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 § 112
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear what Z1 and Z2 are referring to in the claim, or claim 1, from which claim 5 depends.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US Publication 2022/0393226) in view of Shatunov (KR 20150112720 a machine translation is provided).
Regarding claim 1, Dong teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraph 3 lithium battery), comprising: a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material (paragraph 3 positive electrode, paragraph 3 cites lithium cobalt oxide as one example of an active material); a negative electrode (paragraph 3 recites a negative electrode) comprising a negative electrode active material layer (paragraph 3 teaches a negative electrode including graphite, paragraph 126 teaches negative electrode layers), wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprising a negative electrode active material (paragraph 8 teaches silicon oxide composite SOC for the negative active material), an electrolyte (paragraph 8 electrolytes E1-E4), wherein the electrolyte comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent (paragraph 62 fluoroethylene carbonate), a lithium salt (paragraph 61 lithium salt), and an additive (paragraph 88 teaches an additive such as TEP, PS, PFPN), a lithium salt comprises a lithium imide salt (paragraph 61 teaches LiTFSL as an example of a lithium imide salt), a negative electrode comprises a carbon nanotube (paragraph 144 carbon nanotube), and a range of sizes of the carbon nanotubes including the diameter of carbon nanotubes being less than 250 micrometers (paragraph 147 teaches less than 250 micrometers), the carbon nanotube is included in an amount of about .5 to about 2 wt% based on the total amount of the negative electrode active material layer (paragraph 228 teaches 2 wt% of carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode). Regarding claim 1, Dong is silent to the formula 1 additive and the specific length of the carbon nanotubes. Regarding claim 1, Shatunov teaches a lithium battery (paragraph 4) with an electrolyte (paragraph 5) including an additive including chemical formula 1 (paragraph 37 reads on chemical formula 1). Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium battery of Dong with the additive in the electrolyte of Shatunov in order to suppress side reactions and improve high temperature stability (see paragraph 5). Regarding claim 1, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the carbon nanotubes in order to obtain the desired electrode performance since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Dong is silent to the language of claim 2. Regarding claim 2, Shatunov teaches wherein X1 is a fluorine atom (paragraph 37 and 39 show a fluorine atom at the X1 position). Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium battery of Dong with the additive in the electrolyte of Shatunov in order to suppress side reactions and improve high temperature stability (see paragraph 5).
Dong is silent to the language of claim 3. Regarding claim 3, Shatunov teaches wherein Y1 and Y2 are both oxygen (paragraphs 37 and 39 show oxygen at both the Y1 and Y2 positions). Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium battery of Dong with the additive in the electrolyte of Shatunov in order to suppress side reactions and improve high temperature stability (see paragraph 5).
Dong is silent to the language of claim 4. Regarding claim 4, Shatunov teaches the use of alkylene groups in the electrolyte additive (see paragraph 106 of the machine translation). Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium battery of Dong with the additive in the electrolyte of Shatunov in order to suppress side reactions and improve high temperature stability (see paragraph 5).
Dong is silent to the language of claim 5. Regarding claim 5, Shatunov teaches a c1-c20 alkyl group (paragraph 55) an ethyl group (paragraph 55). Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium battery of Dong with the additive in the electrolyte of Shatunov in order to suppress side reactions and improve high temperature stability (see paragraph 5).
Dong is silent to the language of claim 6. Regarding claim 6, Shatunov teaches chemical formula 1 (paragraph 37 reads on chemical formula 1), and a c1-c20 alkyl group (paragraph 55). Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium battery of Dong with the additive in the electrolyte of Shatunov in order to suppress side reactions and improve high temperature stability (see paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 7, Dong teaches wherein the additive is included in an amount of about 0.1 to about 10 wt% based on a total amount of the electrolyte (paragraph 63 teaches a weight percent less than 10 wt% which is considered including values in the range of .1 to 10 wt %).
Regarding claim 11, Dong teaches varying lithium salt amounts (paragraph 69). Regarding claim 11, Dong is silent to the specific wt percent. Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium battery of Dong with the additive in the electrolyte of Shatunov in order to suppress side reactions and improve high temperature stability (see paragraph 5). Regarding claim 11, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific amount of lithium salt in order to obtain the desired battery performance since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, Dong teaches wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a carbonate-based, ester-based, ether-based, ketone-based, alcohol-based, or aprotic solvent (paragraph 107 teaches carbonate, paragraph 103 teaches esters, paragraph 107 ethers).
Regarding claim 14, Dong teaches the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a carbonate-based solvent (paragraph 107) and varying the various carbonate solves (paragraph 62). Regarding claim 14, Dong is silent to the specific ratio of the solvent. Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium battery of Dong with the additive in the electrolyte of Shatunov in order to suppress side reactions and improve high temperature stability (see paragraph 5). Regarding claim 14, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solvent in order to obtain the desired battery performance since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, Dong teaches the negative electrode active material comprises at least one selected from among graphite and a Si composite (paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 16, Dong teaches the Si composite comprising: a core comprising Si-containing particles (paragraph 39 teaches Si containing particles); and amorphous carbon (the SOC is considered comprising amorphous carbon).
Regarding claim 17, Dong teaches wherein the Si containing particles comprises SI-C composite (paragraph 39 silicon oxide composite SOC).
Regarding claim 18, Dong teaches the Si composite comprising: a core comprising Si-containing particles (paragraph 39 teaches Si containing particles); and amorphous carbon (the SOC is considered comprising amorphous carbon).
Regarding claim 19, Dong teaches Chemical Formula A1 wherein b1 is zero (paragraph 39 NMC622 which is LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2).
Regarding claim 20, Dong teaches a separator positioned between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraph 68).
Claims 8, 9, 10, and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US Publication 2022/0393226) in view of Shatunov (KR 20170018739 a machine translation is provided) in further view of Kim (U.S. Publication 2006/0073391).
Dong is silent to the specific lithium salt of claim 8. Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches Chemical formula two (see claim 14, Li(CF3SO2)2N). Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious toe one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lithium salt of Dong in view of Shatunov with the lithium salt of Kim in order to achieve the desired electrolyte performance.
Dong is silent to the specific lithium salt of claim 9. Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches Chemical formula two with R3 and R4 being a fluoro group (see claim 14, Li(CF3SO2)2N). Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious toe one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lithium salt of Dong in view of Shatunov with the lithium salt of Kim in order to achieve the desired electrolyte performance.
Dong is silent to the specific lithium salt of claim 10. Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches Chemical formula two-two (see claim 14, Li(CF3SO2)2N). Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious toe one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lithium salt of Dong in view of Shatunov with the lithium salt of Kim in order to achieve the desired electrolyte performance.
Dong is silent to the specific lithium salt of claim 12. Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches Li(CF3SO2)2N (see claim 14, Li(CF3SO2)2N). Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious toe one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lithium salt of Dong in view of Shatunov with the lithium salt of Kim in order to achieve the desired electrolyte performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights