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 § 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 1-5, 7-9, 11-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (WO 2022/186490 with US 2024/0154169 as an English-language equivalent; hereinafter “Son”) in view of Ko et al. (US 2019/0123352; hereinafter “Ko”).
In regard to claims 1-4 and 8-9, Son discloses an electrolyte solution for a rechargeable lithium battery (see at least [0010]) which necessarily comprising a positive electrode (cathode material discussed in [0003]); a negative electrode (material discussed in [0003]); an electrolyte (as discussed in at least [0003]) which comprises an imide cesium salt compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 as an additive (cesium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide; [0031]) which has the structure of Chemical Formula 1-1 of claim 9 as both R1 and R2 are fluoro groups.
Son is silent in regard to wherein the positive electrode comprises a carbon nanotube as a conductive material.
Ko discloses an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery 100 with a positive electrode 11, negative electrode 12 and electrolyte ([0072] wherein the positive electrode comprises carbon nanotubes as a conductive material, and further a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer on the positive electrode current collector wherein a carbon nanotube as a conductive material is in the positive electrode active material layer (see abstract and [0031]-[0033]) as recited in claim 3. Ko discloses wherein the length of the carbon nanotubes is from 40 microns to 250 microns (see [0033]), which heavily overlaps with the range of claim 2, and provides an example wherein the length of the nanotubes is 55±5 microns (see [0083]) which is within the range of claim 2. Ko teaches that the content of the conductive material may be less than or equal to about 1.5 wt% or between about 0.2 wt% to about 1.5 wt% which heavily overlaps with the range of claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the carbon nanotubes of Ko with the positive electrode of the battery of Son for the purpose of reducing the resistance of the electrode. It would have also been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimum or workable range of nanotube length and weight percentage of conductive material through routine experimentation and without the creation of any new or unexpected results. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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.).
In regard to claim 5, Son discloses wherein the positive active material layer further comprises a positive electrode active material which comprises a lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2). See [0036]-[0038].
In regard to claim 7, Son discloses wherein the positive electrode active material layer further comprises a binder comprised of polyvinylfluoride. See [0038].
In regard to claims 11-12, Son discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent comprising a carbonate-based solvent such as ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate and an ester based solvent such as methyl propionate, ethyl propionate, prolyl acetate, butyl acetate and ethyl acetate. See [0033].
In regard to claim 14, Son discloses wherein the electrolyte further comprises a lithium salt selected from LiPF6, LiBF4, LiSbF6, LiAsF6, and LiClO4. See [0032].
In regard to claim 15, Son discloses wherein a concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte is about 1.0 M to about 2.0 M. See [0032].
In regard to claim 16, Son discloses wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active material layer comprising a negative electrode active material comprised of natural graphite. See [0039].
In regard to claims 17-18, it is held that the claims merely further limit the option of claim 16 of wherein the negative electrode active material comprises a Si composite while not explicitly requiring that the material must be the Si composite. Thus, the limitations do not further limit the subject matter of parent claim 16 when the claim is met by the negative electrode active material being graphite.
In regard to claim 19, Son discloses wherein the anode material may include crystalline carbon. See [0036].
Claim 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Ko as applied to claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0207258; hereinafter “Kim”).
In regard to claim 10, Son is silent in regard to the amount of additive present in the electrolyte.
Kim discloses the use of additives in rechargeable lithium batteries of the same composition as instantly recited. See [0021]-[0022]. Kim teaches that the additive is present in the electrolyte in the amount of 0.05 to 10 wt% or 0.1 to 3 wt% which entirely encapsulates the recited range. See [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the additive in the electrolyte of the above combined battery of Son and Ko in the amount disclosed by Kim for the purpose of improving the lifetime and resistance characteristics of the battery at high temperatures. It would have also been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have discovered the optimum value of the amount of additive through routine experimentation and without creating any new or unexpected results. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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.).
In regard to claim 13, Son discloses wherein the carbonate-based solvent can be ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate. Son is silent on wherein the ester based solvent can be propyl propionate but discloses such solvents as methyl propionate, ethyl propionate, prolyl acetate, butyl acetate and ethyl acetate. See [0033].
Kim discloses examples of ester for the electrolyte solvent may include methyl propionate, ethyl propionate, prolyl acetate, butyl acetate, ethyl acetate, and propyl propionate. See [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted propyl propionate disclosed by Kim for the ester solvent of Son in the above combined battery without creating any new or unexpected results as the compositions are functionally equivalent and substitution of the composition would not result in any new or unexpected results. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Son teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises lithium cobalt oxide but does not disclose wherein the lithium cobalt oxide is represented by the recited Chemical Formula 2. The prior art did not teach, suggest or render obvious lithium cobalt oxide with the Chemical Formula 2 being used as a positive electrode active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights