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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 6-10, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2012/0196158 A1) in view of Hong (KR 20240070371 A- having priority date of 11/14/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses an electrolyte solution comprising (abstract):
A lithium salt ([0059,0060] lithium salt for electrolyte);
A solvent ([0059] solvent); and
A functional additive ([0059] additive).
Chang further discloses wherein the additive can be a compound represented below by formulas I and II and the specific examples ([0056]) below.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
256
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chang’s specific examples are similar in structure to that of the claimed invention, however, is silent with respect to the additive being 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxalborolane.
Hong discloses a syntheses and manufacturing method of organic boron compounds using nickel catalyst reactions and discloses wherein organic boron compounds play an important role in pharmaceutical and material fields ([0001-0006]) and is analogous with the instant invention as being reasonably pertinent to boron compounding organic compounds and materials containing such. Hong discloses a boron compound that is similar to that of Chang of 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolane ([0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the boron containing compound of Chang for the boron containing compound of 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolane as a substitution of one boron containing compound for another. Given the context of Chang, the of 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolane compound of Hong can be used as an additive in an electrolyte with reasonable expectation of success as Chang and Hong disclose organic boron compounds having different branches off of the boron containing compound, thus it is the examiners opinion that the organic containing compound of Hong would function as an additive when used in the battery of Chang. Examiner notes that the material of Hong is the same material used in the instant invention. 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.). The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Chang further teaches wherein the electrode film additive is in an amount of 0.05-1.0% by weight based on a weight of the electrolyte solution (Abstract; [0014] 0.05-10 wt% of the additive in the electrolyte). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Chang further teaches wherein the electrode film additive is in an amount of 0.05-0.1% by weight based on a weight of the electrolyte solution (Abstract; [0014] 0.05-10 wt% of the additive in the electrolyte). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Chang further teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiCF3SO3 ([0060]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Chang further teaches wherein the solvent comprises one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of a carbonate-based solvent, an ester based solvent, an ether based solvent and a ketone based solvent ([0027] solvent is carbonates, furans, ethers, thioethers, nitriles or a mixture thereof; [0064] solvent can also include ketones).
Regarding claim 8, Chang discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising ([0032]) lithium ion secondary battery):
A first electrode (Figure 1; [0065] positive electrode and negative electrode);
A second electrode (Figure 1; [0065] positive electrode and negative electrode); and
An electrolyte solution disclosed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Figure 1; [0065,0068]), the electrolyte solution comprising (abstract):
A lithium salt ([0059,0060] lithium salt for electrolyte);
A solvent ([0059] solvent); and
A functional additive ([0059] additive).
Chang further discloses wherein the additive can be a compound represented below by formulas I and II and the specific examples ([0056]) below.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
256
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chang’s specific examples are similar in structure to that of the claimed invention, however, is silent with respect to the additive being 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxalborolane.
Hong discloses a syntheses and manufacturing method of organic boron compounds using nickel catalyst reactions and discloses wherein organic boron compounds play an important role in pharmaceutical and material fields ([0001-0006]) and is analogous with the instant invention as being reasonably pertinent to boron compounding organic compounds and materials containing such. Hong discloses a boron compound that is similar to that of Chang of 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolane ([0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the boron containing compound of Chang for the boron containing compound of 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolane as a substitution of one boron containing compound for another. Given the context of Chang, the of 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolane compound of Hong can be used as an additive in an electrolyte with reasonable expectation of success as Chang and Hong disclose organic boron compounds having different branches off of the boron containing compound, thus it is the examiners opinion that the organic containing compound of Hong would function as an additive when used in the battery of Chang. Examiner notes that the material of Hong is the same material used in the instant invention. 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.). The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Chang further teaches wherein the electrode film additive is in an amount of 0.05-1.0 % by weight based on a weight of the electrolyte solution (Abstract; [0014] 0.05-10 wt% of the additive in the electrolyte). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Chang further teaches wherein the electrode film additive is in an amount of 0.05-0.1 % by weight based on a weight of the electrolyte solution (Abstract; [0014] 0.05-10 wt% of the additive in the electrolyte). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Chang further teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiCF3SO3 ([0060]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Chang further teaches wherein the solvent comprises one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of a carbonate-based solvent, an ester based solvent, an ether based solvent and a ketone based solvent ([0027] solvent is carbonates, furans, ethers, thioethers, nitriles or a mixture thereof; [0064] solvent can also include ketones).
Regarding claim 14, Chang discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising ([0032]) lithium ion secondary battery):
A positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material comprising Ni, Co, and Mn (Figure 1; [0065] positive electrode and negative electrode; [0070] positive electrode material can include Ni, Co and Mn);
A negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material comprising a carbon- based material or a silicon based material (Figure 1; [0065] positive electrode and negative electrode; [0011] carbonaceous material as a negative electrode); and
A separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Figure 1; separator 16);
An electrolyte solution disclosed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Figure 1; [0065,0068]), the electrolyte solution comprising (abstract):
A lithium salt ([0059,0060] lithium salt for electrolyte);
A solvent ([0059] solvent); and
A functional additive ([0059] additive).
Chang further discloses wherein the additive can be a compound represented below by formulas I and II and the specific examples ([0056]) below.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
256
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chang’s specific examples are similar in structure to that of the claimed invention, however, is silent with respect to the additive being 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxalborolane.
Hong discloses a syntheses and manufacturing method of organic boron compounds using nickel catalyst reactions and discloses wherein organic boron compounds play an important role in pharmaceutical and material fields ([0001-0006]) and is analogous with the instant invention as being reasonably pertinent to boron compounding organic compounds and materials containing such. Hong discloses a boron compound that is similar to that of Chang of 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolane ([0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the boron containing compound of Chang for the boron containing compound of 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolane as a substitution of one boron containing compound for another. Given the context of Chang, the of 2-(dodec-1-en-2-yl)-4,4,5,5-tetramethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborolane compound of Hong can be used as an additive in an electrolyte with reasonable expectation of success as Chang and Hong disclose organic boron compounds having different branches off of the boron containing compound, thus it is the examiners opinion that the organic containing compound of Hong would function as an additive when used in the battery of Chang. Examiner notes that the material of Hong is the same material used in the instant invention. 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.). The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding claim 16, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Chang further teaches wherein the electrode film additive is in an amount of 0.05-1.0% by weight based on a weight of the electrolyte solution (Abstract; [0014] 0.05-10 wt% of the additive in the electrolyte). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 16. Chang further teaches wherein the electrode film additive is in an amount of 0.05-0.1% by weight based on a weight of the electrolyte solution (Abstract; [0014] 0.05-10 wt% of the additive in the electrolyte). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Chang further teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiCF3SO3 ([0060]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Chang further teaches wherein the solvent comprises one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of a carbonate-based solvent, an ester based solvent, an ether based solvent and a ketone based solvent ([0027] solvent is carbonates, furans, ethers, thioethers, nitriles or a mixture thereof; [0064] solvent can also include ketones).
Claims 4-5, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2012/0196158 A1) in view of Hong (KR 20240070371 A-having priority date of 11/14/2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 2010/0040956 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Chang is silent with respect to a further additive of vinylene carbonate within an amount of 0.5-3.0 % by weight based on the weight of the electrolytic solution.
Park discloses additives for nonaqueous electrolytes for secondary batteries and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery electrolytes. Park discloses wherein the electrolyte can contain an additional additive such as vinylene carbonate up to 6 weight percent in order to improve the cycle life or the safety of the cell ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to add in an additional electrolyte additive of Park, such as the vinylene carbonate, between a weight percent of 0-6 % as taught by Park into the electrolyte of Chang to improve the cycle life or safety of the cell. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claims 4-5. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8. Chang is silent with respect to a further additive of vinylene carbonate within an amount of 0.5-3.0 % by weight based on the weight of the electrolytic solution.
Park discloses additives for nonaqueous electrolytes for secondary batteries and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery electrolytes. Park discloses wherein the electrolyte can contain an additional additive such as vinylene carbonate up to 6 weight percent in order to improve the cycle life or the safety of the cell ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to add in an additional electrolyte additive of Park, such as the vinylene carbonate, between a weight percent of 0-6 % as taught by Park into the electrolyte of Chang to improve the cycle life or safety of the cell. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 11. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations of claim 14. Chang is silent with respect to a further additive of vinylene carbonate within an amount of 0.5-3.0 % by weight based on the weight of the electrolytic solution.
Park discloses additives for nonaqueous electrolytes for secondary batteries and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery electrolytes. Park discloses wherein the electrolyte can contain an additional additive such as vinylene carbonate up to 6 weight percent in order to improve the cycle life or the safety of the cell ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to add in an additional electrolyte additive of Park, such as the vinylene carbonate, between a weight percent of 0-6 % as taught by Park into the electrolyte of Chang to improve the cycle life or safety of the cell. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 18. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2012/0196158 A1) in view of Hong (KR 20240070371 A-having priority date of 11/14/2022) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Okada et al. (US 2009/0239150 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Chang discloses all of the claim limitations of claim 14. Chang discloses wherein the positive electrode can comprise Ni, however, is silent with respect to wherein the nickel content can be 60% weight or more.
Okada discloses an positive electrode active material for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Okada discloses wherein a positive electrode material may contain a Nickel content of 55 mol% or more out of the metal materials in the positive electrode active material in order to improve power characteristics and cycle characteristics of the battery ([0053-0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the nickel content of the positive electrode of Chang to be at least 55 mol% or more, and thus can also correlate to wt %, as taught by Okada in order to improve the power and cycle characteristics of the battery. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 15. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2024/0291038 A1)-discloses an electrolyte solution for lithium secondary battery having an additive comprising a similar generic structure to that claimed.
Shin et al. (US 2023/0420742 A1)- discloses an electrolyte for lithium ion batteries with silicon based anodes having one or more additives and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of batteries with electrolytes containing additives.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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 (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights