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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, The term “high-nickel” in claim 10 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-nickel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 – 4 and 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) by Liu, US20240304864A1.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an additive for an electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery [0002], the additive comprising a structure of a following formula (1) (formula II)[0008]:
PNG
media_image1.png
244
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R1, R2, and R3 are each independently a saturated or unsaturated hydrocarbon group, a cyano group, a pyridyl group, or an aryl group having 5-15 carbon atoms and being substituted by at least one fluorine atom [0008].
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches the additive for an electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery according to claim 1, wherein R1, R2, and R3 are each independently, an alkynyl group, a cyano group, a pyridyl group [0008].
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches the additive for an electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery according to claim 2, wherein the additive is at least one of a compound as follows (structures P7)[0026](fluorine-containing pyridine F2)[0023]:
PNG
media_image2.png
2555
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
621
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery, wherein the electrolyte comprises the additive for an electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery according to claim 1, an organic solvent, and a lithium salt [0028].
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches the electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery according to claim 6, wherein the organic solvent is selected from the group consisting of propylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate [0030][0033], and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Liu teaches the electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery according to claim 4, wherein the lithium salt is selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiB(C6H5)4, LiCH3SO3, LiCF3SO3, LiN(SO2CF3)2, LiC(SO2CF3)3 and combinations thereof [0030].
Regarding claim 9, Liu teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet, a separator, the electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery according to claim 4 [0039].
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery according to claim 9, wherein the positive electrode active material of the positive electrode sheet is a high-nickel positive electrode material [0040].
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, US20240304864A1.
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches the electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery according to claim 4, wherein the amount of the additive is in a range of 0.5 parts by weight to 2 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the organic solvent and the lithium salt (0.05 – 1.5%). 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, US20240304864A1 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mizuno, US20240105996A1.
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches the electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery according to claim 4,
Liu does not teach wherein the organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate ester, a linear carbonate ester, or any combination thereof.
Mizuno teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery [0002] comprising and organic solvent wherein the organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate ester, a linear carbonate ester, or any combination thereof [0165]. Further, Mizuno teaches that the organic solvent dissolve electrolyte salt well and is electrochemically stable in a wide range. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the organic solvent of Mizuno into the battery of Liu to have a solvent which is stable that dissolves salt well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights