DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 06/24/2022, 04/12/2024, 09/02/2024 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by WO 2015063096 to Kunze (Kunze, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kunze discloses an electrolyte containing solid particles (Claim 1), comprising: an organic solvent, an electrolyte lithium salt (claim 13) and glass particles dispersed in the liquid electrolyte (para, 226 39), and the glass is composite oxide glass comprising a lithium oxide and a phosphorus oxide (claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Kunze discloses vinylene carbonate (para 218).
Regarding claim 7, Kunze discloses ethylene carbonate (para 218).
Regarding claim 8, Kunze discloses LiPF6 (claim 13).
Regarding claims 9-11, Kunze discloses the electrolyte containing 0.38 g of the solid particles with average diameter of 1 µm (re claims 9, 10) in 50 ml of 1M solution of LiPF6 , i.e., concentration of the solid particles is about 0. 58 % mass % ( calculated on a total weight of the electrolyte (re claim 11). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 12, Kunze discloses a lithium ion secondary battery (claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 2- 4 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015063096 to Kunze (Kunze, machine translation).
Regarding claims 2-4, Kunze discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. In addition, Kunze discloses the glass particles comprising L2O-P2O5 and M doped L2O-P2O5, wherein M= Si, Na, or Ta (para 143,102, 100, claims 1-5, Table 2). Kunze also teaches that the content of L2O, P2O5 and doping element M affect thermal stability of a conductive salt in an electrolyte solution. Therefore, the content of L2O, P2O5 and doping element M is a result effective variable. It has been held by the courts that discovering an optimum value or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, and thus not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the content of L2O, P2O5 and doping element M in the electrolyte solution in order to provide cost-effective, non-toxic, temperature-stable additive for improving the performance during flexible use in all areas of a rechargeable lithium-ion battery with liquid electrolytes such as ensuring thermal stabilization of the conductive salt (para 38).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Kunze discloses ethylene carbonate (para 218).
Regarding claim 15 and 16, Kunze discloses Kunze discloses LiPF6 (claim 13).
Regarding claims 17-20, Kunze discloses the electrolyte containing 0.38 g of the solid particles with average diameter of 1 µm (re claims 17, 18) in 50 ml of 1M solution of LiPF6 , i.e., concentration of the solid particles is about 0. 58 % mass % ( calculated on a total weight of the electrolyte (re claim 19,20). It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015063096 to Kunze in view of WO 2015182595 to Inoue (Inoue, machine translation)
Regarding claim 6, Kunze discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Kunze does not expressly disclose wherein the electrolyte comprises a suspension aid, the suspension aid is selected from one or more of the group consisting of a polymer dispersant, a surfactant and an anti-settling agent.
Inoue teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Abstract), wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte such as diethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, contains a lithium salt such as LiPF6 and surfactant (3-d). Therefore, a use a surfactant in the electrolyte solutions of lithium salts in non-aqueous electrolyte such as diethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate is well known in the art. Since electrolyte solution of Inoue is substantially similar to that of Kunze, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Kunze with the surfactant , as taught by Inoue in order to improve solubility of lithium salt and increase distribution of solid glass particle throughout electrolyte solution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on 5712721330. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727