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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/24/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 –2, 5 –10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotato, et. al. (US7083878B2), and in view of Koh, et. al. (KR20080026522 A), Lim, et. al. (US2014342241A1), Blanc, et. al. (US 20140080008 A1), and Sawa, et. al. (US 20130330609 A1).
Kotato teaches an electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery (“the nonaqueous electrolytic solution” contained within the “cylindrical battery” of Fig. 1), the electrolyte solution comprising: an imide lithium salt (“imide salt”); a second lithium salt that is not an imide lithium salt (“LiPF6, and LiBF4 and/or the lithium salt represented by the formula (1) are used in combination as the lithium salt”) an organic solvent (“a nonaqueous solvent”). Kotato at Col. 3 - 4. Kotato teaches an imide lithium salt (“examples of the lithium salt represented by the formula (1) include lithium cyclic 1,2-ethanedisulfonylimide, lithium cyclic 1,3-propanedisulfonylimide, lithium cyclic 1,2-perfluoroethanedisulfonylimide, lithium cyclic 1,3-perfluoropropanedisulfonylimide and lithium cyclic 1,4-perfluorobutanesulfonylimide”). Id. at Col. 5.
Kotato teaches “other lithium salts that are used in this purpose other than LiPF6, LiBF4 and the lithium salt represented by the formula (1) . . . Examples of the other lithium salts include an inorganic lithium salt, such as LiClO4; and a fluorine-containing organic acid lithium salt, such as LiN(CF3SO2)2.” Kotato at Col. 5 – 6.
Kotato teaches a cyclic imide lithium salt, but does not teach an additive an additive including a compound represented by Formula 1 (see below) wherein, in Formula 1, R1 and R2 are each independently an alkylene group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and R3 is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a halogen-substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, a cyclic alkyl group having 3 to 8 carbon atoms, an alkenyl group having 2 to 8 carbon atoms, and an aromatic hydrocarbon group having 5 to 14 carbon atoms.
[Formula 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
282
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula 1, as presented within Claim 1.
Koh teaches an electrolyte solution for a secondary battery, having a “conventional electrolyte solvent such as a carbonate-based organic solvent . . . such as propylene carbonate (PC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), or diethyl carbonate (DEC),” but teaches these “decompose[] at the electrode surface.” Koh at [0005, 6] (citations relative to attached translation, not original). The Office notes that propylene carbonate is optional, given that dimethyl carbonate or diethyl carbonate may be used as the carbonate-based organic solvent. Further, this electrolytic solvent solution may comprise these solvents “alone or in combination,” meaning that Koh teaches the use of an electrolyte solution wherein the main solvent component comprises a linear carbonate (DMC) and a cyclic carbonate (PC), as in Kotato. Koh at [0016].
Koh teaches an additive for a non-aqueous electrolyte (which comprises an electrolyte and electrolyte solvent) is provided to form a “more dense and stable” solid electrolyte interface layer, wherein the additive is 1,3-dioxolane-2-onylmethyl allyl sulfonate. Koh at Abstract, [0020 – 24]. Examiner notes that 1,3-dioxolane-2-onylmethyl allyl sulfonate reads upon Formula 1, and further “wherein, in Formula 1, R1 and R2 are each independently an alkylene group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and R3 is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, a halogen-substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, a cyclic alkyl group having 3 to 8 carbon atoms, an alkenyl group having 2 to 8 carbon atoms, and an aromatic hydrocarbon group having 5 to 14 carbon atoms,” at least because 1,3-dioxolane-2-onylmethyl allyl sulfonate is presented within the instant specification at [0046] as an embodiment of the invention. Id.; Specification at [0046].
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the electrolyte solution of Kotato, such that it contains the 1,3- dioxolan-2-onylmethyl allyl sulfonate additive of Koh, because Koh teaches a benefit of a denser and more stable SEI formed within the nonaqueous electrolyte, helping to prevent decomposition at the electrode.
However, modified Kotato is silent as “wherein the imide first lithium salt is present in a concentration of 0.7M to 1.2M, and a molar ratio of the imide lithium salt to the second lithium salt is in a range of 2:1 to 7:1.”
Lim teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium ion secondary battery comprising an imide salt, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, which may be in a range of “[032] 0.1 mole / l to 2 mole / l,” and wherein “[0034] A mixing ratio of the lithium salt to the lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide may be in a range of 1:1 to 1:9 as a molar ratio.” Lim at [0032-34.] Lim teaches both ranges prevent “side reactions,” and notes that “[0034] in the case that the mixing ratio of the lithium salt to the lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide is outside the range of the molar ratio, the side reactions may excessively occur in the electrolyte solution during the charge and discharge of the battery, and thus, the swelling phenomenon may occur.” Id. Both ranges, namely an imide salt in a range of 0.1 mol / L to 2 mol / L (0.1 – 2M), and 1:1 to 1:9 with respect to lithium salt to LiFSI (which may be rewritten as 1:1 to 9:1 imide salt to the second lithium salt), completely encompass the claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify modified Kotato, such that the imide salt is contained within the ranges of Lim, because Lim teaches a benefit to preventing side reactions and thereby swelling, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
However, modified Kotato is silent as to the organic solvent does not comprise propylene carbonate.
Blanc teaches an electrolyte for a lithium ion battery, having a conductive salt which may comprise LiPF6, and a second lithium salt. Blanc at [0016]. This solvent may contain ethylene carbonate (EC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC). Id. at [0021]. Blanc teaches its invention “improve[s] the manufacturing of electrochemical cells.” Id. at [0010].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the solvent of modified Kotato to comprise ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, such that it does not comprise propylene carbonate.
Regarding the amended terms, modified Kotato is silent as to the use of LiN(FSO2)2, and the previous Markush group is no longer claimed.
Sawa teaches “a lithium salt is generally used as [an] electrolyte. There are no particular limitations on the lithium salt as long as its use in this purpose is known and any such lithium salt can be used. For instance . . . LiN(FCO)2, LiN(FCO)(FSO2), LiN(FSO2)2, LiN(FSO2)(CF3SO2), LiN(CF3SO2)2.” Sawa at [0155 – 160]. Further, Sawa teaches “the above lithium salts may be used singly or concomitantly in combinations of two or more types,” and “The concentration of these lithium salts in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution is not particularly limited as long as the effects of the present invention are not impaired.” Id. In other words, Sawa teaches that LiN(FSO2)2 has a similar effect to that of LiN(CF3SO2)2, such as that found in Kotato, and notes “Particularly preferred among the foregoing are LiPF6, . . .LiN(FSO2)2, LiN(FSO2)(CF3SO2), LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiN(C2F5SO2)2 . . . and the like, in terms of the effect of enhancing the output characteristic, high-rate charge-discharge characteristic, high-temperature storage characteristic, cycle characteristic and the like.”
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery of Kotato, such that the imide lithium salt is LiN(FSO2)2, because Sawa teaches that LiN(FSO2)2 provides a benefit to output, high-rate charge-discharge characteristics, and high temperatures performance.
As such, Claim 1 is obvious over Kotato, in view of Koh, Lim, Blanc, and Sawa.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kotato.
Koh teaches an additive which comprises 1,3- dioxolan-2-onylmethyl allyl sulfonate, which is presented as the first option of the Markush group of Claim 2. Koh at Abstract, [0020 – 24].
As such, Claim 2 is obvious over Kotato, in view of Koh, Lim, Blanc, and Sawa.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kotato.
Kotato teaches “LiPF6, and LiBF4 and/or the lithium salt represented by the formula (1) are used in combination as the lithium salt”; as stated previously, the second lithium salt is LiBF4. Kotato at Col. 5 – 6. This reads upon “wherein the second lithium salt comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of . . . LiBF4.” As such, Claim 5 is obvious over Kotato, in view of Koh, Lim, Blanc, and Sawa.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kotato.
Koh teaches the compound represented by Formula 1 (read: the 1,3-dioxolane-2-onylmethyl allyl sulfonate additive of Koh) is included present in an amount of 0.01 part by weight to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery (“Electrolyte solution in the same manner as in Examples 1-2 and 1-3, except that 0.5 part by weight of 1,3-dioxolane-2-onylmethyl allyl sulfonate was added instead of 2 parts by weight.”). Koh at [0023 – 26]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
As such, Claim 6 is obvious over Kotato, in view of Koh, Lim, Blanc, and Sawa.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kotato.
Koh teaches the compound represented by Formula 1 (read: the 1,3-dioxolane-2-onylmethyl allyl sulfonate additive of Koh) is included present in an amount of 0.1 part by weight to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery (“Electrolyte solution in the same manner as in Examples 1-2 and 1-3, except that 0.5 part by weight of 1,3-dioxolane-2-onylmethyl allyl sulfonate was added instead of 2 parts by weight.”). Koh at [0023 – 26]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
As such, Claim 7 is obvious over Kotato, in view of Koh, Lim, Blanc, and Sawa.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kotato.
Kotato teaches “[t]he second characteristic feature of the invention resides in that the nonaqueous solvent mainly contains (1) ethylene carbonate and/or propylene carbonate, (2-1) a symmetric linear carbonate, (2-2) an asymmetric linear carbonate” ; this reads upon “the organic solvent comprises a linear carbonate-based compound and a cyclic carbonate-based compound.” Kotato at Col. 5 – 6.
As such, Claim 8 is over Kotato, in view of Koh, Lim, Blanc, and Sawa.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 8. Claim 8 is obvious over modified Kotato.
Kotato teaches “The volume ratio of the total amount of ethylene carbonate [and/or] propylene carbonate and the total amount of the symmetric linear carbonate and the asymmetric linear carbonate in the nonaqueous electrolytic solution is generally from 10/90 to 70/30 . . . most preferably from 15/85 to 40 / 60.” Kotato at Col. 6 - 7. This reads upon an overlapping range with that of the claimed “a volume ratio of the cyclic carbonate-based compound and the linear carbonate-based compound are mixed in a volume ratio of is 1:9 to 6:4,” because 40 / 60 is 4:6, and as such falls between 1:9 and 6:4. Id.
As modified, modified Kotato comprises dimethyl carbonate (DMC) instead of propylene carbonate as the linear carbonate based compound. Because the volume ratio of the solvents is described in the primary reference, the ratio is conserved within the substitution within the modification. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
As such, Claim 9 is obvious over Kotato, in view of Koh, Lim, Blanc, and Sawa.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kotato.
Kotato teaches a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode (“positive electrode”); a negative electrode (“negative electrode”); a separator (“a polyethylene separator t”); and the electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery. Kotato at Col. 1 – 3 (“The nonaqueous electrolytic solution” contained within the “cylindrical battery” of Fig. 1).
Modified Kotato teaches the electrolyte solution of claim 1.
As such, Claim 10 is obvious over Kotato, in view of Koh, Lim, Blanc, and Sawa.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights