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 Objections
Claims 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “a lithium salt-based compound”, but a lithium salt is already a required limitation per claim 6 from which claim 12 depends. This could be changed to “a lithium salt-based compound in addition to the lithium salt” to clarify that it is in addition to the previously recited lithium salt.
Claim 19 recites “is be included” in line 2 and it appears “is” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20200052322) and with or without Fan et al. (US 20210036366).
Regarding claim 1, Yu et al. discloses an electrolyte solution additive comprising;
LiPO2F2 (lithium difluorophosphate as a second additive, Abstract); and
a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
214
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1 is hydrogen; a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; or a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, and L1 is a substituted or unsubstituted alkylene group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms (Yu et al., a first additive, Abstract, includes at least one compound listed in para. [0027] where multiple compounds meet the limitation including Formula 1a shown below):
PNG
media_image2.png
104
373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Insomuch as Yu et al. does not expressly disclose a sultone as part of an additive, Yu et al. teaches that a compound may be added to the electrolyte to form a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) and this compound may include a sultone-based compound (pars. [0092]-[0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yu et al. wherein the electrolyte additive includes a sultone-based compound.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a sultone-based compound in order to form an SEI to improve swelling characteristics during high-temperature storage (para. [0092]).
Further, Fan et al. teaches electrolyte additives which may include lithium difluorophosphate, methyl 2-propynylcarbonate, and which may also include a sultone (1,3-propane sultone, Abstract, para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yu et al. by adding a sultone-based compound.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use components which improve the high temperature, normal temperature and low temperature cycle performances of a battery (Fan et al., para. [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, Yu et al. discloses R1 is an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms (such as 1 carbon atom, para. [0027], Formula 1a or two carbon atoms, para. [0027], Formula 1b).
Regarding claim 3, Yu et al. discloses L1 is an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (1 carbon atom, Formula 1a or 1b).
Regarding claim 4, Yu et al. discloses wherein a weight ratio of the sultone-based compound and the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 (sultone-based compound : compound represented by Chemical Formula 1) is 5:5 to 8:2 (equivalent to 1:1 to 4:1) in that Yu et al. discloses an overlapping ratio as Yu et al. teaches the sultone may be 1-5% by weight (or broader, para. [0094]) and the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 may be 0.5-3% by weight (or broader, para. [0077]) corresponding to a ratio range of 1:3 to 10:1 which overlaps the claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Yu et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Yu et al. discloses wherein the sultone-based compound is one or more selected from the group consisting of 1,3-propane sultone (para. [0094]); and 1-propene 1,3-sultone (para. [0094]), and the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is methyl prop-2-yn-1-yl carbonate (para. [0027], Formula 1a) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
162
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Yu et al. discloses an electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract), comprising: a lithium salt (Abstract); an organic solvent (Abstract); and the electrolyte solution additive according to claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Yu et al. discloses wherein the sultone-based compound is comprised in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution (such as 1-5% by weight, para. [0094] corresponding to 1 to 5 parts by weight).
Regarding claim 8, Yu et al. discloses wherein the LiPO2F2 is comprised in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 2 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution in that Yu et al. discloses an overlapping range (0.1% by weight to 5% by weight, para. [0029], corresponding to 0.1-5 parts by weight).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Yu et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Yu et al. discloses wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is comprised in an amount of 0.01 parts by weight to 3 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution (0.5-3% by weight, para. [0077], corresponding to 0.5 to 3 parts by weight).
Regarding claim 10, Yu et al. discloses wherein the lithium salt comprises Li+ as a cation, and
comprises, as an anion, one or more of F−, Cl−, Br−, I−, NO3, N(CN)2−, BF4−, ClO4−, AlO4−, AlCl4−, PF6 −, SbF6−, AsF6−, BF2C2O4−, BC4O8−, (CF3)2PF4 −, (CF3)3PF3−, (CF3)4PF −, (CF3)5PF−, (CF3)6P−, CF3SO3−, C4F9SO3−, CF3CF2SO3 −, (CF3SO2)2N−, (FSO2)2N−, CF3CF2(CF3)2CO−, (CF3SO2)2CH−, CF3(CF2)7SO3−, CF3CO2−, CH3CO2−, SCN− or (CF3CF2SO2)2N (para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 11, Yu et al. discloses wherein the organic solvent comprises one of an ether-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, an amide-based solvent, or a mixture thereof (para. [0061]).
Regarding claim 12, Yu et al. discloses the electrolyte solution may comprise one or more of a halogen group-substituted carbonate-based compound (para. [0093]), a nitrile-based compound (para. [0093]), a cyclic carbonate-based compound (para. [0093]), a phosphate-based compound, a borate-based compound, a cyclic sulfite (para. [0093]), a non-cyclic sulfone, or a lithium salt-based compound.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yu et al. to include an additional SEI forming compound in addition to the sultone (as Yu et al. indicates multiple may be used “at least one”, para. [0093]).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a halogen group-substituted carbonate-based compound (para. [0093]), a nitrile-based compound (para. [0093]), a cyclic carbonate-based compound (para. [0093]) or a cyclic sulfite (para. [0093]) to ensure or facilitate SEI formation.
Regarding claim 13, Yu et al. discloses a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, pars. [0125], [0133] and [0134]) comprising the electrolyte solution according to claim 6 (see comments for claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 14, Yu et al. discloses wherein the lithium secondary battery is a cylindrical battery (para. [0125]).
Regarding claim 15, Yu et al. discloses wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is represented by the following (para. [0027], Formula 1a):
PNG
media_image4.png
154
348
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
162
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Yu et al. discloses wherein the sultone-based compound comprises a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2:
PNG
media_image5.png
217
593
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wherein, in Chemical Formula 2, L2 is a substituted or unsubstituted alkylene group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; or a substituted or unsubstituted alkenylene group having 2 to 10 carbon atoms, and
n is 1 to 10 (Yu et al. teaches sultones meeting the above shown structure, para. [0094], including 1,3-propane sultone where L2 is an alkylene group having 3 carbons and n=1).
Regarding claim 17, Yu et al. discloses wherein the sultone-based compound is included in an amount of 10 parts by weight to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution additive in that Yu et al. discloses an overlapping range because Yu et al. teaches the sultone is 1-5% by weight in the electrolyte solution (para. [0094]), the compound of Formula 1 is 0.5-3% by weight in the electrolyte solution (para. [0077]), and the LiPO2F2 is 0.1-5% by weight in the electrolyte solution (para. [0029]) which corresponds to the sultone-based compound being in an amount of about 11 to 89 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution additive which consists of the compound of Formula 1, the sultone and the LiPO2F2. Using the low end of the above ranges, the sultone would be about 63 parts by weight and using the high end of the ranges, the sultone would be about 38 parts by weight.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Yu et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 18, Yu et al. discloses wherein the LiPO2F2 is included in an amount of 30 parts by weight to 80 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution additive in that Yu et al. discloses an overlapping range because Yu et al. teaches the LiPO2F2 is 0.1-5% by weight in the electrolyte solution (para. [0029]), the sultone is 1-5% by weight in the electrolyte solution (para. [0094]), and the compound of Formula 1 is 0.5-3% by weight in the electrolyte solution (para. [0077]), which corresponds to the LiPO2F2 being in an amount of about 1 to 77 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution additive which consists of the compound of Formula 1, the sultone and the LiPO2F2. Using the low end of the above ranges, the LiPO2F2 would be about 6 parts by weight and using the high end of the ranges, the LiPO2F2 would be about 38 parts by weight.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Yu et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Yu et al. discloses wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is included in an amount of 1 part by weight to 30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the entire electrolyte solution additive in that Yu et al. discloses an overlapping range because Yu et al. teaches the compound of Formula 1 is 0.5-3% by weight in the electrolyte solution (para. [0077]), the sultone is 1-5% by weight in the electrolyte solution (para. [0094]), and the LiPO2F2 is 0.1-5% by weight in the electrolyte solution (para. [0029]) which corresponds to the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 being in an amount of about 5 to 73 parts by weight of the entire electrolyte solution additive which consists of the compound of Formula 1, the sultone and the LiPO2F2. Using the low end of the above ranges, the compound of Formula 1 would be about 31 parts by weight and using the high end of the ranges, the compound of Formula 1 would be about 23 parts by weight.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Yu et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Yu et al. discloses the electrolyte solution may comprise vinylene carbonate (VC) (para. [0064]), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (para. [0095]) and succinonitrile (SN) (para. [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yu et al. wherein the electrolyte solution comprises vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and succinonitrile (SN).
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to include compounds which help ensure or facilitate SEI formation (para. [0093]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US 20200044287) discloses adding 0.06 g of methyl prop-2-yn-1-yl carbonate to 4.94 g of solvent in a comparative example (para. [0160], Table 1).
Ji et al. (US 20220131195) discloses electrolyte additives containing triple-bonded moieties.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights