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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (US 2021/0194057 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Yamazaki discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator between the electrodes, and an electrolyte (Yamazaki [0593]), where the electrolyte comprises lithium ethyl sulfate (Formula 1 of the instant claim where R is an organic group with 2 carbon atoms and X1 is an alkali metal), ethylene carbonate, and fluoroethylene carbonate at ratio Vec/Vfec of 5 (Yamazaki [0589]-[0590]), which falls within the range of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 6, X1 is lithium, which is an alkali metal (Yamazaki [0590]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, R is an ethyl group (Yamazaki [0590]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki gives examples of 0.2-2 wt% lithium ethyl sulfate (Table 1), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimamoto et al. (US 2016/0027592 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shimamoto discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator between the electrodes, and an electrolyte (Shimamoto [0332]), where the electrolyte comprises lithium methyl sulfate (Formula 1 of the instant claim where R is an organic group with 1 carbon atom and X1 is an alkali metal), ethylene carbonate, and fluoroethylene carbonate at ratio Vec/Vfec of 1.9 (Shimamoto Example 1-22, Table 2), which falls within the range of the instant claims.
Regarding claims 2-5, the electrolyte has a ratio Vec/Vfec of 1.9 (Shimamoto Example 1-22, Table 2), which falls within the ranges of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 6, X1 is lithium, which is an alkali metal (Shimamoto Example 1-22, Table 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, R is a methyl group (Shimamoto Example 1-22, Table 2).
Regarding claim 9, the content of the additive is 0.3 wt% (Shimamoto Example 1-22, Table 2), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Shimamoto gives an example with an electrolyte comprising lithium triflouroethylsulfate (Formula 1 with a C3 organic group and X1=lithium) and lithium fluorosulfonate (Formula 2 with X2=lithium) at 0.5 wt%, which falls within the range of the instant claim, in a solvent with Vec/Vfec=1.9 (Shimamoto Example III-13, Table 15)
Regarding claim 11, lithium is an alkali metal.
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokuda et al. (US 2012/0308881 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki does not teach the use of a fluorosulfonic acid salt. Tokuda teaches that adding 0.1 M lithium fluorosulfonate (Formula 2 of the instant claim with X2=lithium) to an LiPF6 electrolyte significantly reduces internal impedance (Tokuda Example 2, Tables 1 and 2). Lithium fluorosulfonate has a molecular weight of approximately 100 g/mol, and carbonate electrolyte solutions have a density of just over 1g/cm3, so 0.1 M is approximately 1 wt%, which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, lithium is an alkali metal.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki does not teach that the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium composite oxide with a layered rock salt type structure in which 80 atom% or more of the metals other than lithium is nickel. Yamazaki teaches that the positive electrode active material may be selected from a group including LiNi0.8Co0.5Al0.05O2 (Yamazaki [0467]), which has layered rock salt type structures and 80% nickel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to try any of the positive active materials listed by Yamazaki, including LiNi0.8Co0.5Al0.05O2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722