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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “secondar” should read “secondary. “silatane” should read “silatrane”. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oshita (JP 2011086548 A).
Regarding claim 1, Oshita discloses an electrolyte solution for a secondary battery (paragraph 0023, 0027-0028), comprising: a lithium salt (paragraph 0018), a non-aqueous organic solvent (paragraph 0028), and a silatrane-based compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, X is each independently oxygen, sulfur, nitrogen or phosphorus, R1 is an electron donating group, a C2 to C10 tertiary aminoalkyl group, a C1 to C10 haloalkyl group, a C6 to C15 aryl group, a C6 to C15 haloaryl group, or a hydrocarbon group including at least one selected the group consisting of a C1 to C10 alkyl group, a C1 to C10 haloalkyl group, a sulfonyloxy group, a C1 to C10 alkylene group and a C3 to C15 trialkylsilyloxy group, and R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7 are each independently hydrogen, a C1 to C6 linear alkyl group, a C3 to C6 branched alkyl group or a C3 to C6 cyclic alkyl (paragraph 0020, ethoxysilatrane, equivalent to X being oxygen, R1 being an ethoxy group, R2-R7 being hydrogen).
Regarding claim 2, Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 1. Oshita further discloses that the electron donating group includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a C1 to C10 alkoxy group, a cyano group, a halogen group, a vinyl group, a hydroxy group, a primary to tertiary amine group, an imine group, a thiol group and a sulfide group (paragraph 0020, ethoxysilatrane, R1 is an ethoxy group).
Regarding claim 3, Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 1. Oshita further discloses that X is oxygen (paragraph 0020, ethoxysilatrane, equivalent to X being oxygen).
Regarding claim 4, Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 1. Oshita further discloses that R1 is an ethoxy group (paragraph 0020, ethoxysilatrane, equivalent to R1 being an ethoxy group).
Regarding claim 5, Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 1. Oshita further discloses that R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7 are each hydrogen (ethoxysilatrane, equivalent to R2-R7 being hydrogen).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshita (JP 2011086548 A) in view of Bhat et al. (US 20120328939 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 1. Oshita is silent regarding wherein a content of the silatrane-based compound is in a range from 0.1 wt % to 5.0 wt % based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution.
Bhat discloses an electrolyte solution including a lithium salt, a non-aqueous solvent, and an additive which may be a silatrane based compound (Bhat paragraphs 0007, 0133, 0138, 0154). Bhat further discloses that the compound may be included in the electrolyte in an amount of 0.2 wt% to 0.5 wt% (Bhat paragraph 0176). The reference teaches that the amount of the compound effect battery characteristics and can be fine-tuned depending on battery configuration (Bhat paragraph 0177). Bhat is clearly teaching that the amount of the additive is a results-effective variable that controls the battery characteristics. Bhat and Oshita are analogous because they both disclose electrolyte additives which may be silatrane based compounds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed by Oshita to include the amount of additive disclosed by Bhat because it has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshita (JP 2011086548 A) in view of Park et al. (US 20140342235 A1).
Regarding claim 7 Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 1. Oshita is silent regarding an auxiliary additive that includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a fluorine-containing carbonate-based compound, a vinylidene carbonate-based compound and a sulfinyl group-containing compound.
Park discloses a rechargeable lithium battery with a negative electrode including a negative active material, a positive electrode including a positive active material, and an electrolyte (Park paragraph 0028). Park further discloses that the electrolyte may include an ethylene-carbonate based compound such as fluoroethylene carbonate to improve battery cycle-life (Park paragraphs 0090-0092). Park and Oshita are analogous because they both disclose electrolytes for secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed by Oshita to include the fluoroethylene carbonate additive disclosed by Park for the purpose of improving battery cycle-life.
Regarding claim 8, modified Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 7. Oshita is silent regarding wherein the fluorine-containing carbonate-based compound includes fluoroethylene carbonate, the vinylidene carbonate-based compound includes vinylethylene carbonate, and the sulfinyl group-containing compound includes at least one of 1,3-propane sultone and ethylene sulfate.
Park discloses a rechargeable lithium battery with a negative electrode including a negative active material, a positive electrode including a positive active material, and an electrolyte (Park paragraph 0028). Park further discloses that the electrolyte may include an ethylene-carbonate based compound such as fluoroethylene carbonate to improve battery cycle-life (Park paragraphs 0090-0092). Park and Oshita are analogous because they both disclose electrolytes for secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed by Oshita to include the fluoroethylene carbonate additive disclosed by Park for the purpose of improving battery cycle-life.
Regarding claim 9, Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 7. Oshita is silent regarding wherein a content of the auxiliary additive is in a range from 0.1 wt % to 10 wt % based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution.
Park discloses a rechargeable lithium battery with a negative electrode including a negative active material, a positive electrode including a positive active material, and an electrolyte (Park paragraph 0028). Park further discloses that the electrolyte may include an ethylene-carbonate based compound such as fluoroethylene carbonate to improve battery cycle-life (Park paragraphs 0090-0092), and that the amount to improve cycle life may be adjusted within an appropriate range. Park is clearly teaching that the amount of the additive is a results-effective variable that controls the cycle-life of the battery. Park and Oshita are analogous because they both disclose electrolytes for secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte disclosed by Oshita to include the fluoroethylene carbonate additive in the amount disclosed by Park because it has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 1. Oshita further discloses a secondary battery comprising the electrolyte solution (paragraphs 0022-0024). Oshita does not explicitly disclose a cathode comprising a lithium metal oxide; an anode facing the cathode and comprising a carbon-based active material or a silicon-based active material.
Park discloses a rechargeable lithium battery with a negative electrode including a negative active material, a positive electrode including a positive active material, and an electrolyte (Park paragraph 0028). Park further discloses that the positive electrode may include a lithium metal oxide that can reversibly intercalate and deintercalate lithium ions (Park paragraphs 0073-0074). The negative electrode active material includes a carbon nanofiber material and silicon particles, which improves capacity and controls volume expansion (Park paragraphs 0047-0053). Park and Oshita are analogous because they both disclose electrolytes for secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Oshita to include the electrode materials disclosed by Park. Doing so would improve capacity and control volume expansion.
Regarding claim 11, modified Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 10. Oshita is silent regarding wherein the anode comprises the carbon-based active material and the silicon-based active material, and the silicon-based active material is included in an amount from 0.1 parts by weight to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon-based active material.
Park discloses a rechargeable lithium battery with a negative electrode including a negative active material, a positive electrode including a positive active material, and an electrolyte (Park paragraph 0028). Park further discloses that the The negative electrode active material includes a carbon nanofiber material and silicon particles (Park paragraph 0047). The reference teaches that the silicon particle may be included in an amount of about 1 part to about 25 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon nanofiber to minimize volume expansion (Park paragraph 0055). Park and Oshita are analogous because they both disclose electrolytes for secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Oshita to include the active materials in the amount disclosed by Park. Doing so would minimize volume expansion.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshita (JP 2011086548 A) in view of Park et al. (US 20140342235 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20080063937 A1).
Regarding claims 12-14, modified Oshita discloses the limitations of claim 10. Oshita is silent regarding wherein a coating layer derived from the silatrane-based compound is formed on a surface of an active material of the anode, wherein a C—X bond is formed between the carbon-based active material and the coating layer derived from the silatrane-based compound, and wherein a Si—X bond is formed between the silicon-based active material and the coating layer derived from the silatrane-based compound.
Lee discloses an electrolyte solution comprising a lithium salt, an organic solvent, and a silane compound additive (Lee paragraphs 0012-0014). Lee further discloses that the alkoxy group of the additive compound reacts with the active material to form a covalent bond and form a monolayer on the surface of the active material (Lee paragraph 0032). The reference teaches that the layer can prevent crack formation caused by volumetric changes (Lee paragraph 0035). Lee and Oshita are analogous because they both disclose electrolyte additive compounds comprising silicon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Oshita to include the coating layer taught by Lee as a result of the silatrane-based additive of Oshita reacting with the silicon or carbon negative active material disclosed by Park, resulting in the claimed Si-X and C-X bonds. Doing so would prevent crack formation caused by volumetric changes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights