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 Status
Claims 1, 10 are amended.
Claim 3 is canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-13 are considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/10/2025 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 contains the limitation “wherein the auxiliary additive is included in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte”. It is unclear if the auxiliary additive of claim 1 or the further auxiliary additive of claim 10 is required to be present at the claimed weight percent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 contains the limitation “wherein a ratio of a weight of the auxiliary additive to a weight of the additive in the electrolyte is 0.5 to 10”. It is unclear if the auxiliary additive of claim 1 or the further auxiliary additive of claim 10 is required to be present at the claimed weight ratio. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2, 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallac et al. (US 20160149263 A1) hereinafter "Hallac" in view of Hu Xiaochun et al. (CN 104282942 A) hereinafter "Hu". Both cited on the IDS filed 9/18/2023. Reference is made to the enclosed translation of Hu.
Regarding claim 1, Hallac teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising: a lithium salt ([0027]; [0052]-[0053]; [0010]); a solvent composed of a non-aqueous solvent and including a carbonate solvent ([0051]; [0058]-[0060]); an additive including a bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt ([0010]; [0052]-[0057]; [0078]; LiFSI can be a primary lithium ion conductor or an additive), and an auxiliary additive including a fluorine-substituted cyclic carbonate compound and a sultone compound ([0027]; [0074]).
Hallac does not teach wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt excludes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide.
However, Hu teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising: a lithium salt; a solvent composed of a non-aqueous solvent and including a carbonate solvent; an additive including a bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt, wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt excludes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide ([0011]; [0013]-[0014]; [0018]-[0019]; [0028]; [0030]). Hu teaches that many lithium salt electrolyte additives are expensive, including LiFSI([0008]). Hu teaches that the inclusion of non-lithium alkali metal salts, such as potassium or sodium fluorosulfonamide can help conductive lithium salts be used over a wider temperature range, resulting in superior performance in terms of high and low temperature battery performance, and have a price advantage ([0012]-[0014]; [0028]-[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrolyte taught by Hallac by including a non-lithium alkali metal salts, such as potassium or sodium fluorosulfonamide as taught by Hu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the electrolyte taught by Hallac by including a non-lithium alkali metal salts, such as potassium or sodium fluorosulfonamide as taught by Hu to increase the performance in terms of high and low temperature battery performance, and have a price advantage ([0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hallac teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Modified Hallac further teaches wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt includes at least one selected from the group consisting of sodium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, potassium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, rubidium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and cesium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (Hu [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hallac teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Hallac teaches wherein each additive is included in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte ([0073]-[0074]).
Hallac does not teach wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt excludes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide is included in an amount of 0.1-10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte.
However, Hu teaches wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt excludes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide is included in an amount of 0.1-10% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte ([0016]-[0018]; see original document par. [0013]-[0015] and additional translation document par. [0013]-[0015] for support).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the non-lithium alkali metal salts at a weight % within the weight % ranges for electrolyte additives taught by Hallac and Hu. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hallac teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Hallac teaches wherein each additive is included in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte ([0073]-[0074]).
Hallac does not teach wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt excludes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide is included in an amount of 0.5-5% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte.
However, Hu teaches wherein the bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide alkali metal salt excludes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide is included in an amount of 0.5-5% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte ([0016]-[0018]; see original document par. [0013]-[0015] and additional translation document par. [0013]-[0015] for support).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the non-lithium alkali metal salts at a weight % within the weight % ranges for electrolyte additives taught by Hallac and Hu. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hallac teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Hallac teaches wherein the solvent excludes water, an alcohol solvent and a glycol ether solvent ([0058]-[0061]; [0084]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hallac teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Hallac teaches wherein the carbonate solvent includes a cyclic carbonate solvent and a linear carbonate solvent (abstract; [0059]; [0066]; [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hallac teaches he electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 7. Hallac further teaches wherein the cyclic carbonate solvent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate ([0059]; [0064]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hallac teaches he electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 7. Hallac further teaches wherein the linear carbonate solvent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate ([0059]; [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hallac teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Hallac further teaches wherein the electrolyte further includes at least one auxiliary additive selected from the group consisting of a cyclic carbonate compound ([0074] vinylene carbonate; [0078]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Hallac teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 10. Hallac further teaches wherein each additive is included in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte ([0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hallac teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 10.
Hallac does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of a weight of the auxiliary additive to a weight of the additive in the electrolyte is 0.5 to 10.
However, Hallac teaches wherein each additive is included in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte ([0073]-[0074]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the auxiliary additive and the additive in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by weight based on the total weight of the electrolyte, overlapping with the claimed weight ratio. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, modified Hallac teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Hallac further teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising ([0042]-[0044]): a cathode including a lithium metal oxide as a cathode active material ([0047]-[0048]); an anode disposed to face the cathode ([0045]; [0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jiang et al. (EP3913721A1) teaches an electrolyte comprising LiPF6 along with b. functional additives (VC, DTD, TMSP, LiDFOB, and LiFSI) in a carbonate solvent comprised of linear and cyclic carbonates (abstract; [0086]). Cited on the IDS filed 09/18/2023.
Nakatsutsumi et al. (US20180076484A1) teaches an electrolyte comprising c. lithium hexafluorophosphate and an additive can be bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide salts such as LiFSI, NaFSI, CsFSI, Mg(FSI)₂, Ca(FSI)₂, and A1(FSI)₃ ([0017]; [0112]-[0113]). Nakatsutsumi teaches a solvent comprising mixed cyclic and linear carbonates ([0119]- [0125]). Cited on the IDS filed 09/18/2023.
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728