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.
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) 1-3, 7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watarai et al. (JP-2016184463-A, translation used for citation).
PNG
media_image1.png
195
219
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 1, Watarai teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising: a non-aqueous solvent such as ethylene carbonate which reads on a non-aqueous organic solvent (page 2 and page 5), a lithium salt (page 2) and an additive (page 10). Watarai teaches additives that may include an auxiliary agent for improving capacity maintenance characteristics and cycle characteristics after high-temperature storage (page 10). Watarai teaches that the additive may comprise chloroethylene carbonate which is a chlorinated ethylene carbonate (page 11-12). Chloroethylene carbonate, as taught by Watarai on page 12, is a chlorinated ethylene carbonate that comprises a compound represented by a following structural formula: wherein an R group is selected from a Cl group or a CCl3 group.
Watarai does not specifically teach lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate as an additive. However, on page 3, Watarai teaches lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate as a lithium salt that may be included in the electrolyte. Watarai also teaches that two or more types of lithium salts may be used together by arbitrary combinations and a ratio (page 3). Watarai discloses that the combination of the salts may effectively suppress deterioration (page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to include lithium difluorobis(oxalate)phosphate as an additive in the electrolyte taught by Watarai as this will predictably suppress deterioration.
With regards to claim 2, On page 11, Watarai teaches that a mass percentage of the chlorinated ethylene carbonate (specific carbonate) accounts for 0.001% to 20% in content in the non-aqueous electrolyte. The claimed range of 0.5% to 5% falls within the range taught by Watarai. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 3, as mentioned above, Watarai teaches that a mass percentage of the chlorinated ethylene carbonate (specific carbonate) accounts for 0.001% to 20% in content in the non-aqueous electrolyte. The claimed range of 1% to 2.5% falls within the range taught by Watarai. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
PNG
media_image2.png
155
123
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 7, Watarai teaches chloroethylene carbonate as a chlorinated ethylene carbonate (page 11-12). Chloroethylene carbonate has the structural formula below. Thus, the chlorinated ethylene carbonate taught by Watarai reads on the limitations of claim 7.
With regards to claim 9, Watarai teaches that the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate and a chain carbonate (page 4). Watarai goes on to teach that the cyclic carbonate comprises one or both of an ethylene carbonate and a propylene carbonate (page 5). Watarai also teaches that the chain carbonate comprises one or more of a dimethyl carbonate, a diethyl carbonate, and an ethyl methyl carbonate (page 4).
With regards to claim 10, Watarai teaches a lithium-ion battery (page 1). Watarai teaches that the battery comprises a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet, a separator (pages 16, 32-33, and 40). Watarai also teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watarai et al. (JP-2016184463-A, translation used for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US-20200388883-A1).
With regards to claim 4, as discussed earlier, modified Watarai teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte includes lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate as an additive, along with another lithium salt. Watarai teaches that the concentration of the lithium salt in the final composition of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution of the present invention is arbitrary as long as the effects of the present invention are not significantly impaired (page 4). Watarai teaches that the lithium salt may be included in an amount of 0.5 mol/L to 3 mol/L. However, Watarai does not specifically teach that a mass percentage of the lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate accounts for 0.5% to 2% in content in the non-aqueous electrolyte.
In a similar field of endeavor, Cho teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and a non-aqueous solvent (¶ 0003). Cho teaches that the solvent may include an organic non-aqueous solvent such as ethylene carbonate (¶ 0004). In ¶ 0035, Cho teaches that the electrolyte may contain lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate as an additive. Cho goes on to teach that lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate may be included in an amount of 0.1% to 10% with respect to the total weight of the electrolyte (¶ 0076). In ¶ 0076, Cho teaches that including the additive within this range improves high-temperature characteristics of the electrolyte when used in a battery.
Through routine optimization of the workable range taught by Watarai (0.5 mol/L to 3 mol/L), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte taught by Watarai to include lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate in a mass percentage such as 0.1% to 10% with respect to the total weight of the electrolyte as taught by Cho. This will predictably improve the high temperature characteristics of the electrolyte. Through this modification, a mass percentage of the lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate accounts for 0.1% to 10% in content in the non-aqueous electrolyte taught by Watarai. The claimed range of 0.5% to 2% falls within the range taught by modified Watarai. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 5, as mentioned above, modified Watarai teaches a mass percentage of the lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate accounts for 0.1% to 10% in content in the non-aqueous electrolyte. The claimed range of 0.5% to 1% falls within the range taught by modified Watarai. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 6, Watarai does not specifically teach a conductivity of the non-aqueous electrolyte. However, the electrolyte taught by modified Watarai comprises all the elements of the claimed non-aqueous electrolyte in the same amounts. As a material is inseparable from its properties, the non-aqueous electrolyte taught by modified Watarai will inherently have a conductivity of 7.0 mS/cm to 12.5 mS/cm. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watarai et al. (JP-2016184463-A, translation used for citation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mao et al. (US-20220181690-A1).
With regards to claim 8, Watarai teaches that the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate and/or lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (page 2-3). Watarai teaches that the lithium salt in the final composition of the non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.5 mol/L to 3 mol/L. However, Watarai does not specifically teach a mass percentage of the lithium salt accounts for 8% to 20% in content in the non-aqueous electrolyte.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mao teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt, a nonaqueous organic solvent and an additive (¶ 0015). Mao teaches that the lithium salt may include lithium hexafluorophosphate and/or lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (¶ 0016). In ¶ 0016, Mao teaches that the lithium salt may be included in the electrolyte in a weight percentage ranging from 10% to 20%. This overlaps with the claimed range of 8% to 20%. Mao also teaches that the concentration of lithium salt in non-aqueous electrolyte is 0.5 mol/L to 2.5 mol/L which is within the range taught by Watarai.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to include the lithium salt in the electrolyte taught by Watarai within a range of 10% to 20% as taught by Mao as there are no unpredictable results. Through this modification, a mass percentage of the lithium salt accounts for 10% to 20% in content in the non-aqueous electrolyte taught by Watarai. This is within the claimed range of 8% to 20%.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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights