SECONDARY BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND ELECTRIC DEVICE
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/19/2024, 7/23/2024, 1/28/2025, 5/1/2025, 8/26/2025, and 4/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2002/198050 A) and further in view of Fan et al. (CN 110931869 A using US 2023/0027087 A1 as an English language translation.).
Regarding claims 1-4, 12, and 19-21 Nakamura et al. teach a secondary battery (Abstract), comprising a cathode piece and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Claim 1; paragraph 0029), wherein,
the cathode piece comprises a cathode active material, and the cathode active material has a chemical formula represented by LiaAxMn1-yByP1-zCzO4-nDn (Abstract; Claim1 disclose the formula for the positive active material as Li1-xAXFe1-y-zMyMezP1-mXmO4-nZn.)
wherein, A comprises one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Nb, Mo, and W;
B comprises one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti, V, Zr, Fe,
Ni, Mg, Co, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb, and Ge;
C comprises one or more elements selected from the group consisting of B (boron), S, Si
and N;
D comprises one or more elements selected from the group consisting of S, F, Cl, and Br;
a is selected from a range of 0.9 to 1.1; X is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.1; the y is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.5; Z is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.1; the n is selected from 0.001 to a range of 0.1; and the cathode active material is electrically neutral (Abstract; Claim 1 disclose wherein A: at least one of Na and K, M: at least one of metal elements other than Fe, Li and Al, Me: at least one of Li and Al, X: at least one of Si, N, As and S, Z: at least one of F, Cl, Br, I, S and N, 0≦x≦0.1, 0≦y≦0.5, 0≦z≦0.3, 0≦y+z≦0.5, 0≦m≦0.3, 0≦n≦0.5, x+z+m+n＞0. See Table below comparing the formula between that claimed in the formula in Nakamura.);
Element
Application (amt)
Nakamura (amt) Me=0, x=0.1, y=0.5, z=0
Li
0.9-1.1
0.9
A
(Na,K) 0.001-0.1
(Na, K) 0.1
Mn
0.5-0.99
(M=Mn) 0.5
B
(Fe) 0.001-0.5
(Fe) 0.5
P
0.9-0.999
0.7-1
C
(Si, N, S) 0.001-0.1
(Si, N, S) 0-0.3
O
3.9-3.999
3.5-4
D
(F, Cl, Br, S) 0.001-0.1
(F, Cl, Br, S) 0-0.5
the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a first lithium salt; the first lithium salt comprises one or more selected from the group consisting ofLiN(CmF2m+1SO₂)(CnF2n+1SO2) and Li(FSO₂)₂N, m and n represent positive integers (Paragraphs 0035-0038 disclose the electrolyte can comprise a lithium salt such as LiN(SO2C2F5)2.).
However, Nakamura et al. do not teach wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a first lithium and a first additive, wherein the first additive comprises one or more of a compound represented by Formula 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
50
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R₁ represents any one of a C2-C10 alkylene, a C2-C10 heteroalkylene, a C₆-C₁₈ arylene, a
C2-C18 heteroarylene, a C3-C18 alicyclylene, a C₃-C₁₈ heteroalicyclylene, which are substituted by one or more Ra or are unsubstituted; and
Ra comprises one or more selected from a halogen atom, -CN, -NCO, -OH, -COOH, -SOOH, a -COORb, a C2-C₁₀ alkyl, a C2-C₁₀ alkenyl, a C2-C₁₀ alkynyl, a C2-C10 oxaalkyl, and Rb is any one selected from C1-C₁₀ alkyls.
Fan et al. teach positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery which also comprises an electrolyte (Claim 10; Paragraph 0002 and Examples disclose a soft-pack battery being used in an electronic device.). The electrolyte is composed of lithium salt and an additive component comprised of General Formula I (Claim 1 discloses
PNG
media_image2.png
34
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Further claim 3 discloses the additive can comprise at least one of the following structures:
PNG
media_image3.png
92
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
96
392
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
78
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image6.png
104
368
media_image6.png
Greyscale
)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Nakamura to include the diisocyanate compounds in addition to the lithium salt as disclosed in Fan in order to improve capacity retention.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nakamura and Fan et al. teach the secondary battery according to claim 1. Further, Fan et al. teach wherein, based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte, a content of the first lithium salt is W1 wt. %, W1 is between 0.1 and 48 (Claim 15 discloses 8-20%.); and a content of the first additive is W2 wt. %, W2 is between 0.01 and 20 (Claim 5 discloses 0.03-3%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Nakamura to include the diisocyanate compounds in addition to the lithium salt as disclosed in Fan in order to improve capacity retention.
Regarding claims 6-8, the combination of Nakamura and Fan et al. teach the secondary battery according to claim 1. Further, Fan et al. teach wherein, the non-aqueous electrolyte further comprises a second lithium salt; and the second lithium salt comprises one or more selected from lithium difluorophosphate, lithium difluorodioxalate phosphate, lithium difluorooxalate borate, lithium bisoxalate borate, LiPF6, and LiBF4 (Claim 14 discloses at least one of LiN(SO2F)2, LiPF6, and LiBF4.); wherein, based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte, a content of the second lithium salt is W3 wt. %, W3 is between 0.01 and 20 (Claim 15 discloses the lithium salt accounts for 8-20% of the electrolyte.); wherein, (W2+W3)/W1 is defined as N, and N is between 0.01 and 5 (Using claims 5 and 15, W2=3, W1=W3=8, N=1.375.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Nakamura to include the diisocyanate compounds in addition to the lithium salt as disclosed in Fan in order to improve capacity retention.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nakamura and Fan et al. teach the secondary battery according to claim 1. Further, Fan et al. wherein, the non-aqueous electrolyte further comprises a second additive; and the second additive comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a cyclic carbonate compound containing an unsaturated bond, a halogen-substituted saturated cyclic carbonate compound, a sulfate compound (Claim 1 discloses a bicyclic sulfate as an additional additive.), a sulfite compound, a sultone compound, a disulfonic acid compound, a nitrile compound, an aromatic compound, a phosphazene compound, a cyclic anhydride compound, a phosphorous acid ester compound, a phosphate ester compound, a borate ester compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte of Nakamura to include the diisocyanate compounds in addition to the lithium salt as disclosed in Fan in order to improve capacity retention.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nakamura and Fan et al. teach the secondary battery according to claim 1. Further, Nakamura et al. teach wherein, the non-aqueous electrolyte further comprises an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent comprises one or more of a cyclic carbonate compound, a chain carbonate compound, a carboxylate compound (Paragraph 0036 discloses ethylene carbonate, a cyclic carbonate.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nakamura and Fan et al. teach the secondary battery according to claim 1. However, they do not specifically teach wherein, the A, the C, and the D are each independently any one element within the above respective ranges, and the B is at least two elements of within a range thereof.
However, Nakamura et al. do teach the inclusion of an additional element in the formula for the positive electrode (Abstract discloses Li1-xAXFe1-y-zMyMezP1-mXmO4-nZn wherein M denotes at least one kind of metal elements except Fe, Li, and Al.).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an additional element for B (besides Fe) can be included in the formula of Nakamura due to the inclusion of element option M.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nakamura and Fan et al. teach the secondary battery according to claim 1. Further, Nakamura et al. teach wherein, (1-y): y is within a range of between 1 and 4 (See annotated table above which shows y=0.5 in Nakamura, therefore 1-y:y is 1.), optionally within a range of between 1.5 and 3, and a: x is within a range of between 9 and 1100 (See annotated table above which shows a=0.9 and x=0.1, therefore a:x is 9.).
Regarding claims 14-17, the combination of Nakamura and Fan et al. teach the secondary battery according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein, the cathode active material has a lattice change rate of less than 8%; wherein, the cathode active material has a concentration of Li/Mn antisite defect of less than 2%, optionally less than 0.5%; wherein, the cathode active material has a surface oxygen valence state of less than −1.82; wherein, the cathode active material has a compacted density at 3 T of higher than 2.0 g/cm.
However, Nakamura et al. teach the exact same formula for the positive electrode as claimed in claim 1.
MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2002/198050 A) and Fan et al. (CN 110931869 A using US 2023/0027087 A1 as an English language translation.) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wu et al. (US 2016/0190584 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nakamura and Fan et al. teach the secondary battery according to claim 1. However, they do not teach wherein a surface of the cathode active material is coated with carbon.
Wu et al. teach a positive electrode material contains a carbon coating (Paragraphs 0010-0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakamura and Fan with Wu in order to improve the stability of the crystal structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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 S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 July 8th, 2026
Prosecution Insights