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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it fails to provide a concise summary of the technical disclosure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1, 3-8, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram et al. (WO 2018200631), hereinafter Manthiram.
Regarding claim 1, Manthiram teaches an electrolyte composition for a lithium-ion battery (Abstract), including:
7-36 wt% of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, Manthiram specifically teaches the imide salt is 1-90 wt% by weight of the electrolyte;
0.6-6 wt% of one or more further lithium salts, selected from one or more the group consisting of: lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, lithium difluorophosphate, lithium bis(oxalato) borate and lithium hexafluorophosphate (pg. 8, ln. 3-26; pg. 9, ln. 17 - pg. 10, ln. 17), Manthiram specifically teaches the salt is 1-90 wt% by weight of the electrolyte;
2-10 wt% of an additive, wherein the additive comprises vinylene carbonate and/or fluoroethylene carbonate (pg. 10, ln. 24 - pg. 11, ln. 28), Manthiram specifically teaches the additive (aprotic solvent) is 0.01-15 wt% by weight of the electrolyte;
the solvent comprises of: dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (pg. 9, ln 4-11).
Manthiram does not expressly disclose the claimed wt% of the solvent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to select a relative amount within the claimed range. The optimization of the concentration of a known component to obtain the desired composition is considered a result-effective variable.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium salts, additive, and solvent wt% within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 3, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram further teaches the additive comprises vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate (pg. 10, ln. 24 - pg. 11, ln. 28).
Regarding claim 4, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 3, as stated above. Manthiram further teaches the additive comprises vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate (pg. 10, ln. 24 - pg. 11, ln. 28). Manthiram does not expressly disclose the claimed weight ratio between VC and FEC, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to select a relative amount of VC and FEC within the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization and design choice. The claimed weight ratio represent merely one of a finite number of predictable combinations of the taught additives and would have been arrive at through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 5, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 3, as stated above. Manthiram further teaches the composition includes about 6-7 wt% of the additive (pg. 10, ln. 24 - pg. 11, ln. 28). Manthiram specifically teaches the additive (aprotic solvent) is 0.01-15 wt% by weight of the electrolyte.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select additive wt% within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 6, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram further teaches the composition includes 20-30 wt% of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (pg. 8, ln. 3-26). Manthiram specifically teaches the imide salt is 1-90 wt% by weight of the electrolyte.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select imide salt wt% within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 7, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram teaches the composition includes 2-3 wt% of the one or more further lithium salts (pg. 8, ln. 3-26; pg. 9, ln. 17 - pg. 10, ln. 17). Manthiram specifically teaches imide salt is 1-90 wt% by weight of the electrolyte.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a composition wt% within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 8, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram teaches the further lithium salt consists of lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (pg. 9, ln. 17 - pg. 10, ln. 17).
Regarding claim 10, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram further teaches the solvent includes two of ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate and dimethyl carbonate (pg. 9, ln 4-11). Manthiram teaches a variety of carbonate solvents and combinations thereof, therefore encompassing the claimed solvent.
Regarding claim 11, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram further teaches the composition is substantially free from ethylene carbonate (pg. 34, ln. 1-10). Manthiram teaches an ethylene carbonate-free electrolyte.
Regarding claim 12, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram teaches:
The composition consists of (Abstract):
lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (pg. 8, ln. 3-26);
lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (pg. 9, ln. 17 - pg. 10, ln. 17);
vinylene carbonate (pg. 10, ln. 24 - pg. 11, ln. 28);
fluoroethylene carbonate (pg. 10, ln. 24 - pg. 11, ln. 28);
A solvent consisting of one or more dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (pg. 9, ln 4-11).
Regarding claim 13, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram teaches:
The composition consisting of about:
26.5 wt% lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (pg. 8, ln. 3-26), Manthiram specifically teaches the imide salt is 1-90 wt% by weight of the electrolyte;
2-4 wt% lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (pg. 8, ln. 3-26; pg. 9, ln. 17 - pg. 10, ln. 17), Manthiram specifically teaches the salt is 1-90 wt% by weight of the electrolyte;
3.8 wt% vinylene carbonate (pg. 10, ln. 24 - pg. 11, ln. 28), Manthiram specifically teaches the additive (aprotic solvent) is 0.01-15 wt% by weight of the electrolyte;
1.9wt% fluoroethylene carbonate (pg. 10, ln. 24 - pg. 11, ln. 28), Manthiram specifically teaches the additive (aprotic solvent) is 0.01-15 wt% by weight of the electrolyte;
a solvent consisting of one or more dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (pg. 9, ln 4-11).
Manthiram fails to teach:
The composition consists of:
32.7 wt% of dimethyl carbonate
32.7 wt% of ethyl methyl carbonate.
Manthiram does not expressly disclose the claimed wt% of the dimethyl carbonate or ethyl methyl carbonate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to select a relative amount within the claimed range. The optimization of the concentration of a known component to obtain the desired composition is considered a result-effective variable.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, and solvent wt% within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 14, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram further teaches an electrolyte composition according to claim 1 (Abstract).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram, in view of Li (EP 3072178), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 2, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram fails to teach the lithium concentration in the composition is between about 0.8 M and 2.8 M. Li teaches the lithium concentration in the composition is between about 0.8 M and 2.8 M ([0040]).
Manthiram and Li are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolyte compositions for lithium-ion batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Manthiram to include the lithium concentration taught by Li. The lithium concentration taught by Li would lead to improved ionic conductivity and battery performance. The modification merely involves selecting a known lithium concentration for use in a known electrolyte composition and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Manthiram teaches the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Manthiram fails to teach the composition includes 60-70 wt% of solvent. Li teaches the composition includes 60-70 wt% of solvent ([0023]).
Manthiram and Li are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolyte compositions for lithium-ion batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the amount of solvent in Manthiram as taught by Li. The modification merely involves selecting a known concentration of a known solvent component for use in a known electrolyte system and would have yielded predictable results.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a solvent wt% within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights