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 .
2. Claims 1-16 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted October 30, 2023; August 12, 2024; January 22, 2024; and, June 4, 2025, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2020/0335822 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Yu et al. disclose a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: an electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (paragraphs 0094-0097); a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium nickel manganese based oxide (paragraph 0100); and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (paragraphs 0109-0110), wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate (paragraph 0120), and the additive comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, L¹ is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C3 alkylene group, R¹ is hydrogen or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, and R² is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C10 alkynyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C20 aryl group (paragraphs 0043, 0073-0079). Yu et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises less than about 5 wt% of ethylene carbonate based on the total weight of the non-aqueous organic solvent. The specific amount of non-aqueous organic solvent in the electrolyte is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. In the electrolyte, electrolyte stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of non-aqueous organic solvent in the electrolyte, with the electrolyte stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the amount of non-aqueous organic solvent is increased, the precise amount of non-aqueous organic solvent would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of non-aqueous organic solvent in the electrolyte in the rechargeable lithium battery of Yu et al. to obtain the desired balance between the electrolyte stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 2, Yu et al. disclose wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is composed of only chain carbonate (Example 1, paragraph 0120).
With regard to Claim 3, Yu et al. disclose wherein the chain carbonate is represented by Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
120
248
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, R³ and R4 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group (paragraphs 0067-0068).
With regard to Claim 4, Yu et al. disclose wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises mixed solvent of at least two solvent selected from dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dipropyl carbonate (DPC), methylpropyl carbonate (MPC), ethylpropyl carbonate (EPC), and ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC) (paragraph 0068).
With regard to Claim 5, Yu et al. disclose wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (paragraph 0068), but do not specifically disclose wherein ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) are present in a volume ratio of about 0:100 to about 50:50. The specific amount of non-aqueous organic solvent in the electrolyte is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. In the electrolyte, electrolyte stability and cost of manufacturing are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of non-aqueous organic solvent in the electrolyte, with the electrolyte stability and manufacturing cost both increasing as the amount of non-aqueous organic solvent is increased, the precise amount of non-aqueous organic solvent would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of non-aqueous organic solvent in the electrolyte in the rechargeable lithium battery of Yu et al. to obtain the desired balance between the electrolyte stability and cost of manufacturing (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
With regard to Claim 6, Yu et al. disclose wherein R² in Chemical Formula 1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group (paragraphs 0073-0079).
With regard to Claim 7, Yu et al. disclose wherein R² in Chemical Formula 1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C6 alkyl group(paragraphs 0073-0079).
With regard to Claim 8, Yu et al. disclose wherein R² in Chemical Formula 1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C3 alkyl group (paragraphs 0073-0079).
With regard to Claim 9, Yu et al. disclose wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1:
PNG
media_image3.png
116
214
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(paragraph 0078; Formula 1a).
With regard to Claim 10, Yu et al. disclose wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is included in an amount of about 0.05 to about 5.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery excluding additives (paragraphs 0083-0084).
With regard to Claim 11, Yu et al. disclose wherein the electrolyte further comprises at least one other additive selected from the group consisting of a sultone-based compound, a halogen-substituted carbonate-based compound, a nitrile-based compound, a cyclic sulfite-based compound, and a cyclic carbonate-based compound, such as, vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), adiponitrile (AN), succinonitrile (SN), propene sultone (PST), propane sultone (PS) (paragraphs 0085-0093).
With regard to Claim 15, Yu et al. disclose wherein the negative electrode active material comprises at least one selected from graphite and a Si composite (paragraphs 0109-0110).
With regard to Claim 16, Yu et al. disclose an upper charging limit voltage of 4.2 V (paragraph 0158), but do not specifically disclose wherein a charging upper limit voltage of the rechargeable lithium battery is greater than or equal to about 4.35 V. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging upper limit voltage of the rechargeable lithium battery to be greater than or equal to about 4.35 V, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
9. Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2020/0335822 A1), as applied to Claims 1-11 and 15-16 above, and in further view of Qiao et al. (US 2023/0024237 A1).
With regard to Claim 12, Yu et al. disclose the rechargeable lithium battery in paragraph 8 above, including a lithium nickel manganese-based oxide (paragraph 100), but do not specifically disclose wherein the lithium nickel manganese-based oxide comprises a cobalt-free lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 4: LiaNixMnyM1zM2wO2±bXc, wherein 0.5 ≤ a < 1.8, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.1, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.1, 0 ≤ w < 0.1, 0.6 ≤ x < 1.0, 0 < y < 0.4, 0 < z < 0.1, w+x+y+z=1, M1 and M2 are each independently one or more elements selected from Al, Mg, Ti, Zr, Sr, V, B, W, Mo, Si, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, and Nb, and X is one or more elements selected from S, F, P, and Cl.
Qiao et al. disclose a gradient-doped cobalt-free cathode material, wherein the composition of the cathode material is represented by a general formula of LiNixMnyAzO2, where 0.55 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0.05 ≤ y ≤ 0.45, and 0.005 ≤ z ≤ 0.02; wherein element A is one or more of Al, Zr, Ti, B and W (paragraphs 0052-0053), which meets the claimed limitation of Chemical Formula 4 above. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium nickel manganese-based oxide of Yu et al. to include a lithium nickel manganese-based oxide comprising a cobalt-free lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 4: LiaNixMnyM1zM2wO2±bXc, because Qiao et al. teach that this chemical composition allows for a cathode material to have good cycle performance and a method for preparing the same is simple and easy to operate (paragraph 0055).
With regard to Claims 13-14, Yu et al. disclose the rechargeable lithium battery in paragraph 8 above, including a lithium nickel manganese-based oxide (paragraph 100), but do not specifically disclose wherein the lithium nickel manganese-based oxide comprises a cobalt-free lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 4-1: LiaNix1Mny1Alz1M2w1O2±bXc wherein 0.5 ≤ a < 1.8, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.1, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.1, 0 ≤ w1 < 0.1, 0.6 ≤ x1 < 1.0, 0 < y1 < 0.4, 0 < z1 < 0.1, w1+x1+y1+z1=1, M2 is one or more elements selected from Mg, Ti, Zr, Sr, V, B, W, Mo, Si, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Fe, and Nb, and X is one or more elements selected from S, F, P, and Cl; more specifically, wherein x1 is 0.6 ≤ x1 ≤ 0.79, y1 is 0.2 ≤ y1 ≤ 0.39, 0.01 ≤ z1 < 0.1.
Qiao et al. disclose a gradient-doped cobalt-free cathode material, wherein the composition of the cathode material is represented by a general formula of LiNixMnyAzO2, where 0.55 ≤ x ≤ 0.95, 0.05 ≤ y ≤ 0.45, and 0.005 ≤ z ≤ 0.02; wherein element A is one or more of Al, Zr, Ti, B and W (paragraphs 0052-0053), which meets the claimed limitation of Chemical Formula 4-1 above. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium nickel manganese-based oxide of Yu et al. to include a lithium nickel manganese-based oxide comprising a cobalt-free lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 4-1: LiaNix1Mny1Alz1M2w1O2±bXc, because Qiao et al. teach that this chemical composition allows for a cathode material to have good cycle performance and a method for preparing the same is simple and easy to operate (paragraph 0055).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights