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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 6/12/23 and 10/162/23 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "one or more additives" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “one or more additives” include or are in addition to the “an additive” of claim 1. For the purposes of expediting prosecution, the “one or more additives” will be interpreted as being in addition to the additive of claim 1.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2024/0291036).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Liu teaches an electrolyte solution comprising an organic solvent ([0063], a lithium salt ([0026]-[0027]), a phosphorus-based cesium salt, ([0031]), and an additive in an amount of 0.01 to 11 % by mass ([0035]),
wherein the additive comprises two or more compounds such as a sultone and cyclic carbonate ([0035]-[0036], [0040]-[0043]).
Regarding claims 2-4, as discussed above, Liu teaches that the additive includes a sultone and cyclic carbonate ([0035]), for example, the compound in which A is O=S=O has the Chemical Formula 4 (see formula III-6 of [0039]), and the compound in which A is C=O has the Chemical Formula 7, 8, or 9, i.e. vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, or vinylethylene carbonate ([0041], [0043]).
With regard to claim 6, Liu teaches the relative weight ratio of PS (Chemical formula 4) to FEC (Chemical formula 8) of 1:1.5 (Table 2 Example 2-13).
As for claim 9, Liu further teaches the amount of phosphorus-based cesium salt is, for example, 4.0% by mass ([0030]), which would result in the ratio of 1:1.5:1 for the relative amounts of PS and FEC above.
As for claim 11, Liu teaches that the lithium salt is, for example, LiPF6 ([0027]).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches that the solvent comprises EC, DEC, and EMC ([0063]).
With regard to claim 13, Liu teaches an additional additive in addition to the additive discussed above, such as a boron compound of a second fluorine-containing metal salt, wherein the additive is included in an amount of less than 10 % by mass ([0030], [0032]).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrolyte discussed above (abstract).
As for claims 16-18, concerning the properties of the battery of claim 15, the examiner finds that, since the battery of Liu is substantially identical to the claimed structure, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0094024).
The teachings of Liu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Liu teaches the electrolyte of claim 2 but fails to teach the compound in which A is selected form P-F is represented by Chemical Formulas 10 or 11 and fails to teach the relative amount of such a compound with the C=O based additive.
As for claim 5, Park teaches an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery wherein the electrolyte comprises an additive of, for example, 2-fluoro-4-methyl-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane and fluoroethylene carbonate ([0093]).
As for claim 7, Park further teaches that the 2-fluoro-4-methyl-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane is used with fluoroethylene carbonate in a ratio of 1:2 ([0093]).
Park further teaches that the inclusion of the O=P=O and C=O additives is desirable for suppressing decomposition of the electrolyte, thereby increasing stability and high temperature storage characteristics of the resultant battery ([0013], [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include the 2-fluoro-4-methyl-1,3,2-dioxaphosphorane additive of Liu in the amount suggested by Park in order to suppress decomposition of the electrolyte.
As for claim 10, Liu teaches that the phosphorus-based cesium salt is include in an amount of, for example, 2.0% by mass ([0030], which, based on the teachings of Park above, would result in the claimed ratio of 1:2:1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2020/0212486).
The teachings of Liu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Liu teaches the electrolyte of claim 1 but is silent on the phosphate compound of claim 8.
Xu teaches an electrolyte including an organic solvent, lithium salt, additives such as FEC and PS, and CsPF6 salt ([0087]). Xu further teaches that CsPF6 salt is desirable for use with carbonate-based solvents in order to suppress Li dendrite formation ([0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include CsPF6 salt as the phosphorus-based cesium salt of Liu in order to suppress Li dendrite formation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729