DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-17 are pending in the current application.
Examiner Note
3. It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant' s specification are to the published
application US 2024/0072297 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are 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.
6. Claim 5 recites the limitation “the cations.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this
limitation in the claim, as neither claim 3 nor claim 1, respectively, upon which claim 5 is directly and ultimately dependent, respectively, recites/introduces “cations.” Therefore, it is unclear what element or feature recited in claims 1 or 3 includes cations and is intended to be limited by the cation species recited in claim 5. For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as instead reciting “the lithium battery of claim 4, wherein the metal cations comprise…”
7. Claim 6 recites the limitation “the anions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as neither claim 3 nor claim 1, respectively, upon which claim 6 is directly or ultimately dependent, respectively, recites/introduces “anions.” Therefore, it is unclear what element or feature recited in claims 1 or 3 includes anions and is intended to be limited by the anion species recited in claim 6. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as instead reciting “the lithium battery of claim 4, wherein the anions comprise…”
8. Claim 16 recites the limitation “the electrolyte composition” in the preamble, and the limitation “the cations.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 16 is dependent upon claim 11, which is directed to “the lithium battery of claim 1”, wherein claims 1 and 11 do not recite an “electrolyte composition”, and do not recite “cations.” Therefore, it is unclear what element or feature recited in claims 1 or 11 is intended to be limited by “the electrolyte composition”, and unclear what element or feature recited in claims 1 or 11 includes cations and is intended to be limited by the cation species recited in claim 16. For the purposes of examination, claim 16 is interpreted as instead reciting “the electrolyte composition of claim 15, wherein the metal cations comprise…”
9. Claim 17 recites the limitations “the electrolyte composition” in the preamble, and the limitation “the anions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 17 is dependent upon claim 11, which is directed to “the lithium battery of claim 1”, wherein claims 1 and 11 do not recite an “electrolyte composition”, and do not recite “anions.” Therefore, it is unclear what element or feature recited in claims 1 or 11 is intended to be limited by “the electrolyte composition”, and unclear what element or feature recited in claims 1 or 11 includes anions and is intended to be limited by the anion species recited in claim 17. For the purposes of examination, claim 17 is interpreted as instead reciting “the electrolyte composition of claim 15, wherein the anions comprise…”
10. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 103 as being anticipated by and/or obvious over Kida et al. (US 2001/0046626; “Kida”).
17. Regarding claim 1, Kida discloses a lithium secondary battery (a lithium battery) [0009] comprising a positive electrode (a first electrode structure) [element 1, 0009, 0034, FIG. 1], a negative electrode (a second electrode structure) [element 2, 0009, 0034, FIG. 1], and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (electrolyte) [0009, 0034], wherein the positive and negative electrodes are spaced apart from one another and the non-aqueous electrolyte solution is interposed between the positive and negative electrodes [0035, FIG. 1]. Further, the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises a lithium salt with a concentration in the range of 0.9-1.3 mol/L [0014-0015], one or more of a non-aqueous solvent, inter alia ethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate (an organic solvent, the organic solvent includes a cyclic carbonate) [0017, 0036], and one or more divalent manganese salt(s) selected from, inter alia MnSO4 and Mn(NO3)2 (an additive, the additive includes a metal salt compound catalyst), in a concentration between 0.05-0.15 mol/L [0018-0019, 0036, FIG. 1].
18. Specifically, Kida discloses that the divalent manganese salt is MnSO4 in Example A2 [0036] and Mn(NO3)2 in Example A5 [0039]. Both MnSO4 and Mn(NO3)2 were dissolved in their respective example in a concentration of 0.1 mol/L to prepare the non-aqueous electrolyte solution [0036, 0039].
19. Through calculation, the divalent manganese salts of Kida, MnSO4 and Mn(NO3)2, would have necessarily exhibited a weight ratio of 1.51 wt% and 1.79 wt%, respectively, per liter of non-aqueous electrolyte solution, each of which is within the additive weight ratio range disclosed in Applicant’s Specification, of about 0.1 wt% to about 20 wt% with respect to the electrolyte [0035], as well as within the claimed range; see claim 3 and claim 13, of the additive weight ratio of 0.1 wt% to 20 wt% with respect to the electrolyte. The divalent manganese salts of Kida read on the claimed additive, and the concentration of said divalent manganese salts meet the limitations of the claimed weight ratio.
20. The non-aqueous electrolyte solution of both examples of Kida further comprise 1.2M LiN(C2F5SO2)2 as the lithium salt [0036], and a 1:1 volume ratio of a mixed solvent containing ethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate [0036].
21. The lithium secondary battery of Kida, set forth above, is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed lithium battery in Applicant's Specification in terms of comprising: (i) a lithium battery [element 1, 0020], including (ii) a first electrode structure [element 100, 0020] and (iii) a second electrode structure [element 200, 0020], wherein (iv) the second electrode structure is spaced apart from the first electrode structure [0022]. Further, (v) an electrolyte [element 300, 0024] is interposed between the first electrode structure and the second electrode structure, wherein the electrolyte comprises (vi) an organic solvent including a cyclic carbonate [element 310, 0026-0027], inter alia a mixture of ethylene carbonate and ethylmethyl carbonate in a weight ratio of 1:1 [Comparative Example 1, 0040], (vii) a lithium salt, of which is suitably, inter alia LiN(C2F5SO2)2 [element 320, 0026, 0028], wherein the concentration of the lithium salt may be 1M [Comparative Example 1, 0040], and (viii) an additive including a metal salt compound catalyst, inter alia a +divalent metal cation: Mn(II) and a -monovalent anion: sulfuric acid-based anion or nitric acid-based anion [element 330, 0026, 0029].
22. Given that the lithium secondary battery of Kida is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed lithium battery in terms of the foregoing elements: (i)-(viii), it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the divalent manganese salt of Kida would have necessarily activated a polymerization reaction of the cyclic carbonate in the non-aqueous solvent at a temperature between 100 °C and 200 °C, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where 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”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
23. Regarding claim 2, Kida discloses the lithium battery set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and incorporated herein by reference.
24. The claim limitation “solid” under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) is examined on the merits to include any degree of solidity, including a solid-state and a semi-solid state, see Applicant’s Specification [0032-0034] (also see MPEP 2111, MPEP 2111.01, and MPEP 2173.01(I)).
25. Given that the lithium secondary battery of Kida is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed lithium battery in terms of the foregoing elements: (i)-(viii) in ¶21, it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Kida would have necessarily have necessarily solidified, to at least some degree, at the temperature of between 100-200° C, as claimed, as a result of at least some degree of polymerization of the cyclic carbonate in the organic solvent initiated/catalyzed by the presence of the metal salt compound catalyst in the solution, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where 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”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
26. Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 3. Through simple calculation, the divalent manganese salts of Kida, MnSO4 and Mn(NO3)2, would have necessarily exhibited a weight ratio of 1.51 wt% and 1.79 wt%, respectively, per liter of non-aqueous electrolyte solution, each of which is within the claimed range of the additive weight ratio of 0.1 wt% to 20 wt% with respect to the electrolyte.
27. Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 4. That is, the divalent manganese salt(s) of Kida, MnSO4 and/or Mn(NO3)2, each include a metal cation and an anion, and reads on the claimed metal salt compound.
28. Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 5 (see ¶6 for 112(b) claim interpretation of claim 5). That is, the divalent manganese salt(s) of Kida, MnSO4 and/or Mn(NO3)2, each include the metal cation, Mn(II), and reads on the claimed metal cations. See MPEP 2132.02 (II) which states “a reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named.”
29. Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 6 (see ¶7 for 112(b) claim interpretation of claim 6). That is, the divalent manganese salts of Kida, MnSO4 and Mn(NO3)2, each include a sulfuric acid-based anion and a nitric acid-based anion, respectively, and reads on the claimed anions. See MPEP 2132.02 (II) which states “a reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named.”
30. Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 7. That is, the one or more of the non-aqueous solvent of Kida is ethylene carbonate, etc. [0017, 0036], reads on the claimed cyclic carbonate. See MPEP 2132.02 (II) which states “a reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named.”
31. Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 8. That is, the one or more of the non-aqueous solvent of Kida is diethyl carbonate, etc. [0017, 0036], reads on the claimed linear carbonate. See MPEP 2132.02 (II) which states “a reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named.”
32. Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 9. That is, the lithium secondary battery of Kida [0009], wherein the positive electrode [element 1, 0009, 0034, FIG. 1], comprises a positive electrode current collector (a first current collector) [element 4, 0020, 0034, FIG. 1] and a positive electrode active material (a first electrode layer) on the positive electrode current collector [slurry, 0028], and the positive electrode active material is provided between the positive electrode current collector and the non-aqueous electrolyte solution [0028, FIG. 1].
33. Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 10. That is, the lithium secondary battery of Kida [0009], wherein the negative electrode [element 2, 0009, 0034, FIG. 1], comprises a negative electrode current collector (a second current collector) [element 5, 0020, 0034, FIG. 1] and a negative electrode active material (a second electrode layer) on the negative electrode current collector [slurry, 0030], and the negative electrode active material is provided between the negative electrode current collector and the non-aqueous electrolyte solution [0030, FIG. 1].
34. Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 9. That is, the lithium secondary battery of Kida [0009, 0034] comprises a separator [element 3, 0034, FIG. 1] between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0035, FIG. 1], wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte solution is interposed between the positive electrode and the separator and between the negative electrode and the separator [0035, FIG. 1].
35. Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety (not repeated). The non-aqueous electrolyte solution of the lithium secondary battery of Kida reads on the electrolyte composition defined by each and every limitation of claim 12. In view of the foregoing, and in view of the rejection of claim 2 above, the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Kida is substantially identical or identical to the claimed electrolyte in terms of the foregoing elements: (i)-(viii) in ¶21. As such it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Kida would have necessarily exhibited an increase in viscosity of the electrolyte composition at the first temperature, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where 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”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
36. Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 12 above, the rejection of claim 3 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the claimed additive weight ratio defined by claim 13.
37. Regarding claim 14, in view of the rejection of claim 12 above, the rejection of claim 7 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the claimed cyclic carbonate defined by claim 14.
38. Regarding claim 15, in view of the rejection of claim 12 above, the rejection of claim 4 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the claimed metal salt compound catalyst defined by claim 15.
39. Regarding claim 16, in view of the rejection of claim 15 above (see ¶8 for 112(b) claim interpretation of claim 16), the rejection of claim 5 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the claimed metal cations defined by claim 16.
40. Regarding claim 17, in view of the rejection of claim 15 above (see ¶9 for 112(b) claim interpretation of claim 17), the rejection of claim 6 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the claimed anions defined by claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
41. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this section can be found above.
42. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2008/0305403 A1; “Park”).
43. Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a secondary battery (a lithium battery) comprising a cathode (a first electrode structure), an anode (a second electrode structure), a separator, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (an electrolyte); wherein the separator is interposed between the cathode and the anode and the non-aqueous electrolyte is placed is placed into the resulting structure, interposed between the cathode and anode [0024-0025]. The non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a non-aqueous cyclic solvent that is, inter alia ethylene carbonate (EC) [0022] (organic solvent, the organic solvent includes a cyclic carbonate), a catalyst to induce the polymerization of the non-aqueous cyclic solvent, wherein said catalyst is, inter alia AlCl3 or ZnCl2 [0020] (additive, the additive includes a metal salt compound catalyst); and an electrolyte salt which is preferably a lithium salt [0023] (lithium salt). Further, Park discloses the catalyst for polymerization is activated at a temperature between 90-200 °C (a first temperature) [0019].
44. The disclosed activation temperature range of 90-200° C [Park, 0019] corresponds to and encompasses the claimed first temperature range, 100-200 °C, defined by claim 1, thereby rendering prima facie obvious the claimed first temperature range (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
45. Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the secondary battery set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
46. Park does not explicitly disclose the non-aqueous electrolyte being a solid at a temperature between 90-200° C, i.e. being a solid at the disclosed activation temperature.
47. However, Park discloses that the catalyst is present in an amount of 0.01-3 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte [0021] and the preferable lithium salt may be LiPF6 [0023]. Park additionally discloses that at normal operating temperature of the battery, polymerization will not occur, however, if the battery mis-operates, due to exposure to high temperature corresponding to the activation temperature, or overcharge to a voltage higher than 4.4 V [Park, 0019], a polymerization reaction of the non-aqueous cyclic solvent will be induced and the resulting polymer from the polymerization will increase the resistance of the electrolyte thereby reducing the ion conductivity of the electrolyte [0018].
48. The aforesaid catalyst weight range encompasses the lower bound of, and is within the upper bound of the claimed range, 0.1 wt% to 20 wt% defined by claim 3, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
49. In view of the totality of the foregoing, the non-aqueous electrolyte of Park is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed electrolyte in Applicant's Specification in terms of comprising: (i) a lithium salt [0028], (ii) an organic solvent including a cyclic carbonate [element 310, 0026] being at least one of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and gamma butyrolactone [0027], and (iii) an additive including a metal salt compound catalyst [0020], wherein the metal salt compound catalyst comprises (iv) metal cations including Al(III) and Zn(II) [0020], and (v) anions including halogen-based anions, inter alia chlorine [0020], wherein (vi) the additive is in a weight ratio of 0.1 wt% to 20 wt% with respect to the electrolyte [0035].
50. Applicant’s Specification Table 1 discloses an impact of the presence and/or absence of a catalyst on the polymerization reaction; wherein after exposure to high temperature (120 °C), the electrolyte comprising the catalyst, experiences a reduction in ionic conductivity [Table 1, 0049-0052 and 0061]. Further, in Applicant’s Specification Examples 1-3 the electrolyte comprises LiPF6 as the lithium salt [0038-0048], the cyclic carbonate includes ethylene carbonate [0040], and the additive weight ratios are in a range between 1-5 wt% [0043-0048].
51. Additionally, it is noted that the claim term “solid” is interpreted for examination on the merits in the broadest reasonable manner in view of Applicant’s specification, of which is any degree of solidity/solidification, thereby including solid and semi-solid states. See Applicant’s spec [0032-0034]; see MPEP 2111, MPEP 2111.01, and MPEP 2173.01(I).
52. Given that the electrolyte of Park is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed electrolyte in terms of the foregoing elements: (i)-(vi), it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the electrolyte of Park – at and after exposure to the activation temperature of 90-200° C resulting in polymerization of the cyclic carbonate solvent catalyzed by the metal salt compound catalyst – would have necessarily exhibited a solid or semi-solid state, i.e. would have necessarily been converted to a semi-solid or solid state to at least some degree, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where 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”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
53. Regarding claim 3, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 2 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the additive weight ratio defined by claim 3.
54. Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 4. That is, the catalyst(s) of Park, AlCl3 and/or ZnCl2 [0020], each include a metal cation and an anion, and reads on the claimed metal salt compound.
55. Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 5 (see ¶6 for 112(b) claim interpretation of claim 5). That is, the catalyst(s) of Park, AlCl3 and/or ZnCl2 [0020], each include the metal cation Al(III) and Zn(II), respectively, and reads on the claimed metal cations. See MPEP 2132.02 (II) which states “a reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named.”
56. Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 6 (see ¶7 for 112(b) claim interpretation of claim 6). That is, the catalyst(s) of Park, AlCl3 and/or ZnCl2 [0020], each include a halogen-based anion, and reads on the claimed anions. See MPEP 2132.02 (II) which states “a reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named.”
57. Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 7. That is, the one or more of the non-aqueous cyclic solvent of Park is ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), and gamma butyrolactone (GBL) [0022], reads on the claimed cyclic carbonate. See MPEP 2132.02 (II) which states “a reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named.”
58. Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 9. That is, the non-aqueous electrolyte of Park is interposed between the cathode and the anode [0024-0025]. Additionally, Park discloses the cathode (first electrode structure) electrode “can be fabricated according to a conventional method known in the art” [0026], wherein, an active material, binder, solvent, conductive material, and dispersant can all be stirred to prepare a slurry (first electrode layer) mixture [0026]. Further, the slurry can be applied on a metal current collector (first current collector) [0026].
59. Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 10. That is, the non-aqueous electrolyte of Park is interposed between the cathode and the anode [0024-0025]. Additionally, Park discloses the anode (second electrode structure) electrode “can be fabricated according to a conventional method known in the art” [0026], wherein, an active material, binder, solvent, conductive material, and dispersant can all be stirred to prepare a slurry (second electrode layer) mixture [0026]. Further, the slurry can be applied on a metal current collector (second current collector) [0026].
60. Regarding claim 11 the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the lithium battery defined by claim 9. That is, the secondary battery of Park comprises the cathode, the anode, the separator, and the non-aqueous electrolyte; wherein, the separator is interposed between the cathode and the anode and the non-aqueous electrolyte is placed into the resulting structure, interposed between the cathode and anode [0024-0025].
61. Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the electrolyte composition defined by claim 12 and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety (not repeated). Further, Park discloses the catalyst for polymerization is activated at a temperature between 90-200 °C (a first temperature), wherein the resulting polymerization reaction increases the resistance of the electrolyte, thereby reducing ion conductivity of the electrolyte which increases the safety of the battery [0018-0019].
62. The disclosed activation temperature range of 90-200° C [Park, 0019] corresponds to and encompasses the claimed first temperature range, 100-200 °C, defined by claim 12, thereby rendering prima facie obvious the claimed first temperature range (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
63. In view of the foregoing, and in view of the totality of the above rejection of claim 2, the electrolyte of Park is substantially identical or identical to the claimed electrolyte in terms of the foregoing elements (i)-(vi), see ¶49. As such it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the electrolyte of Park would have necessarily exhibited an increase in viscosity of the electrolyte composition at the first temperature, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where 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”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
64. Regarding claim 13, in view of the rejection of claim 12 above, the rejection of claim 3 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the claimed additive weight ratio defined by claim 13.
65. Regarding claim 14, in view of the rejection of claim 12 above, the rejection of claim 7 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the claimed cyclic carbonate defined by claim 14.
66. Regarding claim 15, in view of the rejection of claim 12 above, the rejection of claim 4 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the claimed metal cations and anions defined by claim 15.
67. Regarding claim 16, in view of the rejection of claim 15 above (see ¶8 for 112(b) claim interpretation of claim 16), the rejection of claim 5 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the claimed metal cations defined by claim 16.
68. Regarding claim 17, in view of the rejection of claim 15 above (see ¶9 for 112(b) claim interpretation of claim 17), the rejection of claim 6 set forth above is incorporated herein by reference and reads on the claimed anions defined by claim 17.
69. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2008/0305403 A1; “Park”), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0251776 A1; “Lee”).
70. Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the secondary battery set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
71. Park remains silent regarding an organic solvent further comprises a linear carbonate, the linear carbonate including at least one of dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, or ethylmethyl carbonate.
72. Lee is directed to the composition of a gel polymer electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery, wherein the gel polymer electrolyte comprises an oligomer, an additive, a polymerization initiator, a lithium salt, and a non-aqueous solvent [title, abstract]. Lee teaches a non-aqueous solvent is an electrolyte solvent (electrolyte), which may be one or more of an ether, an ester, an amide, a linear carbonate (organic solvent, the organic solvent includes a linear carbonate), a cyclic carbonate, or a nitrile [0093-0094]. Further, Lee teaches the linear carbonate may be one or more of dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, or ethylmethyl carbonate [0095].
73. Park and Lee each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – an electrolyte composition for use in a lithium battery. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-aqueous electrolyte of Park to incorporate the teachings of Lee such that it further comprises a linear carbonate, the linear carbonate including at least one of dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, or ethylmethyl carbonate. Lee teaches each linear carbonate having low viscosity and low dielectric constant [0096], thereby resulting in an electrolyte having a high electrical conductivity [0096].
Pertinent Prior Art
74. The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
75.
I. Ahn et al., US 10243239 B1; discloses a gel polymer electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery comprising a polymerization initiator and cyclic carbonate and/or a linear carbonate [col. 17 lines 4-39].
II. Atsushi et al., JP 2008159496 A, discloses a gel electrolyte for a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising scandium trifluoromethanesulfonate [Best Mode section].
Conclusion
76. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
77. 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.
78. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
79. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782