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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed February 21, 2024, June 30, 2025, December 12, 2025, January 5, 2026, February 23, 2026, and June 2, 2026 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: having a superfluous “the following” (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: having a superfluous “the following” (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: using “containings” (line 6) (perhaps ‘contains’ was meant instead). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3, 11, and 14 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 3 recites the limitation "the proviso" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 has formula 5, which requires that M comprises Ni and at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Al, and Mn. However, Ni/M can be 1 (i.e. only Ni as M). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 5 is unclear, and thus the claim is indefinite.
Claim 14 requires formula 5, where M is Al, Mg, Er, or a transition metal element, and also sets forth M contains at least Ni, wherein Ni/M can be 1 (i.e. only Ni as M). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 5 is unclear, and thus the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2005166553 (Fujii et al.). (Machine translation provided with the 2/21/24 IDS.)
As to claim 1, Fujii et al. teach a nonaqueous electrolytic solution comprising a compound represented by formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
164
184
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein X1 and X2 are each independently an oxygen atom or CH2,
R1 and R2 are each independently a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, or a hydrocarbon group, and
n is 1 or 2, provided that either one of R and R2 is a hydrocarbon group containing at least one carbon-carbon unsaturated bond, and when n is 2, at least one of X and X2 is CH2 (4-vinylethylene sulfite (fits claimed formula (I)) exemplified; para 0079).
As to claim 2, Fujii et al. teach the compound represented by formula (I) comprises a compound represented by formula (II):
PNG
media_image2.png
150
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are the same as R1 and R2 in formula (I) (4-vinylethylene sulfite (fits claimed formula (II)) exemplified; para 0079).
As to claim 3, Fujii et al. teach R and R2 are each independently at least one selected from the group consisting of a hydrogen atom, a halogen atom, a vinyl group, and an allyl group, with the proviso that at least one of R and R2 is a vinyl group or an allyl group (4-vinylethylene sulfite (fits claimed formula) exemplified; para 0079)).
As to claim 5, Fujii et al. teach the nonaqueous electrolytic solution comprises 0.01% by mass or more and 10% by mass or less of the compound represented by formula (I) (1% parts by weight (lies in claimed range, thus reads on it) (note: weight and mass only differ by the gravitational constant, thus percentages are the same) of 4-vinylethylene sulfite (fits formula 1) (para 0079)).
As to claim 6, Fujii et al. teach an electrolyte further comprising one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of a cyclic carbonate having a carbon- carbon unsaturated bond and a fluorine-atom-containing cyclic carbonate (as example 1 includes using ethylene carbonate (cyclic carbonate having a carbon-carbon unsaturated bond)) and ethyl methyl carbonate (para 0079).
As to claim 8, Fujii et al. teach a nonaqueous electrolytic solution battery comprising: a positive electrode having a positive electrode active material capable of absorbing and releasing a metal ion (para 0054-0055, 0062, 0078); a negative electrode having a negative electrode active material capable of absorbing and releasing a metal (para 0054,0055, 0062, 0077); and the nonaqueous electrolytic solution according to claim 1 (see the rejection to claim 1 regarding the electrolyte solution, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
As to claim 13, Fujii et al. teach the compound represented by formula (I) comprises a compound represented by formula (II):
PNG
media_image2.png
150
198
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are the same as R1 and R2 in formula (I) (4-vinylethylene sulfite (fits claimed formula (II)) exemplified; para 0079).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 7, 9-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (The teachings of Fujii et al. as set forth above and applicable herein (i.e. to claims 1, 8, and 13) are incorporated herein but are not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 7, Fujii et al. recognize the use of a linear carboxylate within the electrolyte (chain esters set forth, methyl acetate within a list) (para 0031) (note: the machine translation lists methyl acetate as a cyclic ester, however the formula is that of a chain ester). Although methyl acetate is not exemplified to be used in example 1, the combination of methyl acetate as a solvent within a solvent mixture would yield the predictable result of providing a solvent for the electrolyte (as set forth in para 0031 of Fujii et al.) (all components performing the same function as they do separately). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to combine methyl acetate as a solvent within a solvent mixture, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing a solvent for the electrolyte (all components performing the same function as they do separately). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 9, Fujii et al. teach that positive active materials can be lithium nickel composite oxides, such as LiNiO2 (para 0064) (a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (5):Li1+y2MO2 (5) wherein y2 is -0.1 or more and 0.5 or less, M is a transition metal element containing at least Ni, and a molar ratio (Ni/M) of a content of Ni to a content of all of the transition metal elements of M is 0.40 or more and 1.0 or less). Accordingly, the substitution of LiNiO2 as the active material within example 1 (LiCoO2 used) would yield the predictable result of acting as positive active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute LiNiO2 (a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (5):Li1+y2MO2 (5) wherein y2 is -0.1 or more and 0.5 or less, M is a transition metal element containing at least Ni, and a molar ratio (Ni/M) of a content of Ni to a content of all of the transition metal elements of M is 0.40 or more and 1.0 or less) for LiCoO2 as the active material, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as positive active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 10, Fujii et al. teach negative active materials can be silicon oxide and lithium alloys (a material comprising a metal element and/or a metalloid element capable of being alloyed with Li) (para 0062-0063). Accordingly, the substitution of silicon oxide and lithium alloys as the active material within example 1 (graphite used) would yield the predictable result of acting as negative active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute silicon oxide or lithium alloys (a material comprising a metal element and/or a metalloid element capable of being alloyed with Li) for graphite as the active material, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as negative active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 14, Fujii et al. teach negative active materials can be silicon oxide and lithium alloys (a material comprising a metal element and/or a metalloid element capable of being alloyed with Li) (para 0062-0063). Accordingly, the substitution of silicon oxide and lithium alloys as the active material within example 1 (graphite used) would yield the predictable result of acting as negative active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute silicon oxide or lithium alloys (a material comprising a metal element and/or a metalloid element capable of being alloyed with Li) for graphite as the active material, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as negative active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Claim(s) 4, 11, 12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al., as applied to claims 1-2 and 8 above, further in view of US 2019/0280300 (Maeda et al.).
As to claim 4, Fujii et al. recognizes the use of LiB(C2O4) (oxalate complex anion) as a salt but does not recognize any specific amount or exemplify its use over other salts (para 0047-0048).
Thus, Fujii et al. do not teach 0.001% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less of one or more anion-containing compounds selected from the group consisting of a phosphate anion-containing compound having a P-F bond and a P=O bond, an anion-containing compound having a S=O bond, and an oxalate complex anion-containing compound.
However, Maeda et al. teach of adding lithium difluorophosphate in 0.1-5% by mass (para 0092) (0.001% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less of one or more anion-containing compounds selected from the group consisting of a phosphate anion-containing compound having a P-F bond and a P=O bond, an anion-containing compound having a S=O bond, and an oxalate complex anion-containing compound). The motivation for adding lithium difluorophosphate in 0.1-5% by mass is to improve charge rate property by forming a low resistant film on the surface of the positive electrode active material at the initial stage of charging (para 0092). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to add lithium difluorophosphate in 0.1-5% by mass is to improve charge rate property by forming a low resistant film on the surface of the positive electrode active material at the initial stage of charging (falls within claimed (0.001% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less of one or more anion-containing compounds selected from the group consisting of a phosphate anion-containing compound having a P-F bond and a P=O bond, an anion-containing compound having a S=O bond, and an oxalate complex anion-containing compound).
As to claim 11, Fujii et al. recognizes the use of a lithium nickel composite oxide, wherein stabilization can be achieved by substituting other metal species, wherein metal species include Al, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Mg, Ga, Zr, and Si (para 0064).
However, Fujii et al do not teach the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (5): Li1+y2MO2 (5) wherein y2 is -0.1 or more and 0.5 or less, M comprises Ni and at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Al and Mn, and a molar ratio (Ni/M) of a content of Ni to a content of all of the elements of M is 0.40 or more and 1.0 or less.
However, Maeda et al. teach of lithium transition metal oxides that are used as positive active materials, including nickel based lithium oxides that are substituted in part; concretely Maeda et al. recognizes LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (para 0032-0036) (a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (5): Li1+y2MO2 (5) wherein y2 is -0.1 or more and 0.5 or less, M comprises Ni and at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Al and Mn, and a molar ratio (Ni/M) of a content of Ni to a content of all of the elements of M is 0.40 or more and 1.0 or less). Accordingly, the substitution of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (taught by Maeda et al.) as the active material for LiCoO2 or LiNiO2 (Fujii et al.; para 0064) would yield the predictable result of acting as positive active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (5): Li1+y2MO2 (5) wherein y2 is -0.1 or more and 0.5 or less, M comprises Ni and at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Al and Mn, and a molar ratio (Ni/M) of a content of Ni to a content of all of the elements of M is 0.40 or more and 1.0 or less) (taught by Maeda et al.) as the active material for LiCoO2 or LiNiO2 as the active material, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as positive active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 12, Fujii et al. recognizes the use of LiB(C2O4) (oxalate complex anion) as a salt but does not recognize any specific amount or exemplify its use over other salts (para 0047-0048).
Thus, Fujii et al. do not teach 0.001% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less of one or more anion-containing compounds selected from the group consisting of a phosphate anion-containing compound having a P-F bond and a P=O bond, an anion-containing compound having a S=O bond, and an oxalate complex anion-containing compound.
However, Maeda et al. teach of adding lithium difluorophosphate in 0.1-5% by mass (para 0092) (0.001% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less of one or more anion-containing compounds selected from the group consisting of a phosphate anion-containing compound having a P-F bond and a P=O bond, an anion-containing compound having a S=O bond, and an oxalate complex anion-containing compound). The motivation for adding lithium difluorophosphate in 0.1-5% by mass is to improve charge rate property by forming a low resistant film on the surface of the positive electrode active material at the initial stage of charging (para 0092). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to add lithium difluorophosphate in 0.1-5% by mass is to improve charge rate property by forming a low resistant film on the surface of the positive electrode active material at the initial stage of charging (falls within claimed (0.001% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less of one or more anion-containing compounds selected from the group consisting of a phosphate anion-containing compound having a P-F bond and a P=O bond, an anion-containing compound having a S=O bond, and an oxalate complex anion-containing compound).
As to claim 15, Fujii et al. recognizes the use of a lithium nickel composite oxide, wherein stabilization can be achieved by substituting other metal species, wherein metal species include Al, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Mg, Ga, Zr, and Si (para 0064).
However, Fujii et al do not teach the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (5): Li1+y2MO2 (5) wherein y2 is -0.1 or more and 0.5 or less, M is Al, Mg, Er or a transition metal element, wherein M contains at least Ni, and a molar ratio (Ni/M) of a content of Ni to a content of all elements contained in M is 0.40 or more and 1.0 or less.
However, Maeda et al. teach of lithium transition metal oxides that are used as positive active materials, including nickel based lithium oxides that are substituted in part; concretely Maeda et al. recognizes LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (para 0032-0036) (a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (5): Li1+y2MO2 (5) wherein y2 is -0.1 or more and 0.5 or less, M is Al, Mg, Er or a transition metal element, wherein M contains at least Ni, and a molar ratio (Ni/M) of a content of Ni to a content of all elements contained in M is 0.40 or more and 1.0 or less). Accordingly, the substitution of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (taught by Maeda et al.) as the active material for LiCoO2 or LiNiO2 (Fujii et al.; para 0064) would yield the predictable result of acting as positive active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (5): Li1+y2MO2 (5) wherein y2 is -0.1 or more and 0.5 or less, M is Al, Mg, Er or a transition metal element, wherein M contains at least Ni, and a molar ratio (Ni/M) of a content of Ni to a content of all elements contained in M is 0.40 or more and 1.0 or less) (taught by Maeda et al.) as the active material for LiCoO2 or LiNiO2 as the active material, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as positive active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 16, Fujii et al. recognizes the use of a lithium nickel composite oxide, wherein stabilization can be achieved by substituting other metal species, wherein metal species include Al, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Mg, Ga, Zr, and Si (para 0064).
However, Fujii et al do not teach the positive electrode comprises a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (6):Lis1iNi t1Mu1O2 (6) wherein s1,t1,and u1 satisfy 0.09 ≤ s1 ≤ 1.10, 0.40 ≤ t1 ≤ 0.98, and 0.02 ≤ u1 ≤ 0.60, respectively, and t1 + u1 = 1; and M represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Al, Mg, Zr, Fe, Ti, and Er.
However, Maeda et al. teach of lithium transition metal oxides that are used as positive active materials, including nickel based lithium oxides that are substituted in part; concretely Maeda et al. recognizes LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (para 0032-0036) (a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (6):Lis1iNi t1Mu1O2 (6) wherein s1,t1,and u1 satisfy 0.09 ≤ s1 ≤ 1.10, 0.40 ≤ t1 ≤ 0.98, and 0.02 ≤ u1 ≤ 0.60, respectively, and t1 + u1 = 1; and M represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Al, Mg, Zr, Fe, Ti, and Er). Accordingly, the substitution of LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (taught by Maeda et al.) as the active material for LiCoO2 or LiNiO2 (Fujii et al.; para 0064) would yield the predictable result of acting as positive active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (a lithium transition metal-based compound (B) represented by formula (6):Lis1iNi t1Mu1O2 (6) wherein s1,t1,and u1 satisfy 0.09 ≤ s1 ≤ 1.10, 0.40 ≤ t1 ≤ 0.98, and 0.02 ≤ u1 ≤ 0.60, respectively, and t1 + u1 = 1; and M represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Al, Mg, Zr, Fe, Ti, and Er) (taught by Maeda et al.) as the active material for LiCoO2 or LiNiO2 as the active material, as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as positive active material, as the substituted components and functions were known in the art. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0219256 (Lee et al.) teaches the use of LiPO2F2 in conjunction with vinyl ethylene sulfite as an SEI forming compound (para 0058, 0072).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights