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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Long (US 20160181659 A1).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 7 , Long discloses a secondary battery comprising ([0032]-[0041][0052]-[0059]):
a positive electrode (cathode [0052]-[0053]);
a negative electrode (anode [0054]-[0055]); and
an electrolytic solution ([0047]-[0049] and Table 1 in Fig. 1, components of electrolyte in [0047]), wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material layer (LiCoO2 covering Al [0053]) and a film (electrolyte solution deposited in same manner as indicated in instant specification-see more detail provided below, [0058]) , the film covering a surface of the positive electrode active material layer (covers cathode material as indicated above [0058]),
the film includes cobalt, carbon, nitrogen, boron, and oxygen (see Table 1, SN included in many samples, LiBF4 also included in many samples and will bond to cobalt in LiCoO2).
Furthermore, Long discloses samples where the dinitrile compound includes succinonitrile and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt may include lithium tetrafluoroborate (see Fig. 1 Table 1 and [0047]) and the content of the dinitrile compound in the electrolytic solution may be within the range from 3 wt % to 10 wt % (claim 1) and the content of the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt in the electrolytic solution may be within the range from 0.5 wt % to 1 wt % (see claim 1) and specific examples in Table 1 where SN is 3 wt% and LiBF4 is at 0.3 wt%.
Long discloses an electrolyte solution is formed by adding electrolyte salts, to a solvent and furthermore the dinitrile compound and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt to the electrolyte solution ([0048]) and discloses that the electrolyte containing the dinitrile compound and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt is applied through an electrolyte solution to the positive electrode active material layers ([0058]).
For ease, Applicant's specification will refer to document US 20230378434 A1.
Applicant's specification indicates in para [0121] "Further, the dinitrile compound may include succinonitrile, adiponitrile, or both, and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt may include lithium tetrafluoroborate. This makes it sufficiently easier for the film 21C to be formed on the surface of the positive electrode active material layer 21B. Accordingly, it is possible to achieve higher effects. In this case, the content of the dinitrile compound in the electrolytic solution may be within the range from 3 wt % to 10 wt % both inclusive, and the content of the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt in the electrolytic solution may be within the range from 0.5 wt % to 1.3 wt % both inclusive. "
Applicant's specification indicates an electrolyte solution is formed by adding electrolyte salts, to a solvent and furthermore the dinitrile compound and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt to the electrolyte solution ([0154]-[0156]). The specification discloses that the electrolyte solution containing the dinitrile compound and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt is applied to the positive electrode active material layers [0161].
Therefore with regards to the property of “a first peak derived from CoC2N2- and a second peak derived from BOx - are detectable based on a negative ion analysis of the film by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, and a ratio of an intensity of the second peak to an intensity of the first peak is greater than or equal to 0.19 and less than or equal to 1.00” will be present in Long since the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 20160181659 A1) as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above and in further view of Kim (US 20150140395 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Long discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Long discloses that the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolytic solution are housed in an external package to form the lithium secondary battery ([0058]).
However, Long does not disclose that the external package has flexibility.
Kim discloses a lithium secondary battery external package can be a variety of types including a pouch package which has flexibility ([0069]-[0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the external packaging of Long by using the flexible packaging as disclosed by Kim because Kim discloses that it is an appropriate and well-known type of external packaging for a lithium secondary battery external package.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the present application demonstrates that the mere presence of succinonitrile and LiBF4 in an electrolyte is not sufficient to produce the claimed ratio. For example, Example 1 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2 each use succinonitrile at 5 wt% and LiBF4 at 0.9 wt%. However, Example 1 has an intensity ratio R of 0.19, whereas Comparative Example 1 has an intensity ratio R of 0.12 and Comparative Example 2 has an intensity ratio R of 1.10. Thus, even when the same dinitrile compound and the same boron and fluorine-containing lithium salt are present in the same amounts, the claimed ratio of 0.19 to 1.00 is not an inevitable result. Therefore, Applicant believes that the Long disclosure of electrolyte additives, including succinonitrile and LiBF4, is not sufficient to establish that the claimed surface film having the claimed TOF-SIMS intensity ratio is necessarily present.
It is noted that the differences between stabilization processes between Example 1 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2 for the same battery material result in differences between the TOF-SIMS intensity ratios between the samples.
For ease, Applicant's specification will refer to document US 20230378434 A1.
Applicant’s specification describes a stabilization process in paragraph [0111] which is “Specifically, the upper limit voltage is higher than or equal to 4.35 V, and more specifically, within a range from 4.35 V to 4.45 V both inclusive. The environmental temperature is higher than or equal to 45° C., and more specifically, within a range from 45° C. to 60° C. both inclusive. The storage period is longer than or equal to 10 hours, and more specifically, within a range from 10 hours to 48 hours both inclusive.”
The instant specification at paragraph [0173] indicates that the intensity ratio is a parameter which is directly correlated to the swelling characteristic. Paragraph [0173] discloses “Specifically, in a case where the electrolytic solution included the dinitrile compound and the boron- and fluorine-containing lithium salt, but the intensity ratio R was out of the range from 0.19 to 1.00 both inclusive (Comparative examples 1 to 10), a high discharge capacity was obtained, but each of the swelling rate and the electric resistance increased.”
Long discloses a storage performance test where the batteries are charged to 4.5 V and stored at a temperature of 60° C for a duration of 20 days [0060] which is similar to the process described for the stabilization process as noted above and includes a time period of 10 to 48 hours.
Furthermore, the swelling characteristics (See Table 2 rate of thickness increases) of the batteries of Long (specific examples in Table 1 where SN is 3 wt% and LiBF4 is at 0.3 wt%) lie within the swelling range of batteries shown in Tables 1-2 of the instant specification, namely less than 5%.
Therefore since the swelling characteristics of the batteries of Long overlap those shown by the Examples rather than the Comparative Examples and the composition is the same and the method of storage/stabilization is similar then the intensity ratio will also be present in the battery of Long.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hiruma (JP 2004355977 A) discloses a storage procedure which includes a storage time of less than 48 hours at a temperature range of 40-80 degrees Celsius [0108].
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 DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights