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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 & 8 are amended. Claims 3-7, 21-22 & 25-29 are canceled. Claims 30-32 are newly added. Claims 1-2, 8-20, 23-24 & 30-32 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12 & 14-20, 23-24 & 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2020/0243905 A1) in view of Liang (WO 2021/023137 A1, and hereinafter using, for citation purposes, corresponding US 2022/0158246 A1), Hallac (US 2015/0221977 A1) and Chen (WO 2020/063882 A1, and hereinafter using, for citation purposes, corresponding US 2021/0203001 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 12, 14, 23-24 & 31, Xu teaches a secondary battery comprising a battery housing made out of plastic and aluminum; and an electrode assembly contained therein along with a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0157]), wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte comprises: 0.8 mol/L to 1.2 mol/L of a lithium salt selected from at least one of LiPF6, LiFSI, LiTFSI and LiBOB with an exemplary embodiment using 1 mol/L LiPF6 ([0108]-[0110] & [0154]); a compound represented by the claimed formula I, such as lithium difluoro(oxalate) borate (LiDFOB), in an amount, A1, from 0.001% by mass to 2% by mass with exemplary embodiments using 0.5% by mass (Table 1; [0042], [0064]-[0066] & [0108]-[0114]) which reads on the presently claimed range of 0.02% by mass to 2% by mass; a third lithium salt comprising lithium difluorophosphate present in an amount A4 of 0.1 wt% to 2 wt% with exemplary embodiments using 0.5% by mass (Table 1; [0067]-[0069]) which reads on the presently claimed range; fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) in an amount, C1, from 1% by mass to 5% by mass with exemplary embodiments using 3% (Table 1; [0042], [0058]-[0060] & [0108]-[0114]) which reads on the presently claimed range of 1% by mass (exclusive) to 3% by mass; The content of LiPF6 in the electrolyte in % by mass can be determined using the known molar mass of LiPF6 (151.9 g/mol) and the densities of organic solvent components which include EC (1320 g/L), EMC (1006 g/L) and DEC (975 g/L) at a volume ratio of 30:50:20 based on an arbitrary 1 L basis of the electrolyte and a concentration of 1 mol/L of the lithium salt as follows: 0.3 L * 1320 = 396 g EC 0.5 L * 1006 = 503 g EMC 0.2 L * 975 = 487. 5 g DEC 1 L LiPF6 * 151.9 g/mol LiPF6 * 1 mol/L LiPF6 = 151.9 g LiPF6. Thus, the content of LiPF6 in the electrolyte, A2, is 9.8% by mass. Furthermore, when A1 is from 0.5% by mass, the resulting values A2/A1 = 19.6 and 10A1+A2/5 = 7 read on the presently claimed ranges. However, Xu is silent as to (1) a group margin, B, being from 0.88 to 0.99 and B/A1 being from 0.5 to 45; (2) the nonaqueous electrolyte comprising LiFSI as a second lithium salt in an amount, A3, of greater than 0% by mass and less than or equal to 2.5% by mass; and (3) the organic solvent comprising the claimed first, second and third solvents in the claimed amounts D1, D2 and D3.
Liang teaches a secondary battery with a group margin, B, ranging from 0.85 to 0.95 ([0018]-[0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to form a secondary battery with a group margin B ranging from 0.85 to 0.95 in order to provide higher energy density without deteriorating the cycling performance, rate performance, and safety performance of the lithium-ion battery as taught by Liang ([0024]). Therefore, when B is from 0.85 to 0.95 and A1 is 0.05 wt%, the resulting ratio B/A1 ranges from 17 to 19 which encompasses the presently claimed range of 10 to 20. Hallac teaches a secondary battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt including at least one of LiPF6; a solvent comprising: 10 vol% to 30 vol% of a cyclic carbonate such as ethylene carbonate (EC); 50 vol% to 80 vol% of a linear carbonate such as ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and mixtures thereof; and 5 vol% to 20 vol% of a chain ester such as methyl butyrate (MB), wherein in exemplary embodiments, an amount of the cyclic carbonate (i.e EC) is 20 vol% (corresponding to 24 wt%), an amount of the linear carbonate (i.e EMC+DMC) is 70 vol% (corresponding to 66 wt%), and an amount of the chain ester (MB) is 10 vol% (corresponding to 8 wt%) ([0074]-[0078], [0081], [0083], [0086]). However, when the vol% of the cyclic carbonate is from 10 vol% to 15 vol% (i.e within the range of 10 vol% to 30 vol% cited above), the corresponding wt% of the cyclic carbonate, linear carbonate and chain ester would read on the presently claimed amounts D1, D2 and D3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to Hallac’s organic solvent mixture in the claimed amounts D1, D2 and D3 in view of enabling reduced impedance at relatively low temperatures and good capacity retention when used at elevated temperatures as taught by Hallac ([0074] & Table 6). Chen teaches a secondary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising 0.8 mol/L to 1.2 mol/L of a first lithium salt such as LiPF6 and a second lithium salt such as LiFSI included at weight ratio of 10:1 to 1:10 with exemplary embodiments using 1 mol/L of the mixture at weight ratios of 10:1 and 5:1 (Table 1: Examples 1-2; [0035]-[0041]) which reads on the claimed ratio A3/A2 of 0.5 or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to include LIFSI as a second lithium salt at a weight ratio A3/A2 of 0.5 or less because “LiFSI has advantages of moderate viscosity and a high degree of dissociation, and can facilitate ion conduction and improve electrical conductivity of the nonaqueous electrolyte. Therefore, use of the mixed lithium salt may effectively make up for low electrical conductivity of the nonaqueous electrolyte caused by high viscosity of the high oxidation potential solvent, and helps to obtain a lithium-ion battery with good kinetics performance. In addition, with higher thermal stability than that of LiPF6, LIFSI can also improve safety performance such as overcharge safety and hot box safety of the lithium-ion” battery as taught by Chen ([0040]). Furthermore, while Chen does not explicitly teach an amount of LiFSI in terms of mass%, it is noted that A2 in Xu is 9.8% by mass which would necessarily result in an amount A3 of less than 2.5% by mass when the ratio A3/A2 is 0.1 (i.e 1:10) or 0.2 (i.e 1:5) as taught in Chen. Moreover, using A1=0.5% by mass, as disclosed in Xu’s exemplary embodiments, the resulting ratio A3/A1 ranges from (A2/10)/A1=1.96 to (A2/5)/A1=3.2 which overlaps with the presently claimed range of 0.25 to 25. Accordingly, the sum A1+A2+A3+A4 reads on the claimed range of 10 to 15.
Regarding claim 8, Hallac teaches, based on amounts used in exemplary embodiments (i.e C1=3% by mass and A1=0.5% by mass), a ratio C1/A1 of 6. However, it is noted that Hallac more broadly teaches that A1 can be 0.3% by mass or 0.1% by mass which would render obvious the claimed range of 10 to 30 for the ratio C1/A1.
Regarding claims 10, 30 & 32, Hallac teaches a minimum amount of the chain ester being 5 vol%, which using the same calculation as in claim 1 above (except with a linear carbonate content of 80 vol% to reflect the 5 vol% lower amount of the chain ester and 5 vol% lower amount of the cyclic carbonate) results in a mass content D3 of the chain ester of 4.2 wt% which reads on the claimed ranges, a mass content D1 of the cyclic carbonate of 18.5 wt% which reads on the claimed ranges, and a mass content of D2 of the linear carbonate of 77.3 wt% which also reads on the claimed ranges. “[A]fter KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”. See MPEP 2144.05 II(B).
Regarding claims 14-17, Liang teaches a battery pack comprising a battery module comprising a secondary battery ([0045]-[0048]). As noted in Liang, a battery pack can be formed according to the use case and desired capacity of the battery pack ([0048])
Regarding claims 18-20, Liang teaches an electrical device comprising the battery module of claim 15 or the battery pack of claim 16 ([0051]-[0053]). As noted in Liang, the secondary battery can be used as a power source for an apparatus such as an electrical device ([0051]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2020/0243905 A1), Liang (WO 2021/023137 A1, and hereinafter using, for citation purposes, corresponding US 2022/0158246 A1), Hallac (US 2015/0221977 A1) and Chen (WO 2020/063882 A1, and hereinafter using, for citation purposes, corresponding US 2021/0203001 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12 & 14-20, 23-24 & 30-32 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2010/0316904 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Xu as modified by Liang, Hallac and Chen teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 but is silent as to the electrolyte further comprising a moisture scavenger comprising heaxamethyldisilazane (HMDS), tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphate or a combination thereof in an amount C2 from greater than 0% by mass to less or equal to 2% by mass. Zhang teaches a secondary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising a moisture scavenger comprising HMDS in an amount of greater than 0% by mass to 10% by mass% with a specific embodiment using 0.000,000,1% by mass ([0017] & [0029]-[0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to include HMDS in an amount of greater than 0% by mass to 10% by mass% because “HMDS can react with water components of the electrolyte. As a result, ammonia (NH3) is generated. NH.sub.3 in turn reacts with lithium hexafluorophosphate. That is, there are no water components in electrolyte after HMDS is added to the liquid electrolyte. Hence, no hydrofluoric acid is generated. As a result, no color change of the electrolyte occurs and no gaseous products are generated (i.e., abnormal expansion of the battery case is eliminated) even when the electrolyte of the lithium ion battery of the invention for a car is subject to a temperature more than 60C. Moreover, shelf life of the lithium ion battery of invention is prolonged greatly” as taught by Zhang ([0029]-[0030]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2020/0243905 A1), Liang (WO 2021/023137 A1, and hereinafter using, for citation purposes, corresponding US 2022/0158246 A1), Hallac (US 2015/0221977 A1) and Chen (WO 2020/063882 A1, and hereinafter using, for citation purposes, corresponding US 2021/0203001 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12 & 14-20, 23-24 & 30-32 above, and further in view of Kang (US 2019/0334160 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Xu as modified by Liang, Hallac and Chen teaches the secondary battery of claim 1, wherein A1<B and the electrode assembly comprises a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate but is silent as to a capacity of the positive electrode plate Q1 and a capacity of the negative electrode plate Q2 satisfying 1<Q2/Q1<1.05. Kang teaches a secondary battery an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate, wherein a capacity of the positive electrode plate Q1 and a capacity of the negative electrode plate Q2 satisfy 1.03<Q2/Q1<1.8 ([0010] & [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to set the ratio Q2/Q1 to a range of 1.03 to 1.8 because when the ratio is too small the amount of the sites for receiving the active ions in the negative electrode plate is not sufficient when the battery is fully charged, the active ions are easily reduced and precipitated on the negative electrode plate, and therefore there is a higher safety hazard in the battery and because when the ratio is too large, the availability of the sites for receiving the active ions in the negative electrode plate is lower when the battery is fully charged, and the energy density of the battery is also decreased as taught by Kang ([0016]-[0017]).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2020/0243905 A1), Liang (WO 2021/023137 A1, and hereinafter using, for citation purposes, corresponding US 2022/0158246 A1), Hallac (US 2015/0221977 A1), and Chen (WO 2020/063882 A1, and hereinafter using, for citation purposes, corresponding US 2021/0203001 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 8, 10, 12 & 14-20, 23-24 & 30-32 above, and further in view of Ju (US 2019/0006704 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Xu as modified by Liang, Hallac and Chen teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 but is silent as to the compound of formula 1 comprising one or more of the compounds recited in claim 13. Ju teaches a secondary battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a boron-containing lithium oxalate compound represented by the formula 1 wherein the boron is connected two components selected from F, alkyl groups such as CH3 and fluorine substituted alkyl groups such as CF3 ([0006]-[0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use any one of the compounds represented in claim 13 as art recognized equivalents to the LiDFOB compound disclosed in Xu used for the same purpose of a lithium-ion battery electrolyte additive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 8-20, 23-24 & 30-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The amendment to claim 1 has prompted a new ground of rejection in view of the newly cited Hallac reference. As presently claimed, the subject matter of claim 1 is found to be obvious over the combined teachings of Xu, Liang, Hallac and Chen.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-2, 8-20, 23-24 & 30-32 stand rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights