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 .
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-3, 5-13.
The examined Claims are 1-3, 5-13, with Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10 being amended, and Claim 13 being newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has mainly (1) amended independent Claim 1 to recite further limitations on R1 or R2 in Formula 1, (2) amended dependent Claims 3, 5-6 to be narrower in claim scope, and (3) newly added independent Claim 13.
Applicant presents arguments versus the prior art rejections of record (Pages 8-14 of Remarks). Applicant mainly argues the following:
Applicant argues that the claim rejections of record under 35 USC 103 involving the Han reference are overcome in view of the amendments to the Claims (Pages 8-10 of Remarks). Applicant argues that because Han’s C3 substituted alkyl group is substituted with chlorine or bromine, Han does not satisfy the proviso that the C3 alkyl group is non substituted with bromine or chlorine (Pages 8-9 of Remarks).
Applicant argues that while Bao discloses fluoroalkyl groups or fluoroalkenyl groups, Bao neither teaches nor suggests that said groups may be perfluorinated groups, let alone perfluorinated C2-C20 alkyl groups as recited in Claim 1 (Pages 10-11 of Remarks).
Applicant argues that while Mandal teaches that R1 or R2 may include C1 to C12 alkyl moieties that are terminally substituted with zero to three halogen atoms that are preferably fluorine, Mandal neither teaches nor suggests that said groups may be perfluorinated groups, let alone perfluorinated C2-C20 alkyl groups as recited in Claim 1 (Page 12 of Remarks).
Furthermore, Applicant argues that the previous Office action’s overlapping-range rationale does not resolve the amended language of Claim 1 because of the conditional structural language that requires a perfluorinated C2-C20 alkyl group (Page 12 of Remarks).
Applicant argues that as illustrated by the date in Table 1 of Applicant’s Specification as filed, the electrolyte recited in Claim 13 demonstrated superior and unexpected results, and therefore, is not obvious over the disclosures of Mandal, Han, and Bao (Pages 13-14 of Remarks).
In response, it is noted that:
Applicant’s (A) and (B) arguments are persuasive in view of the amendments to the Claims. Accordingly, all previous prior art rejections of record relying on Hand and/or Ban are withdrawn.
Applicant’s (C) argument is persuasive insofar as it is agreed that Manadal neither teaches nor suggests perfluorinated groups as instantly claimed.
Applicant’s (D) argument is not found to be persuasive. Paragraph [0048] of Mandal states that R1 and R2 may independently be a C1-C2 alkyl group terminally substituted with zero to three halogen atoms that are preferably fluorine. Notably, Mandal does not explicitly restrict either of R1 and R2 to being a substituted C3 alkyl group, and Mandal does not explicitly restrict either of R1 and R2 to being a fluorinated alkyl group (a statement that the halogen atoms are “preferably” fluorine is not the same as a statement that the halogen atoms “are” fluorine). Therefore, Mandal is still considered to overlap with the instantly claimed Formula 1 given how broadly it is defined in Claim 1.
Applicant’s (E) argument is not found to be persuasive. Applicant’s Table 1, in part, compares the high temperature capacity retention ratio of Manufacturing Examples 1-5 to Comparative Manufacturing Examples 1-3. Notably, the Formula 4 electrolyte additive (i.e. Formula 4 of Claim 13) is included in amounts (e.g. 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 wt%) across Manufacturing Examples 1-5 which do not span the entire claimed range of Claim 13 (“about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt%”). Furthermore, Comparative Manufacturing Examples 1-3 include either no electrolyte additive, 0.1 wt% of a Formula 12 additive that is fundamentally different than Formula 4, or 0.1 wt% of a Formula 13 additive that is fundamentally different than Formula 4. Therefore, Applicant’s Table 1 does not conclusively prove Applicant’s assertion of superior and unexpected results (i.e. the results allegedly attributed to the presence of Formula 4 in a content range as instantly claimed).
New grounds of rejection are presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Claim Interpretation
The term “about” as it is used in Claims 7-9, 13(e.g. “about” 0.1 wt%, “about” 0.01M, etc.) will be interpreted in accordance with the description of the term “about” set forth in [00172] of the Specification as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal et al. (US 2003/0003358).
Regarding Claim 1, Mandal teaches a flame-retarding electrolyte (“electrolyte”), and a lithium secondary battery comprising said electrolyte (Abstract, [0045], [0103]). Mandal teaches that the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt (“lithium salt”), an organic solvent mixture (“organic solvent”), and a flame-retarding compound (“additive”) ([0005], [0103], Claim 27). Mandal teaches that the flame-retarding compound is represented by a General Formula (as shown below), wherein it is noted that (1) “X” is, for example, a sulfur atom, (2) “Z” is, for example, a phenyl group, and (3) both “R1” and “R2” are, for example, C1-C12 alkyl moieties terminally substituted with zero to three halogen atoms ([0031], [0047]-[0049]). Mandal teaches that the flame-retarding compound is present in an amount of 0.5-5.0 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte ([0103]). Mandal teaches that the lithium salt is LiPF6 present in a concentration of 1.0 M ([0103]). Mandal teaches that the organic solvent mixture comprises EC and DMC ([0103]). Mandal teaches that the lithium secondary battery comprises a cathode comprising a cathode active material, an anode comprising an anode active material, and the flame-retarding electrolyte (Abstract, [0045], [0103]).
Therefore, the flame-retarding compound of Mandal may be represented by Formula 1, as instantly claimed, given the overlapping ranges/identities of both “R1” and “R2” in the General Formula as compared to the instantly claimed “-(CH2)m-R1” and “-(CH2)n-R2” aspects of the instantly claimed Formula 1. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
PNG
media_image1.png
229
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Mandal teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, the flame-retarding compound of Mandal (See Claim 1) may be represented by Formula 1-1, as instantly claimed, given the overlapping ranges of both “R1” and “R2” in the General Formula as compared to the instantly claimed “-(CH2)m-R1” and “-(CH2)n-R2” aspects of the instantly claimed Formula 1. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 7, Mandal teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the flame-retarding compound is present in an amount of 0.5-5.0 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 8, Mandal teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the flame-retarding compound is present in an amount of 0.5-5.0 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 9, Mandal teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the lithium salt is LiPF6 present in a concentration of 1.0 M.
Regarding Claim 10, Mandal teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the lithium salt is LiPF6 present in a concentration of 1.0 M.
Regarding Claim 11, Mandal teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the organic solvent mixture comprises EC and DMC (“at least one selected from… dimethyl carbonate (DMC)… ethylene carbonate (EC)”).
Regarding Claim 12, Mandal teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the lithium secondary battery comprises a cathode comprising a cathode active material (“positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material”), an anode comprising an anode active material (“negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material”), and the flame-retarding electrolyte (Abstract, [0045], [0103]).
Claims 1-2, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal et al. (US 2003/0003358), and further in view of Dong et al. (CN 105541911, using the machine translation provided herewith for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Mandal teaches a flame-retarding electrolyte (“electrolyte”), and a lithium secondary battery comprising said electrolyte (Abstract, [0045], [0103]). Mandal teaches that the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt (“lithium salt”), an organic solvent mixture (“organic solvent”), and a flame-retarding compound (“additive”) ([0005], [0103], Claim 27). Mandal teaches that the flame-retarding compound is represented by a General Formula (as shown below), wherein it is noted that (1) “X” is, for example, a sulfur atom, (2) “Z” is, for example, a phenyl group, and (3) both “R1” and “R2” are, for example, C1-C12 alkyl moieties terminally substituted with zero to three halogen atoms, wherein the halogen atoms may be fluorine ([0031], [0047]-[0049]). Mandal teaches that the flame-retarding compound is present in an amount of 0.5-5.0 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte ([0103]). Mandal teaches that the lithium salt is LiPF6 present in a concentration of 1.0 M ([0103]). Mandal teaches that the organic solvent mixture comprises EC and DMC ([0103]). Mandal teaches that the lithium secondary battery comprises a cathode comprising a cathode active material, an anode comprising an anode active material, and the flame-retarding electrolyte (Abstract, [0045], [0103]).
Mandal does not explicitly teach that the flame-retarding compound is represented by instantly claimed Formula 1.
However, Dong teaches a flame-retarding compound (Abstract, [0002]). Dong teaches that the compound is represented by a Chemical Formula (as shown below), wherein it is noted that OCH2CH2X may be OCH2CH2Cl or OCH2CH2Br ([0010]-[0011]). Dong teaches that the compound has good symmetry characteristics, stable physiochemical properties, good processing performance, and enhanced flame retardant characteristics ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use the flame-retarding compound of Dong (with OCH2CH2X being OCH2CH2Cl or OCH2CH2Br) as the flame-retarding compound in Mandal, given not only because the flame-retarding compound of Dong is merely a specific compound described generally in the General Formula, but also because said flame-retarding compound has, in particular, good symmetry characteristics, stable physiochemical properties, good processing performance, and enhanced flame retardant characteristics.
Accordingly, the flame-retarding compound of Mandal, as modified by Dong is represented by the claimed “Formula 1” when “R1” and “R2” are each a substituted C2 alkyl group (“a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 alkyl group”), “R3” through “R7” are each “hydrogen,” and “m” and “n” are each 2 (“an integer of 1 to 4”).
PNG
media_image1.png
229
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
221
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Mandal, as modified by Dong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, and as previously described (See Claim 1), the flame-retarding compound is represented by the claimed “Formula 1-1” when “R1” and “R2” are each a substituted C2 alkyl group (“a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 alkyl group”), and “m” and “n” are each 2 (“an integer of 1 to 4”).
Regarding Claim 7, Mandal, as modified by Dong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the flame-retarding compound is present in an amount of 0.5-5.0 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 8, Mandal, as modified by Dong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the flame-retarding compound is present in an amount of 0.5-5.0 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 9, Mandal, as modified by Dong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the lithium salt is LiPF6 present in a concentration of 1.0 M.
Regarding Claim 10, Mandal, as modified by Dong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the lithium salt is LiPF6 present in a concentration of 1.0 M.
Regarding Claim 11, Mandal, as modified by Dong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the organic solvent mixture comprises EC and DMC (“at least one selected from… dimethyl carbonate (DMC)… ethylene carbonate (EC)”).
Regarding Claim 12, Mandal, as modified by Dong, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the lithium secondary battery comprises a cathode comprising a cathode active material (“positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material”), an anode comprising an anode active material (“negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material”), and the flame-retarding electrolyte (Abstract, [0045], [0103]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal et al. (US 2003/0003358), and further in view of Li et al. (US 2015/0364796).
Regarding Claim 13, Mandal teaches a flame-retarding electrolyte (“electrolyte”), and a lithium secondary battery comprising said electrolyte (Abstract, [0045], [0103]). Mandal teaches that the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt (“lithium salt”), an organic solvent mixture (“organic solvent”), and a flame-retarding compound (“additive”) ([0005], [0103], Claim 27). Mandal teaches that the flame-retarding compound is represented by a General Formula (as shown below), wherein it is noted that (1) “X” is, for example, a sulfur atom, (2) “Z” is, for example, a phenyl group, and (3) both “R1” and “R2” are, for example, C1-C12 alkyl moieties terminally substituted with zero to three halogen atoms, wherein the halogen atoms may be fluorine ([0031], [0047]-[0049]). Mandal teaches that the flame-retarding compound is present in an amount of 0.5-5.0 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte ([0103]). Mandal teaches that the lithium salt is LiPF6 present in a concentration of 1.0 M ([0103]). Mandal teaches that the organic solvent mixture comprises EC and DMC ([0103]). Mandal teaches that the lithium secondary battery comprises a cathode comprising a cathode active material, an anode comprising an anode active material, and the flame-retarding electrolyte (Abstract, [0045], [0103]).
Therefore, the flame-retarding compound of Mandal may be represented by Formula 4, as instantly claimed, given the overlapping ranges/identities of both “R1” and “R2” in the General Formula as compared to the instantly claimed “-(CH2)m-R1” and “-(CH2)n-R2” aspects of the instantly claimed Formula 1. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range “overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Mandal does not explicitly teach that the organic solvent mixture further comprises EMC.
However, Li teaches electrolytes for lithium based batteries (Abstract). Li teaches that the electrolyte comprises a ternary solvent system formed of a blend of EC, DMC, and EMC ([0078]). Li teaches that such a ternary solvent system helps provide superior low temperature performance and long cycling performances ([0078]-[0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would further include EMC, as taught by Li, in the organic solvent mixture of Mandal, given that a ternal solvent system formed of a blend of EC, DMC, and EMC would help provide for superior low temperature performance and long cycling performances.
PNG
media_image1.png
229
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3 further limits the identities of one or both of R1 and R2 in Formula 1. The prior art references of record neither teach nor suggest the instantly claimed groups. At best, while Mandal and Dong disclose fluorinated R groups, said references neither teach nor suggest the groups recited in Claim 3.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 further limits Formula 1 such that it is represented explicitly by Formula 3. The prior art references of record neither teach nor suggest the instantly claimed additive. Neither Mandal nor Dong teach or suggest an electrolyte additive having alkynyl groups as claimed.
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.
Claim 6 further limits Formula 1 such that it is represented explicitly by Formula 5, 6, or 7. The prior art references of record neither teach nor suggest the instantly claimed additive. Neither Mandal nor Dong teach or suggest an electrolyte additive having alkenyl, alkynyl, or perfluorinated groups as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
