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
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, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, et. al. (US2012196190A1), in view of Cho, et. al. (US2008020287A1), and Matsumoto, et. al. (US 20130164604 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jeon teaches a lithium secondary battery (“[0042] lithium secondary battery of the present invention . . . the anode made of a carbon material . . . and the cathode made of lithium-containing oxide”), comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode (see above); a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (“[0042] an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery”); and a separator (“[0048] a separator is generally interposed between the cathode and the anode”), wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material, wherein the electrode active material is a carbon material (“[0042 – 44] the carbon material capable of occluding or emitting a lithium ion”), and wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises organic solvent and a lithium salt. Jeon at [0017, 42 – 48]. Jeon teaches an Embodiment 19, wherein Comparative Example 1 (“1M of LiPF6 was added to a mixed organic solvent in which ethylene carbonate and ethylmethyl carbonate are mixed in a volume ratio of 1:2, thereby preparing a non-aqueous electrolyte”) is modified such that comprises “a composition of ethylene carbonate: ethyl propionate=1:9 (volume ratio).” Id. at [0125]. Jeon teaches its invention “[0016] exhibits excellent high-rate charging / discharging characteristics and ensures improved life cycle and low-temperature discharging characteristics.” Id. at [0016]. Examiner notes that Table 1 demonstrates Embodiment 19 (above [0138]) demonstrates a high initial efficiency, relatively high discharge rate relative to its compared embodiments. Id. at [0138], Table 1. This indicates this configuration was known in the art to produce favorable performance and that this solvent performance is not unexpected.
However, Jeon is silent as to a first additive represented by Formula 1
[Formula 1]
NC – R – CH = CH – R1 – CN
wherein, in Formula 1, R and R1 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms. Jeon is silent as to the use of a lithium salt at a concentration of 1.5 M to 2.0M, because Jeon teaches the use of a lithium salt (LiPF6) at 1 M.
Cho teaches an additive for a non-aqueous electrolyte [0003] having low reduction potential and high oxidation stability which may “improve the overall quality of an electrochemical device,” wherein the additive is 1,4-dicyanobutene. Cho at [0003, 28, 48]. This reads upon “a first additive represented by Formula 1
[Formula 1]
NC – R – CH = CH – R1 – CN
wherein, in Formula 1, R and R1 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms,” because 1,4-dicyanobutene has the structure NC – R – CH = CH – R1 – CN where R and R1 are alkylene groups having 1 carbon atom.
Examiner notes that the term “1,4-dicyanobutene” is used within this action, in order to be consistent with the nomenclature used in the Claims (see later Claim 5) and specification (Example 1 at [00121] of the instant specification). However, Cho specifies the 1,4-dicyanobutene may be 1,4-dicyano-2-butene at [0048], which is relevant because 1,4-dicyano-2-butene has the structure NC – R – CH = CH – R1 – CN (wherein both R groups comprise single carbon atom), but 1,4-dicyano-1-butene comprises NC – R – CH = CH – CN, where R is a single carbon atom. Hereinafter, “1,4-dicyanobutene” is taken to refer to NC – R – CH = CH – R1 – CN (wherein both R groups comprise alkylene groups further comprising a single carbon atom).
Cho teaches that “[0029] If the additive is used in an amount of less than 0.01 wt %, it is not possible to sufficiently improve the cycle characteristics of a battery. If the additive is used in an amount of greater than 10 wt %, a surplus amount of additive may cause side reactions, and thus may cause a drop in the capacity of the battery, an increase in the viscosity of the electrolyte and a drop in the ion conductivity of the electrolyte, resulting in degradation of the overall quality of the battery.” Cho at [0029]. This is a wt% range of 0.01 – 10 wt%. This meets the newly amended term “in an amount of 0.5 wt% to 3 wt% percent based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution.” An encompassing range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Jeon, such that the additive of Cho is utilized within the electrolyte of Jeon, with the additive within the range of 0.01 – 10 wt%, because Cho teaches a benefit to reduction potential and overall performance quality of the electrochemical device, and because an encompassing range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Modified Jeon is silent as to the use of a lithium salt at a concentration of 1.5 M to 2.0M, because Jeon teaches the use of a lithium salt (LiPF6) at 1 M.
Matsumoto teaches a lithium ion secondary battery, having a nonaqueous electrolyte solution, wherein “[0067] The electrolytic solvent may further comprise other non-aqueous solvent. The non-aqueous solvent includes aprotic organic solvents including, for example, cyclic carbonate compounds such as propylene carbonate (PC), ethylene carbonate (EC) . . . ethyl propionate and the like . . . [t]hese non-aqueous solvents may be added alone or in a combination of two or more species.” Id. at [0067]. The electrolyte liquid comprises a supporting salt, wherein the lithium salt includes LiPF6. Id. at [0072]. Further, the concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte liquid may be 0.8 M or more and 3.0M or less. Id. at [0073]. Matsumoto teaches “[0018] by using the electrolyte liquid according to the present exemplary embodiment, a high performance battery having good flame retardancy and cycle property can be provided.” Id. at [0018].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify modified Jeon with the lithium salt range of Matsumoto, because Matsumoto teaches a benefit to flame retardancy and cycle properties.
As such, Claim 1 is obvious over Jeon, in view of Cho and Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Jeon.
Cho teaches an additive for a non-aqueous electrolyte [0003] having low reduction potential and high oxidation stability which may “improve the overall quality of an electrochemical device,” wherein the additive is 1,4-dicyanobutene. Cho at [0003, 28, 48].
As such, Claim 5 is obvious over Jeon, in view of Cho and Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Jeon.
Jeon teaches a lithium secondary battery (“[0017] In order to accomplish the above object, the present invention provides a lithium secondary battery having an anode made of carbon material capable of occluding or emitting a lithium ion, a cathode made of lithium-contained oxide, and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte includes a lithium salt”), comprising: a non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery; a negative electrode; and a separator (“[0049] “a separator is generally interposed between the cathode and the anode.” Jeon at [0017].
Modified Jeon teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1.
As such, Claim 10 is obvious over Jeon, in view of Cho and Matsumoto.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, in view of Cho and Matsumoto, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, et. al. (KR20200039586A)
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Jeon.
Jeon, Cho, and Matsumoto are silent as to a second additive in addition to the first additive.
Lee teaches a series of electrolyte additives for electrochemical devices, which act as “performance improving agent[s],” and which may comprise “one or two or more” mixtures of said improving agents. Lee at [0285]. These include a “high temperature stability improver,” which may be “dicyanobutene” ([0288]), and an “interfacial stabilizer” which may be “fluoroethylene carbonate” or “vinylene carbonate.” Lee at [0288, 290]. Fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) is “a halogen-substituted carbonate-based compound,” which meets “where the second additive is at least one selected from the group consisting of a phosphate-based compound, a sulfite-based compound, a sulfone-based compound, a sulfate-based compound, a sultone-based compound, a halogen-substituted carbonate-based compound, a nitrile-based compound excluding the first additive, a borate-based compound, and a lithium salt-based compound.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to further modify modified Jeon to include a second electrolyte additive as in Lee, because Lee teaches a benefit to performance in the form of interfacial stabilization. As such, Claim 8 is obvious over Jeon, in view of Cho and Matsumoto, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Jeon.
Jeon, Cho and Matsumoto are silent as to a second additive in addition to the first additive.
Lee teaches a series of electrolyte additives for electrochemical devices, which act as “performance improving agent[s],” and which may comprise “one or two or more” mixtures of said improving agents. Lee at [0285]. These include a “high temperature stability improver,” which may be “dicyanobutene” ([0288]), and an “interfacial stabilizer” which may be “fluoroethylene carbonate” or “vinylene carbonate.” Lee at [0288, 290]. Fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) is “a halogen-substituted carbonate-based compound,” which meets “wherein the second additive is at least one selected from the group consisting of vinylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, 1,3-propane sultone, fluoroethylene carbonate, hexane tri-cyanide, and lithium oxalyldifluoroborate.”
As such, Claim 9 is obvious over Jeon, in view of Cho and Matsumoto, and further in view of Lee.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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