DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the second concentration is in units of “M/L” which is interpreted to be a typo for M or mol/L. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (CN 113078357 to Pan et al., the Office cites to provided machine translation).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Pan teaches:
a battery electrolyte comprising ethylene carbonate with a mix of other carbonates, the ethylene carbonate in an amount of 20 wt% relative to the other solvents (p. 3, example 1)
the electrolyte also containing a cyclic phosphate, such as TFEOP (¶ 0012, example 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
166
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Pan teaches:
embodiments using dimethyl carbonate (p. 2)
Regarding Claim 16, Pan teaches:
embodiments with vinylene carbonate (p. 2)
Regarding Claim 17, Pan teaches:
weight percentages for the conventional additive such as vinylene carbonate of less than 5 wt% (p. 2)
Regarding Claims 19-20, Pan teaches:
a battery solvent for use with an electrical device (p. 1)
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2012/0244445 to Han et al.) in view of Demeaux (WO 2019122314 to Demeaux et al., the Office cites to US equivalent US 2021/0376384).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Han teaches:
a battery electrolyte comprising a carbonate-based solvent that includes a cyclic phosphate (¶ 0012-0015)
wherein the carbonate can include ethylene carbonate in a minority amount (¶ 0087)
the cyclic phosphate including chemical formula 1 (¶0046-0047)
PNG
media_image2.png
122
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Han does not explicitly teach that the EC is less than or equal to 25 wt% of the total solvent. Demeaux, however, from the same field of invention, regarding electrolyte compositions for lithium-ion cells, teaches carbonate mixes with EC amounts of around 10 wt% (e.g. table 1), or 5-15 wt% (¶ 0071). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the conventional EC mixture range, including, for example 10 wt% EC, as taught by Demeaux.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Han teaches:
the cyclic phosphate included in an amount of 10 wt% (¶ 0049, 0087)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claim 8, Han teaches:
use of dimethyl carbonate (¶ 0034)
Demeaux also teaches DMC, which was conventional in the art (¶ 0021, etc.).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Han teaches:
DMC as a linear carbonate and the cyclic phosphate up to 10 wt% (¶ 0034, 0049)
wherein the cyclic and linear carbonates can be mixed in ratios of 1:1 to 1:9 (¶ 0036)
Demeaux teaches DMC in an amount of 40-50 wt% of the organic solvent mixture (¶ 0071). It was conventional in the art, therefore, to include DMC in an a range of e.g. 10 wt% up to 50 wt%. It would, therefore have been obvious to include it in amount such that the ratio of DMC to cyclic phosphate is around 2, given that Han teaches the cyclic phosphate in amounts up to 10 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 11-13, Han teaches:
mixture of conventional salts in the art in concentrations of 0.1 - 2.0 M (¶ 0044)
Han does not explicitly teach:
LiFSI and LiPF6 in a molarity ratio of 0.25 – 9 (claim 11), or 1 – 4 (claim 12)
an example wherein LiFSI and LiPF6 have molarities between, e.g., 0.2 – 0.8 M (claim 13)
Han teaches an overlapping salt concentration range (¶ 0044) that is otherwise conventional in the art. Demeaux, meanwhile, teaches examples with LiFSI and LiPF6 at 0.6 M, or ranging from 0.3 – 0.9 M (¶ 0082-0091, Table 1). It would have been obvious to provide a mixture of LiFSI and LiPF6 in the claimed range, since Han teaches ranges were conventional, and Demeaux renders obvious such conventional mixtures within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Han teaches:
a wt% A1 of 10 wt% (¶ 0049)
Han does not explicitly teach a wt% A2 of LiFSI. Demeaux, however, teaches use of LiFSI as a substitutable equivalent for the salts disclosed in Han, LiFSI was a conventional salt in the art, and Demeaux further teaches molarities of 0.3 – 0.9 M in carbonate solvents like Han’s, suggesting a wt% range of about 4-14 wt% for the LiFSI, assuming an electrolyte density of around 1.2-1.3 g/mL. The resulting ratio of A1/A2 therefore overlaps the claimed range, having values of, e.g., 1. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 16-17, Han teaches:
VC additive in conventional additive ranges of a few wt% (¶ 0041-0043)
Demeaux further renders obvious VC in an amount of less than 5 wt% (Table 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Han teaches:
carbonate solvent with a cyclic phosphate
Demeaux further teaches carbonate mixtures with lithium salt mixtures substantially the same as the instant invention. Han in view of Demeaux, therefore renders obvious use of carbonate mixtures that include up to 10 wt% cyclic phosphates as disclosed in Han. Such electrolytes would be expected to be fall within the disclosed inventive range of compositions for electrolytes that the instant specification indicates have viscosities within the claimed range. It would be expected, therefore, that at least some of the electrolytic solutions rendered obvious by Han in view of Demeaux would have had viscosities within the claimed range absent evidence that there is a critical missing component that substantially changes such viscosities. Conventional carbonate mixtures with conventional lithium salt concentrations are known in the art to have viscosities of around 2-4 mPa·s, so it appears that the claimed range does nothing to really distinguish the claimed electrolyte from the ordinary range for carbonate-based electrolytes. As further evidence, see the so-called “comparative examples” in the instant disclosure, all with viscosities overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 19-20, Han teaches:
a battery for use with an electrical device (¶ 0003-0005)
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2012/0244445 to Han et al.) in view of Demeaux (WO 2019122314 to Demeaux et al., the Office cites to US equivalent US 2021/0376384), in further view of Shi (CN 110590848 to Shi et al., the Office cites to provided machine translation).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Han does not explicitly teach:
a cyclic phosphate where R1 is a perfluoro C1, such as C2F5
Shi, however, teaches such cyclic phosphates, such as formula 32:
PNG
media_image3.png
136
138
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use such a phosphate as a substitutable equivalent for the partially fluorinated compound taught in Han, since Shi teaches it is a substitutable equivalent (compare formula 31). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights