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 .
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.
Claims 1, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 115377497 A, “Chen”) in view of Asano et al. (US 20180183105 A1, “Asano”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, claim 4, claim 5, claim 6, and claim 7, Chen discloses a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a cobalt-free positive electrode active material with a layered structure (see abstract “lithium ion battery” & “cobalt-free lithium ion battery” & see [n0034] “positive electrode” & see [n0007] “cobalt-free layered positive electrode material”); a negative electrode (see [n0094] “negative electrode”); and an electrolyte comprising an additive (see [n0014] “electrolyte” & “additive”). Chen does not explicitly disclose an additive represented by Chemical Formula 1: Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
216
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, X is O or S;
R1 and R2 are each independently hydrogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl group, or are linked to each other to form a C6 to C20 cyclic hydrocarbon ring or aromatic ring; and n is an integer from 0 to 3 as required by Claim 1, nor wherein, X is O, as required by Claim 4, nor wherein, R1 and R2 are each independently hydrogen, as required by Claim 5, nor wherein, n is 0, as required by Claim 6, nor wherein, Chemical Formula 1 is Chemical Formula 1-1
PNG
media_image2.png
132
264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as required by Claim 7.
Asano teaches chemical formula 1-1 (see abstract “electrolyte solution” & “secondary battery” & see [0050] describes compound D
PNG
media_image3.png
107
273
media_image3.png
Greyscale
which reads on chemical formula 1 as claimed when n = 0, R1 and R2 are hydrogen, and X is O). Asano teaches improved cycle durability (see [0053]) & [0057] “high quality coating containing components derived from the compound C and the compound D is formed on the surface of the negative electrode during initial charging. Due to the coating, the decomposition reaction in the negative electrode may be prevented. It is thought that this contributes to improving cycle durability”.
Chen and Asano are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries (see Asano abstract) and electrolyte additives (see Asano [0050]) with improved cycle durability (see Asano [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate compound D, as suggested by Asano (see [0050]) into the battery of Chen because doing so improves cycle durability, as suggested by Asano (see [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, the additive is in an amount of 0.4-1% based on a total weight, 100%, of the electrolyte (see [n0025] “additive” & “electrolyte mass as 100%” & describes “mass fraction” & “0.4-1%” which lies within the claimed range of about 0.05 to about 3 wt%).
The amount of the additive disclosed by Chen is close to the claimed range and similar properties are expected. It is the Office’s position that the values are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, the electrolyte further comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent and a lithium salt (see [n0012] “the electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt”).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, the rechargeable lithium battery further comprises a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see [n0034] “positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator”; see [n0094] “separator (PE film) of the lithium-ion secondary battery”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the separator is positioned between the pos. electrode and the neg. electrode to prevent short circuit of the battery.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 115377497 A, “Chen”) in view of Asano et al. (US 20180183105 A1, “Asano”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20200185716 A1, “Hwang”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 2 and claim 3, Chen discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein, the cobalt-free positive electrode active material having the layered structure comprises at least one kind of lithium composite oxide & describes Zr, Al, Mg, Ti, W, Si, and Nb & describes Fe (see [n0091] “cobalt-free positive electrode active material LiNixMn(1-x)O2” & “0<x<1” which describes a lithium composite oxide & see [n0004] “lithium iron phosphate” which describes M1 = Fe & see [n0038] “coating layer” & describes “Zr, Al, Mg, Ti, W, Si and Nb”). Chen does not explicitly disclose lithium composite oxide represented by Chemical Formula 2: Chemical Formula 2 LiaNixMnyM1zM2wO2±bXc, in Chemical Formula 2, 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 being each independently one or more elements selected from among Al, Mg, Ti, Zr, Cr, Sr, V, B, W, Mo, Nb, Si, Ba, Ca, Ce, and Fe, and X being one or more elements selected from among S, F, P, and Cl as required by claim 2, nor wherein, Chemical Formula 2 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-1: Chemical Formula 2-1 LiaNix1Mny1Alz1M2w1O2±bXc, in Chemical Formula 2-1, 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 being one or more elements selected from among Mg, Ti, Zr, Cr, Sr, V, B, W, Mo, Nb, Si, Ba, Ca, Ce, and Fe, and X being one or more elements selected from among S, F, P, and Cl, as required by claim 3.
Asano teaches positive electrode active material & see [0070] “positive electrode active material capable of suitably realizing such a high potential” & describes “general formula (I): Lix(NiyMn2-y-zMe1z)O4+α” & “Me1 may be any transition metal element or typical metal element other than Ni and Mn, and may be for example, one or more selected from among Fe, Ti, Co, Cu, Cr, Zn and Al” & describes x is 0.8 ≤x≤1.2 which lies within the claimed range of 0.5 ≤a<1.8 as required by claim 2 and claim 3 for Lia & describes “lithium transition metal compound such as a phosphate” which reads on X being P, as required by claim 2 and claim 3.
Hwang teaches the elements in [0045] “manganese chloride” & “manganese salt” which reads on Cl, see [0047] “M containing raw material” & “element M (one or more selected from Ba, Ca, Zr, Ti, Mg, Ta, Nb, and Mo” & describes in [0074] “coating layer” & “Al, Ti, W, B, F, P, Mg, Ni, Co, Fe, Cr, V, Cu, Ca, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, Sr, Sb, Bi, Si, and S” & describes in [0038] “doping element” & “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”. Hwang teaches in [0017] “the positive electrode active material produced according to the present invention has excellent structural stability when compared with a high-nickel positive electrode active material produced by a typical method, and thus, exhibits high capacity retention rate and a low resistance increase rate”.
Chen and Hwang are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active materials & “high capacity retention rate” (see Hwang [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Asano to include positive electrode active material with the elements suggested (see [0070], [0072]) into the battery of Chen because doing so provides “a high potential”, as suggested by Asano (see [0070]).
Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hwang to include a lithium transition metal compound with the elements suggested (see [0045], [0074], [0047], [0038]) into the battery of Chen because doing so improves the high capacity retention rate, as suggested by Hwang (see [0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, 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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/10/2026
Prosecution Insights