/¶3). The instant application discloses the reaction of non-aqueous organic solvents with by-products generated by decomposition of the lithium salt causes the electrolyte discoloration (see discoloration, [0032]). Kinoshita discloses the reduction of the decomposition of the lithium salt is an issue associated with high-voltage lithium ion secondary batteries (see oxidation resistance, [0353]). The discoloration of the electrolyte is associated with the decomposition of the electrolyte. Kinoshita recognizes the decomposition issue, which implicitly recognizes a discoloration issue. Further, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Therefore, Kinoshita implicitly recognizes a discoloration issue.
Applicants argue Choi provides no teaching on applying a borate compound and an Ag salt for the purpose of preventing discoloration in an electrolyte solution containing a large amount of ethyl butyrate and suppressing dendrites on a high-density anode (P12/¶2). It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., preventing discoloration in an electrolyte solution containing a large amount of ethyl butyrate and suppressing dendrites on a high-density anode) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, the instant application discloses the reaction of non-aqueous organic solvents with by-products generated by decomposition of the lithium salt causes the electrolyte discoloration (see discoloration, [0032]). Choi discloses applying a borate compound and an Ag salt for the purpose of preventing the reaction of by-products and the decomposition of the electrolyte (P1/L27-P2/L4, P12/L7–21). Choi recognizes the decomposition issue, which implicitly recognizes a discoloration issue. Therefore, Choi implicitly teaches on applying a borate compound and an Ag salt for the purpose of preventing discoloration in an electrolyte solution, which is indicative of the reaction of by-products and the decomposition of the electrolyte, containing a large amount of ethyl butyrate and suppressing dendrites on a high-density anode.
Applicants argue the specification demonstrates that it is completely unexpected that a borate compound represented by Formula 1 and an Ag salt being simultaneously included in a battery containing an electrolyte solution with a large amount of EB achieves both discoloration prevention and improvement in lifespan characteristics (P12/¶6). It is noted that "the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record", In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding unexpected results must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), "the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001." To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The applicants have compared a single example within the claimed ranges. One test within the claimed range is insufficient to establish unexpected results over the claimed ranges. An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Applicants may compare the claimed invention with prior art that is more closely related to the invention than the prior art relied upon by the examiner. In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1978); Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (Bd. App. 1961). In other words, the evidence of unexpected results must be compared with prior art. Emphasis added. See MPEP § 716.02(e). Applicants have compared one example with the comparative examples present in the specification. The comparative examples in the specification are not prior art. As set forth in § MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have presented a single example with a specific positive electrode, a specific negative electrode, a specific combination of electrolyte solvents, a specific lithium salt, a specific combination of electrolyte additives, a specific borate compound, and a specific Ag salt. Claim 1 recites a generic positive electrode, a generic negative electrode, a generic combination of electrolyte solvents, a generic lithium salt, a generic combination of electrolyte additives, a generic borate compound, and a generic Ag salt. Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of positive electrodes, negative electrodes, combinations of electrolyte solvents, lithium salts, combinations of electrolyte additives, borate compounds, and Ag salts. Therefore, the specification does not demonstrate it is completely unexpected that any borate compound represented by Formula 1 and any Ag salt being simultaneously included in a battery with any positive and negative electrodes containing any electrolyte solution with any large amount of EB achieves both discoloration prevention and improvement in lifespan characteristics.
Applicants argue claims 2-12 patentably distinguish over the art of record depend because they depend from claim 1 and the other features recited in the claims (P13/¶2). Claim 1 does patentably distinguish over the art of record as detailed above; and the other features recited in the claims are taught by the art of record as also detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bai (CN 114188607 A) discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (see lithium ion secondary battery, [0823]), comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (see positive electrode, [0020]), a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (see negative electrode, [0020]), a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see polymer film, [0009]), and an electrolyte (see above-mentioned electrolyte, [0020]), the electrolyte comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (see above-mentioned electrolyte, [0020]), the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethyl butyrate (see Eb, [0014]), wherein the ethyl butyrate is included in an amount of about 50 vol % to about 90 vol % based on 100 vol % of the non-aqueous organic solvent (see non-aqueous organic solvent, [0015]), and the additive comprises a borate compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (see lithium difluorooxalate borate, [0016]): LiBF2[O2C(CFX)nCO2] Chemical Formula 1 (see lithium difluorooxalate borate, [0016]) wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, X is hydrogen, a halogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C4 alkyl group, or a C1 to C4 fluoroalkyl group substituted with at least one fluoro group, and n is an integer of 1 to 4 (see lithium difluorooxalate borate, [0016]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights