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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach both (i) a first additive comprising lithium difluoro bis(oxalato)phosphate; and (ii) a second additive comprising 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2- oxazolidinone, and in which the content of the second additive relative to the weight of the first additive is in a range from 60 wt% to 140 wt%.
However, Tsujioka (US-20130022880-A1) and Pan (CN-113363576-A) (see translation) do teach the first and second additive as claimed in claim 1: Tsujioka discloses an additive comprising a first additive that includes a phosphorus-fluorine compound (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0011], [0013], [0027], [0041]-[0047], [0055], [0061]-[0071] regarding first additive lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate), and wherein the first additive comprises lithium difluoro bis(oxalato)phosphate (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0041], [0077], regarding example 13).
Tsujioka does not explicitly disclose wherein the additive further comprises a second additive including 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone, and wherein a content of the second additive relative to a weight of the first additive is in a range from 60 wt% to 140 wt%. However, Tsujioka discloses that any other commonly known additive or additives may also be contained as needed in the electrolyte (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0017]). Pan further provides a lithium-ion battery organic electrolyte containing the additive 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone (see e.g., Pan; [001], regarding 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone as the additive), and Pan provides that the additive is 0.01 to 2% by weight of the total weight of the electrolyte (see e.g., Pan; [0010]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Tsujioka with a second additive of 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone in a weight of 0.01 to 2% as disclosed by Pan in order to protect positive electrode material structure, prevent dissolution of metal ions, improve battery room temperature cycling and high temperature storage performance, and increase battery lifespan (see e.g., Pan; [0006]).
The addition of the second additive in a weight range of 0.01 to 2% compared to the 0.5% of the first additive of Tsujioka results in a second to first additive weight ratio of 2 to 400 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 60 wt% to 140 wt%.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Critically, while applicant submits that Tsujioka merely lists various additives in parallel, that Tsujioka contains no example with the two essential component of claim 1, and that Pan does not disclose a specific composition in which LiDFOP and 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone are used together, as detailed above, Tsujioka provides that any other commonly known additive or additives may also be contained as needed in the electrolyte, and Pan provides that the second additive provides the improvements of protecting positive electrode material structure, preventing dissolution of metal ions, improving battery room temperature cycling and high temperature storage performance, and increase battery lifespan (see e.g., Pan; [0006]). Therefore, the prior art combination teaches the two essential components of claim 1, and Tsujioka does not need to independently provide both essential components.
Applicant further emphasizes that neither Tsujioka, Pan, Choi, or Wu addresses low-temperature performance as does the present application nor discloses the technical concept of simultaneously evaluating low- and high-temperature performance and optimizing the relative content ratio between particular additives based on such an evaluation. However, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim; the claim does not require the technical concept of simultaneously evaluating low- and high-temperature performance and optimizing the relative content ratio. That is, the prior art may have a technical concept or objective different from that of the instant application and still teach the limitations of the claims.
Applicant argues that the claimed range of 60 to 140 wt% provides a range of criticallity that achieves a balance among low-temperature properties, high-temperature storage properties, and resistance characteristics, and refers to examples 3, 6, and 7 with reference to tables 1-3.
From table 1, it can be assessed that examples 3, 6, and 7 have a first to second additive weight ratio of 100%, 50%, and 150% respectively. That is, only example 3 provides a weight ratio that falls within the claimed range, whereas examples 6 and 7 fall outside of the claimed range.
Comparing the evaluation results of table 2, both the initial performance and low temperature performance of example 3 in comparison to example 6 and 7 are close. In the initial performance, example 3 provides an initial performance discharge capacity (mAh) of 1750 compared to 1752 and 1741 of examples 6 and 7, and a DCIR (mΩ) of 37.7 compared to 37.9 and 38 of examples 6 and 7; the initial performance of these examples provide very close initial performance results. In the lower temperature performance, example 3 provides a discharge capacity (mAh) of 920 compared to 915 and 897 of examples 6 and 7, which equates to a 0.5% and 2.53% difference, respectively. Thus, according to table 2, example 3 provides only a slight low temperature performance improvement in comparison to examples 6 and 7.
Comparing the evaluation results of table 3, example 3 provides a thickness increase ratio (%) and resistance increase ratio (%) of 4.1 and 4.2, whereas example 6 and 7 provide a thickness increase ratio and resistance increase ratio of 6.2 and 6.5. Furthermore, example 3 provides capacity recovery of 96% and capacity retention of 98% whereas example 6 and 7 provide capacity recovery of 92 and 90, respectively, and capacity retention of 95 and 93 respectively. A noticeable difference can be seen in the thickness increase ratio and the resistance increase ratio, however the capacity recovery rate and the capacity retention rate is similar between example 3 compared to examples 6 and 7. The percent difference of the 96% of the capacity recover compared to 92% and 90% equates to a 4% difference and 6% difference, and the percent different of the 98% of the capacity retention compared to 95% and 93% equates to a 3% different and 5% difference.
Therefore, example 3 does not demonstrate significant criticality and improved battery performance in comparison to examples 6 and 7. Moreover, while there may be an improvement in the areas of thickness increase ratio and resistance increase ratio, the provided tables 1-3 do not provide sufficient data in order to determine the range of criticality. That is, only example 3 provides the first additive and the second additive at a ratio of 100 wt% that falls within the claimed range of 60-140 wt%, whereas examples 6 and 7 provide weight ratios of 50 wt% and 150 wt%. Therefore, there is significant gaps in experimental results between 50-100 wt% and 100-150 wt% and a conclusion of a range of criticality from 60-140 wt% is not fully supported by the results; even if a notable difference is observed in the thickness increase ratio and resistance increase ratio of example 3 in comparison to examples 6 and 7, a conclusion of a range of criticality from 60-140 wt% is not fully supported by the results in view of the gaps in experimental data.
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 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujioka (US-20130022880-A1), and in further view of Pan (CN-113363576-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tsujioka discloses A non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0010]),
comprising: a non-aqueous organic solvent (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0011], [0041], regarding ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate as the solvents used in some examples);
a lithium salt (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0022] regarding lithium salts, [0041], regarding LiPF6 used in the examples);
an additive comprising a first additive that includes a phosphorus-fluorine compound (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0011], [0013], [0027], [0041]-[0047], [0055], [0061]-[0071] regarding first additive lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate);
and an auxiliary additive comprising a carbonate-based compound (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0030], regarding wherein other additives such as vinylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, and dimethylvinylene carbonate may be provided, [0077], regarding example 13 provided with vinylene carbonate additive),
wherein a content of the first additive relative to a weight of the carbonate-based compound is in a range from 40 wt% to 110 wt% (see e.g., Tsujioka; table 1, [0077], regarding example 13 which is provided with 0.5 mass% of VC and 0.5 mass% of lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate such that the mass ratio is 100 wt%, which falls within the claimed range),
wherein the first additive comprises lithium difluoro bis(oxalato)phosphate (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0041], [0077], regarding example 13).
Tsujioka does not explicitly disclose wherein the additive further comprises a second additive including 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone, and wherein a content of the second additive relative to a weight of the first additive is in a range from 60 wt% to 140 wt%. However, Tsujioka discloses that any other commonly known additive or additives may also be contained as needed in the electrolyte (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0017]). Pan further provides a lithium-ion battery organic electrolyte containing the additive 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone (see e.g., Pan; [001], regarding 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone as the additive), and Pan provides that the additive is 0.01 to 2% by weight of the total weight of the electrolyte (see e.g., Pan; [0010]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Tsujioka with a second additive of 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone in a weight of 0.01 to 2% as disclosed by Pan in order to protect positive electrode material structure, prevent dissolution of metal ions, improve battery room temperature cycling and high temperature storage performance, and increase battery lifespan (see e.g., Pan; [0006]).
The addition of the second additive in a weight range of 0.01 to 2% compared to the 0.5% of the first additive of Tsujioka results in a second to first additive weight ratio of 2 to 400 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 60 wt% to 140 wt%.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tsujioka teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1, wherein a content of the first additive is in a range from 0.3 wt% to 1.2 wt% based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see above regarding claim 1, see e.g., Tsujioka; table 1, example 13, wherein the first additive is 0.5 wt% which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tsujioka teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution according claim 1. Tsujioka discloses wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0041], [0077], example 13 which uses the same solvents of example 1),
which corresponds with the claimed wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tsujioka teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1. Tsujioka that the lithium salt comprises LiPF6 (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0077], [0041], regarding example 13 which uses the same lithium salt of example 1),
which corresponds with the claimed the lithium salt comprising at least one of lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tsujioka teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1. Tsujioka discloses wherein the carbonate-based compound may be
vinylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, and dimethylvinylene carbonate (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0030]), and specifically provides example 13 comprising of vinylene carbonate additive (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0077]),
which corresponds with the claimed carbonate-based compound comprises at least one of vinylene carbonate (VC), vinylethylene carbonate (VEC) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tsujioka teaches a lithium secondary battery (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0036], [0077], regarding cell of example 13), comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a cathode and an anode facing the cathode (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0014], [0032]-[0034] regarding negative and positive electrode structure, the electrode cell structure with current collector sheets necessitates that the cathode and anode face each other); and the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of claim 1 impregnating the electrode assembly (see e.g., Tsujioka; [0042], regarding the process of impregnating the electrolyte).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujioka (US-20130022880-A1), Pan (CN-113363576-A), and in further view of Choi (KR-20230067432-A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tsujioka teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1. Tsujioka does not explicitly disclose wherein the auxiliary additive further comprises an alkyl sultone-based compound and an alkenyl sultone-based compound. However, Choi teaches an additive for a lithium battery with the auxiliary additive further comprising an alkyl sultone-based (propane sultone) compound and an alkenyl sultone-based (propene sultone) compound (see e.g., Choi; [0090]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrolyte of Tsujioka with the known additive of Choi in order to prevent structural electrode collapse and maintain lifespan characteristics (see e.g., Choi; [0005-0006]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujioka (US-20130022880-A1), Pan (CN-113363576-A), and in further view of Wu (US-20230024232-A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tsujioka teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1. Tsujioka does not explicitly disclose wherein a content of the auxiliary additive is in a range from 1.1 wt% to 3.5 wt% based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution. However, Wu teaches a carbonate based additive 0.5 to 12% relative to total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (see e.g., Wu; [0027]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1.1 wt% to 3.5 wt%. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wu's known weight of the auxiliary additive in Tsujioka's carbonate based axillary additive battery electrolyte to minimize negative effects on battery performance (see e.g., Wu; [0002]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/KEVIN SONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
