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 .
Claims 1-13 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO2017/099420, where US 2019/0051940 is used as a translation) in view of Li et al. (CN107507998, machine translation provided), hereinafter Park and Li.
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, and 10-13, Park suggests an electrochemical device (e.g., lithium-sulfur battery) comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and the nonaqueous electrolyte, see e.g., [0063-0064]. Park suggests the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises a first solvent comprising a heterocyclic compound containing at least one of oxygen and sulfur atoms (e.g., 1,3-dioxolane, 2-methylfuran, etc., see e.g., [00112-0014, 0038-0041, 0095]; the dioxolane satisfies the non-substituted 3-15 membered heterocyclic compound recited in instant claims 5, while the 2-methylfuran compounds satisfies the 3-15 membered heterocyclic compound substituted with C1-C4 alkyl recited in instant claim 5, and instant claims 6 and 10), wherein the heterocyclic compound of the first solvent comprises at least one double bond (e.g., 2-methylfuran includes a double bond, thereby satisfying instant claim 13), and a second solvent comprising at least one of an ether-based compound, an ester-based compound, an amide-based compound, or a carbonated based compound (e.g., 1,2-dimethoxyethane, see e.g., [0012-0016, 0038-0043], thereby satisfying instant claims 7 and 10).
Park suggests a first lithium salt is lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide and the like, see e.g., [0017-0018, 0052]. While lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl) imide is not explicitly disclosed, such a compound would be obvious because lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide and lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl) imide are similar in structure and have similar utilities, MPEP 2144.09. The structures of lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide and lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl) imide are provided below.
lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl) imide:
PNG
media_image1.png
163
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide:
PNG
media_image2.png
179
256
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As evident from their structures, lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide and lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl) imide are homologs differing only by the successive addition of the same chemical group (e.g., -CF2-); thus, lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide and lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl) imide are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness is made because both compounds are similar in structure (set forth above) and have similar utilities (lithium ion conductive salts in battery electrolytes), MPEP 2144.09.
Park suggests the concentration of the imide salt is 0.05 M to 8.0 M from the standpoint of improving output, cycle property, and avoiding gas generation and battery swelling, [0054]. The imide concentration can be used to calculate the amount of the imide with respect to the electrolyte by weight using the molecular weight of the imide (MW of lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl) imide = 587.13 g/mol) and solvent density, e.g., imide concentration x molecular weight of imide x (1/solvent density) x 100% = wt% of the salt with respect to the solvent. The solvent density in the following calculation assumes a 1:1 solvent ratio of 1,2-dimethoxyethane (density = 0.867 g/mL) to 2-methylfuran (density = 0.91 g/mL), hence a density of ~0.89 g/mL. As a general calculation: 0.05 M imide x 587.13 g/mol imide x (L/890g) x 100% = ~3.3 wt% imide salt. In view of the foregoing, Park suggests the amount of imide is between 2-5 wt% based on 100 wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte, or is close, MPEP 2144.05.
Further, Li suggests the use of lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide and lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl) imide, e.g.,
PNG
media_image3.png
177
353
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
164
347
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
in an amount between 2.0 wt% to 10 wt% with respect to the mass of the electrolyte to effectively improve overcharge safety, see e.g., [0008-0016, 0018, 0029-0031]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl) imide for lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl) imide because there is evidence both compounds are knowns lithium salt applied to battery electrolytes, MPEP 2144.06. Further, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the amount of lithium bis(nonafluorobutanesulfonyl) imide in the electrolyte of Park is between 2-5 wt% with respect to the total weight of the electrolyte with the expectation of improving overcharge safety, as suggested by Li.
Regarding Claims 2-4, Park suggests a second lithium salt (e.g., LiCl, LiBr, LiFSI, [0052, 0055]) comprising LiFSI, the concentration of the second salt is between 0.05 to 8M from the standpoint improving output and cycle properties, without excessively occurring side reactions leading to generation of gas and swelling of the battery, [0053-0054]; Park suggests the total salt concentration does not exceed 8 M to avoid an increased electrolyte viscosity, which leads to a decrease in lithium ion mobility, hence a decline in battery performance. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the second lithium salt concentration is limited between 0.2 to 2.0 M with the expectation of maintaining electrolyte viscosity such that lithium ion mobility is maintained and battery performance is ensured.
Regarding Claims 8-9, Parks suggests the electrolyte further comprises lithium nitrate and further potassium nitrate, cesium nitrate, lithium nitrite, potassium nitrite, or cesium nitrite, [0056-0057].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights