DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US 20050084765 A1) in view of KOH (US 20190058218 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LEE discloses a lithium secondary battery (Abstract), comprising:
a cathode comprising a cathode active material that includes lithium metal oxide particles (“positive active material” [0037] including chemical formula 7);
an anode facing the cathode and comprising an anode active material (“negative active material” [0040]);
and an electrolyte solution comprising a lithium salt and an organic solvent (Abstract),
and the organic solvent comprises a mononitrile-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1; wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1 represents a C1-C12 alkyl group (claim 1 as well as claim 6 which notably lists propionitrile, butyronitrile, valeronitrile which are preferred C1-C12 alkyl group nitriles per instant Table 1).
LEE discloses a nickel-based compound according to chemical formula 7 where the amount of Ni may be as high as “0.9” [0038] and that Mn may be included in the nickel-based compound per [0038] as well as multiple examples that include Mn such as Example 35 with a Mn content of “0.05” per [0113]. See also LEE claims 37 and 38. While LEE provides a broad teaching reading on the combination of claimed ranges, LEE does not provide an example where the lithium metal oxide particles contain 88 mol% to 98 mol% of nickel and 0.5 mol% to 8 mol% of manganese.
KOH is directed to an electrolyte for a nickel-based compound with an additive like LEE.
KOH discloses Formula 2 in [0014] which is analogous to LEE’s formulas. KOH discloses nickel content may be as high as “0.98” per [0015] and that the formula may include “Mn” [0016]. Furthermore, KOH discloses specific formulas such as LiNi0.88Co0.08Mn0.04O2 in [0081] which correlates to Example 4 in paragraph [0143]. KOH teaches that high Ni content leads to “ability to provide high-capacity to the battery” [0039]. KOH also teaches the negative aspects of high nickel content, namely “poor lifetime characteristics”. However, KOH further teaches that additives “may react with, and thereby stabilize the Ni3+ cations” [0082] therefore independently teaching the need for consideration of the electrolyte additives, especially in the case of high nickel content.
This correlates with the teachings of LEE which teaches “swelling phenomenon is especially severe in batteries with a mixture of a lithium cobalt-based compound and a lithium nickel-based compound which exhibits higher capacity than other compounds” [0008] and as discussed above LEE teaches the use of a “nitrile-based solvent for improving swelling and battery performance” [0016].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the specific example of LiNi0.88Co0.08Mn0.04O2 taught by KOH in place of the similar encompassing formula taught by LEE. The motivation to do so being to provide a high-capacity battery.
Therefore, modified LEE discloses the lithium metal oxide particles contain 88 mol% to 98 mol% of nickel and 0.5 mol% to 8 mol% of manganese among all elements excluding lithium and oxygen (as broadly taught by LEE and specifically taught by KOH),
Regarding claim 4, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and LEE further discloses a content of the mononitrile-based compound in the organic solvent is in a range from 1 vol% to 9 vol% (“a nitrile-based solvent represented by formula 1 of 5 to 30 volume %” [0011]; as well as example 26 with 5% valeronitrile) .
Regarding claim 5, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and LEE further discloses in Chemical Formula 1, R1 is a C2-C4 linear alkyl group (claim 6 which notably lists propionitrile, butyronitrile, valeronitrile which are preferred C2-C4 alkyl group nitriles per instant Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and LEE further discloses the organic solvent further comprises a cyclic carbonate-based solvent and a linear carbonate-based solvent (claim 7 as well as example 26 with a 30:65:5 mixture of cyclic ethylene carbonate, linear diethyl carbonate, and mononitrile valeronitrile).
Regarding claim 7, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and LEE further discloses a content of the linear carbonate-based solvent is greater than a content of the cyclic carbonate-based solvent in the organic solvent (“10 to 40 volume % of ethylene carbonate” [0021], where the balance is the linear carbonate and the nitrile; as well as example 26 with a 30:65:5 mixture of cyclic ethylene carbonate, linear diethyl carbonate, and mononitrile valeronitrile).
Regarding claim 8, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and LEE further discloses a volume ratio of the cyclic carbonate-based solvent to the mononitrile-based compound in the organic solvent is in a range from 5 to 25 ( “a nitrile-based solvent represented by formula 1 of 5 to 30 volume %” [0011] as well as “10 to 40 volume % of ethylene carbonate” [0021], which provides ratios reading on the claim; as well as example 26 with a 30:65:5 mixture of cyclic ethylene carbonate, linear diethyl carbonate, and mononitrile valeronitrile which has a ratio of 6 for cyclic carbonate to mononitrile).
Regarding claim 9, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and LEE further discloses the linear carbonate- based solvent comprises a first dialkyl carbonate-based solvent having a C2-C4 alkyl group at both terminal ends thereof, and a second dialkyl carbonate-based solvent in which at least one terminal group is a methyl group (“dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, dibutyl carbonate, … and mixtures thereof” [0024]; the list notably includes DMC and EMC which have a methyl group as well as DEC, dipropyl carbonate, and dibutyl carbonate which have a C2-C4 alkyl group at both terminal ends thereof; furthermore the list states “and mixtures thereof”). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to combine the two of the listed carbonates from the small number of choices as well as knowing the mixture of EMC or DMC with DEC is routinely used in electrolytes.
Regarding claim 10, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and LEE further discloses the electrolyte solution further comprises an additive comprising at least one of a fluorine-containing cyclic carbonate-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 and a sultone- based compound represented by Chemical Formula 3;
wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, R2 and R3 are independently hydrogen, halogen, or a Ci-C3 alkyl group, and at least one of R2 and R3 is F, wherein, in Chemical Formula 3, R4 is a C2-C5 alkylene group or a C3-C5 alkenylene group (“fluoroethylene carbonate”[0025] which reads on fluorine-containing cyclic carbonate-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 2 and matches the preference for FEC in instant [0062])
Regarding claim 11, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and LEE further discloses a content of the additive is in a range from 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (“the carbonate-based additive is from 0.01 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the electrolyte, and preferably from 0.01 to 5 parts by weight” [0026]; as well as example 33 with 3% FEC [0106]).
Regarding claim 12, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and LEE further discloses a content of the fluorine-containing cyclic carbonate-based compound is in a range from 0.1 wt% to 2 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (“preferably from 0.01 to 5 parts by weight” [0026]; wherein too low “cannot effectively suppress gas generation” [0026] and too high “deteriorates high-temperature cycle life characteristics and causes swelling to occur” [0026]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed range to arrive at a desired optimization of effective gas suppression and high-temperature cycle life.
Regarding the content of the sultone-based compound, this limitation further limits the optional sultone of claim 10. LEE teaches FEC, therefore it is not required that LEE meet further limitations of the non-selected group via subsequent dependent claims.
Regarding claim 14, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and LEE further discloses the electrolyte solution does not comprise a compound containing two or more nitrile groups (claim 6 which notably lists propionitrile, butyronitrile, valeronitrile which are preferred C1-C12 alkyl group nitriles per instant Table 1; as well as example 26 with a 30:65:5 mixture of cyclic ethylene carbonate, linear diethyl carbonate, and mononitrile valeronitrile where the example does not contain a dinitrile).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of KOH in view of KIM (US 20190198924 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified LEE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, however LEE does not expressly teach the additive further comprises at least one of a fluorine-containing phosphate-based compound, a sulfate- based compound and a borate-based compound.
KIM is directed to an electrolyte additive including a nitrile in lithium secondary battery with a NMC cathode active material and LiPF6 in a mixture of cyclic and linear carbonates, like LEE. KIM discloses inclusion of a “lithium compound for forming a coating film is capable of forming a coating film on the cathode and the anode” [0025] where the compound is “selected from the group consisting of LiPO2F2, … and LiDFOB” [0025] each of which read on the claimed fluorine-containing compound. KIM further discloses example 1 with LiPO2F2 as an additive.
KIM teaches inclusion of the compound for forming a coating film allows the for “achieving more uniform formation of the film by being included in the electrolyte” [0025].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the compound for forming a coating film of KIM to the electrolyte of LEE in order to achieve uniform film formation.
Therefore, modified LEE discloses the additive further comprises at least one of a fluorine-containing phosphate-based compound, a sulfate- based compound and a borate-based compound (as taught by KIM).
Response to Arguments
Regarding art-based rejections, applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (previously cited):
Kim, Young Soo et al. (US 20090047582 A1) directed to when a fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) compound is used as an electrolyte solvent, and an aliphatic mono- or di-nitrile compound is used as an electrolyte additive. See example 3 for FEC with butyronitrile [0054].
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 TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm CT.
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 on (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.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights