DETAILED ACTION
The response filed 8/18/26 has been entered. Applicant has canceled claim 7 and added claims 10-21. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 claims a range x1<0.04 but depends on claim 2, which has x1 between and 0.015. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (“Hwang”, US 2020/0185716 A1) in view of Morinaka et al. (“Morinaka”, US 2020/0287241 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Hwang discloses a high-nickel positive electrode active material and lithium secondary battery (title).
Hwang teaches the secondary battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte ([0090]).
Hwang teaches the positive electrode active material include a lithium composite transition metal oxide containing nickel, manganese, aluminum, and cobalt ([0064]).
Hwang teaches atomic fractions of Li at 0.9 to 1.2 ([0067]), Ni at 0.9 to 0.98 ([0068]), Mn at 0.01 to 0.05 ([0069]), Al at 0.01 to 0.05 ([0070]), Co at 0.005 to 0.02 ([0071]), and doping element M at 0 to 0.02 ([0072]), which overlap the ranges claimed, rendering the claims obvious.
Hwang teaches the electrolyte may include an organic solvent and a lithium salt ([0099]). The lithium salt may include Li+ as a positive ion, and the negative ion may include BF2C2O4- and PF4C2O4-([0101]), inter alia, which reads on an oxalate complex anion.
Further regarding claim 1 and with regard to claims 8 and 9, Hwang does not expressly teach the claimed organosilicon compound or the amount.
However, Morinaka discloses an additive for a non-aqueous electrolyte (title) and teaches including tetravinylsilane, inter alia ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include tetravinylsilane in the electrolyte to improve at least any one of the cycle properties, high-temperature storage properties, and suppression of gas generation amount ([0024]), as taught by Morinaka.
As to claim 3, Hwang teaches M is a doping element substituted for a transition metal site and may be one or more selected from W, Cu, Fe, Ba, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, In, Ta, Y La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo ([0066]).
As to claims 4, 5, 20, and 21, Hwang teaches PF2C4O8- and BF2C2O4- ([0101]).
As to claim 6, Hwang does not expressly teach a content of the oxalate compound in the electrolyte is 3 mass% or less. Hwang teaches the lithium salt may be included in an electrolyte in a range of 0.8M to 3M ([0102]), which likely overlaps with the claimed range. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to optimize the amount of oxalate compound through routine experimentation.
As to claims 10 and 11, Hwang modifed by Morinaka would suggest both the organosilicon compound and oxalate compound. Optimal amounts would be determined through routine experimentation.
As to claims 12-14, Hwang teaches Co at 0.005 to 0.02 ([0071]).
As to claim 15, Hwang teaches Ni at 0.9 to 0.98 ([0068]).
As to claim 17, Hwang teaches Co at 0.005 to 0.02 ([0071]). 0.005 is considered a very low amount. Hwang also teaches there are materials known to replace LiCoO2 such as LiMnO2 ([0004] and [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to replace Co with known alternatives.
As to claim 18, Hwang teaches PF2C4O8- ([0101]).
As to claim 19, Hwang as modified by Morinaka would suggest claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are either not found persuasive or are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues unexpected results at certain ranges. However, these specific ranges are not claimed in the claims. Furthermore, both the organosilicon compound and the oxalate are suggested in the prior art, and their functions are well known.
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 DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights