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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 10/17/2023, 11/19/2024, and 6/16/2026 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. US-20210226251-A1 (hereinafter “Ji”) in view of Kim et al. US-20190207258-A1 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ji discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery (see abstract), the electrolyte comprising:
a non-aqueous organic solvent (see paragraphs [0008]-[0011] and [0044]-[0045]),
a lithium salt (see paragraphs [0008]-[0011] and [0044]-[0045]), and
an additive (see paragraphs [0008]-[0011] and [0044]-[0045]),
wherein the additive comprises a composition comprising a first compound and a second compound (see paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0044]-[0045], and [0057]),
the second compound is a crown ether compound that is a species (18-crown-6) of the genus claimed Formula 2 (see paragraphs [0010], [0053], and [0079]),
wherein, in Chemical Formula 2,
Z is O,
x and y are each independently an integer of 0, and
m and n are each independently one of integers of 1 to 3 (see comparison of species and genus below) (see paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0044]-[0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
182
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. 18-crown-6 Crown Ether of Ji
PNG
media_image2.png
287
325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Chemical Formula 2 of Instant Application
Ji discloses the electrolyte may include additional additives, such as an oxygen-containing electrolyte additive, a sulfur-containing compound, a fluorine-containing additive, a silicon-containing additive, a nitrogen-containing additive, a boron-containing additive, a phosphorus-containing additive, etc. (see paragraph [0057]).
Ji is silent on wherein the first compound is an imide cesium salt compound represented by claimed Chemical Formula 1, wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1 and R2 are each independently a fluoro group, or a C1 to C3 fluoroalkyl group substituted with at least one fluoro group; provided that at least one of R1 or R2 is a fluoro group and the composition comprises the first compound and the second compound at a weight ratio of about 1:4 to about 1:10.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrolytes in lithium secondary batteries (see abstract), Kim discloses an electrolyte wherein the first compound is an imide cesium salt compound represented by Chemical Formula 1,
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1 and R2 are each independently a fluoro group, or a C1 to C3 fluoroalkyl group substituted with at least one fluoro group;
provided that at least one of R1 or R2 is a fluoro group (see comparison of chemical formulas below). Kim also discloses Chemical Formulas 2-4, which are species of the claimed genus formula (see paragraphs [0011] and [0018]-[0025]).
PNG
media_image3.png
174
411
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Chemical Formula 1 of Kim
PNG
media_image4.png
178
210
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Chemical Formula 1 of Instant Application
Kim further discloses the secondary battery comprising the imide cesium salt compound electrolyte additive may achieve improvement of the high temperature and low temperature lifetime characteristics through effective maintenance of the structure by preventing the degradation of the structure of the cathode (see paragraph [0027]). Kim also discloses different kinds of additives can be additionally comprised as the additive for facilitating stability of the lithium secondary battery and improvement of output (see paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Ji wherein the first compound is an imide cesium salt compound represented by claimed Chemical Formula 1, as disclosed by Kim, in order to achieve improvement of the high temperature and low temperature lifetime characteristics.
Regarding the composition of the electrolyte comprising the first compound and the second compound at a weight ratio of about 1:4 to about 1:10, it will be shown the combined disclosures of Ji and Kim render this ratio obvious.
Ji discloses using crown ethers (the second compound) in amounts of 0.25 wt %, 0.5 wt %, or 1 wt % in an electrolyte solution (see abstract and paragraph [0054], [0079], and [0088]). Kim discloses the cesium salt (the first compound) may be included in an amount 0.1 to 3 wt % (see paragraphs [0033]-[0035]). Kim additionally discloses if the content of the additive is less than 0.05 wt %, the effect of improving the low and high temperature storage characteristics and the high temperature lifetime characteristics of the lithium secondary battery may be insignificant and if the content of the additive exceeds 10 wt %, the resistance may increase due to excessive formation of the coating film. So, the wt % of the cesium salt is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
For example, a skilled artisan is capable of using the disclosed ranges of Ji and Kim and selecting 1 wt % of the crown ether (second compound) and 0.1 wt % of the cesium salt (first compound) to arrive at a ratio of the cesium salt to the crown ether of 1:10. Thus, the ranges taught by Ji and Kim overlap to render obvious the claimed weight ratio of the cesium salt to the crown ether of 1:4 to 1:10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Ji wherein the first compound is an imide cesium salt compound represented by claimed Chemical Formula 1, wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1 and R2 are each independently a fluoro group, or a C1 to C3 fluoroalkyl group substituted with at least one fluoro group; provided that at least one of R1 or R2 is a fluoro group and the composition comprises the first compound and the second compound at a weight ratio of about 1:4 to about 1:10, as disclosed by Kim, in order to achieve the effect of improving the low and high temperature storage characteristics and the high temperature lifetime characteristics and avoid the resistance increasing due to excessive formation of the coating film.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Kim further discloses electrolyte as claimed in claim 1, wherein R1 is a fluoro group; and R2 is a fluoro group, a C1 fluoroalkyl group substituted with three fluoro groups, a C2 fluoroalkyl group substituted with five fluoro groups, or a C3 fluoroalkyl group substituted with seven fluoroalkyl groups (R1 and R2 of Chemical Formula 1 are each a fluoro group or a C1-C4 fluoroalkyl group and Chemical Formulas 2-4 are species of the claimed genus) (see paragraphs [0018]-[0025]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Ji is silent on wherein the first compound is represented by Chemical Formulae 1-1 to 1-4.
However, Kim discloses wherein the first compound is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 (Chemical Formula 2 of Kim, which may be a salt of an amide-based anion with Cs+) (see paragraphs [0018]-[0025]).
PNG
media_image5.png
87
154
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 5. Chemical Formula 2 of Kim
PNG
media_image6.png
160
219
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 6. Chemical Formula 1-1 of Instant Application
Kim additionally discloses the secondary battery comprising the imide cesium salt compound electrolyte additive may achieve improvement of the high temperature and low temperature lifetime characteristics through effective maintenance of the structure by preventing the degradation of the structure of the cathode (see paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Ji wherein the first compound is an imide cesium salt compound represented by claimed Chemical Formula 1-1, as disclosed by Kim, in order to achieve improvement of the high temperature and low temperature lifetime characteristics.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ji further discloses wherein the second compound is a species (18-crown-6) of the genus claimed Formula 2-1 and wherein, in Chemical Formulae 2-1, m and n are each independently one of integers of 1 to 3 (see paragraphs [0010], [0053], and [0079]).
PNG
media_image1.png
182
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7. 18-crown-6 Crown Ether of Ji
PNG
media_image7.png
283
254
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 8. Chemical Formula 2-1 of Instant Application
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ji further discloses wherein the second compound is at least one of 15-crown-5, 18-crown-6, 21-crown-7, 24-crown-8, dibenzo-15-crown-5, dibenzo-18-crown-6, dibenzo-21-crown-7, or dibenzo-24-crown-8 (see paragraph [0010]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Ji is silent on wherein the first compound is in an amount of about 0.1 to about 2.0 wt % based on 100 wt % of the electrolyte.
However, Kim discloses wherein the cesium salt (the first compound) may be included in an amount 0.1 to 3 wt % (see paragraphs [0033]-[0035]). This substantially overlaps and therefore renders obvious the range of the first compound being in an amount of about 0.1 to about 2.0 wt % based on 100 wt % of the electrolyte.
Kim additionally discloses if the content of the additive is less than 0.05 wt %, the effect of improving the low and high temperature storage characteristics and the high temperature lifetime characteristics of the lithium secondary battery may be insignificant and if the content of the additive exceeds 10 wt %, the resistance may increase due to excessive formation of the coating film. So, the wt % of the cesium salt is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Ji wherein the first compound is in an amount of about 0.1 to about 2.0 wt % based on 100 wt % of the electrolyte, as disclosed by Kim, in order to achieve the effect of improving the low and high temperature storage characteristics of the lithium secondary battery and avoid increasing resistance due to excessive formation of the coating film.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ji further discloses wherein the second compound is in an amount of 0.25 wt %, 0.5 wt %, or 1 wt % based on 100 wt % of the electrolyte (see paragraphs [0054], [0079]-[0081], [0088], [0091], and [0094]). These values fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of the second compound being in an amount of about 0.1 to about 10 wt % based on 100 wt % of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
In the combination of Ji and Kim, based on the disclosed ranges as discussed in claim 1 above, a skilled artisan is capable of selecting 1 wt % of the crown ether (second compound) and 0.1 wt % of the cesium salt (first compound), As such, the composition comprising the first compound and the second compound would be included in an amount of 1.1 wt %, which falls within the claimed range of an amount of the composition comprising the first compound and the second compound of about 0.5 to about 10 wt % based on 100 wt % of the electrolyte. Thus, the ranges taught by Ji and Kim overlap to render obvious the claimed range of an amount of the composition comprising the first compound and the second compound of about 0.5 to about 10 wt % based on 100 wt % of the electrolyte.
Kim additionally discloses if the content of the additive is less than 0.05 wt %, the effect of improving the low and high temperature storage characteristics and the high temperature lifetime characteristics of the lithium secondary battery may be insignificant and if the content of the additive exceeds 10 wt %, the resistance may increase due to excessive formation of the coating film. So, the wt % of the cesium salt is a result effective variable and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Ji wherein an amount of the composition comprising the first compound and the second compound is about 0.5 to about 10 wt % based on 100 wt % of the electrolyte, as disclosed by Ji and Kim, in order to achieve the effect of improving the low and high temperature storage characteristics of the lithium secondary battery and avoid increasing resistance due to excessive formation of the coating film.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ji further discloses wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises at least one of a carbonate-based solvent, an ester-based solvent (such as methyl propanoate), an ether-based solvent (such as fluoroether), a ketone-based solvent, an alcohol-based solvent, or an aprotic solvent (see paragraphs [0046]-[0047], [0079], and [0088]).
Regarding Claims 10-11, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ji further discloses using carbonate-based solvents such as ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC) and that an additional component in the electrolyte may be an additive or a co-solvent (see paragraphs [0011] and [0045]-[0048]).
Ji is silent on wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises an ester-based solvent and wherein the ester-based solvent comprises propyl propionate (PP).
However, Kim discloses wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a carbonate-based solvent and an ester-based solvent, and wherein the carbonate-based solvent comprises ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC), and the ester-based solvent comprises propyl propionate (PP) (see paragraphs [0038]-[0043]). A skilled artisan would recognize propyl propionate (PP) as an appropriate and functional solvent as an additional component in the electrolyte of Ji. 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 In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrolyte of Ji wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises an ester-based solvent and wherein ester-based solvent comprises propyl propionate (PP), as disclosed by Kim, as it is a known functional solvent to use in electrolytes.
Regarding Claims 12-13, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ji further discloses wherein the lithium salt comprises LiPF6 (meeting Claim 12) in a concentration of 1.2 M (see paragraphs [0011], [0055], [0079]-[0081], [0088], [0091], and [0094]). This value falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of a concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte being in a range from about 0.1 M to about 2.0 M (meeting Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ji further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a positive electrode (cathode) comprising a positive electrode active material; a negative electrode (anode) comprising a negative electrode active material; and the electrolyte as claimed in the aforementioned claim 1 (see paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0042], [0060]-[0061], and [0071]-[0073]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ji further discloses wherein the positive electrode active material may be lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) (see paragraph [0060]) which is a species of the claimed positive electrode active material genus represented by Chemical Formula 3: Lia11Co.sub.x11M11y11O2, wherein, in Chemical Formula 3, 0.9≤a11≤1.8, 0.9≤x11≤1, 0≤y11≤0.1, x11+y11=1, M11 is at least one of Al, B, Ce, Cr, F, Mg, Mn, Mo, Nb, P, S, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, Zr, or a combination thereof. Therefore, the positive electrode active material of Ji anticipates the claimed positive electrode active material.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above). Ji further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material comprises at least one of graphite or a Si composite (see paragraphs [0061]-[0064], [0082], and [0092]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above). Ji further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material comprises the Si composite, and the Si composite comprises a core comprising Si-containing particles and amorphous carbon (see paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above). Ji further discloses wherein the core comprising the Si-containing particles comprises at least one of a Si—C composite or a Si alloy (see paragraphs [0061]-[0065]).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above). Claim 19 further limits only one of the alternatively usable options of claim 18 (i.e., the Si—C composite active material). As Kim teaches the use of a silicon alloy as a negative electrode active material (see rejection of claim 18), claim 19 is rendered obvious by Ji for the same reason as claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Ji discloses the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Ji further discloses wherein the negative electrode active material further comprises crystalline carbon (graphite) (see paragraphs [0061], [0068], [0082], and [0092]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Otsubo et al. JP-2017117592-A discloses an electrolyte for secondary batteries comprising a non aqueous solvent, at least one fluoride salt selected from the group consisting of potassium fluoride, rubidium fluoride, and cesium fluoride, and a crown ether and wherein the crown ether may be included in an amount of 0.01 mol/L or higher from the viewpoint of effectively capturing cations, and preferably 1.5 mol/L or lower from the viewpoint of suppressing a decrease in conductivity due to an increase in the viscosity of the electrolyte (see paragraphs [0009], [0014]-[0016], and [0018]-[0020]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights