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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1 and 15, and added new claims 21-22. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-22 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
All of the rejections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Applicant refers to Examples 6 and 7 in Table 1 of the instant disclosure and concludes the claimed ratio (i.e., 3:1 to 5:1) of the mass percentage of the sulfur containing compound to the mass percentage of the silane compound has good high temperature cycling performance and good low temperature discharge performance. These statements are not sufficient to show criticality/unexpected results because the data in the table is related to a silane phosphate when a silane phosphite is claimed; hence, the date in the table is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, see MPEP 716.02(d). Further, applicant’s comment that the prior art did not suggest the aforementioned benefits (i.e., good high temperature cycling performance and good low temperature discharge performance) is also not persuasive. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, MPEP 2144, IV.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 105024097), Zhu (CN 107768719), and Lee (KR 20030034737), hereinafter Zhang, Zhu and Lee.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 15, 17-20 and 21-22, Zhang describes an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt ([0021]), an organic solvent ([0020]), and an additive ([0020, 0022]), wherein the additive comprises a sulfur-containing compound, e.g., sulfuryl chloride ([0020]); sulfur dioxide and carbon sulfide ([0022]), thereby suggesting the sulfur-containing compound is selected from one or more of sulfuryl fluoride, sulfur trioxide, carbon disulfide, dimethyl sulfide, and methyl ethyl sulfide; Zhang also suggests the electrolyte comprises a silane compound (e.g., tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite, tris(trimethylsilane) borate, tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphate ([0022]).
The claimed silane phosphite is obvious over Zhang’s silane phosphite; Zhang’s tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite) is a homolog of the claimed tris(triethyl)silane phosphite, where the compounds differ by a single CH2 group, thus are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties, see MPEP 2144.09. Further, Zhu suggests the claimed silane phosphites including at least one of tris(trimethylsilane) phosphite, and tris(triethylsilane) phosphite improves battery output performance, reduces battery impedance, and ensures the battery’s overcharge protection performance (see e.g., [0013, 0023] and claims 2-3). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize tris(triethylsilyl) phosphite with the expectation of improving battery output performance, reducing battery impedance, and ensuring the battery’s overcharge protection performance, as suggested by Zhu.
Zhang does not disclose a mass of the sulfur-containing compound is 0.1% to 8% of a total mass of the electrolyte. However, Lee suggests an electrolyte comprising CS2 in an amount of 0.1-5wt% for SEI film formation which suppresses gas generation due to electrolyte decomposition, thereby reducing the internal pressure and thickness of the battery, see e.g., pages 3-5/6. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use carbon sulfide in an amount of 0.1-8 wt% based on a total mass of the electrolyte with the expectation of forming an SEI film which suppresses gas generation due to electrolyte decomposition, thereby reducing the internal pressure and thickness of the battery, as suggested by Lee. The sulfur mass suggested by Lee overlaps with that claimed; hence, a prima facie case of obviousness exists absent any showing of unexpected results/criticality, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Zhang does not suggest a mass of the silane compound is 0.1% to 5% (relevant to claim 1), 0.1% to 3% (relevant to claim 8), or 3-5% (relevant to claims 21-22) of the total mass of the electrolyte, and it is unclear whether Zhang suggests two silanes in combination (e.g., silane phosphite and silane borate). However, Zhu suggests battery output performance is improved, battery impedance is reduced, and a battery’s overcharge protection performance is ensured (see e.g., [0024]) through the addition of an additive B (i.e., at least one of tris(trimethylsilane) phosphite, tris(trimethylsilane) borates, tris(triethylsilane) phosphite, etc., see [0013]) in an amount of 0.1-3 wt% based on a total mass of the electrolyte (see e.g., [0012]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the amount of silane phosphite is 0.1% to 5% (relevant to claim 1), 0.1% to 3% (relevant to claim 8), or 3-5% (relevant to claims 21-22) of the total mass of the electrolyte with the expectation of improving battery output performance, reducing battery impedance, and ensuring the battery’s overcharge protection performance, as suggested by Zhu. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine a silane borate and a silane phosphite with the expectation of improving battery output performance, reducing battery impedance, and ensuring the battery’s overcharge protection performance, as suggested by Zhu. Zhu’s suggested mass of the silane compound, i.e., 0.1-3wt%, overlaps with the claimed range, i.e., 3-5wt%, hence a prima facie case of obviousness exists absent any showing of unexpected results/criticality, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Zhang does not suggest a mass percentage of the sulfur-containing compound is greater than a mass percentage of the silane compound in a ratio of 3:1 to 5:1. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages, see MPEP 2144.05, II. As detailed above, Lee suggests the amount of sulfur compound is between 0.1-5wt% for SEI film formation which suppresses gas generation due to electrolyte decomposition, thereby reducing the internal pressure and thickness of the battery; Zhu suggest the amount of the silane compound is 0.01-3wt% from the standpoint of improving battery output performance, reducing battery impedance, and ensuring the battery’s overcharge protection performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would obtain the claimed ratio (e.g., sulfur is greater than the amount of silane, and 3:1 to 5:1) through nothing more than routine experimentation in determining where in the disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination or workable range, being motivated by improving battery output performance, reducing battery impedance, ensuring the battery’s overcharge protection performance, as suggested by Zhu, and to suppress gas generation, as suggested by Lee. Absent evidence the claimed proportion is critical/unexpected, the claimed ratio is held obvious over Zhang, Lee and Zhu
Regarding Claims 10 and 13, Zhang suggests an apparatus (e.g., energy vehicle, [0004]) comprising a lithium-ion battery, comprising a positive electrode plate, comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode membrane that is disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector and that comprises a positive electrode active material; a negative electrode plate, comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode membrane that is disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector and that comprises a negative electrode active material; a separator; and an electrolyte recited in claim, e.g., [0017]. Any battery elements not explicitly recited in Zhang are nothing more than common battery elements well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, see e.g., example 1 of Lee and [0102-0110] of Changlong, i.e., foils as collectors, separator film between electrodes, active material on the collectors, etc.
Regarding Claims 11-12, Zhang suggests the positive electrode active material is ternary and the negative electrode active material is graphite, but does not explicitly disclose the positive electrode active material is selected from one or more of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxides, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides, and compounds obtained by adding other transition metals or non-transition metals to such compounds. However, common well known ternary positive electrode active materials include lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxides ([0074]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize NCM type positive active materials with the expectation of forming a lithium ion battery with high energy density, [0003].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Zhu, and Lee (cited above), in view of Dai (US 2015/0056514, of record) hereinafter Dai.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang does not suggest sulfur trioxide. However, Zhang suggests various electrolyte additives including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon disulfide. Dai suggests additives including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon disulfide, and sulfur trioxide are useful from the standpoint SEI formation without reducing the electrochemical window by an appreciable extent, [0058]. The prior art has recognized carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon disulfide, and sulfur trioxide as equivalents for the same purpose (electrolyte additives that help SEI formation); thus, there is strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one (sulfur trioxide) for the other (carbon disulfide) in a battery electrolyte as an additive to help SEI formation.
Conclusion
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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights