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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 6-11, 14-17, 19-23, 25, 28 are currently pending. Claims 20-23, 25, 28 are withdrawn. Claims 2-5, 12-13, 18, 24, 26-27 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 have been considered but are not found persuasive because the new ground of rejection relies on a new combination of references. See rejection below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,6-11,14-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed (WO2017210593A1, IDS cited 08/15/2022, copy previously provided), in view of Wang (CN105977533A, previously cited, translation previously attached).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Reed discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium battery, which solution comprises:
a liquid electrolyte medium (i.e., ethylene carbonate/ethylmethyl carbonate solution; pg 10, lines 16-17);
a lithium-containing salt (i.e., LiPF6; pg 10, line 16); and
a flame retardant (i.e., tribromoneopentyl alcohol or “TBNPA” in Example 3) in 2 wt% (pg 10, line 15-20).
Reed further discloses that the flame retardant may be selected from a list comprising tribromoneopentyl alcohol (pg 2, line 9), and tribromoethylene (pg 2, line 20).
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use tribromoethylene as an alternative to the tribromoneopentyl alcohol of Example 3, with a reasonable expectation to prevent fire, short-circuiting, and overcharging or over-discharging (pg 1, lines 20-25).
However, Reed does not disclose a flame retardant mixture of tribromoethylene and 2-phenoxy-2,4,4,6,6-pentafluoro-1,3,5,2λ5,4λ5,6λ5triazatriphosphinine, as claimed in iii), B), b of claim 1.
In this regard, Wang is also directed to a flame-retardant electrolyte for secondary lithium-ion battery comprising lithium salt, an organic solvent, and a flame retardant, wherein the flame retardant includes a fluorinated phosphazene flame retardant, such as phenoxy (pentafluoro) cyclotriphosphazene (i.e., the claimed 2-phenoxy-2,4,4,6,6-pentafluoro-1,3,5,2λ5,4λ5,6λ5triazatriphosphinine of the instant application), wherein the retardant is added in an amount 0.1% to 20% of the total weight of the electrolyte ([0012]-Wang), wherein the fluorinated phosphazene flame retardant significantly improved electrochemical performance, cycle stability and rate discharge capacity [0013, 0024- Wang].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added a known flame retardant from the same field of endeavor, such as the phenoxy (pentafluoro) cyclotriphosphazene of Wang, to the flame retardant of Reed, with a reasonable expectation that such addition would improve electrochemical performance, cycle stability and rate discharge capacity [0013, 0024- Wang] (See also, MPEP 2144.06-I).
However, Reed does not disclose the flame retardant mixture of tribromoethylene and 2-phenoxy-2,4,4,6,6-pentafluoro-1,3,5,2λ5,4λ5,6λ5triazatriphosphinine mixed in a wt% ratio of “0.75:1 to about 2.25:1” (claim 1) or “about 0.75:1 to about 2:1” (claim 6).
In this regard, Reed teaches wherein the retardant such as tribromoethylene may be added in an amount of about 0.001 wt to about 10 wt% based on a total weight of the organic solvent (claim 5) to improve low flash or inflammation points of the electrolyte solution, thereby preventing fire safety or explosion problems (pg1, lines 21-25).
Wang teaches wherein the fluorinated phosphazene flame retardant (i.e., the claimed 2-phenoxy-2,4,4,6,6-pentafluoro-1,3,5,2λ5,4λ5,6λ5triazatriphosphinine of instant application) is added in an amount 0.1% to 20% of the total weight of the electrolyte ([0012]-Wang), wherein the fluorinated phosphazene flame retardant significantly improved electrochemical performance, cycle stability and rate discharge capacity [0013, 0024- Wang]. Wang further teaches wherein the electrolyte solution with such retardant has good compatibility with positive electrode materials, has little effect on the electrochemical performance of the battery, has good flame-retardant effect and is low in price [0023 Wang].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the wt% ranges of each tribromoethylene and 2-phenoxy-2,4,4,6,6-pentafluoro-1,3,5,2λ5,4λ5,6λ5triazatriphosphinine taught by Reed and Wang, further the weight ratio of the flame retardants, as Wang recognizes that the amount of flame retardant is a factor that determines the self-extinguishing time of the electrolyte, where, as the content of flame retardant increases, the self-extinguishing time of the electrolyte is reduced [0042 Wang]. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the amount of each retardant in the electrolyte solution and further the wt% ratio of the flame retardants, in order to improve the self-extinguishing time of the electrolyte.
Reed further does not explicitly disclose that the flame retardant amount is “about 4 wt% or more relative to the total weight of the solution”, as claimed.
In this regard, Reed discloses wherein Examples are prepared by dissolving 2 wt% of the flame retardant in a solution of 1.2M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate/ethylmethyl carbonate (EC/EMC 3/7 wt/wt) (pg 10, lines 15-18) and the amount of brominated flame retardant is about 0.001 wt% to about 10wt%, based on a total weight of the organic solvent (Claim 5).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would use such findings and calculate approximate amounts of 1.2 M of LiPF6 (i.e., 1.2 mol/L; i.e., 182.3g), ethylene carbonate solvent (i.e., about 247ml or ~326g), and ethyl methyl carbonate (i.e., about 753ml or about 760g) solvent in 1L of electrolyte solution (total mass of about 1268.3g).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would further convert the flame retardant wt% based on a total weight of the organic solvent to wt% relative to the total weight of the solution (i.e., about 8x10-4 wt% to 8.6 wt% of the total weight of the solution), which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 4 wt% of more relative to the total weight of the solution.”
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the amount of the flame retardant in the nonaqueous solution of Reed, such that the flame retardant amount is in the overlapping range, with a reasonable expectation to prevent fire safety or explosions problems that occur due to the non-aqueous solvents having low flash or inflammation points (pg 1, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 7, modified Reed discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte solution as in claim 1, wherein the liquid electrolyte medium is ethylene carbonate and ethylene carbonate (pg 10, lines 15-20 in Examples section).
Regarding claims 8-11, modified Reed discloses the solution as in claim 1 wherein iii) is tribromoneopentyl alcohol (i.e., TBNPA; Example 3) or alternatively tribromoethylene (pg 2, line 20).
Reed further discloses other additives such as lithium difluoro (oxalato) borate (i.e., another lithium-containing salt of claim 8 and 9) may be included in an amount of about 0.05 wt % to about 10 wt % based on the total weight of the organic solvent (pg 10, lines 4-10) (i.e., about 0.043 wt% to 8.6 wt% relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution), which encompasses the claimed range of “about 0.5wt% to about 5 wt%” (claim 10) and “about 1 wt% to about 4wt%” relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution (claim 11).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the encompassed amount of additive to the electrolyte solution, to facilitate the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase or film to further improve cycle characteristics (pg 9, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 14, modified Reed discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte solution as in claim 11, wherein the other additive may further contain other additives (pg 9, lines 11). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would choose not to include additional additives, with a reasonable expectation that the electrolyte solution would still be fully functional without the additional additive.
Regarding claim 15, modified Reed discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte solution as in claim 8, wherein the electrochemical additive is selected from a list comprising vinylene carbonate and propane sultone (pg 9, line 15).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would select vinylene carbonate and propane sultone from the list of possible other additives provided by Reed, as Reed teaches such additives facilitate the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase or film to further improve cycle characteristics (pg 9, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 16, modified Reed discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte solution as in claim 15, wherein the electrochemical additive may be vinylene carbonate (pg 9, line 15). Reed further teaches that the additive may be included in an amount of about 0.05 wt % to about 10 wt % based on the total weight of the organic solvent (pg 10, lines 4-10) (i.e., about 0.043 wt% to 8.6 wt% relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution) which encompasses the claimed range of “0.5 wt% to about 3 wt%, relative to the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution”.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated add the encompassed range of vinylene carbonate, with a reasonable expectation to facilitate the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase or film to further improve cycle characteristics (pg 9, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 17, modified Reed discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte solution as in claim 15, wherein the electrochemical additive is selected from a list comprising vinylene carbonate (pg 9, line 15). A person having ordinary skill in the art would select vinylene carbonate and propane sultone from the list of possible other additives provided by Reed, as Reed teaches such additives facilitate the formation of a solid electrolyte interphase or film to further improve cycle characteristics (pg 9, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 19, modified Reed discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte solution as in claim 17, wherein the electrolyte solution may further contain other additives (pg 9, lines 11). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would choose not to include additional additives, with a reasonable expectation that the electrolyte solution would still be fully functional without the additional additive.
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 TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/12/2025