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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 and 11/13/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para. [0059], “Comparative Example 1” should be “Comparative Example 2”.
In para. [0060], “Comparative Example 2” should be “Comparative Example 3”.
In para. [0061], “Comparative Example 3” should be “Comparative Example 4”.
In para. [0062], “Example 1” should be “Example 2”.
In para. [0063], “Example 2” should be “Example 3”.
In para. [0064], “Example 3” should be “Example 4”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 9, 12, 17, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: A comma should be present between “lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide” and “lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide” to denote the separation of chemical species. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-2, 9, 12, 17, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: No parenthesis should be present after imidazolide in “lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide” to ensure proper chemical nomenclature. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
No comma should be present in the chemical compound “LiNi0.5,Mn1.5O4” to ensure proper chemical nomenclature.
A semicolon should be present between the two chemical compounds LiFePO4 and LiMn2-xFexPO4 instead of a comma.
A semicolon should be present between the two chemical compounds LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (NMC 622) and LiMnO2 instead of a comma.
A semicolon should be present between the two chemical compounds LiMnO2 and LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 instead of a comma.
A semicolon should be present between the two chemical compounds LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 and LiV2(PO4)3 instead of a comma.
A semicolon should be present between the two chemical compounds LiV2(PO4)3 and activated carbon instead of a comma.
A semicolon should be present between the two chemical compounds activated carbon and sulfur instead of a comma.
In line 4, “y < 0.2” should be “0 < y < 0.2”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Mu et al. (CN113013486 (A)).
Regarding claim 1, Mu discloses an electrolyte composition for a battery (Para. [0006] describes the components within the electrolyte which includes a non-aqueous solvent, an additive, and a lithium salt.), the electrolyte composition comprising:
a lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent (Para. [0006] states that a lithium salt is present in the electrolyte composition. Para. [0042] states that the lithium salt (lithium hexafluorophosphate: LiPF6) is added to a mixed solution and stirred until homogeneous to obtain the electrolyte solution.); and
0.01 to less than 1 weight percent of lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide, or a combination thereof, based on a total weight of the electrolyte composition (Para. [0006] states that lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide is present as an additive within an electrolyte solution. Table 1 displays electrolyte compositions wherein lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide is added said electrolyte compositions in varying amounts. Comparative Examples 2, 4, and 6 each have lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide added at 0.5 wt% of the total electrolyte composition, while Examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 each have lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide added at 0.5, 0.9, 0.7, 0.6, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.8, and 0.8 wt% of the total electrolyte composition.).
Regarding claim 2, Mu discloses wherein the electrolyte composition comprises 0.1 to 0.7 weight percent of the lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide, or the combination thereof, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (Table 1 displays electrolyte compositions wherein lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide is added said electrolyte compositions in varying amounts. Comparative Examples 2, 4, and 6 each have lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide added at 0.5 wt% of the total electrolyte composition, while Examples 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 each have lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide added at 0.5, 0.7, 0.6, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1 wt% of the total electrolyte composition.).
Regarding claim 3, Mu discloses wherein the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium perchlorate, lithium tetrachloroaluminate, lithium iodide, lithium bromide, lithium thiocyanate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium difluorooxalatoborate, lithium tetraphenylborate, lithium bis-(oxalate)borate, lithium tetrafluorooxalatophosphate, lithium nitrate, lithium hexafluoroarsenate, lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonimide), lithium fluorosulfonylimide, lithium fluoroalkylphosphate, or a combination thereof (Para. [0016] states that the lithium salt may be selected from lithium hexafluorophosphate.).
Regarding claim 4, Mu discloses wherein the organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate, a linear carbonate, an aliphatic carboxylic ester, a γ-lactone, a chain structure ether, a cyclic ether, a sulfur compound, or a combination thereof (Para. [0014] states that an organic solvent is selected from a mixture of at least one of cyclic carbonates and at least one of linear carbonates and linear carboxylic acid esters. Para. [0015] explains that the linear carboxylic acid esters are one of ethyl propionate, propyl propionate, and propyl acetate, each of which are aliphatic carboxylic esters.).
Regarding claim 5, Mu discloses wherein the organic solvent comprises:
ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, or a combination thereof (Para. [0015] lists ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate as cyclic carbonates used in an organic solvent comprising an electrolyte composition.); and
dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, or a combination thereof (Para. [0015] lists dimethyl carbonate and diethyl carbonate as linear carbonates used in an organic solvent comprising an electrolyte composition.).
Regarding claim 7, Mu discloses wherein the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (Para. [0016] states that lithium hexafluorophosphate may be used as a lithium salt in an electrolyte composition.).
Regarding claim 12, Mu discloses a battery (Para. [0022] states that the invention provides a lithium-ion battery comprising the electrolyte.) comprising:
an anode (Para. [0023] explains that said lithium-ion battery includes a negative electrode sheet.);
a cathode (Para. [0023] states that said lithium-ion battery includes a positive electrode sheet.); and
an electrolyte composition (Para. [0006] describes the components within the electrolyte which includes a non-aqueous solvent, an additive, and a lithium salt.) comprising:
a lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent (Para. [0006] states that a lithium salt is present in the electrolyte composition. Para. [0042] states that the lithium salt (lithium hexafluorophosphate: LiPF6) is added to a mixed solution and stirred until homogeneous to obtain the electrolyte solution.), and
0.01 to less than 1 weight percent of lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide, or a combination thereof, based on a total weight of the electrolyte composition (Para. [0006] states that lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide is present as an additive within an electrolyte solution. Table 1 displays electrolyte compositions wherein lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide is added said electrolyte compositions in varying amounts. Comparative Examples 2, 4, and 6 each have lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide added at 0.5 wt% of the total electrolyte composition, while Examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 each have lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide added at 0.5, 0.9, 0.7, 0.6, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.8, and 0.8 wt% of the total electrolyte composition.).
Regarding claim 13, Mu discloses wherein the anode comprises silicon (Para. [0026] states that the negative electrode active material is graphite or contains 1 to 15 wt% of graphite, wherein the graphite composite material is made of SiOx/C or Si/C.).
Regarding claim 15, Mu discloses wherein the cathode comprises nickel (Para. [0038] explains that the positive electrode active material is comprised of LiCo0.998Al0.001Mg0.0005Ni0.0005O2, wherein the positive electrode active material comprises the positive electrode sheet.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6, 8-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Woo et al. (US 2022/0223912 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mu discloses the electrolyte composition of claim 1.
Mu fails to disclose wherein the electrolyte composition further comprises 1 to 10 weight percent of fluoroethylene, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition; and 0.5 to 10 weight percent of vinylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition.
However, Woo teaches wherein the electrolyte composition further comprises 1 to 10 weight percent of fluoroethylene, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (Para. [0142] describes an Electrolyte Example 2 wherein, in the exemplary electrolyte composition, 5 wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte, is added to said electrolyte composition.); and 0.5 to 10 weight percent of vinylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (Para. [0083] states that a coating agent is used to form a protective film on an electrode of a secondary battery. The coating agent may be fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, or mixtures thereof). Since a mixture of the aforementioned compounds may be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a mixture to include substituting 5 wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate with a mixture of fluoroethylene carbonate and vinylene carbonate (for example: 2.5 wt% of each compound) wherein the total combined weight of fluoroethylene carbonate and vinylene carbonate as a weight percent would equal 5 wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte composition.).
Mu and Woo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing electrolyte compositions within secondary batteries that prevent side reactions resulting in decomposition of said electrolyte or damage to an electrode of a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Mu to include 1 to 10 weight percent of fluoroethylene carbonate and 0.5 to 10 weight percent of vinylene carbonate based on a total weight of the electrolyte composition because Woo teaches that using a coating agent comprised of either fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, or a mixture thereof in combination with an electrolyte additive together forms a stable and uniform protective film on an electrode of a secondary battery (Para. [0083]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Regarding claim 8, Mu discloses the electrolyte composition of claim 1. Mu further discloses wherein ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate are suitable cyclic and linear carbonates, respectively (Para. [0015]).
Mu fails to disclose wherein the organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate “in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1”.
However, Woo teaches wherein the organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1 (Para. [0142] describes an Electrolyte Example 2 wherein, in preparing the exemplary electrolyte composition, ethylene carbonate: ethylmethyl carbonate: dimethyl carbonate are added as organic solvents in a volume ratio of 3:4:3.).
Mu and Woo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing electrolyte compositions within secondary batteries that prevent side reactions resulting in decomposition of said electrolyte or damage to an electrode of a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Mu to include an organic solvent comprising of ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1 because Woo teaches that utilizing an organic solvent can minimize decomposition due to oxidation reactions during charging and discharging within a secondary battery (Para. [0087]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Regarding claim 9, Mu discloses the electrolyte composition of claim 1 wherein the electrolyte composition comprises 0.1 to 0.7 weight percent of the lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide, or the combination thereof, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition and the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate.
Mu fails to disclose wherein the organic solvent comprises 0.5 to 3 moles of lithium hexafluorophosphate per 1 liter of the organic solvent, and ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1.
However, Woo teaches wherein the organic solvent comprises 0.5 to 3 moles of lithium hexafluorophosphate per 1 liter of the organic solvent, and ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1 (Para. [0142] describes the preparation of Electrolyte Example 2, wherein said electrolyte solution is comprised of ethylene carbonate: ethylmethyl carbonate: dimethyl carbonate with a volume ratio of 3:4:3. Additionally, lithium hexafluorophosphate is added at a concentration of 1.3 M.).
Mu and Woo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing electrolyte compositions within secondary batteries that prevent side reactions resulting in decomposition of said electrolyte or damage to an electrode of a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Mu to include wherein the organic solvent comprises 0.5 to 3 moles of lithium hexafluorophosphate per 1 liter of the organic solvent, and ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1 because Woo teaches that utilizing an organic solvent can minimize decomposition due to oxidation reactions during charging and discharging within a secondary battery (Para. [0087]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Mu discloses the electrolyte composition of claim 1 and wherein the electrolyte composition comprises 0.1 to 0.7 weight percent of the lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide, or the combination thereof, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition and the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate.
Mu fails to disclose wherein the electrolyte composition further comprises 1 to 10 weight percent of fluoroethylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition; and 0.5 to 10 weight percent of vinylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition, of instant claim 10, and wherein the fluoroethylene carbonate is present in an amount of 1 to 5 weight percent, based on a total weight of the electrolyte composition; and the vinylene carbonate is present in an amount of 0.5 to 5 weight percent, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition, of instant claim 11.
However, Woo teaches wherein the electrolyte composition further comprises 1 to 10 weight percent of fluoroethylene carbonate and, furthermore, 1 to 5 weight percent of fluoroethylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (Para. [0142] describes an Electrolyte Example 2 wherein, in the exemplary electrolyte composition, 5 wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte, is added to said electrolyte composition.). Additionally, Woo teaches wherein the electrolyte composition comprises 0.5 to 10 weight percent of vinylene carbonate and, furthermore, 0.5 to 5 weight percent of vinylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (Para. [0083] states that a coating agent is used to form a protective film on an electrode of a secondary battery. The coating agent may be fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, or mixtures thereof). Since a mixture of the aforementioned compounds may be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a mixture to include substituting 5 wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate with a mixture of fluoroethylene carbonate and vinylene carbonate (for example: 2.5 wt% of each compound) wherein the total combined weight of fluoroethylene carbonate and vinylene carbonate as a weight percent would equal 5 wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte composition.).
Mu and Woo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing electrolyte compositions within secondary batteries that prevent side reactions resulting in decomposition of said electrolyte or damage to an electrode of a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Mu to include 1 to 10 weight percent of fluoroethylene carbonate and, furthermore, 1 to 5 weight percent of fluoroethylene carbonate as well as include 0.5 to 10 weight percent of vinylene carbonate and, furthermore, 0.5 to 5 weight percent of vinylene carbonate based on a total weight of the electrolyte composition because Woo teaches that using a coating agent comprised of either fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, or a mixture thereof in combination with an electrolyte additive together forms a stable and uniform protective film on an electrode of a secondary battery (Para. [0083]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Regarding claim 17, Mu discloses the battery of claim 12 wherein the electrolyte composition comprises 0.1 to 0.7 weight percent of the lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide, or the combination thereof, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition and the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate.
Mu fails to disclose wherein the organic solvent comprises 0.5 to 3 moles of lithium hexafluorophosphate per 1 liter of the organic solvent, and ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1.
However, Woo teaches wherein the organic solvent comprises 0.5 to 3 moles of lithium hexafluorophosphate per 1 liter of the organic solvent, and ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1 (Para. [0142] describes the preparation of Electrolyte Example 2, wherein said electrolyte solution is comprised of ethylene carbonate: ethylmethyl carbonate: dimethyl carbonate with a volume ratio of 3:4:3. Additionally, lithium hexafluorophosphate is added at a concentration of 1.3 M.).
Mu and Woo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing electrolyte compositions within secondary batteries that prevent side reactions resulting in decomposition of said electrolyte or damage to an electrode of a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Mu to include disclose wherein the organic solvent comprises 0.5 to 3 moles of lithium hexafluorophosphate per 1 liter of the organic solvent, and ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1 because Woo teaches that utilizing an organic solvent can minimize decomposition due to oxidation reactions during charging and discharging within a secondary battery (Para. [0087]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Regarding claim 18, Mu, as modified by Woo, discloses the battery of claim 17.
Mu fails to disclose wherein the electrolyte composition further comprises 1 to 10 weight percent of fluoroethylene, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition; and 0.5 to 10 weight percent of vinylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition.
However, Woo teaches wherein the electrolyte composition further comprises 1 to 10 weight percent of fluoroethylene, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (Para. [0142] describes an Electrolyte Example 2 wherein, in the exemplary electrolyte composition, 5 wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte, is added to said electrolyte composition.); and 0.5 to 10 weight percent of vinylene carbonate, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (Para. [0083] states that a coating agent is used to form a protective film on an electrode of a secondary battery. The coating agent may be fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, or mixtures thereof). Since a mixture of the aforementioned compounds may be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a mixture to include substituting 5 wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate with a mixture of fluoroethylene carbonate and vinylene carbonate (for example: 2.5 wt% of each compound) wherein the total combined weight of fluoroethylene carbonate and vinylene carbonate as a weight percent would equal 5 wt% of the total weight of the electrolyte composition.).
Mu and Woo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing electrolyte compositions within secondary batteries that prevent side reactions resulting in decomposition of said electrolyte or damage to an electrode of a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Mu to include 1 to 10 weight percent of fluoroethylene carbonate and 0.5 to 10 weight percent of vinylene carbonate based on a total weight of the electrolyte composition because Woo teaches that using a coating agent comprised of either fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, or a mixture thereof in combination with an electrolyte additive together forms a stable and uniform protective film on an electrode of a secondary battery (Para. [0083]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Kim et al. (KR 20220105889 (A)).
Regarding claim 14, Mu discloses the battery of claim 13.
Mu fails to disclose wherein the anode comprises silicon monoxide, a lithium-doped silicon monoxide, or a combination thereof.
However, Kim teaches wherein the anode comprises silicon monoxide, a lithium-doped silicon monoxide, or a combination thereof (Para. [0072] states that a lithium secondary battery is comprised of a negative electrode wherein said negative electrode is comprised of a negative electrode active material. Para. [0088] says the negative electrode active material may include one or more compounds selected from a list of silicon-based compounds. The list of silicon-based compounds includes silicon oxide (SiOx, where 0<x<2), encompassing a range wherein x = 1.
Mu and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing electrolyte compositions within secondary batteries that prevent side reactions resulting in decomposition of said electrolyte or damage to an electrode of a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Mu to include an anode wherein the anode is comprised of silicon monoxide, a lithium-doped silicon monoxide, or a combination thereof because Kim teaches that using a silicon-based compound of a certain particle size as the material within the anode of a battery will improve the lifespan of said battery (Para. [0090]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Burkhardt et al. (US 2017/0250445 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Mu discloses the battery of claim 12.
Mu fails to disclose wherein the cathode comprises Li(1+x)Mn2O4, where 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1; LiMn(2-x)NixO4, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5; LiCoO2; Li(NixMnyCoz)O2, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, and x + y + z = 1; LiNi(1-x-y)CoxMyO2, where 0 < x < 0.2, y < 0.2, and M is Al, Mg, or Ti; LiFePO4, LiMn2-xFexPO4, where 0 < x< 0.3; LiNiCoAlO2; LiMPO4, where M is at least one of Fe, Ni, Co, and Mn; Li(NixMnyCozAlp)O2, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, 0 ≤ p ≤ 1, x + y + z + p = 1 (NCMA); LiNiMnCoO2; Li2FexM1-xPO4, where M is Mn and/or Ni, 0 ≤ x ≤ 1; LiMn2O4 (LMO); LiFeSiO4; LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (NMC622), LiMnO2, LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4, LiV2(PO4)3, activated carbon, sulfur, and a combination thereof.
However, Burkhardt teaches wherein the cathode comprises Li(1+x)Mn2O4, where 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1; LiMn(2-x)NixO4, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5; LiCoO2; Li(NixMnyCoz)O2, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, and x + y + z = 1; LiNi(1-x-y)CoxMyO2, where 0 < x < 0.2, y < 0.2, and M is Al, Mg, or Ti; LiFePO4, LiMn2-xFexPO4, where 0 < x< 0.3; LiNiCoAlO2; LiMPO4, where M is at least one of Fe, Ni, Co, and Mn; Li(NixMnyCozAlp)O2, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, 0 ≤ p ≤ 1, x + y + z + p = 1 (NCMA); LiNiMnCoO2; Li2FexM1-xPO4, where M is Mn and/or Ni, 0 ≤ x ≤ 1; LiMn2O4 (LMO); LiFeSiO4; LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (NMC622), LiMnO2, LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4, LiV2(PO4)3, activated carbon, sulfur, and a combination thereof (Paras. [0126 – 0135] describe a list of suitable chemical compounds that may comprise a cathode of a lithium-ion secondary battery, which may include Li(1+x)Mn2O4, where 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1; LiMn(2-x)NixO4, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5; LiCoO2; LiFePO4; and LiMPO4, where M is at least one of Fe, Ni, Co, and Mn; LiMn2O4 (LMO).
Mu and Burkhardt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing electrolyte compositions within secondary batteries that prevent decomposition of said electrolyte within a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery of Mu to include a cathode material comprising of comprises Li(1+x)Mn2O4, where 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 1; LiMn(2-x)NixO4, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5; LiCoO2; Li(NixMnyCoz)O2, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, and x + y + z = 1; LiNi(1-x-y)CoxMyO2, where 0 < x < 0.2, y < 0.2, and M is Al, Mg, or Ti; LiFePO4, LiMn2-xFexPO4, where 0 < x< 0.3; LiNiCoAlO2; LiMPO4, where M is at least one of Fe, Ni, Co, and Mn; Li(NixMnyCozAlp)O2, where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, 0 ≤ p ≤ 1, x + y + z + p = 1 (NCMA); LiNiMnCoO2; Li2FexM1-xPO4, where M is Mn and/or Ni, 0 ≤ x ≤ 1; LiMn2O4 (LMO); LiFeSiO4; LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (NMC622), LiMnO2, LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4, LiV2(PO4)3, activated carbon, sulfur, and a combination thereof because Burkhardt teaches cathode potentials above a certain voltage may cause electrolyte material within a battery to decompose which will result in a loss of battery performance (Para. [0003]) and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (B). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0408605 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Mu discloses a battery (Para. [0022] states that the invention provides a lithium-ion battery comprising the electrolyte.) comprising:
an anode (Para. [0023] explains that said lithium-ion battery includes a negative electrode sheet.);
a cathode (Para. [0023] states that said lithium-ion battery includes a positive electrode sheet.); and
an electrolyte composition (Para. [0006] describes the components within the electrolyte which includes a non-aqueous solvent, an additive, and a lithium salt.) comprising:
a lithium salt dissolved in an organic solvent (Para. [0006] states that a lithium salt is present in the electrolyte composition. Para. [0042] states that the lithium salt (lithium hexafluorophosphate: LiPF6) is added to a mixed solution and stirred until homogeneous to obtain the electrolyte solution.), and
0.01 to less than 1 weight percent of lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide, or a combination thereof, based on a total weight of the electrolyte composition (Para. [0006] states that lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide is present as an additive within an electrolyte solution. Table 1 displays electrolyte compositions wherein lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide is added said electrolyte compositions in varying amounts. Comparative Examples 2, 4, and 6 each have lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide added at 0.5 wt% of the total electrolyte composition, while Examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 each have lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide added at 0.5, 0.9, 0.7, 0.6, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, 0.8, and 0.8 wt% of the total electrolyte composition.).
Mu fails to disclose a device comprising: an output component; and a battery configured for providing electrical energy to the device.
However, Yang teaches a device (Yang Fig. 1 depicts and para. [0025] describes Fig. 1 as automobile 10.) comprising: an output component (Yang Fig.1 illustrates and para. [0026] describes an engine crankshaft 13 (also known as an engine output member), wherein said engine output member transfers power from engine 12 by way of torque to an input side of transmission 16.); and a battery configured for providing electrical energy to the device (Yang Fig. 2 and para. [0032] discuss a secondary lithium-ion battery 110 that facilitates direct current fast charging for a desired electrical load, wherein said electrical load is provided to automobile 10.).
Mu and Yang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing secondary batteries with electrolyte compositions for improved battery operating efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium ion battery module of Mu to include a device comprising an output component, and a battery configured for providing electrical energy to said device because Yang teaches electrolyte performance directly impacts direct current fast charging capabilities of a secondary battery both at various current densities and temperatures (para. [0006]) and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (A).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu, as modified by Yang, and in further view of Woo et al. (US 2022/0223912 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Mu, as modified by Yang, discloses the device of claim 19 wherein the electrolyte composition comprises 0.1 to 0.7 weight percent of the lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide, or the combination thereof, based on the total weight of the electrolyte composition (Table 1 displays electrolyte compositions wherein lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide is added said electrolyte compositions in varying amounts. Comparative Examples 2, 4, and 6 each have lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide added at 0.5 wt% of the total electrolyte composition, while Examples 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 each have lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide added at 0.5, 0.7, 0.6, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1 wt% of the total electrolyte composition.) and the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (Para. [0016] states that lithium hexafluorophosphate may be used as a lithium salt in an electrolyte composition.).
Mu, as modified by Yang, fails to disclose an organic solvent comprising 0.5 to 3 moles of lithium hexafluorophosphate per 1 liter of the organic solvent; and ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1.
However, Woo teaches an organic solvent comprising 0.5 to 3 moles of lithium hexafluorophosphate per 1 liter of the organic solvent; and ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1 (Para. [0142] describes the preparation of Electrolyte Example 2, wherein said electrolyte solution is comprised of ethylene carbonate: ethylmethyl carbonate: dimethyl carbonate with a volume ratio of 3:4:3. Additionally, lithium hexafluorophosphate is added at a concentration of 1.3 M.).
Mu, Yang, and Woo are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of developing electrolyte compositions within secondary batteries that prevent side reactions resulting in decomposition of said electrolyte or damage to an electrode of a secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte composition of Mu to include disclose wherein the organic solvent comprises 0.5 to 3 moles of lithium hexafluorophosphate per 1 liter of the organic solvent, and ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:4 to 1:1 because Woo teaches that utilizing an organic solvent can minimize decomposition due to oxidation reactions during charging and discharging within a secondary battery (Para. [0087]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12-15, 17, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-17, and 19 of copending Application No. 18/611,906 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claim 1 is obvious in view of claim 1 of ‘906 with respect to simply substituting both an organic solvent for a carbonate-based solution and one or more lithium salts from a list comprising of lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, and lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide for lithium difluoro(bisoxalato)phosphate, wherein both claims possess overlapping ranges for weight percents of the lithium salt in reference to the total weight percent of their respective electrolyte compositions.
Instant claim 2 is obvious in view of claims 2 and 3 of ‘906 with respect to simply substituting one or more lithium salts from a list comprising of lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide) for lithium difluoro(bisoxalato)phosphate, wherein both claims possess overlapping ranges for weight percents of the lithium salt in reference to the total weight percent of their respective electrolyte compositions.
Instant claim 7 is substantially identical to claim 5 of ‘906.
Instant claim 8 is anticipated by claim 10 of ‘906 and obvious in view of claim 8 of ‘906. Instant claim 8 and claim 10 of ‘906 denote that ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate are in or are within a range that encompasses a volume ratio of 3:7. Instant claim 8 and claim 8 of ‘906 are obvious in view of each other with respect to overlapping ranges in the permitted volume ratio between ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate.
Instant claim 9 is obvious in view of claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 10, and 12 of ‘906 with respect to simply substituting the lithium salt and overlapping ranges are present between the claims for the weight percent of the lithium salt, the molar concentration of lithium hexafluorophosphate in a carbonate-based solution, and the volume ratio between ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate within an organic solvent.
Instant claim 12 is obvious in view of claim 14 of ‘906 with respect to both claims containing a battery is comprised of an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte composition. The electrolyte composition varies by simply substituting both an organic solvent for a carbonate-based solution as well as one or more from a list of lithium salts comprising of lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, and lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide with lithium difluoro(bisoxalato)phosphate. Moreover, both claims possess overlapping ranges for weight percents of the lithium salt in reference to the total weight percent of their respective electrolyte compositions.
Instant claims 13 and 14 are anticipated by claim 15 of ‘906. Both the instant claims and the claim from said reference application state that the anode comprises silicon, wherein the silicon-based material may be comprised of silicon monoxide, a lithium-doped silicon, or a combination thereof.
Instant claim 15 is anticipated by claim 16 of ‘906. Both the instant claim and the claim from said reference application state that the cathode comprises nickel.
Instant claim 17 is obvious in view of claim 17 of ‘906 with respect to overlapping ranges regarding the weight percent of the lithium salt and the molar concentration of lithium hexafluorophosphate in the organic solvent. Both claims state the lithium salt comprises of lithium hexafluorophosphate.
Instant claim 19 is obvious in view of claim 19 of ‘906 with respect to both claims containing a device comprising an output component, and a battery configured for providing electrical energy to said device wherein the battery is comprised of an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte composition. The electrolyte composition varies by simply substituting both an organic solvent for a carbonate-based solution as well as one or more lithium salts from a list comprising of lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, and lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide with lithium difluoro(bisoxalato)phosphate. Moreover, both claims possess overlapping ranges for weight percents of the lithium salt in reference to the total weight percent of their respective electrolyte compositions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Paillet et al. (US 2021/0218060 A1) discloses an electrolyte composition comprising of lithium hexafluorophosphate as the lithium salt at a molar concentration between 0.95 M and 0.99 M, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide as an additive, a solvent comprised of cyclic carbonate esters including ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, and an electrolytic additive comprising of at least one of fluoroethylene carbonate and vinylene carbonate. Niedzicki et al. (doi: 10.1016/j.electacta.2009.05.008) describes a procedure for the synthesis of electrolyte additives including lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide, lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(pentafluoroethyl)imidazolide, and lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(n-heptafluoropropyl)imidazolide as an alternative to lithium hexafluorophosphate. Schmidt et al. (US 2020/0119397 A1) discloses a lithium salt mixture comprising of lithium 4,5-dicyano-2-(trifluoromethyl)imidazolide that comprises 0.1 to 15 mol% of the solution, a solvent comprised of cyclic carbonate esters including ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, and an electrolytic additive comprising of at least one of fluoroethylene carbonate and vinylene carbonate.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTINO M SERVAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-0847. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/SANTINO MICHALE SERVAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights