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 Statements (IDS) submitted on 4/3/24, 12/2/24, and 6/18/25 have been considered by the examiner.
On the IDS dated 6/18/25, the NPL reference “Japanese Office action dated April 22, 2025…” is lined through and has not been considered because an English translation was not submitted.
This IDS reference fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (Korean Patent KR 10-2270869 B1 and US Patent 11,081,729 B2). Citations refer to the Korean patent unless otherwise noted.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising an electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises less than about 5% weight of ethylene carbonate based on a total weight of the non-aqueous organic solvent (¶ [0215]-[0216]), a lithium salt (¶ [0211]), and an additive comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (Claim 1, ¶ [0031]-[0038], [0173], Chemical Formulas 2a-1, 2a-2, 2a-3, 2a-6, 2b-1, 2c-1); a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (¶ [0233]-[0237]), and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (¶ [0246]-[0247]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is a chain carbonate solvent (¶ [0215]-[0217]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 2, wherein the chain solvent is represented by Chemical Formula 2, and wherein, in Chemical Formula 2 R2 and R3 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group (¶ [0215]-[0217]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is at least two selected from among dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, methylpropyl carbonate, ethylpropyl carbonate, and ethylmethyl carbonate (¶ [0217]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches the rechargeable battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethylmethyl carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of about 0:100 to about 50:50 (¶ [0213], [0215], [0217]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein ring A of Chemical Formula 1 is a substituted or unsubstituted imidazolyl group (Chemical Formulas 2c-1, 2c), a substituted or unsubstituted pyrrolyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted pyrazolyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted triazolyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted pyrrolidinyl group (Chemical Formula 2b-1), a substituted or unsubstituted pyridul group, a substituted or unsubstituted pyrimidinyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted pyrazinyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted triazinyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted piperidinyl group (Chemical Formulas 2a-1, 2a-2, 2a-3, 2a-6), or a substituted or unsubstituted piperazinyl group.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein ring A of Chemical Formula 1 comprises at least one double bond (Chemical Formulas 2c, 2c-1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein Chemical Formula 1 is represented by any one of Chemical Formula 1A to Chemical Formula 1O (¶ [0165]-[0169], Chemical Formula 2c).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is selected from among compounds listed in Group 1 (¶ [0165]-[0169], Chemical Formula 2c).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim teaches the Rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is comprised in an amount of about 0.05 to about 5.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total electrolyte solution except the additive (¶ [0208]-[0209]). Specifically, Kim teaches the weight fraction of the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as “based on the total content of the non-aqueous electrolyte,” but formulations such as 2.5% weight of the total electrolyte weight satisfy the limitations of the source document and the examined claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the electrolyte solution further comprises at least one of other additives selected from among vinylene carbonate ([¶ [0039]), fluoroethylene carbonate (¶ [0075]), difluoroethylene carbonate, chloroethylene carbonate, dichloroethylene carbonate, bromoethylene carbonate, dibromoethylene carbonate, nitroethylene carbonate, cyanoethylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, adiponitrile (¶ [0076]), succinonitrile (¶ [0076]), 1,3,6-hexane tricyanide, propensultone, propanesultone, lithium tetrafluoroborate (¶ [0106]), lithium difluorophosphate, and 2-fluorobiphenyl.
Regarding Claim 15, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the negative electrode material comprises at least one of graphite (¶ [0247]) or silicon composite (¶ [0247], [0250]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises graphite and silicon composite (¶ [0246]-[0247], [0250]). Regarding Claim 17, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the rechargeable lithium battery has an upper charge limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.35 V (Comparative Example 1). Based on the specification’s details regarding usage of the word “about”, (¶ [0181]), Kim’s tested upper charge limit voltage of 4.25 V is considered about 4.35 V. Further as the same materials are used as the electrodes in the lithium battery, the rechargeable lithium battery will inherently have an upper charge limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.35 V.
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Korean Patent KR 10-2270869 B1 and US Patent 11,081,729 B2) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang and Amine (US Patent Publication 2004/0091779 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1 comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode material. Kim teaches cobalt-free positive electrode compositions such as LiMn2O4, LiNi1-yMnyO2 (0 < y <1), and LiMn2-zNizO2 (0 < z < 2) (¶ [0107]-[0109], [0237]), but none of the listed formulas correspond to Chemical Formula 4, which adds additional metal and anion species.
Kang teaches formulas for positive electrode materials consistent with Chemical Formula 4 (see claims 4 and 5) alongside advantages of including additional metal and anion species. Most notably, Kang teaches doping nickel manganese oxide with other metal species to improve electrochemical properties by stabilizing the layered structure and suppressing cation mixing (¶ [0024]). Kang further teaches using fluoride as a dopant to lower impedance and improve cycling stability across a range of temperatures (¶ [0024], Figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement doped nickel manganese oxides with formulations taught by Kang in place of the undoped nickel manganese oxide electrode taught by Kim to obtain a battery with lowered impedance, improved cycling stability, suppressed cation mixing, and more stabilized layered structure (Kang ¶ [0024], Figure 7).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1 comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode material (¶ [0107]-[0109]). Kang teaches positive electrode material compositions corresponding to chemical formula 4-1 (Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery as claimed in Claim 1 comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode material (¶ [0107]-[0109]). Kang teaches positive electrode material compositions consistent with the specified parameters for chemical formula 4-1 (Claim 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ma et al. (CN 110003188 A) teach an embodiment of Chemical Formula 1B (compound 4).
Cherukury et al. (WO 2016/172255 A1) teach embodiments of Chemical Formula 1C (examples 25-28).
Kultgen and Cole (WO 2020/023710 A1) teach an embodiment of Chemical Formula 1D (occurs as a reactant in examples 12, 14, 16).
Ma et al. (CN 109761906 A) teach embodiments of Chemical Formula 1E (examples 60, 61, 64, 65).
An et al. (US 2022/0115701 A1) teach an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising a lithium salt, an organic solvent, and an additive comprising a compound corresponding to Chemical Formula 1 from Claim 1 and a lithium amide polymer salt comprising sulfate and phosphate groups (Claim 1). A battery comprising this additive is also claimed, further comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode (Claim 10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R BELNAP whose telephone number is (571) 272-0114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday 7:30 am – 5:00 pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/JONATHAN R BELNAP/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
