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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0184262) in view of Liew et al. (US 2023/0022046).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee meets the claimed,
An electrolyte solution (Abstract teaches an electrolyte solution) for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract teaches the electrolyte solution is for a lithium secondary battery), the electrolyte solution comprising: a lithium salt (Claim 1 teaches the use of a lithium salt); a solvent (Claim 1 teaches the use of a solvent); and a functional additive (Paragraph [0037] teaches the use of a functional additive), wherein the functional additive comprises a negative-electrode film additive (Paragraph [0037] teaches the use of a functional additive designed to form a protective SEI film on the negative electrode, stopping both side reactions and dendrite growth).
Lee does not teach the use of silver p-toluenesulfonate as the functional additive.
Liew et al. teaches the use of silver salts to create a thin SEI layer to suppress dendrite formations on the anode.
Liew meets the claimed,
[…] that comprises silver p-toluenesulfonate (Paragraph [0021] teaches the use of silver p-toluenesulfonate as a material for creating a dendrite-suppressing SEI layer on an anode).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the silver salts as a functional additive in the electrolyte solution as the silver salts are easier to scale-up in production and possess a high degree of uniformity while still being able to produce the dendrite-suppressing layer (See Lee et al. Paragraph [0006], “The current “protective layer” materials have problems such as being difficult to scale-up preparation with a high degree of uniformity.”)
Regarding Claim 4, Lee meets the claimed,
The electrolyte solution of claim 1, wherein the lithium salt comprises one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4,,LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiB10Cl10, LiCF3SO3, LiCF3CO2, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, CH3SO3Li, CF3SO3Li, LiN(S02C2F5)2, Li(CF3SO2)2N, LiC4F9SO3, LiB(C6H5)4, LiB(C2O4)2, LiPO2F2, Li(SO2F)2N, LiFSI, and (CF3SO2)2NLi (Paragraph [0013] teaches the following lithium salts: LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiB10Cl10, LiCF3SO3, LiCF3CO2, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, CH3SO3Li, CF3SO3Li, LiN(SO2C2F5)2, Li(CF3SO2)2N, LiC4F9SO3, LiB(C6H5)4, Li(SO2F)2N (LiFSI) and (CF3SO2)2NLi).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee meets the claimed,
The electrolyte solution of claim 1, wherein the solvent comprises one or a mixture of two or mor selected from the group consisting of a carbonate-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, and a ketone-based solvent (Paragraph [0014] teaches the use of a solvent selected from a group consisting of a carbonate-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, and a ketone-based solvent).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee meets the claimed,
A lithium secondary battery (Paragraph [0016] teaches a lithium secondary battery) comprising: an electrolyte solution (Paragraph [0016] teaches the use of an electrolyte solution in the battery) comprising: a lithium salt (Claim 1 teaches the use of a lithium salt); a solvent (Claim 1 teaches the use of a solvent); and a functional additive (Paragraph [0037] teaches the use of a functional additive), wherein the functional additive comprises a negative-electrode film additive (Paragraph [0037] teaches the use of a functional additive designed to form a protective SEI film on the negative electrode, stopping both side reactions and prevents dendrite growth).
Lee does not teach the use of silver p-toluenesulfonate as the functional additive.
Liew et al. teaches the use of silver salts to create a thin SEI layer to suppress dendrite formations on the anode.
Liew meets the claimed,
[…] that comprises silver p-toluenesulfonate (Paragraph [0021] teaches the use of silver p-toluenesulfonate as a material for creating a dendrite-suppressing SEI layer on an anode).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the silver salts as a functional additive in the electrolyte solution as the silver salts are easier to scale-up in production and possess a high degree of uniformity while still being able to produce the dendrite-suppressing layer (See Lee et al. Paragraph [0006], “The current “protective layer” materials have problems such as being difficult to scale-up preparation with a high degree of uniformity.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Lee meets the claimed,
The lithium secondary battery of claim 6, further comprising: a positive electrode (Paragraph [0016] teaches a positive electrode) comprising a positive electrode active material containing Ni, Co, and Mn (Paragraph [0016] teaches the cathode comprising Ni, Co, and Mn); a negative electrode (Paragraph [0016] teaches a negative electrode) comprising a negative-electrode active material containing one or more selected from a carbon (C)-Based material or a silicon (Si)-based material (Paragraph [0016] teaches a carbon-based negative electrode); and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Paragraph [0016] teaches a separator between the cathode and anode).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee/Liew does not explicitly teach a Ni content of 60% by weight or more.
However, Lee does teach that the Ni content in the positive electrode is a result effective variable that affects the capacity of the positive electrode (See Paragraph [0006], “The increase in the capacity of the positive electrode can be achieved through […] increasing the Ni content of Ni—Co—Mn-based oxide constituting a positive-electrode active material”). It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the Ni content in the positive electrode in order to obtain the desired positive electrode capacity.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee meets the claimed,
The lithium secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises graphite (Paragraph [0042] teaches the use of graphite for the anode).
Regarding Claim 10 and 11, Lee/Liew does not explicitly teach the lithium secondary battery having a particular capacity retention rate of 90% or more after 100 cycles or 80% or more after 200 cycles within particular conditions.
However, the lithium secondary battery as taught by Lee/Liew contains all structural elements of the claimed lithium secondary battery, including electrolyte composition, cathode composition, and anode composition.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (See MPEP 2112.01).
Thus, it is presumed that the lithium secondary battery as taught by Lee/Liew would possess the same electrochemical properties as the claimed lithium secondary battery, including the recited capacity retention rate of 90% or more after 100 cycles at 2.5 to 4.2 V at a charging and/or discharging rate of 1C and 45°C, as well as the recited capacity retention rate of 80% or more after 200 cycles at 2.5 to 4.2 V at a charging and/or discharging rate of 1C and 45°C.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0184262) in view of Liew et al. (US 2023/0022046), and further in view of Zhu (US 2021/0119257).
Regarding Claim 2 and 3, Lee/Liew does not directly teach the weight of the particular negative-electrode film additive being in an amount between 0.02% and 0.1%, nor does it teach the amount being between 0.05% and 0.1%.
Zhu teaches an electrolyte solution for use in a lithium-ion battery with an additive for the purposes of forming an SEI film on an electrode to improve performance.
Zhu specifically teaches that the percent by weight of a negative-electrode film additive is a result effective variable that affects the cell resistance and cell power of the battery as well as the lifespan of the cell (See Paragraph [0049], “With a high content of the additive A in the electrolytic solution, the formed SEI film is too thick, gives rise to a relatively high initial resistance, and severely affects kinetic performance such as power output of the lithium-ion battery. Conversely, if the content is too low, no effective SEI film is formed on a surface of a negative electrode material, thereby reducing the resistance during the charge and discharge cycles, and incurring more side reactions.”) It is well-established that the optimization of result-effective variables only requires ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05, II). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the percent by weight of the additive in order to reach a desired cell resistance, power, and lifespan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tamura et al. (US 2007/0178379) teaches the use of vinylene carbonate as a known protective film forming agent.
Sun et al. (CN 114927756) teaches the use of a positive electrode film additive and a negative electrode film additive. The positive electrode film additive comprises 0.5% to 2% of lithium difluorophosphate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW Y. HO whose telephone number is (571)842-1342. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 6:00, Mon - Thurs.
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, Xiao S. Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/A.Y.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights