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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues that Zhou and Abe do not render the instant claim 1 obvious because, taken individually or in combination, the references do not teach the function of the instant invention, which the applicant states is the suppression of gas generation during normal operation. The applicant argues that because this function constitutes unexpected outcomes resulting from the combination of compound A and anion B, the cited references cannot render it obvious because their combination would not have been made to produce such unexpected results.
This is not persuasive, because, while there would admittedly be an unexpected result from the combination of the carbonic acid methyl 2-propynyl ester of Zhou and subsubstitution of the LiDFOB of Zhou for the lithium fluorosulfonate of Abe, these expected results indicated in Table 1 of the instant are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. This is because Table 1 only provides evidence of the unexpected result in cases of carbonic acid methyl 2-propynyl ester is used as compound A. Substance A of claim 1 has a much broader scope than just this compound, so these unexpected results do not render claim 1 non-obvious over the combination of Zhou and Abe.
On pages 8-9 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues that there would have been no motivation to combine because the LiDFOB of Zhou and the lithium fluorosulfonate of Abe serve different purposes in their electrolytes, which makes their substitution non-obvious.
This is not persuasive because their inclusion in the same list means that either may be used, making them known equivalents in the art, regardless of their intended purposes in the individual inventions of Zhou and Abe.
The applicant argues on page 9 that Zhou and Abe fail to teach the claimed ratio of A/B because LiDFOB does not meet the requirements of the anion of the instant claim 1.
This is not persuasive because the combination of Zhou and Abe explained by the examiner would not modify the 0.6 ratio which is taught by Zhou because the modification involves replacing the LiDFOB of Zhou with lithium fluorosulfonate while maintaining the same mass ratio. This means the ratio would fall inside the claimed range which renders claim 1 obvious.
The applicant argues on pages 9-10 that unexpected results resulting from the claimed range of A/B render claim 1 non-obvious.
This is not persuasive because the value of 0.6 taught by Zhou is equivalent to A/B of the instant claim 1 and falls inside the claimed range, meaning it would read on the claim without requiring any adjustment like the applicant describes in their response. If no adjustment is required then unexpected results from the range of A/B do not render the claim non-obvious over Zhou and Abe.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220271341-A1, Zhou, in view of US-20170373348-A1, Abe.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a nonaqueous electrolytic solution comprising carbonic acid methyl 2-propynyl ester (R-A) and LiDFOB (R-B), wherein a mass ratio (R-A)/(R-B) of a content of the compound (R-A) to a content of the anion (R-B) is 0.6 (Table 1).
The structure of R-A is shown in the figure below (left), along with the Formulas (1) and (1-1) of the instant (right), and annotations mapping the claim limitations of claim 1 of the instant. For any references to R-A from this point forward, refer to this diagram.
PNG
media_image1.png
577
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
499
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As is laid out above, the circled portion of R-A corresponds to the circled portion of the Formula (1), where X1 and X2 have been substituted with hydrogens as is claimed in claim 1. The boxed in section of R-A corresponds to Y1, more specifically the structure of the Formula (1-1) on the right. Finally, the methyl group indicated by the arrow labeled “Z1” corresponds to an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom, as is claimed in claim 1. A value of (R-A)/(R-B) corresponds to A/B, and falls inside the range of 0.01 to 1.2. This positively recites all of the requirements of Structure A of claim 1 of the instant, as well as the requirements for A/B.
Zhou does not teach an R-B which is represented by the Formula 2 of the instant.
However, Abe teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt which may comprise any from a list of salts having an oxalic acid skeleton selected from a list provided in [0069]. The list comprises LiDFOB and lithium fluorosulfonate. This teaches equivalency between the two salts in the field of nonaqueous electrolytes.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to replace the LiDFOB additive of Zhou with the lithium fluorosulfonate of Abe, because doing so would amount to no more than swapping components which are known equivalents in the art of nonaqueous electrolyte additives.
Lithium fluorosulfonate meets the structural requirements of anion B of claim 1 of the instant.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhou teaches R-A, which meets all of the structural requirements for A of claim 2 (Zhou, Table 1)
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhou teaches R-B comprises lithium fluorosulfonate (Abe [0069]), which meets the structural requirements of anion B wherein Z3 represents a fluorine atom.
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhou teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises ethyl propionate (Zhou, Table 1) which is a linear carboxylate.
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhou teaches R-A, which meets the structural requirements for A of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhou teaches R-A, which comprises an alkyl group having 1 carbon atom, which meets the structural requirements of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhou teaches R-A, which meets the structural limitations of claim 7 of the instant.
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhou teaches R-B, which comprises lithium fluorosulfonate, which comprises an alkaline metal salt.
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhou teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte solution comprises ethyl propionate (Zhou, Table 1), fluoroethylene carbonate (Zhou, Table 1), and diethyl carbonate (Zhou [0089]), which are a linear carboxylate, saturated cyclic carbonate, and a linear carbonate, respectively.
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhou teaches a nonaqueous electrolytic solution battery (Zhou, [0086]) comprising: a positive electrode (Zhou, [0093]) having a positive electrode active material (Zhou, [0094]); a negative electrode (Zhou, [0095]); and the nonaqueous electrolytic solution which has been taught in the above rejections.
While modified Zhou does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material is capable of absorbing and releasing lithium ions, the material modified Zhou teaches is lithium cobalt oxide. The instant teaches LiCoO2 is a potential option for positive electrode active material (Instant, [0072]), which means it must be capable of absorbing and releasing lithium ions.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the teachings of modified Zhou are explained in the above rejections.
Modified Zhou does not teach a positive electrode active material which meets the requirements of the Formula 13 of the instant.
However, Abe teaches a positive electrode active material comprising materials listed in [0087]. The list contains both LiCoO-2 and LiCo1-xNixO2, wherein 0.01<x<1. This teaches an equivalency between the two materials. LiCo1-xNixO2, wherein 0.01<x<1 meets the requirements of the Formula 13 of the instant, including the further specified ranges of b of claim 14.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to replace the LiCoO2 of Zhou with the LiCo1-xNixO2, wherein 0.01<x<1 of Abe, because doing so would amount to no more than replacing one known material for positive electrode active material for an equivalent which was known in the field of nonaqueous secondary batteries to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Zhou teaches in Electrolyte 46, which is what is referred to in the rejection of claim 1, that FEC is included in the electrolyte (Table 1). FEC is a fluorine containing cyclic carbonate.
Regarding claim 16, R-B as is taught by Zhou and Abe in the rejection of claim 1 does not have an alkyl group.
Abe also teaches that lithium ethylsulfate may be used as the lithium salt for an organic electrolyte solution in the same list that contains LiDFOB and lithium fluorosulfonate [0069].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to replace the LiDFOB additive of Zhou with the lithium ethylsulfate of Abe, because doing so would amount to no more than swapping components which are known equivalents in the art of nonaqueous electrolyte additives.
Lithium ethylsulfate meets the requirements of Formula 2 of the instant claim 16, where the ethyl group meets the requirements of Z3 being an alkyl group.
Regarding claim 17, R-B as is taught by Zhou and Abe in the rejection of claim 1 does not have an alkoxy group.
Abe also teaches that lithium methylsulfate may be used as the lithium salt for an organic electrolyte solution in the same list that contains LiDFOB and lithium fluorosulfonate [0069].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to replace the LiDFOB additive of Zhou with the lithium methylsulfate of Abe, because doing so would amount to no more than swapping components which are known equivalents in the art of nonaqueous electrolyte additives.
Lithium methylsulfate meets the requirements of Formula 2 of the instant claim 17, where the methyl group bound to the fourth oxygen meets the requirements of Z3 being an alkyl group.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220271341-A1, Zhou, US-20170373348-A1, Abe and in further view of US-20200168949-A1 (W).
Regarding claim 18, R-B as is taught by Zhou and Abe in the rejection of claim 1 does not have an alkenyl group.
W teaches that either LiDFOB or propenyl-1,3-sultone may be used as an electrolyte additive that can form a dense and stable SEI when added in an organic electrolyte solution [0074].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to replace the LiDFOB additive of Zhou with the propenyl-1,3-sultone of W, because doing so would amount to no more than swapping components which are known equivalents in the art of nonaqueous electrolyte additives.
Propenyl-1,3-sultone meets the requirements of the narrowed anion B of claim 18 because it has an alkenyl group having 3 carbon atoms bound directly to the sulfur.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220271341-A1, Zhou, US-20170373348-A1, Abe and in further view CN-111048830-A (C).
Regarding claim 19, R-B as is taught by Zhou and Abe in the rejection of claim 1 does not have an alkenyloxy group.
C teaches that either LiDFOB or vinyl sulfate may be used as an electrolyte additive that can form a dense and stable SEI when added in an organic electrolyte solution [0026], [0032].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to replace the LiDFOB additive of Zhou with the vinyl sulfate of C, because doing so would amount to no more than swapping components which are known equivalents in the art of nonaqueous electrolyte additives.
Vinyl sulfate meets the requirements of the narrowed anion B of claim 19 because it has an alkenyl group having 2 carbon atoms bound to an oxygen which is bound to sulfur.
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 LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights