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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0040289, filed on 3-31-2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5-25-23; were filed before the mailing date on 3-30-2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims 6 & 7 are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Claim 7 should start on its own line. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claims 1-3, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-20130022880-A1, hereinafter Tsujioka.
Regarding Claim 1, Tsujioka teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution [0046], comprising:
a non-aqueous organic solvent [0012; 0041];
a lithium salt [0022; 0041];
an additive comprising a first additive that includes a phosphorus-fluorine compound (LiDODFP) [0041]; and
an auxiliary additive comprising a carbonate-based compound (VC) [0077],
a content of the first additive relative (LiDODFP) to a weight of the carbonate-based compound (VC) is 100wt% which falls within the claimed range and therefore anticipates the range (Table 1, Example 13 each is 0.5wt%).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsujioka teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution according to claim 1, wherein a content of the first additive is 0.5 wt% based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution which falls within the claimed range and therefore anticipates the range ( Table 1, Example 13).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsujioka teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte solution first additive comprises lithium difluoro bis(oxalato)phosphate (LiDFBOP) [0041].
Regarding Claim 9, Tsujioka teaches the non-aqueous organic solvent comprising ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) [0020]
Regarding Claim 10, Tsujioka teaches the lithium salt comprises at least one of lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4) and lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) [0022].
Regarding Claim 11, Tsujioka teaches the carbonate-based compound comprises vinylene carbonate (VC) [0077].
Regarding Claim 12, Tsujioka teaches A lithium secondary battery [0036], comprising:
the non-aqueous electrolyte of claim 1 impregnating the electrode assembly [0042].
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an electrode assembly comprising a cathode and an anode necessarily faces the cathode.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujioka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PAN CN-113363576-A, hereinafter PAN.
Regarding Claim 4 Tsujioka does not teach the non-aqueous electrolyte solution additive further comprises a second additive comprising an amino silane-based compound. However, PAN teaches a nonaqueous Li ion battery electrolyte with 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone, an amino silane-based compound [0010]. 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 PAN’s additive compound in Tsujioka’s battery electrolyte to ease the removal of excess water and HF in the electrolyte without adverse reactions, as taught by Pan [0006].
Regarding Claim 5 Tsujioka does not teach the second additive comprises 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone. However, PAN teaches lithium-ion battery organic electrolyte containing the additive 3-(trimethylsilyl)-2-oxazolidinone [0010]. 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 PAN’s known additive in Tsujioka’s battery electrolyte to react with acids and have a large structure to easily hydrolyze, removing excess water and HF from the electrolyte, as taught by Pan [0006].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Tsujioka teaches a content of the second additive (0.01 to 2%; [0010] PAN) relative to a weight of the first additive (0.5% see Tsujioka claim 1 above) is in a range from 60 wt% to 140 wt% (2% to 400% that is [(0.01/0.5) to (2/0.5)]*100). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujioka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR-20230067432-A, hereinafter CHOI.
Regarding Claim 7, Tsujioka teaches the auxiliary additive further comprises an alkyl sultone-based (propane sultone) compound [0030], but fails to teach an alkenyl sultone-based (propene sultone) 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 [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 use CHOI’s known additive in Tsujioka’s battery electrolyte to prevent structural electrode collapse and maintain lifespan characteristics, as taught by Choi [0005-0006].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujioka as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US-20230024232-A1, hereinafter Wu.
Regarding Claim 8, Tsujioka’s embodiment in example 13 cited above does not teach the 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 [0027]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 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 in Tsujioka’s carbonate based axillary additive battery electrolyte to minimize negative effects on battery performance [0002].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TELGE S PEIRIS whose telephone number is 6591. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on (571)270-5256. 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.
/TELGE SHAVINDA PEIRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights