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
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 20090106970 A1) in view of Hamamoto et al. (JP 13529498) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20240014444 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches a method for preparing a lithium ion secondary battery (0007), wherein the method comprises the following steps:
step S1, injecting a first electrolyte containing an organic solvent and a lithium salt into a battery assembly, wherein the battery assembly comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator (discloses a first electrolyte, a battery casing, and battery electrodes, in this case the electrolyte itself can also be regarded as a separator as known in the art, 0007, which has an organic solvent, ethylene carbonate 0012 and a lithium salt, Lithium chloride 0011;
step S2, subjecting the battery assembly to pre-formation (formation process, 0007, which involves pre-charging the battery, 0010);
and step S3, injecting a second electrolyte into the battery assembly (discloses a second electrolyte, 0007).
Fan does not teach the first electrolyte containing a fluorobenzene-based additive or the second electrolyte containing a chain fluoroester.
Hamamoto teaches that pentafluorobenzene derivatives, such as octafluorotoluene, can be used as additives (0012) to form a passive film (0011).
Fan in view of Hamamoto does not teach the second electrolyte containing a chain fluoroester.
It is known in the art that mixing solvents can result in different properties that are useful for different situations. Chen in particular teaches an organic solvent can be mixed with a chain ester such as ethyl fluoroacetate (0019), which is referred to as monofluoroethyl acetate and described as a chain fluoroester in the instant application. As both names describe the same molecule, even though Chen doesn’t refer to it as a chain fluoroester, it is understood to meet the criteria required by the claim language.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine the method, organic solvent, and lithium salt as described by Fan with the pentafluorobenzene derivative of Hamamoto, as doing allows for the formation of a passive film (SEI membrane) that prevents decomposition of the electrolyte solution without impairing the normal reaction of the battery (Hamamoto, 0011).
Further, the purpose of Fan in adding an additive to make a second electrolyte before injecting it is to improve battery performance at high temperatures (0002) without interfering with the SEI membrane (0008) which is the same reasoning used in the instant application. As it is known in the art that mixing different solvents together results in predictably different properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce the ethyl fluoroacetate of Chen in the second electrolyte injection as opposed to the first to reduce interference with the SEI membrane while still increasing the high temperature performance.
In effect, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable chance of success, to take the method of Fan as described above and add the additive of Hamamoto to the first electrolyte as a means for forming the film within the cell, while also delaying the mixing of solvents, as described in Chen, until the second injection of Fan to improve the high temperature performance without interfering with the formation of the SEI membrane.
Regarding claim 2, Fan in view of Hamamoto and Chen teaches the method of claim 1 as described above wherein the fluorobenzene-based additive comprises a substance as shown in Formula 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
103
171
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, R1 is independently selected from substituted or unsubstituted methyl, ethyl, propyl or ethynyl; R2, R3 and R4 are independently selected from H, F, substituted or unsubstituted methyl, ethyl or propyl; and R5 and R6 are independently selected from substituted or unsubstituted methyl, H or F, provided that at least one of R1 to R6 groups comprises F.
Hamamoto teaches that octafluorotoluene can be used as an additive (0013) and it meets the requirements of the claim as 5 of the R groups are fluorine and the 6th R group is a perfluorinated methyl.
Regarding claim 3, the same reasoning for rejection as explained regarding claim 2 also meets the requirements of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the same reasoning for rejection as explained regarding claim 2 also meets the requirements of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Fan in view of Hamamoto and Chen teaches the method of claim 1 as described above, wherein the chain fluoroester comprises one of the following substances or any combination thereof: fluoroethyl acetate, methyl fluoroethyl carbonate or difluoroethyl carbonate.
Chen specifies that the organic solvent can be mixed with a chain ester, as explained regarding claim 1, such as ethyl fluoroacetate (0019), which is a synonym for fluoroethyl acetate. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use this molecule to change the properties of the electrolyte in a predictable manner as required by any particular battery.
Regarding claim 6, the instant application specifies monofluoroethyl acetate, however, the chemical formula is the exact same as fluoroethyl acetate as described regarding claim 5 so the claim is rejected under the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 7, Fan in view of Hamamoto and Chen teaches the method of claim 1 as described above, Fan teaches that the organic solvent can be ethylene carbonate (0012) which meets the requirements of the claim and would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try in the manner as described regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Fan in view of Hamamoto and Chen teaches the method of claim 1 as described above, Hamamoto teaches the octafluorotoluene used is in the range of .01% to 20% by weight (0014). As the prior art fully encloses the range required by the claim it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill In the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to, with routine experimentation, end up with a weight percent of octafluorotoluene that is between .5% and 3%.
Regarding claim 9, Fan in view of Hamamoto and Chen teaches the method of claim 1 as described above, Fan teaches that the second injection as described regarding claim 1 uses 10-60% of the total electrolyte. As the added compound only ranges from 0.1-3.0% of the electrolyte by weight, the actual weight difference between the first and second electrolyte is very small. This means parts by weight is effectively synonymous with % of total electrolyte. As the range of the claim limitation overlaps with the range of Fan, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, with routine optimization, to have an amount of second electrolyte that is between 10 and 15 parts by weight and meets the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 10, If the method as described regarding claim 1 is used then the resulting battery necessarily meets this limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Fan in view of Hamamoto and Chen teaches the method of claim 1 as described above, Fan teaches that the organic solvent can be ethylene carbonate (0012) which meets the requirements of the claim and would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try in the manner as described regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Fan in view of Hamamoto and Chen teaches the method of claim 1 as described above, Hamamoto teaches the octafluorotoluene used is in the range of .01% to 20% by weight (0014). As the prior art fully encloses the range required by the claim it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill In the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to, with routine experimentation, end up with a weight percent of octafluorotoluene that is between .5% and 2%.
Regarding claim 13, Fan in view of Hamamoto and Chen teaches the method of claim 1 as described above, Fan teaches that the second injection as described regarding claim 1 uses 10-60% of the total electrolyte. As the added compound only ranges from 0.1-3.0% of the electrolyte by weight, the actual weight difference between the first and second electrolyte is very small. This means parts by weight is effectively synonymous with % of total electrolyte. As the range of the claim limitation overlaps with the range of Fan, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, with routine optimization, to have an amount of second electrolyte that is between 10 and 13 parts by weight and meets the claim limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the Fan reference fails to describe injecting the first and second electrolytes. This argument is unpersuasive because fan teaches injecting the first and second electrolytes (0007).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, applicant argues that Fan does not teach a fluorobenzene-based additive as part of the first injection of electrolyte which is unpersuasive as it is not taking into view the combination of references that form the rejection. In addition applicant argues the Fan teaches the use of LiBOB only but does not take into view the combination of references that replaces LiBOB with an equivalent additive. Further, applicant argues that Chen cannot be used due to Chen requiring two specific types of additives. This is not persuasive, however, because the combination of Fan in view of Chen does not rely on the whole method of Chen but only the ability to mix ethyl fluoroacetate, a chain fluoroester, to form an organic solvent, and in turn, a non-aqueous electrolyte. Further, the claim 1 limitation used the phrase “including” which allows for any amount of additional modifications in addition to the stated limitation making any additional additives of Chen moot.
Regarding the argument that Fan teaches away from any additive in the first injection due to LiBOB interacting negatively with the SEI membrane, this argument is unpersuasive as only LiBOB is discussed and is a different molecule from the fluorobenzene derivatives taught by Hamamoto and reacts differently with the SEI membrane. Further, LiBOB reacting negatively with the Sei membrane as discussed in Fan does not negate the benefits discussed in Hamamoto of using Fluorobenzene additives to form the SEI film.
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 SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743