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.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Kim (KR 20180027996 A) and further in view of the machine translation of Otsubo (JP 2017117592 A), with evidence by Feng (Feng, Shuting. “Towards More Stable and Ion-Conductive Stable and Ion-Conductive Organic Electrolytes for Rechargeable Batteries .” Link Foundation Energy Fellowship Reports, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery (para. 8), comprising
a non-aqueous organic solvent (para. 31), a lithium salt (para. 11), and an additive (para. 11)
wherein the additive is a composition including a first compound (para. 14, compound including cesium salt and the anion), and
a second compound (para. 35, an additive for improving the stability and output of the lithium secondary battery),
the first compound is an imide cesium salt compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1 and R2 are a C1 fluoroalkyl group substituted with one or more fluoro group (para. 35, [cesium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide])
Kim does not teach:
the second compound is a crown ether compound represented by Chemical Formula 2:
[Chemical Formula 2] wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, Z is O or NH, x and y are independently an integer of 0 or 1, and m and n are independently one of integers of 1 to 3.
Otsubo, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches:
a crown ether compound represented by Chemical Formula 2: (Otsubo, see list of crown ethers in para. 18)
[Chemical Formula 2] wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, Z is O, x and y are independently an integer of 0 (Otsubo, examples in para. 18 such as 18-crown-6, where Z is O and x and y are independently 0), and m and n are independently one of integers of 1-2 (Otsube, examples in para. such as 18-crown-6 where m is equal to 1 and n is equal to 2]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added the Otsubo’s crown ether to Kim’s electrolyte, to further improve the conductivity of the electrolytic solution, as taught by Otsubo (para. 18). Feng emphasizes the advantageous relationship between enhancing the ion conductivity of electrolytes and the improvement of the battery’s energy density, operation efficiency, and safety of the battery (introduction, [enhancing the functionality of battery electrolytes, such as (electro)chemical stability and ion conductivity, can improve battery energy density, operation efficiency, and safety]). Examiner notes that improving the battery’s energy density, operation efficiency, and safety of the battery contributes to the stability and output of the secondary battery, which is Kim’s intent for the second compound (para. 35, [an additive for improving the stability and output of the lithium secondary battery]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the first compound is represented by any one of Chemical Formulas 1-1 (Kim, para. 35, [cesium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the composition includes the first compound and the second compound in a weight ratio of 1: 4 (Kim, example 21).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the composition includes the first compound and the second compound in a weight ratio of 1 : 4 (Kim, example 21) and (Kim, para. 37, 1:4).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the first compound is included in an amount of 0.1 to 2.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery (Kim, para. 139, [0.5 percent by weight] of the solvent).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second compound is included in an amount of 0.1 to less than 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery (para. 139, [lithium difluorobisoxalatephosphate is 1 percent by weight] of the solvent).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the composition including the first compound and the second compound is included in an amount of 0.5 to less than 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery (para. 38).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second compound is a crown ether compound represented by any one of Chemical Formulas 2-1 and 2-2: wherein m and n are independently one of integers of 1-2 (Otsubo, examples in para. 18 such as 18-crown-6, where Z is O and x and y are independently 0, and where m is equal to 1 and n is equal to 2]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte for the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second compound is one or more selected from (Otsubo, para. 18, 15-crown-5, 18-crown-6, 24-crown-8, dibenzo-21-crown-7, and dibenzo-24-crown-8).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising positive electrode including a positive electrode active material (Kim, para. 8); a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material (Kim, para. 8); and the electrolyte (Kim, para. 8) for the rechargeable lithium battery claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 10, and Kim teaches wherein the negative electrode active material is graphite (Kim, para. 64, [examples of negative electrode active material include … graphite carbon]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 11, wherein the negative electrode active material is graphite (Kim, para. 64, [examples of negative electrode active material include … graphite carbon]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 12, wherein the negative electrode active material is graphite (Kim, para. 64, [examples of negative electrode active material include … graphite carbon]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 13, wherein the negative electrode active material is graphite (Kim, para. 64, [examples of negative electrode active material include … graphite carbon]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first compound is present at 0.5 to 1.25 parts by weight (para. 139, 0.5% by weight of cesium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide – the first compound).
Modified Kim does not teach that the second compound is present at 4 to 8 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte.
Kim, however teaches that the content of the additive (first and second compound as explained in para. 37) may be 0.05 to 10% by weight based on the total amount of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution (para. 38). In this case, if the first compound is 1.25 parts by weight than the second compound can be up to 6.75 parts by weight, totaling to 8% by weight of the additive, based on the total amount of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have set the content of the first compound to be 1.25 and the second compound to be 6.75 parts by weight, totaling to 8% by weight of the additive, as taught by Kim, in order to regulate the effects of the low-temperature and high-temperature storage characteristics and lifetime characteristics of the lithium secondary battery, as taught by Kim (para. 39).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the second compound comprises at least five ether oxygen atoms (Otsubo, para. 18 such as 18-crown-6).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the second compound is 18- crown-6 (Otsubo, para. 18 such as 18-crown-6).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate (Kim, para. 42, [cyclic carbonate]) and a chain carbonate (Kim, para. 42, [linear carbonate]).
Kim teaches that a combination of the carbonates may be used in an appropriate ratio (Kim, para. 46, [it is preferable to use a mixture of the cyclic carbonate with a linear carbonate]).
Kim teaches wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate (Kim, para. 43, [EC]) and a chain carbonate (Kim, para. 44, [EMC and DEC]) in a volume ratio of 2:8 to 3:7 (Kim, para. 139, Example 19, [EC has a volume ratio of 30 and EMC and DEC have a combined volume ratio of 70], and therefore Kim teaches a volume ratio of the cyclic to the chain carbonate of 3:7).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the composition including the first compound and the second compound is present at 2.5 to less than 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte (Kim, para. 37, [the additive includes the salt with Cs [first compound] and lithium difluorobisoxalate phosphate [Kim, second compound] and based on para. 38, the content of the additive may be 0.05 to 10% by weight based on the total amount of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution]) Examiner notes that modified Kim utilizes the crown ether as the second compound (as explained above in claim 1)).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kim teaches the electrolyte of claim 1, wherein the lithium salt is one or more selected from LiPF6, LiSbF6, LiAsF6, LiN(S02C2F5)2, Li(CF3SO2)2N, LiCIO4, LiAICI4, (Kim, para. 41)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721