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 following is a section from the MPEP 2144.05 concerning the obviousness of ranges: 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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamoto et al. (US Pub 2018/0166746 cited in IDS) in view of LG (KR 2021-0138937 cited in IDS, using applicant’s provided machine translation).
In regard to claim 1 and 12-14, Shimamoto et al. teach an electronic device including a lithium secondary battery (paragraph [0002]) comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode, separator (paragraphs [0184-0211] for generic battery structure) and a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising: an organic solvent (solvents in second column below, such as a mixture of carbonates EC, VC, PC, MEC and DEC); a compound represented by Formula 1 (formula I-2, paragraph [0088]) as a first additive (see Examples II-8 and II-9 below, paragraphs [0085-0125] describing the additive structure of the applied embodiment, paragraphs [0128-0177] describe various solvents).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 differs in calling for an additional additive of Formula 2 or Formula 3 as a second additive. However, LG teaches a similar lithium-ion battery and the ability to include multiple electrolyte additives in a non-aqueous electrolyte solvent and inclusion of an additional additive with the structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
99
312
media_image2.png
Greyscale
because when this additive is included in an amount of specifically 0.05 wt % to 3 wt %, based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte, such has the effect of removing decomposition products of lithium salt is excellent while suppressing disadvantages such as side reactions caused by additives, capacity reduction and resistance increase as much as possible, and overall performance is further improved (paragraphs [0074-0088] of applicant’s provided machine translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to include a further additive such as that shown above into the non-aqueous electrolyte of Shimamoto et al. as such improves the electrochemical cycling properties of the nonaqueous electrolyte as taught by LG.
In regard to claim 2 and 15, Shimamoto et al. teaches claimed formulas 1-1 and 1-2 in the Examples II-8 and II-9 reproduced above.
In regard to claim 3 and 16, LG teaches Formula 2-1 as an additive in paragraph [0085] reproduced above.
In regard to claims 4, 5, 17 and 18, as the prior art combination includes an additive with the structure represented by Formula 2, Formula 3 is not positively required, and therefore claims 4 and 5 fail to distinguish from the prior art.
In regard to claim 6 and 19, Shimamoto et al. teach the first additive is contained in an amount of such as 1 part by weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte (see Examples above).
In regard to claim 7 and 20, LG teaches the second additive is contained in an amount of approximately 0.05 parts by weight to 3 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraph [0087]).
In regard to claim 8, the ranges disclosed by the prior art overlap the claimed ranges in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05) as both of the electrolyte additives may be included in a small amount such as specifically 1 weight percent as shown in the Examples of both prior art references (i.e. a ratio of 1:1).
In regard to claims 9 and 10, Shimamoto et al. teach a lithium salt such as specifically 1.15M LiPF6, in the Examples reproduced above. More general compositions and ranges for the lithium salts are disclosed in paragraphs [0178-0183].
In regard to claim 11, Shimamoto et al. cyclic carbonates such as VC and linear carbonates in the Examples reproduced above. More general compositions and ranges for the solvents are disclosed in paragraphs [0128-0177].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure - Applicant’s own published applications US Pubs 2024/0154166, 2024/0339660, 2024/0304862 and 2024/0213536 all disclose and claim similar additives for electrolytes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights