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 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “or butoxy.” at the end of the claim.
It is recommended to change this to “or butoxy groups.” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 12 recites “the fluoro group” and while there is antecedent basis for a fluoro group in claim 11, it is unclear which fluoro group this is in reference to because two different fluoro groups are recited in claim 11. It appears this could be changed to “the at least one fluoro group” or “a fluoro group”.
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 1-4, 8-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198924) in view of Han et al. (US 20050019671) and with or without Fujita et al. (US 20170117588) and/or Kim et al. (US 20160322665) hereinafter “Kim SK”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery (lithium secondary battery, Abstract), comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (Abstract), wherein the additive comprises: (i) a first compound that is a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1, CsPF6, or a combination thereof (Kim et al. discloses Chemical Formula 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
198
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1 and R2 are each independently a fluoro group or a C1 to C4 fluoroalkyl group substituted with at least one fluoro group (pars. [0020]-[0021] and [0023]-[0024], such as cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, para. [0024]).
Kim et al. does not disclose (ii) a second compound that is a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, Chemical Formula 2-2, or a combination thereof (shown below).
However, Han et al. discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (Abstract) and Han et al. teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, Chemical Formula 2-2, or a combination thereof (Chemical Formula 2-2, para. [0009]) wherein R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 is a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C12 aryl group (C6 aryl group, pars. [0009]-[0010]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. where the electrolyte includes (ii) a second compound that is a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, Chemical Formula 2-2, or a combination thereof:
PNG
media_image2.png
562
715
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R3 in Chemical Formula 2-1 and R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C12 aryl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxycarbonyl group, a halogen group, a cyano group, a hydroxy group, or a thiol group, and in Chemical Formula 2-1, R4 and R5 are each independently hydrogen, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C12 aryl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxy group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxycarbonyl group, a halogen group, a cyano group, a hydroxy group, or a thiol group.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a compound having Chemical Formula 2-2 in order to achieve good safety and improved cycle life (Han et al., para. [0042]).
Further, Fujita et al. discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (para. [0095]), a lithium salt (para. [0097]), and an additive (additive for a non-aqueous electrolyte solution, Abstract) and Fujita et al. teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, Chemical Formula 2-2, or a combination thereof (para. [0070]) wherein R3 in Chemical Formula 2-1 (Fujita et al., such as Formula 2-3, R17 with the carbonyl group shown attached to R17) and R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 (Fujita et al., such as Formula 2-2, R16 with the attached carbonyl) is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxycarbonyl group (C1-C4 alkoxy, para. [0071] corresponding to C2-C5 alkoxycarbonyl with the carbonyl group shown in Formula 2-2 or 2-3) and in Chemical Formula 2-1, R4 and R5 are each independently hydrogen (Formula 2-3, R4 and R5 are hydrogen, para. [0070]).
Likewise, Kim SK discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (pyrrole derivative as additive, Abstract) and Kim SK teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, Chemical Formula 2-2, or a combination thereof (para. [0012]): wherein R3 in Chemical Formula 2-1 and R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 (Kim SK, “R”, pars. [0012] and [0014]) are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkyl group (C1-C5, para. [0014]), a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C12 aryl group (para. [0014]), a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxy group (C1-C5 alkoxy, pars. [0014]), a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxycarbonyl group (C1-C5 alkoxycarbonyl, para. [0014]), a cyano group (para. [[014]), and a hydroxy group (para. [0014]), and in Chemical Formula 2-1, R4 and R5 (Kim SK, R1 and R2, pars. [0012] and [0016]) are each independently hydrogen (para. [0016]) or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkyl group (C1-C5 alkyl, para. [0016]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. to include a compound meeting Chemical Formula 2-1 or 2-2.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add an additive meeting Chemical Formula 2-1 or 2-2 in order to improve storage stability and life-cycle characteristics (Fujita et al., Abstract, Kim SK, pars. [0033] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim et al. discloses wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1 or 1-2 in that Kim et al. discloses both(Chemical Formula 2, Chemical Formula 3, para. [0023], cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, para. [0024]):
PNG
media_image3.png
526
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3-4, Kim et al. reasonably discloses an overlapping range wherein
the first compound is in an amount of about 0.01 parts by weight to about 1.9 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent and the lithium salt (per claim 3) or wherein the first compound is in an amount of about 0.01 parts by weight to about 1.0 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent and the lithium salt (per claim 4) in that Kim et al. discloses 0.05-10% by weight (para. [0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Kim et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Further, using Example 1 (para. [0105]) and removing the second additive (LiPO2F2) from the weight total would result in the first compound being present in an amount falling within the range (about 0.505 [0.005/0.99] parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of organic solvent and lithium salt, where the salt and solvent are 99% of the total weight and the two additives are each 0.5% of the total weight, para. [0105]) which meets the limitations of claim 3 and claim 4.
Regarding claims 8-9, Kim et al. does not disclose the second compound.
However, Han et al. further teaches an overlapping range wherein the second compound is in an amount of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 4.9 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent and the lithium salt per claim 8 and an overlapping range wherein the second compound is in an amount of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 3 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent and the lithium salt per claim 9 (Han et al., para. [0020]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. wherein the second compound is in an amount of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 4.9 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent and the lithium salt (per claim 8)
or wherein the second compound is in an amount of about 0.1 parts by weight to about 3 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent and the lithium salt (per claim 9).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a range such as the claimed range in order to achieve an overcharge inhibition effect and prevent deterioration of a battery’s life cycle characteristics (Han et al., para. [0020]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Han et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Kim et al. does not expressly disclose the second compound.
However, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 (Kim et al. in view of Han et al.) reasonably discloses wherein a weight ratio of the first compound and the second compound is about 1:1 to about 1:20 in that the references disclose an overlapping range for a weight ratio (Kim et al., first compound, para. [0032], Han et al., second compound, para. [0020]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. wherein a weight ratio of the first compound and the second compound is about 1:1 to about 1:20.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the second compound in an amount such as falling within the claimed ratio in order to achieve an overcharge inhibition effect and prevent deterioration of a battery’s life cycle characteristics (Han et al., para. [0020]) while selecting the first compound in an amount such as falling within the claimed ratio in order to improve storage characteristics and prevent excessive formation of coating film (Kim et al., para. [0033]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Kim et al. in view of Han et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, the weight ratio is not disclosed in Kim et al. in view of Han et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the weight ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Kim et al. with the ratios recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. discloses wherein the electrolyte further comprises one or more other additives, and the one or more other additives comprise at least one selected from vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), difluoroethylene carbonate (DFEC), chloroethylene carbonate (CEC), dichloroethylene carbonate (DCEC), bromoethylene carbonate (BEC), dibromoethylene carbonate (DBEC), nitroethylene carbonate, cyanoethylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate (VEC), succinonitrile (SN), adiponitrile (AN), 1,3,6-hexane tricyanide (HTCN), propene sultone (PST), propane sultone (PS), lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), 2-fluoro biphenyl (2-FBP), and a combination thereof (at least lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), pars. [0025] and [105]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. discloses wherein in the electrolyte, the non-aqueous organic solvent may comprise a carbonate-based solvent and an ester-based solvent (pars. [0038]-[0040], [0043]).
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (lithium secondary battery, Abstract), comprising a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (para. [0107]), a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material (para. [0108]), a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. [0109]), and the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 discloses the electrolyte of claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. discloses wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium cobalt-based oxide (para. [0107]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198924) in view of Han et al. (US 20050019671) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Fujita et al. (US 20170117588) and Kim et al. (US 20160322665) hereinafter “Kim SK”.
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. does not expressly disclose wherein R3 in Chemical Formula 2-1 and R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxy group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxycarbonyl group.
However, Fujita et al. discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (para. [0095]), a lithium salt (para. [0097]), and an additive (additive for a non-aqueous electrolyte solution, Abstract) and Fujita et al. teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, Chemical Formula 2-2, or a combination thereof (para. [0070]) wherein R3 in Chemical Formula 2-1 (Fujita et al., such as Formula 2-3, R17 with the attached carbonyl) and R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 (Fujita et al., such as Formula 2-2, R16 with the attached carbonyl) is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxycarbonyl group (C1-C4 alkoxy, para. [0071] corresponding to a C2-C5 alkoxycarbonyl group with the carbonyl group shown in Formula 2-2 or 2-3).
Likewise, Kim SK discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (pyrrole derivative as additive, Abstract) and Kim SK teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, Chemical Formula 2-2, or a combination thereof (para. [0012]): wherein R3 in Chemical Formula 2-1 and R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 (Kim SK, “R”, pars. [0012] and [0014]) are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkyl group (C1-C5, para. [0014]), a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxy group (C1-C5 alkoxy, pars. [0014]), or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxycarbonyl group (C1-C5 alkoxycarbonyl, para. [0014]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. wherein R3 in Chemical Formula 2-1 and R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 are each independently a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C10 cycloalkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxy group, or a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C8 alkoxycarbonyl group.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add an additive meeting the limiation in order to improve storage stability and life-cycle characteristics (Fujita et al., Abstract, Kim SK, pars. [0033] and [0035]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198924) in view of Han et al. (US 20050019671) with or without Fujita et al. (US 20170117588) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20160322665) hereinafter “Kim SK”.
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. does not expressly disclose wherein R3 in Chemical Formula 2-1 and R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 are each independently methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl, cyclopropyl, n-butyl, sec-butyl, isobutyl, tert-butyl, cyclobutyl, methoxy, ethoxy, propoxy, or butoxy.
However, Kim SK discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an additive (pyrrole derivative as additive, Abstract) and Kim SK teaches a compound represented by Chemical Formula 2-1, Chemical Formula 2-2, or a combination thereof (para. [0012]): wherein R3 in Chemical Formula 2-1 and R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 (Kim SK, “R”, pars. [0012] and [0014]) are each independently methyl (C1-C5 alkyl, pars. [0014] and [0021]), ethyl (C1-C5 alkyl, pars. [0014] and [0021]), n-propyl (C1-C5 alkyl, para. [0014]), isopropyl (C1-C5 alkyl, para. [0014]), n-butyl, sec-butyl (C1-C5 alkyl, para. [0014]), isobutyl (C1-C5 alkyl, para. [0014]), tert-butyl (C1-C5 alkyl, pars. [0014] and [0020]), methoxy (C1-C5 alkoxy, pars. [0014] and [0021]), ethoxy (C1-C5 alkoxy, para. [0014]), propoxy (C1-C5 alkoxy, para. [0014]), or butoxy (C1-C5 alkoxy, para. [0014]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. wherein R3 in Chemical Formula 2-1 and R6 in Chemical Formula 2-2 are each independently methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl, cyclopropyl, n-butyl, sec-butyl, isobutyl, tert-butyl, cyclobutyl, methoxy, ethoxy, propoxy, or butoxy.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add an additive meeting the limitation in order to improve storage stability and life-cycle characteristics (Kim SK, pars. [0033] and [0035]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198924) in view of Han et al. (US 20050019671) and with or without Fujita et al. (US 20170117588) and/or Kim et al. (US 20160322665) hereinafter “Kim SK” as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Zhu et al. (attached translation of CN 106328998A).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. does not disclose Chemical Formula 2-1 or 2-2.
However, Zhu et al. discloses an electrolyte comprising lithium salt, non-aqueous organic
solvent and additives (Abstract) and Zhu et al. further teaches an additive which meets the Chemical Formula 2-1A or Chemical Formula 2-2A (at least 2-2A, N-isopropyl maleimide, para. [0007]).
Further, it is noted that Kim SK broadly teaches the use of additives which include both Chemical Formula 2-1A and Chemical Formula 2-2A (C1-C5 alkyl, pars. [0012] and [0014]-[0015]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. wherein Chemical Formula 2-1 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-1A and Chemical Formula 2-2 is represented by Chemical Formula 2-2A:
PNG
media_image4.png
594
724
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the above chemical formulas in order to add a negative film forming additive (Zhu et al., para. [0006]) or to improve storage stability and life-cycle characteristics (Kim SK, pars. [0033] and [0035]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198924) in view of Han et al. (US 20050019671) and with or without Fujita et al. (US 20170117588) and/or Kim et al. (US 20160322665) hereinafter “Kim SK” as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Zhou et al. (attached translation of CN 102786443A).
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. does not expressly disclose Chemical Formula 3.
However, Zhou et al. discloses compounds for use in lithium-ion battery electrolytes (Abstract) and Zhou et al. teaches an additive of the electrolyte is represented by Chemical Formula 3 (para. [0015]):
PNG
media_image5.png
274
771
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. wherein the additive of the electrolyte further comprises a third compound represented by Chemical Formula 3:
PNG
media_image6.png
199
766
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and wherein, in Chemical Formula 3, Z is C(═O) or S(═O)2, and Y1 and Y2 are each independently a fluoro group or a C1 to C5 fluoroalkyl group substituted with at least one fluoro group.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an additive meeting the limitation of Chemical Formula 3 in order to achieve high conductivity, oxidation resistance, and compatibility with electrode materials (Zhou et al., Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 11 further disclose wherein the third compound represented by Chemical Formula 3 is represented by any one of Chemical Formulas 3-1 to 3-8 (Zhou et al. discloses a formula meeting at least 3-8, as shown above for claim 11, para. [0015]):
PNG
media_image7.png
2409
850
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and wherein, in Chemical Formulas 3-3 to 3-8, Ra, Rb, Rc, and Rd are each independently hydrogen or the fluoro group, and n and m are each independently an integer of 0 or 4.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. does not expressly disclose the third compound.
However, Zhou et al. further teaches using the additive in an amount of 0.1-3 mol/L (para. [0017]) in organic solvent (such as ethylene carbonate, Zhou et al., para. [0017], Kim et al., para. [0026], and ethylene carbonate has a density of about 1320 g/L) and using Chemical Formula 3-8 with n=m=0, the molar mass would be about 624 g/mol and Kim et al. discloses using a lithium salt (LiPF6, m.w.≈ 151.9 g/mol) in a concentration of 1.15 mol/L (para. [0105]) and using the low end of the concentration of Zhou et al. (near 0.1 mol/L) would reasonably overlap with the claimed range.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. wherein the third compound is in an amount of about 0.01 parts by weight to about 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent and the lithium salt.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Kim et al. in view of Zhou et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the proportions are not disclosed by Kim et al. in view of Zhou et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the weight proportion of the third compound, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided the electrolyte with the proportions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198924) in view of Han et al. (US 20050019671) and with or without Fujita et al. (US 20170117588) and/or Kim et al. (US 20160322665) hereinafter “Kim SK” as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ryu et al. (Applicant provided EP 3136475B1).
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al. does not expressly disclose Chemical Formula 4.
However, Ryu et al. discloses a lithium battery (para. [0001]) and Ryu et al. teaches a lithium cobalt-based oxide is represented by Chemical Formula 4 in that Ryu et al. teaches at least one formula (second listed in para. [0122]) meeting the limitation using b=c=0 where E is cobalt:
PNG
media_image8.png
140
841
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The above meets or overlaps the limitation of Chemical Formula 4 when y1 and b1 of Chemical Formula 4 are each 0.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. wherein the lithium cobalt-based oxide is represented by Chemical Formula 4:
PNG
media_image9.png
73
740
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and wherein, in Chemical Formula 4, 0.9≤a1≤1.8, 0.7≤x1≤1, 0≤y1≤0.3, 0.9≤x1+y1≤1.1, 0≤b1≤0.1,
M1 is at least one element selected from Al, B, Ba, Ca, Ce, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Si, Sr, Ti, V, W, Y, Zn, and Zr, and X is at least one element selected from F, P, and S.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select known materials for a cathode active material (Ryu et al., para. [0121]) as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Ryu et al. at least overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20190198924) in view of Han et al. (US 20050019671) and with or without Fujita et al. (US 20170117588) and/or Kim et al. (US 20160322665) hereinafter “Kim SK” as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Choi et al. (US 20130330612) and Paulsen et al. (US 20160006032).
Regarding claim 19, Kim et al. does not expressly disclose a first and second positive electrode active materials having different diameters.
However, Choi et al. discloses cathode active materials (materials (A) and (B) or materials (B1) and (B2)) for secondary (rechargeable) batteries (Abstract) which all comprise or may comprise lithium cobalt-based oxides (pars. [0016], [0018] and [0022]) and Choi et al. teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a first positive electrode active material comprising first particles, wherein the first particles comprise a lithium cobalt-based oxide and have an average particle diameter (D50) of about 9 μm to about 25 μm (such as material (A) or (B2) where (A) may have a diameter of 15 μm as indicated in pars. [0049]-[0052] or (B2) may have a diameter of 10 μm, para. [0022]), and a second positive electrode active material comprising second particles (such as (B) or (B1)), wherein the second particles comprise a lithium cobalt-based oxide and have an average particle diameter (D50) of about 1 μm to about 8 μm (such as 3-10 μm for (B) or 7 μm [70% of 10 μm] for (B1), para. [0022]).
Further, Paulsen et al. teaches a cathode active material (Abstract) having different particle sizes (claim 4, small, <5 μm and large, > 15 μm).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Choi et al. wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a first positive electrode active material comprising first particles, wherein the first particles comprise a lithium cobalt-based oxide and have an average particle diameter (D50) of about 9 μm to about 25 μm, and a second positive electrode active material comprising second particles, wherein the second particles comprise a lithium cobalt-based oxide and have an average particle diameter (D50) of about 1 μm to about 8 μm.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use different particle sizes in order to increase packing density (Paulsen et al., para. [0081]) or to improve battery stability, life and low temperature characteristics (Choi et al., para. [0012]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Choi et al. and Paulsen et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Kim et al. does not expressly disclose first and second positive electrode active materials having different diameters.
However, Choi et al. further discloses an overlapping range for the amounts (50:50 for B1:B2 as indicated in pars. [0049]-[0052] or overlapping to include 90:10 for A:B, claim 2) as does Paulsen et al. (Paulsen, claim 4).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Kim et al. wherein the first positive electrode active material is in an amount of about 60 wt % to about 90 wt %, and the second positive electrode active material is in an amount of about 10 wt % to about 40 wt %; based on a total amount of the first positive electrode active material and the second positive electrode active material.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known relative amounts of the materials of different particle sizes in order to increase packing density (Paulsen et al., para. [0081]) or to improve battery stability, life and low temperature characteristics (Choi et al., para. [0012]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Choi et al. and Paulsen et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takamori et al. (US 20220029158) discloses positive electrode materials having different particle sizes.
Yun et al. (US 20210074998) discloses positive electrode materials having different particle sizes.
Kono et al. (US 20180358655) discloses electrolyte additives.
Lui et al. (attached WO 2020220945) discloses Chemical Formula 3 used in a battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights