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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ritsu et. al. (JP2001273927A).
Claims 1-2, 7: Ritsu teaches a lithium secondary battery (i.e., lithium ion battery) [0002] electrolyte solution comprising a solvent mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC), [0063, 0073],
a lithium salt, LiPF6, [0065, 0073],
and an organic copper corrosion inhibitor (i.e., first additive), 1,2,4-triazole [0012, 0020].
Claim 3: Ritsu teaches the content of the organic inhibitor (i.e., first additive) is preferably 0.10 to 0.50% [0022].
Claim 6: Ritsu teaches the electrolyte solution comprises 1 mol/L of LiPF6 (i.e., lithium salt) [0065, 0073].
Claim 9: Ritsu teaches a lithium secondary battery (i.e., lithium ion battery) comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte solution described above [0012, 0053,0062].
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritsu et. al. (JP2001273927A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN105789685A).
Claims 4-5: Ritsu teaches a lithium ion battery comprising an electrolyte solution of LiPF6 salt in a solvent comprising ethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate. Ritsu does not teach the electrolyte solution comprises ethylene sulfate. However, Wang teaches an electrolyte for a lithium ion battery comprising an electrolyte solution of lithium hexafluorophosphate (i.e., LiPF6) salt in a solvent comprising ethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate and 0.1 to 5 weight % of ethylene sulfate (Page 9 claim 2). Wang teaches adding an additive comprising ethylene sulfate(DTD) can improve the discharge capacity of the lithium-ion battery at low temperature by forming a thin and dense SEI (solid electrolyte interface) protective film on the negative electrode and a low-resistance CEI (cathode electrolyte interface) protective film on the positive electrode (Page 2 para 8-12, Page 8 para 5, 11). Wang further teaches the DTD Wang does not identically teach the weight range of 0.1 to 1%. However, overlapping ranges have been held to support a case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling the instant invention to have added ethylene sulfate to Ritsu’s electrolyte solution to improve the discharge capacity of the lithium-ion battery at low temperatures.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritsu et. al. (JP2001273927A) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20070072085 A1).
Claim 8: Ritsu teaches the electrolyte solvent is a mixed solvent of ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate DEC in an equal volume ratio. Ritsu does not teach the mass ratio of EC to DEC is 3:7. However, Chen teaches a lithium secondary battery electrolyte solution comprising LiPF6 salt and 3:7 by weight ratio of EC:DEC [0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling the instant invention to have modified Ritsu’s lithium battery electrolyte solvent proportion and use 3:7 by weight ratio of EC to DEC because Chen teaches such is a functional electrolyte solution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jun et al. (JP2001143746A) teaches an electrolyte solution for lithium ion battery comprising 1M lithium hexafluorophosphate (i.e., LiPF6) salt and an additive, 1,2,4-triazole in ethylene carbonate and dimethoxyethane [0022, 0029, 0032, 0052].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINAH RUSERE whose telephone number is (571)272-9954. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/L.N.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights