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 § 102/103
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shao-Horn et al. (US 2024/0128514; hereinafter “Shao”).
In regard to claims 1-3, Shao discloses an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery, the electrolyte comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent (such as DMTMSA; [0076]) and a lithium salt (such as LiFSI, [0080]), wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises about 10 vol% to about 30 vol%, or to about 20 vol% (the combination of LiFSI and DMTMSA can be used in a weight percentage of about 80% or as an additive with a concentration of 0.1% to 20% wherein the weight percentage of the LiFSI in the combination is about 15% to about 20%; see [0081]-[0082]) as recited in claim 2, of a non-aqueous organic solvent represented by Chemical Formula 1 (N, N-dimethyltrifluoromethane-sulfonamide; [0076]) wherein each X is a fluorine atom (i.e. “trifluoro”) as recited in claim 3, based on a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent. See Figure 1C and [0076]-[0080]. Thus, if 80 to 85 wt% of the combination of the LiFSI/DMTMSA is DMTMSA and the combination of LiFSI/DMTMSA can be 20 wt% of the electrolyte, it can be surmised that the DMTMSA is used at approximately 16 to 17 vol% of the electrolyte solvent.
It is noted that Shao uses weight percentage to describe the concentrations of the solvents of the electrolyte while the claim uses volume percent. It is viewed that the weight and volume percentage concentrations are roughly equivalent. But if it is held that the numbers are not directly related, it is viewed that it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimum or workable range of volume percentage of the non-aqueous organic solvent represented by Chemical Formula 1 to be present in the non-aqueous organic solvent of the electrolyte of Shao through routine experimentation and without the creation of any new or unexpected results as the criticality of the concentration of the solvent component was not disclosed in the instant application. “[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).
In regard to claims 4-6, Shao discloses wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises a carbonate-based non-aqueous organic solvent such as ethylene carbonate as recited in both claims 5 and 6. See [0081].
In regard to claims 7-8, it is noted that the claims do not explicitly require the presence of the ester-based non-aqueous organic solvent. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations are met by the presence of the carbonate-based non-aqueous organic solvent recited in claim 4.
In regard to claim 10, Shao discloses wherein the lithium salt comprises at least one of LiPF6, LiFSI, LiDFOB and LiBOB. See [0080]-[0081], [0083].
In regard to claim 11, Shao discloses wherein the electrolyte further comprises a carbonate-based additive (ethylene carbonate; [0083]), a sultone-based additive (PST; [0083]), a lithium salt-based additive (LiDFOB and LiBOB; [0083]), or a combination thereof.
In regard to claim 12, Shao discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (battery cell 100) comprising a positive electrode (cathode 120) comprising a positive electrode active material ([0077]), a negative electrode (anode 15) comprising a negative electrode active material ([0078]) and the electrolyte (110; [0076]) of claim 1. See Figure 1C and [0076].
In regard to claim 13, Shao discloses wherein the battery has a charging voltage of greater than 4.45 V (“as high as 4.7 V”). See [0076].
In regard to claim 14, Shao discloses wherein the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium cobalt oxide. See [0007] and [0077].
In regard to claim 15, Shao discloses wherein the negative electrode active material comprises graphite. See the abstract, [0009] and [0078].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao as applied to claims 1 and 4 above and further in view of Nitta et al. (US 2024/0322244; hereinafter “Nitta”).
In regard to claims 4 and 7-8, Shao is silent in regard to the presence of an ester-based non-aqueous organic solvent.
Nitta discloses wherein the electrolyte of a rechargeable lithium battery can comprise an ester-based non-aqueous solvent such as methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, propyl acetate, methyl propionate, ethyl propionate, propyl propionate (as recited in claim 8), valeroactone, caproactone or a combination thereof. See [0127]-[0128].
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 use of the ester-based solvent, such as propyl propionate, of Nitta with the electrolyte of Shao for the purpose of contributing to better ionic conductivity in the electrolyte, better discharge rate capability, better fast charge performance, reduced HT outgassing, reduced end-of-life outgassing, better calendar life, and/or better low-temperature performance.
In regard to claim 9, Shao discloses that the carbonate-based non-aqueous organic solvent, such as ethylene carbonate (EC), is present in a concentration of about 0.1% to 30% by weight, such as 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 16%, 20% or 30%. See [0083]. Shao is silent in regard to the presence of an ester-based non-aqueous solvent.
Nitta discloses the presence of an ester-based non-aqueous solvent as discussed in the above rejection of claims 4 and 7-8. Nitta teaches that the total mole fraction of the ester compounds in the electrolyte may be in a range of 1 mol% to 5 mol%, 5 mol% to 15 mol%, 15 mol% to 25 mol%, 25 mol% to 45 mol%, 45 mol% to 55 mol%, 55 mol% to 65 mol% or 65 mol% to 75 mol%. Nitta also discloses wherein a carbonate-based non-aqueous organic solvent such as ethylene carbonate can be present in a range of 1 mol% to 5 mol% or propylene carbonate can be present in the amount of 1 mol% to 20 mol%. See [0127] and [0130]. Nitta is silent in regard to a volume ratio of the carbonate-based solvent to the ester-based solvent.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the use of the ester-based solvent of Nitta with the electrolyte of Shao as noted in the above rejection of claims 4 and 7-8 and, further, within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an workable volume ratio of the carbonate-based solvent to the ester-based solvent 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). It is also noted that the instant application does not disclose the criticality of the recited volume ratio range.
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