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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9, 12, 14, 15, and 22-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9, 12, 14, 15, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0006635 hereinafter Kim in view of JP 2016-186915 A hereinafter Yoshida, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0200864 hereinafter Dai, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0243911 hereinafter Kuwajima, and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0269537 hereinafter Yoshima.
Regarding Claims 9, 12, and 22-26, Kim teaches a method for preparing a lithium secondary battery, the method comprising: forming a first electrolyte solution that comprises a lithium (electrolyte) salt [LiPF6] and organic solvent (paragraphs 124-125); forming a second electrolyte solution that comprises a lithium (electrolyte) salt [LiPF6] and organic solvent (paragraph 126); and injecting the first electrolyte solution into the battery, then after formation, injecting the second electrolyte solution into the battery (paragraph 126).
Kim does not specifically disclose that the first electrolyte solution comprises an additive (i.e., MSO3F [wherein M is Na, K, Rb, or Cs]), and the amount of the additive in the electrolyte.
However, Yoshida teaches a method for preparing a secondary battery (see Examples 1-4), the method comprising forming an electrolyte solution that includes a non-aqueous solvent, an electrolyte salt, and an additive (NaFSO3) (see compound represented by general formula 1). Yoshida further teaches that the additive (NaFSO3) is included in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt% based on the total amount of the electrolyte solution. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such additive (NaFSO3) in the first electrolyte solution before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Yoshida discloses that such amount of NaFSO3 can improve the battery characteristics.
The combination does not specify that the additive is MFSO3, wherein M is Rb (i.e., RbFSO3).
However, Dai teaches an electrolyte for a secondary battery and a method for preparing the electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises an additive such as RbFSO3 or NaFSO3 (paragraph 36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use RbFSO3 as the additive in the electrolyte solution before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Dai discloses that such additive can improve the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte (paragraph 36).
The use of a known technique (i.e., using RbFSO3 as the additive in the electrolyte solution) to improve similar methods (or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S._,_, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
The combination of Kim and Yoshida teaches that the electrolyte solution comprises an electrolyte salt such as LiPF6 or LiFSI at a concentration of 0.3 to 3 mol/L (see electrolyte (lithium) salts in Yoshida) but does not specifically disclose that the electrolyte salt is LiTFSI.
However, Kuwajima teaches an electrolyte solution for a secondary battery and a method for preparing the electrolyte solution, wherein the electrolyte solution comprises lithium fluorosulfate and LiN(CF3SO2)2 [LiTFSI] as the imide salt (paragraph 209). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include LiTFSI as the imide salt in the electrolyte solution before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Kuwajima discloses that such configuration can achieve an effect of improving properties such as output characteristics, high-rate charge and discharge characteristics, high-temperature storage characteristics, and cycle characteristics (paragraph 212).
Yoshima further teaches an electrolyte and method for preparing the electrolyte, the electrolyte comprising first electrolyte with concentration of 1 to M and second electrolyte with concentration of 5 to 12 M (paragraphs 40-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such electrolyte concentrations before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because such configuration can suppress gas generation in the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraph 39, see Table 1).
As evidence by US 2020/0303775, the claimed electrolyte salt would be obvious (paragraph 25).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination teaches that the first lithium (electrolyte) salt and the second lithium (electrolyte) salt each independently comprise LiPF6 (paragraphs 124 and 126 of Kim).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination teaches that the second electrolyte solution comprises a phosphoric or sulfonic ester (paragraphs 44, 69 of Kim).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights