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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/29/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-7, 9-20. The examined Claims are 1-7, 9-20, with Claims 1-2, 9, 14 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Per the aforementioned amendments to the Claims, the previous rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Furthermore, Applicant has mainly (1) amended independent Claim 1 to require that “n” is in a range of “2 to 7, inclusive” and (2) amended Claim 2 to further limit said “n” to be in a range of “2 to 4, inclusive.”
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that Hasegawa neither teaches nor suggests instantly claimed Chemical Formula (1) because Hasegawa only discloses oxydipropionitrile (i.e. Chemical Formula (1) when n = 1) as an exemplary dicyanoether (Page 7 of Remarks). Regarding Claim 3, Applicant argues that the instantly claimed amount of the compound represented by Chemical Formula (1) is critical for the effect of the present application (i.e. low amount of gas generated, high capacity retention rate) (Page 8 of Remarks).
While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims. It is noted that all previous prior art rejections of record are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (WO 2011024837, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2015/0249268).
Regarding Claim 1, Hasegawa teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte, and a lithium ion battery comprising the nonaqueous electrolyte therein ([0001], [0014]-[0016]). Hasegawa teaches that the nonaqueous electrolyte only includes an organic solvent (“solvent”), a lithium salt (“electrolytic salt”), and a dicyanoether compound (e.g. oxydipropionitrile or the like, wherein it is noted that oxydipropionitrile is instantly claimed Chemical Formula (1) where n = 1) ([0014]-[0016], [0045]-[0047]).
Hasegawa does not explicitly teach that the dicyanoether compound is represented by Chemical Formula (1) where n = 2 to 7, inclusive.
However, Hong teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (Abstract, [0001]). Hong teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises a dinitrile-based ether compound represented by the formula CN-(CH2)n-O-(CH2)m-CN, wherein “n” and “m” in said formula are independently an integer from 1-6 ([0012]-[0013]). As one explicit example of said dinitrile-based ether compound represented by said formula, Hong teaches bis(cyanoethyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 2) ([0016]). As other explicit and equivalent examples of said dintrile-based ether compound represented by said formula, Hong teaches bis(cyanopropyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 3), bis(cyanobutyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 4), bis(cyanopentyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 5), and bis(cyanohexyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 6) ([0016]). Hong teaches that due to its higher dielectric constant and lower viscosity characteristics, the dinitrile-based ether compound helps increase the conductivity of the electrolyte solution, improve interfacial resistance characteristics, and improve initial capacity of an assembled battery ([0043]). Hong teaches that the dinitrile-based ether compound is present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, wherein Hong teaches that when too little (i.e. below 0.1 wt%) of the dinitrile-based ether compound is present in the electrolyte solution then battery swelling prevention characteristics are insufficient, whereas when too much (i.e. above 10 wt%) of the dinitrile-ether based compound is present in the electrolyte solution then battery performance is deteriorated insofar as the viscosity of the electrolyte solution increases while ion conductivity decreases ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the dicyanoether compound in Hasegawa, bis(cyanopropyl)ether (i.e. instantly claimed Chemical Formula (1) where n = 2), bis(cyanobutyl)ether (i.e. instantly claimed Chemical Formula (1) where n = 3), bis(cyanopentyl)ether (i.e. instantly claimed Chemical Formula (1) where n = 4), or bis(cyanohexyl)ether (i.e. instantly claimed Chemical Formula (1) where n = 5), as taught by Hong, given not only because Hasegawa already teaches that a material such as oxydipropionitrile (i.e. bis(cyanoethyl)ether) “or the like” may be used as the dicyanoether compound (wherein bis(cyanopropyl)ether, bis(cyanobutyl)ether, bis(cyanopentyl)ether, and bis(cyanohexyl)ether are “like” oxydipropionitrile, especially given that Hong explicitly teaches each of said ethers as equivalent examples to oxydipropionitrile in terms of functionality), but also because due to their higher dielectric constant and lower viscosity characteristics, each of said ethers would help increase the conductivity of the electrolyte, improve interfacial resistance characteristics, and improve initial capacity of an assembled battery, as taught by Hong.
Given that Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches that the nonaqueous electrolyte only includes said organic solvent, said lithium salt, and said dicyanoether compound (i.e. bis(cyanopropyl)ether, bis(cyanobutyl)ether, bis(cyanopentyl)ether, and bis(cyanohexyl)ether), the nonaqueous electrolyte of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, is considered to consist essentially of a “solvent,” an “electrolytic salt,” and “a compound represented by Chemical Formula (1)” with “n” in a range of “2 to 7, inclusive” as instantly claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), specific examples of the dicyanoether compound in Hasegawa, as modified by Hong are bis(cyanopropyl)ether (i.e. instantly claimed Chemical Formula (1) where n = 2), bis(cyanobutyl)ether (i.e. instantly claimed Chemical Formula (1) where n = 3), and bis(cyanopentyl)ether (i.e. instantly claimed Chemical Formula (1) where n = 4)
Regarding Claim 3, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, does not explicitly teach that the dicyanoether compound is presented in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Hong teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (Abstract, [0001]). Hong teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises a dinitrile-based ether compound represented by the formula CN-(CH2)n-O-(CH2)m-CN, wherein “n” and “m” in said formula are independently an integer from 1-6 ([0012]-[0013]). As one explicit example of said dinitrile-based ether compound represented by said formula, Hong teaches bis(cyanoethyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 2) ([0016]). As other explicit and equivalent examples of said dintrile-based ether compound represented by said formula, Hong teaches bis(cyanopropyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 3), bis(cyanobutyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 4), bis(cyanopentyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 5), and bis(cyanohexyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 6) ([0016]). Hong teaches that due to its higher dielectric constant and lower viscosity characteristics, the dinitrile-based ether compound helps increase the conductivity of the electrolyte solution, improve interfacial resistance characteristics, and improve initial capacity of an assembled battery ([0043]). Hong teaches that the dinitrile-based ether compound is present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, wherein Hong teaches that when too little (i.e. below 0.1 wt%) of the dinitrile-based ether compound is present in the electrolyte solution then battery swelling prevention characteristics are insufficient, whereas when too much (i.e. above 10 wt%) of the dinitrile-ether based compound is present in the electrolyte solution then battery performance is deteriorated insofar as the viscosity of the electrolyte solution increases while ion conductivity decreases ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would include the dicyanoether compound of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% (i.e. 0.1 parts by mass to 10 parts by mass) based on the total weight (i.e. total mass) of the nonaqueous electrolyte, as taught by Hong, given that too little (i.e. below 0.1 wt%) of the compound present in the electrolyte would render battery swelling prevention characteristics insufficient, while too much (i.e. above 10 wt%) of the compound present in the electrolyte would render battery performance deteriorated insofar as the viscosity of the electrolyte would increase while ion conductivity would decrease.
Regarding Claim 4, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Hasegawa teaches a lithium ion battery comprising the nonaqueous electrolyte therein. Hasegawa teaches that the lithium ion battery further comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator between the positive and negative electrode ([0028], [0033], [0098]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
Hasegawa teaches that the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material, wherein said positive electrode active material contains, for example, at least one of nickel, cobalt, and manganese ([0048]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
Hasegawa teaches that the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material, wherein said negative electrode active material is, for example, a carbon material (e.g. artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon) or a substance that can be alloyed with lithium (e.g. Si fine particles, Si-based alloys including Si-Sn, SiO, Si-SiO2) ([0033]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 6), the negative electrode active material includes a substance that can be alloyed with lithium wherein the substance includes silicon or tin.
It is further noted that while Hasegawa teaches the aforementioned materials, the instant Claim does not require the explicitly presence of the claimed “substance,” but instead merely recites identities od said substance in the scenario wherein the negative electrode active material is “a substance that can be alloyed with lithium” as opposed to a carbon material (See Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Hasegawa teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Hasegawa teaches that the organic solvent includes a mixed organic solvent (“aprotic organic solvent”) comprising, preferably, a chain carbonate and a cyclic carbonate ([0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 9), the mixed organic solvent includes, preferably, a chain carbonate and a cyclic carbonate ([0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 11, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 9), the mixed organic solvent includes, preferably, a chain carbonate and a cyclic carbonate ([0019]-[0020]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
Hasegawa teaches that the cyclic carbonate includes ethylene carbonate ([0020]).
Regarding Claim 13, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 11, as previously described.
Hasegawa teaches that the chain carbonate includes dimethyl carbonate ([0020]).
Regarding Claim 14, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Hasegawa teaches that the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises the lithium salt.
Regarding Claim 15, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 14, as previously described.
Hasegawa teaches that the lithium salt is at least one of LiBF4, LiTFSI, LiBETI, LiPF6, and LiBOB ([0015]-[0016]).
Regarding Claim 16, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
Hasegawa teaches that the lithium salt is LiPF6, and LiBOB ([0015]-[0016], [0025]).
Regarding Claim 17, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, does not explicitly teach that the dicyanoether compound is presented in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Hong teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (Abstract, [0001]). Hong teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises a dinitrile-based ether compound represented by the formula CN-(CH2)n-O-(CH2)m-CN, wherein “n” and “m” in said formula are independently an integer from 1-6 ([0012]-[0013]). As one explicit example of said dinitrile-based ether compound represented by said formula, Hong teaches bis(cyanoethyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 2) ([0016]). As other explicit and equivalent examples of said dintrile-based ether compound represented by said formula, Hong teaches bis(cyanopropyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 3), bis(cyanobutyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 4), bis(cyanopentyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 5), and bis(cyanohexyl)ether (i.e. n, m = 6) ([0016]). Hong teaches that due to its higher dielectric constant and lower viscosity characteristics, the dinitrile-based ether compound helps increase the conductivity of the electrolyte solution, improve interfacial resistance characteristics, and improve initial capacity of an assembled battery ([0043]). Hong teaches that the dinitrile-based ether compound is present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, wherein Hong teaches that when too little (i.e. below 0.1 wt%) of the dinitrile-based ether compound is present in the electrolyte solution then battery swelling prevention characteristics are insufficient, whereas when too much (i.e. above 10 wt%) of the dinitrile-ether based compound is present in the electrolyte solution then battery performance is deteriorated insofar as the viscosity of the electrolyte solution increases while ion conductivity decreases ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would include the dicyanoether compound of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% (i.e. 0.1 parts by mass to 10 parts by mass) based on the total weight (i.e. total mass) of the nonaqueous electrolyte, as taught by Hong, given that too little (i.e. below 0.1 wt%) of the compound present in the electrolyte would render battery swelling prevention characteristics insufficient, while too much (i.e. above 10 wt%) of the compound present in the electrolyte would render battery performance deteriorated insofar as the viscosity of the electrolyte would increase while ion conductivity would decrease.
Regarding Claim 18, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, is silent with respect to the capacity retention rate of the lithium ion battery after 100 cycles.
However, and as previously described (See Claims 1 and 4), the lithium ion battery of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, comprises all of the positively recited structural components of the instantly claimed battery. Therefore, the ion secondary battery of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, would inherently possess the same properties, including the instantly claimed capacity retention rate after 100 cycles as instantly claimed (See MPEP 2112.01). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Applicant is welcome to provide explicit evidence as to why the lithium ion battery of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, does not, would not, or otherwise cannot exhibit/possess the instantly claimed capacity retention rate after 100 cycles.
Regarding Claim 19, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, is silent with respect to the capacity retention rate of the lithium ion battery after 100 cycles.
However, and as previously described (See Claims 1 and 4), the lithium ion battery of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, comprises all of the positively recited structural components of the instantly claimed battery. Therefore, the ion secondary battery of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, would inherently possess the same properties, including the instantly claimed capacity retention rate after 100 cycles as instantly claimed (See MPEP 2112.01). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Applicant is welcome to provide explicit evidence as to why the lithium ion battery of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, does not, would not, or otherwise cannot exhibit/possess the instantly claimed capacity retention rate after 100 cycles.
Regarding Claim 20, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 19, as previously described.
Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, is silent with respect to the capacity retention rate of the lithium ion battery after 100 cycles.
However, and as previously described (See Claims 1 and 4), the lithium ion battery of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, comprises all of the positively recited structural components of the instantly claimed battery. Therefore, the ion secondary battery of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, would inherently possess the same properties, including the instantly claimed capacity retention rate after 100 cycles as instantly claimed (See MPEP 2112.01). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990).
Applicant is welcome to provide explicit evidence as to why the lithium ion battery of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, does not, would not, or otherwise cannot exhibit/possess the instantly claimed capacity retention rate after 100 cycles.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (WO 2011024837, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2015/0249268) and Park et al. (US 2020/0251780).
Regarding Claim 18, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, does not explicitly teach that the lithium secondary battery has a capacity retention rate after 100 cycles in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Park teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte (Abstract, [0002]). Park teaches that by using a silicon compound or silicon oxide material in the negative electrode, the battery exhibits a capacity retention rate after 100 cycles of 90% or more ([0153]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the battery of Hasegawa, as modified by Hong, such that it exhibits a capacity retention rate after 100 cycles of 90% or more (for example, via the use of a silicon compound or silicon oxide material in the anode), as taught by Park, given that such a high would capacity retention rate would help prolong the useful lifespan of the lithium ion battery.
Regarding Claim 19, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 18), the lithium ion battery exhibits a capacity retention rate after 100 cycles of 90% or more.
Regarding Claim 20, Hasegawa, as modified by Hong and Park, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 19, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 18), the lithium ion battery exhibits a capacity retention rate after 100 cycles of 90% or more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728