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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments are acknowledged by the examiner, but do not overcome the 103 rejection as previously set forth in non-final office action mailed 12/23/2025.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 8-11, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20120007560-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Smart’ in view of (US-20170222268-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Abe’, in further view of (US-20140017526-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Iwanaga.’
Regarding Claim 1,
Smart teaches a non-aqueous liquid electrolyte (Smart, “Provided herein are electrolytes for lithium-ion electrochemical cells”, Abstract), comprising: an oxalato complex anion (A) (Smart, “An an embodiment, the electrolyte further comprises an additive selected from: (i) lithium oxalate; (ii) lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB);”, see [0023])); LiPF6 (Smart, “and the lithium salt may be selected from the group consisting of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6),”, see [0019]); and and a chain carboxylic acid ester (Smart, “20-80% by volume linear ester”, see [0019]) (Smart, “Ester of a carboxylic acid”, see [0100]) wherein a ratio (A/B) of the content (mass) of the oxalato complex anion (A) with respect to the content (mass) of PF6 anion (B) is 0.0001 to 0.30 (Smart, “lithium difluoro(oxalate) borate- 0M-0.25M”, see [0100]), (Smart, “Lithium Salt-0.5M-1.5M”, see [0100])(The examiner notes that LiDFOB has a molar mass of 143,77 g/mol and PF6- has a molar mass of 144.96 g/mo. This creates the ratios of (0M*143.77)/(1.5M*144.96)=0 and (0.25M*143.77)/(0.5M*144.96)=0.496, which overlaps the claimed ranges)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0 to 0.496 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.001 to 0.30. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
and a total content of the symmetric chain carbonate and the chain carboxylic acid ester (C) is 1 to 45% by mass with respect to a total amount of the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte (The examiner notes that using the composition in table 1 in [0100], 1.20M LiPF6 EC:EMC: MB (20:20:60 vol%)+ lithium oxalate, assuming 100mL total solution, and the limitation of [0024] and the limitations of lithium oxalate in [0022] of Smart. The minimum case would be 10% EC+ 20% MB+50 EMC+3% oxalate +1.5 LiPF6 using the density of each volume compound we would have 13.20 grams of EC, 17.96 grams of MB, 50.50 grams of EMC, 6.36 grams of oxalate, 22.79 grams of LiPF6 with a total mass of 110.81, and the carbonate and ester have a mass of 28.1%).
Smart does not teach a symmetric chain carbonate.
Abe teaches a electrolyte solution with a symmetric chain carbonate (Abe, “one or more symmetric linear carbonates selected from dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), dipropyl carbonate, and dibutyl carbonate”, see [0062]).
Abe teaches that this additive allows for improve electrochemical performance (Abe, “It is especially preferred that dimethyl carbonate is included in the symmetric linear carbonate. …. The aforementioned case is preferred because the electrochemical characteristics at a high temperature are much more improved”, see [0066]).
Smart and Abe are analogous as they are both of the same field of electrolyte solution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified solution as taught in Smart with the additives as taught in Abe in order to improve the electrochemical performance.
Smart does not teach the carboxylic having a viscosity of 0.01 to 0.47 cP at 25°C
Iwanaga teaches the carboxylic having a viscosity of 0.01 to 0.47 cP at 25°C (Iwanaga, “As the nonaqueous solvent having a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less at 25° C. in the present invention, various solvents can be used, such as dimethyl carbonate (DMC, 0.6 cP), methyl acetate (0.37 cP)”, see [0017]).
Iwanaga teaches that the low-viscosity solvent allows for improved cycling characteristics and at a high amount can lead to improve performance across a variety of temperatures (Iwanaga, “low-viscosity solvent such as dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and methyl propionate (MP) mixed therein. Mixing such a low-viscosity solvent into the nonaqueous electrolyte improves the cycling characteristics under room temperature (25° C.)”, see [0006])(Iwanaga, “when the low-viscosity solvent having a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less at 25° C. was not added into the nonaqueous electrolyte, the capacity retention ratio did not reach 80% but was ensured to be 70% ” , see [0047])
Smart and Iwanaga are analogous as they are both of the same fields of electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte as taught in Smart with the low viscosity carboxylic acid as taught in Iwanaga in order to improve cyclic performance.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the content of the chain carboxylic acid ester having a viscosity of 0.01 to 0.47 cP at 25°C (Iwanaga, “As the nonaqueous solvent having a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less at 25° C. in the present invention, various solvents can be used, such as dimethyl carbonate (DMC, 0.6 cP), methyl acetate (0.37 cP)”, see [0017]). is 0.1 to 44% by mass with respect to a total amount of the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte (The examiner notes that using the composition in table 1 in [0100], 1.20M LiPF6 EC:EMC: MB (20:20:60 vol%)+ lithium oxalate, assuming 100mL total solution, and the limitation of [0024] and the limitations of lithium oxalate in [0022] of Smart. The minimum case would be 10% EC+ 20% MB+50 EMC+3% oxalate +1.5 LiPF6 using the density of each volume compound we would have 13.20 grams of EC< 17.96 grams of MB, 50.50 grams of EMC, 6.36 grams of oxalate, 22.79 grams of LiPF6 with a total mass of 110.81, and the carbonate and ester have a mass of 28.1%. The examiner notes that solely the ester compound would have a mass of 17.96/ 110.81 grams= 16.2% ).
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the chain carboxylic acid ester compound having a viscosity of 0.01 to 0.47 cP at 25°C (Iwanaga, “As the nonaqueous solvent having a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less at 25° C. in the present invention, various solvents can be used, such as dimethyl carbonate (DMC, 0.6 cP), methyl acetate (0.37 cP)”, see [0017]). is a compound represented by the following Formula (I): R1COOCH3 (I) wherein, R1 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 or 2 carbon atoms, and a hydrogen atom bound to a carbon atom of the alkyl group is optionally substituted with a halogen atom (The examiner notes that methyl acetate meets the limiations).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 3, wherein R1 in Formula (1) is a methyl group (Iwanaga, “As the nonaqueous solvent having a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less at 25° C. in the present invention, various solvents can be used, such as dimethyl carbonate (DMC, 0.6 cP), methyl acetate (0.37 cP)”, see [0017]).
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a total content (mass) of the symmetric chain carbonate and the chain carboxylic acid ester having a viscosity of 0.01 to 0.47 cP at 25°C (C) with respect to the content (mass) of the LiPF6 is 0.01 to 3.5 (Smart, “lithium difluoro(oxalate) borate- 0M-0.25M”, see [0100]), (Smart, “Lithium Salt-0.5M-1.5M”, see [0100])(The examiner notes that LiDFOB has a molar mass of 143,77 g/mol and PF6- has a molar mass of 144.96 g/mo. This creates the ratios of (0M*143.77)/(1.5M*144.96)=0 and (0.25M*143.77)/(0.5M*144.96)=0.496).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0 to 0.496 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 to 3.5. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the oxalato complex anion (A) is a non-fluorinated bis(oxalato)borate anion and/or a difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate anion (Smart, “and an additive selected from: mono-fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC); lithium oxalate; lithium bis(oxalato)borate (LiBOB)”, see [0020]).
Regarding Claim 10,
Smart teaches a non-aqueous liquid electrolyte battery, comprising: a positive electrode that comprises a positive electrode active material capable of occluding and releasing metal anions; a negative electrode that comprises a negative electrode active material capable of occluding and releasing metal anions; and the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 1 (Smart, “Active materials for the electrodes of the electrochemical cells include lithium ion host materials capable of accommodating lithium ions from the electrolyte during discharge and charging of the electrochemical cells”, see[0028]).
Regarding Claim 11,
Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte battery according to claim 10, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium-transition metal compound represented by the following composition formula (3): Lia1NIb1Mc1O2 wherein a1,b1, c1 represent the numerical values of 0.90<= a1<= 1.10, 0.20<=b1<=0.98 and 0.01<=c1<=0.50 respectively and satisfy b1+c1=1 and M represents at least one element selected from the group Co, Mn, Al, Zr,Fe, Ti and Er (Smart, “The electrochemical cell of claim 21, wherein the cathode comprises a material selected from LiCoO2, LiMn2O4, LiMPO4 (M=Fe, Co, Mn), LiNiCoAlO2, LiNi0.33Co0.33Mn0.33O2, LiNiCoO2, LiNi0.8Co0.2O2, Li(Li0.17Ni0.25Mn0.58)O2, layered-layered composite LiNiCoMnO2 or LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4.”, Claim 22).
Regarding Claim 13,
Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte battery according to claim 10, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a carbon-based material (Smart, “wherein the anode comprises a material selected from natural graphite, synthetic graphite, hard carbon, mesocarbon microbeads (MCMB)”, see Claim 23).
Regarding Claim 16,
Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the ratio (A/B) of the content (mass) of the oxalato complex anion (A) with respect to the content (mass) of PF6 anion (B) is 0.001 to 0.20 (Smart, “lithium difluoro(oxalate) borate- 0M-0.25M”, see [0100]), (Smart, “Lithium Salt-0.5M-1.5M”, see [0100])(The examiner notes that LiDFOB has a molar mass of 143,77 g/mol and PF6- has a molar mass of 144.96 g/mo. This creates the ratios of (0M*143.77)/(1.5M*144.96)=0 and (0.25M*143.77)/(0.5M*144.96)=0.496, which overlaps the claimed ranges)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0 to 0.496 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.001 to 0.20. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17,
Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the ratio (A/B) of the content (mass) of the oxalato complex anion (A) with respect to the content (mass) of PF6 anion (B) is 0.01 to 0.15 (Smart, “lithium difluoro(oxalate) borate- 0M-0.25M”, see [0100]), (Smart, “Lithium Salt-0.5M-1.5M”, see [0100])(The examiner notes that LiDFOB has a molar mass of 143,77 g/mol and PF6- has a molar mass of 144.96 g/mo. This creates the ratios of (0M*143.77)/(1.5M*144.96)=0 and (0.25M*143.77)/(0.5M*144.96)=0.496, which overlaps the claimed ranges)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0 to 0.496 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.15. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 18 ,
Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein The total content of the symmetric chain carbonate and the chain carboxylic acid ester having a viscosity of 0.01 to 0.47 cP at 25*C (C) (Iwanaga, “As the nonaqueous solvent having a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less at 25° C. in the present invention, various solvents can be used, such as dimethyl carbonate (DMC, 0.6 cP), methyl acetate (0.37 cP)”, see [0017]) is 5 to 40% by mass with respect to the total amount of the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte (The examiner notes that using the composition in table 1 in [0100], 1.20M LiPF6 EC:EMC: MB (20:20:60 vol%)+ lithium oxalate, assuming 100mL total solution, and the limitation of [0024] and the limitations of lithium oxalate in [0022] of Smart. The minimum case would be 10% EC+ 20% MB+50 EMC+3% oxalate +1.5 LiPF6 using the density of each volume compound we would have 13.20 grams of EC, 17.96 grams of MB, 50.50 grams of EMC, 6.36 grams of oxalate, 22.79 grams of LiPF6 with a total mass of 110.81, and the carbonate and ester have a mass of 28.1%).
Regarding Claim 19 ,
Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein The total content of the symmetric chain carbonate and the chain carboxylic acid ester having a viscosity of 0.01 to 0.47 cP at 25*C (C) (Iwanaga, “As the nonaqueous solvent having a viscosity of 0.6 cP or less at 25° C. in the present invention, various solvents can be used, such as dimethyl carbonate (DMC, 0.6 cP), methyl acetate (0.37 cP)”, see [0017]) is 10 to 35% by mass with respect to the total amount of the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte (The examiner notes that using the composition in table 1 in [0100], 1.20M LiPF6 EC:EMC: MB (20:20:60 vol%)+ lithium oxalate, assuming 100mL total solution, and the limitation of [0024] and the limitations of lithium oxalate in [0022] of Smart. The minimum case would be 10% EC+ 20% MB+50 EMC+3% oxalate +1.5 LiPF6 using the density of each volume compound we would have 13.20 grams of EC, 17.96 grams of MB, 50.50 grams of EMC, 6.36 grams of oxalate, 22.79 grams of LiPF6 with a total mass of 110.81, and the carbonate and ester have a mass of 28.1%).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20120007560-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Smart’ in view of (US-20170222268-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Abe’, in view of (US-20140017526-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Iwanaga’ in further view of (US-20210376328-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Wang.’
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Smart teaches does not teach an anion (D) having an FSO2 skeleton as an auxiliary agent.
Wang teaches an anion (D) having an FSO2 skeleton as an auxiliary agent (Wang, “In some embodiments, the electrolyte includes one or more substances selected from the group consisting of monofluorophosphate, borate, oxalate, and fluorosulfonate, and one or more other salts. The other salts may be lithium salts listed above, and in some embodiments, are LiPF.sub.6, LiN(FSO.sub.2)”, see [0228]).
Wang teaches that the addition of this salt helps balance the electrical conductivity and viscosity of the electrolyte (Wang, “The above content of the other salts helps balance the electrical conductivity and viscosity of the electrolyte.”, see [0229]).
Modified Smart and Wang are analogous as they come from the same field of electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte as taught in Smart with the salt as taught in Wang in order to help balance the electrical conductivity and viscosity of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Smart teaches the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 5, wherein a ratio (A/D) of the content of the oxalato complex anion (A) with respect to the content of the anion (D) having an FSO2 skeleton is 0.01 to 10 (Wang, “In some embodiments, the content of the other salts is greater than 0.01 wt % or greater than 0.1 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte. In some embodiments, the content of the other salts is less than 20 wt %, less than 15 wt %, or less than 10 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte.”, see [0229])(The examiner notes that using the previous example above of 110.81 grams total, which would make the D weigh 1.10 grams to 22.162 grams, oxalating having a mass of 6.36 grams. Therefore the weight ratio is 6.36/1.10 to 22.162 = 5.78 to 0.287, which overlaps with the claimed range)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5.78 to 0.287 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 10 to 0.01. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7,
Modifed Smart teaches The non-aqueous liquid electrolyte according to claim 5, wherein the ratio (A/D) of the content of the oxalato complex anion (A) with respect to the content of the anion (D) having an FSO2 skeleton is 0.01 to 0.7 (Wang, “In some embodiments, the content of the other salts is greater than 0.01 wt % or greater than 0.1 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte. In some embodiments, the content of the other salts is less than 20 wt %, less than 15 wt %, or less than 10 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte.”, see [0229])(The examiner notes that using the previous example above of 110.81 grams total, which would make the D weigh 1.10 grams to 22.162 grams, oxalating having a mass of 6.36 grams. Therefore the weight ratio is 6.36/1.10 to 22.162 = 5.78 to 0.287, which overlaps with the claimed range).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5.78 to 0.287 broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.7 to 0.01. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20120007560-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Smart’ in view of (US-20170222268-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Abe’, view of (US-20140017526-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Iwanaga’, in view of ‘Effects of Charge/Discharge of Li1-xNi1-yMnyO2 on Their Crystal Structures and Electronic States’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Moriga’
Regarding Claim 12,
Smart does not teach the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte battery according to claim 11, wherein M in the composition formula (3) comprises Mn (Moriga)
Moriga teaches a composition of formula (3) wherein M is Mn (Moriga, “LiNiO2,
Li0.95Ni1 .05O2 and LiNi0.8Mn0.2O2 synthesized at 750. The (x, y,z)-index shows the coordinates occupied by lithium, nickel, manganese”, see pg. 222).
Moriga teaches that the composition involves the substitution of a nickel site with manganese and that by doing so the structure is stabilized (Moriga, “indicated that manganese substitution in the nickel site prevented the abrupt change of lattice parameters and Ni-O distances associated with the intermediate transformation to a monoclinic phase, and that the substitution stabilized the hexagonal lattice effectively”, see pg. 226).
Modified Smart and Moriga are analogous as they are both of the same field battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode material as taught in Smart with the composition as taught in Moriga in order to create a better more stable structure.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20120007560-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Smart’ in view of (US-20170222268-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Abe’, view of (US-20140017526-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Iwanaga’, in view of ‘Microstructure control of the graphite anode with a high density for Li ion batteries with high energy density’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Han’
Regarding Claim 14,
Smart does not teach the non-aqueous liquid electrolyte battery according to claim 10, wherein a negative electrode active material layer in the negative electrode has a density of 0.8 to 1.7 g/cm3.
Han teaches wherein a negative electrode active material layer in the negative electrode has a density of 0.8 to 1.7 g/cm3 (Han, “Our preliminary experimental results showing the top view SEM images of graphite electrodes with different densities (1.5 g/cm3–1.8 g/cm3) ” , Results and Discussion).
Han teaches that increasing the density allows for capacity to be increased (Han, “By increasing the electrode density from 1.5 g/cm3 (low density graphite electrode) to 1.8 g/cm3 (high density graphite electrode), the capacity of common 3000 mAh cell can be increased to 3600 mAh under similar volume conditions. Hence, the average change of the capacity is ∼200 mAh per an electrode density of 0.1 g/cm3”, Introduction).
Modified Smart and Han are analogous as they are both of the same field battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode material as taught in Smart with the composition as taught in Han in order to increase the capacity through high anode density.
Regarding Claim 15,
Smart does not teach The non-aqueous liquid electrolyte battery according to claim 10, wherein the negative electrode active material layer in the negative electrode has a porosity of 10% to 80%.
Han teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer in the negative electrode has a porosity of 10% to 80% (Han, “the graphite electrode with the electrode density of 1.9 g/cm3 exhibits 17.3% lower porosity compared to that of the graphite electrode with the electrode density of 1.6 g/cm3 (45.8%). (Table S1) The low electrode porosity in the graphite anode with a high energy density results in poor electrolyte penetration (Fig. S3), which consecutively leads to poor lithium ion diffusivity (Fig. S4, Table S2). These results indicate that both the poor electrolyte penetration and the low porosity are the major causes for the poor electrochemical properties.”, Results and Discussion).
Han teaches that the low porosity is correlated with bad performance (Han, “the graphite electrode with the electrode density of 1.9 g/cm3 exhibits 17.3% lower porosity compared to that of the graphite electrode with the electrode density of 1.6 g/cm3 (45.8%). (Table S1) The low electrode porosity in the graphite anode with a high energy density results in poor electrolyte penetration (Fig. S3), which consecutively leads to poor lithium ion diffusivity (Fig. S4, Table S2). These results indicate that both the poor electrolyte penetration and the low porosity are the major causes for the poor electrochemical properties.”, Results and Discussion).
Modified Smart and Han are analogous as they are both of the same field battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode material as taught in Smart with the composition as taught in Han in order to increase the porosity and improve the electrochemical properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 5, the applicant argues:
“See Page 3 of the Office Action. The Office Action calculates the lower limit of the A/B range of 0 based on (OM*143.77)/(1.5M*144.96)=0, assuming that no LiDFOB is added to the electrolyte. See Page 3 of the Office Action. This calculation is not supported because the claimed electrolyte includes an oxalato complex anion (A) as a required component…Furthermore, the Office Action inconsistently switches from LiBOB to LiDFOB for the A/B
ratio calculation, undermining the credibility of the analysis. Table 1 merely provides separate molar concentration ranges without guidance on determining the mass ratio A/B as defined in Claim 1. Smart does not teach or suggest the simultaneous use of 0.25 M LiDFOB and 0.5 M LiPF6, rendering the Office Action's calculation arbitrary and unsupported by the disclosure”
However, this is not convincing. The ranges as calculated based on Smart overlap with the claimed range. Although, component A is required, Smart teaches a composition which includes the composition. Overlapping ranges constitute a prima facie case of obviousness (see In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05). The examiner acknowledges that LiDBOB and LiDFOB are used interchangeably in the claim analysis. However, the claim language only requires an oxalate complex anion of which both chemicals are. Therefore, both chemicals are acceptable for the analysis. The disclosure teaches overlapping ranges for the molar amounts claimed. Therefore, the calculation is supported by the disclosure, and the claim would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art.
“Further, regarding the claimed total content of the symmetric chain carbonate and the chain carboxylic acid ester having a viscosity of 0.01 to 0.47cP at 25 *C (C) of 1 to 45 % by mass, the Office Action alleges that "[t]he minimum case would be 10% EC+ 20% MB+50 EMC+3% oxalate +1.5 LiPF6 using the density of each volume compound we would have 13.20 grams of EC< 17.96 grams of MB,5
50.50 grams of EMC, 6.36 grams of oxalate, 22.79 grams of LiPF6 with a total mass of 110.81, and the carbonate and ester have a mass of 28.1%." Page 3 of the Office Action. It appears that the Office Action calculates above based on a mixture including 10% ethyl carbonate (EC), 20% methyl butylate (MB), 50% ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), 3% oxalate, and 1.5% LiPF6, resulting in a mass of 28.1%. However, this calculation is flawed because neither ethyl carbonate (EC) nor ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) qualify as a symmetric chain carbonate or a chain carboxylic acid ester with the specified viscosity”
29. However, this is not convincing. The examiner notes that the references of Iwanaga and Abe teach the features as claimed. The examiner notes that they would together create an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2145 (IV)).
“Moreover, the Office Action acknowledges that Smart is silent as to the claimed asymmetric chain carbonate and the claimed chain carboxylic acid ester having a viscosity of 0.01 to 0.47 cP at 25C (C). It relies on Abe and Iwanaga to fill this gap. However, Abe and Iwanaga do not cure the deficiency of Smart, as they fail to teach or suggest the total content of these compounds in relation to the non-aqueous electrolyte containing the oxalate complex anion (A) as an essential component. Consequently, even a skilled person in the art cannot derive the claimed total content from Abe or Iwanaga.
The gist of the claimed embodiment is simultaneous control of the mass ratio of A/B (0.0001 to 0.30) and a total content of the symmetric chain carbonate and the chain carboxylic acid ester having a specific viscosity (1-45 % by mass). The Examiner's approach of applying individual elements separately is a hindsight reconstruction. Smart focuses on electrolyte stabilization with oxalato-based additives, Abe on improving high-temperature characteristics, and Iwanaga on cycle improvement through viscosity reduction.”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner rejects the argument that the modification would stem from hindsight bias, as both Iwanaga and Abe express clear motivations for the modification of the primary reference. Abe explicitly teaches linear symmetric carbonates improve performance (see [0066]) and Iwanaga teaches explicitly the benefits of low viscosity (see [0017]). Neither of these facts are only able to be devised from one studying the applicant’s disclosure. They are stated outright and one of ordinary skill in the art studying Smart, Iwanaga, and Abe would have been motivated to apply the teachings of viscosity and the electrolyte components to Smart, which teaches various related electrolyte constructions. The idea of substituting elements with known benefits into a similar system would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
“It suggests that Wang addresses this by mentioning LiN(FSO2) as an additional salt to balance the electrolyte's electrical conductivity and viscosity, as noted in paragraph [0229] of Wang. See Pages 8-9 of the Office Action. However, this paragraph merely presents a general concept of "auxiliary salts" in LiPF6-based electrolytes, with anions having an FSO2 skeleton listed among many examples. Wang does not provide any motivation to combine an anion with an FSO2 skeleton with oxalato complex anions.
Furthermore, Wang fails to demonstrate the synergistic effect with the combination of an anion having FSO2 skeleton with oxalato complex anions, as evidenced in Example B-1 and Example B-2 in Table 2. The difference between these examples is the presence of a salt (D) containing an anion with an FSO2 skeleton. Example B-2, which includes this anion, shows improved "Capacity loss in continuous charging" compared to Example B-1, which does not. The cited references, individually or collectively, do not teach or suggest this synergistic effect.”
However, this is not convincing. Wang teaches that the electrolyte includes one or more substances from a group including oxalates and the claimed lithium salt (see [0228]). Wang teaches that this helps balance the conductivity (see [0229]). The examiner notes that this alone is a motivation to modify the reference with the FSO2 anion, as the motivation does not have to be the same as the motivation of the present disclosure (see MPEP 2144 (IV)). Further, the examiner contends that Wang does suggest a synergistic effect as Wang states “The above content of the other salts helps balance the electrical conductivity” (see [0229]). The examiner contends that this suggest a synergistic effect as the salts, plural, (i.e. the FSO2 anion) are balancing conductivity. This suggest that without the salts there would not be this balancing effect. Therefore, the combination would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights