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 § 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.
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) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub No. 2019/0020063) in view of Watanabe (US Pub No. 2020/0303776)
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, Kim et al. teaches a method of improving cycle life and stability of a high voltage, rechargeable, lithium ion battery comprising a cathode electrode, an anode electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte [0115-0118, 0124], the nonaqueous battery electrolyte, comprising: a primary lithium salt [LiPF6, 0049], a primary nonaqueous solvent [0018], and an additive amount of 2.5 to 4.5 wt% overlapping the claimed less than 10% by weight of an additive mixture [0015], characterized in that the additive mixture comprises:
an additive solvent amount of 2.7 g including 2.7 of LiDFP:TAB:TVS (ratio of 1:1.5:0.1), 0.5 g of VC, 0.5 g of PS, and 1 g of Esa [0124, Table 1, page 9, para. 137-139,] in 95.3 g of the solvent [0124].
Kim et al. teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises between 0.1 % and 5% by weight of the additive solvent [about 2.8%, Table 1]
wherein the electrolyte comprises between 0.1 % and 5% by weight of lithium difluorophosphate [about 1.038 % of LiDFP, ratio of 1:1.5:0.1 of 2.7 grams]
Kim et al. is silent on a sulfur containing compound including methylene methane disulfonate (“MMDS”);
Watanabe et al. teaches the use of MMDS in the amount of 2.4 wt% [0132] in a battery which results in improved capacity retention rate [0150].
Since Kim et al. teaches a variety of additives for the battery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to add the MMDS of Watanabe to the additives of Kim et al. in order to provide the battery with improved retention rate [0150].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches wherein the primary lithium salt comprises at least one salt selected from the group consisting of: LiPF6 [0049].
Regarding Claims 3 and 16, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches wherein the primary lithium salt is LiPF6 [0049].
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches wherein the primary lithium salt is different from lithium difluorophosphate [0049].
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches further comprising a sultone [PS, see rejection of claim 1].
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches wherein the sulfur containing compound is MMDS [see rejection of claim 1].
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches wherein the primary nonaqueous solvent comprises ethylene carbonate (“EC”), ethyl methyl carbonate (“EMC”), and dimethyl carbonate (“DMC”) [0018] and silent on in a mass ratio of 25 wt.% EC:5 wt.% EMC:70 wt.% DMC.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the nonaqueous solvents, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the nonaqueous solvents are changed, the precise parameters of the nonaqueous solvents would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a mass ratio of 25 wt.% EC:5 wt.% EMC:70 wt.% DMC.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the nonaqueous solvents to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 8 and 21, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches wherein the sulfur containing compound includes ethylene sulfate [see rejection of claim 1, 0022].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches high voltage, rechargeable, lithium-ion battery comprising a cathode electrode, an anode electro002de, and the nonaqueous battery electrolyte of Claim 1 [Abstract].
Regarding Claims 10-11, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches wherein the cathode electrode comprises a compound of LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 [0032].
Regarding Claim 12, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of modified Kim et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the device of modified Pena et al. meeting the limitation of “wherein the maximum operating voltage limit of the battery is 4.2 V or greater.”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. teaches wherein the anode electrode comprises graphite [0100].
Regarding Claim 17, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. is silent on wherein the additive mixture comprises 1 wt% VC, 1 wt% MMDS, and 1 wt% LFO.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the additive mixture, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the additive mixture are changed, the precise parameters of the additive mixture would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the additive mixture comprises 1 wt% VC, 1 wt% MMDS, and 1 wt% LFO.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the additive mixture to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 19, within the combination above, modified Kim et al. is silent on wherein the additive mixture comprises 2 wt% VC, 0.5 wt% MMDS, and 1 wt% LFO.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the additive mixture, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the additive mixture are changed, the precise parameters of the additive mixture would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the additive mixture comprises 2 wt% VC, 0.5 wt% MMDS, and 1 wt% LFO.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the additive mixture to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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 Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights