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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0171809, filed on 2022-12-09.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., (KR20210060330, machine translation cited in the IDS) in view of Kim et al., (KR20210138937, machine translation cited in the IDS), and Hwan et al., (EP2675003).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al., teaches:
A lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0018]).
The non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a lithium salt, an organic solvent, and an additive [0003], [0008].
Wherein, the first additive comprises a compound represented by Formula 1, (Figure 1). Lee et al., discloses a similar structure ([Formula 1a (6), Pg 5] where “R1 to R6 are each independently hydrogen, an alkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms, or a -CN group, and at least one of R1 to R6 is a -CN group.” [0015] and “preferably COUMARIN-3-carbonitrile” [0063]).
PNG
media_image1.png
178
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
184
340
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Lee et al. Formula 1a )][AltContent: textbox (Claimed Formula 1 )]
Lee et al., does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the positive electrode comprises an overlithiated manganese-rich oxide containing Mn in an amount of 50 mol% or greater with respect to all metals excluding lithium and having a lithium-to-transition metal molar ratio of greater than 1.
However, Hwan et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
“great deal of research into lithium manganese oxides (hereinafter, referred to as (“Mn-rich”), in which Mn as an essential transition metal is added in an amount larger than those of other transition metals (except lithium)” ([0009)] and that “a content of Mn may be included in a range of 50 mol% to 80 mol% based on a total amount of metals excluding lithium” ([0046])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lithium secondary battery, with the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising Formula 1 and Formula 2 as an additive in the claimed invention, that is overlithiated in Lithium and rich in Manganese, and that since the ratio of Manganese is 50 mol% to 80 mol% compared to other metals (excluding Lithium) to have a positive electrode where the “Lithium-to-transition” metal ratio is greater than 1.
Lee et al., in view of Hwan et al., does not explicitly teach:
Second additive that comprises a compound represented by Formula 2
And,
Wherein in Formula 2 above, A is a substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl group having 3 to 5 carbon atoms, and R2 is an alkylene group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms.
However, Kim et al., teaches:
“The non-aqueous electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of the present invention may further include a second additive” [0095].
And
An additive with a formula (Formula 1 [0016-0020]) that includes R as a “substituted or unsubstituted alkylene group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms” and has a heteroaryl attachment in the A position of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image3.png
226
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
210
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Kim et al., Formula 1)][AltContent: textbox (Claimed Formula 2 )]
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Kim et al., in view of Lee et al., and Hwan et al., to create a non-electrolyte solution having two additives with claimed Formula 1 and 2 in a secondary battery that is made up of overlithiated lithium and manganese rich positive electrode.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sc.D. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 2, 3, and 15, the combination as applied above teaches the limitation of claim 1, which claims 2, 3, and 15 depend on. Lee et al. discloses Formula 1 with a Cyano-Nitrile attachment as described above which relates to claimed Formula 1-A, in which R1 can be a nitrile group. Formula 1 from Lee et al. is also the same as Formula 1-1 in Claim 3 and Claim 15.
Regarding claim 4, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends upon. Lee et al. further teaches:
Wherein the first additive is present in an amount of 0.01 wt. % to 10 wt. % with respect to weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte. ([0069] “the compound of Formula 1 above may be included in an amount of 0.05% or more and less than 1.2% by weight, specifically 0.1% to 1% by weight, based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reduce the lower limit of the range to test for effectiveness, since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 17, the combination as applied above teaches the limitation of claim 1, which claims 5,6, and 17 depends upon. Kim et al. further teaches:
In Kim et al., Formula 1, R1, R2, and R3 can be “independently hydrogen or an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms” (Formula 1, [0081]) encompassing claimed Formulas 2-A, 2-B, 2-C.
If R1, R2, and R3 in Kim et al., Formula 1 are all hydrogens, it encompasses the claimed Formula 2-1.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination as applied above teaches the limitation of claim 1, which claim 7 depends upon. Kim et al. further teaches:
Wherein the second additive is present in an amount of 0.01 wt. % to 10 wt. % with respect to a weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte ([0034] “wherein 0.3g of first additive, 3g of VC, 0.5g of PS, 1g of ESA, and 0.5g of PRS as second additives was used to make the electrolyte”). The total weight of the electrolyte in Kim et al. is 5.3g. This would mean the first additive (0.3g) will be 5.7 wt. % and the second additive (0.5g) will be 9.4 wt. % with respect to the weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte. This falls within the range of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination as applied above teaches the limitation of claim 1, which claim 8 depends upon. Kim et al. further teaches:
Wherein the first additive and the second additive are in a weight ratio of 10:90 to 90:10. ([0102] “in the non-aqueous electrolyte of the present invention, the first additive and the second additive may be included in a weight ratio of 1:5 to 1:20, specifically 1:8 to 1:20”.)
Regarding Claim 9, the combination as applied above teaches the limitation of claim 1, which claim 9 depends upon. Lee et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium salt comprises at least one of LiCl, LiBr, Lil, LiBF4, LiClO₄, LiAlO4, LiAlC14, LiPF6, LiSbF₆, LiAsF6, LiB₁₀Cl₁₀, LiBOB (LiB(C₂O₄)₂), LiCF3SO3, LiFSI (LiN(SO₂F)₂), LiCH₃SO₃, LiCF₃CO₂, LiCH₃CO₂, or LiBETI (LiN (SO₂CF₂CF₃) ₂). ([0038])
Regarding Claim 10, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 10 depends upon. Lee et al., further teaches:
Wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises the lithium salt at a molar concentration of 0.5M to 5.0M. ([0039] “lithium salt….included in the electrolyte solution at a concentration of 0.8M to 4.0M, specifically at a concentration of 1.0 M to 3.0M”.)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 11 depends upon. Lee et al., further teaches:
Wherein the organic solvent comprises at least one of a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent, a linear carbonate-based organic solvent, a linear ester-based organic solvent, or a cyclic ester-based organic solvent. ([0042]).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 13 depends upon. Kim et al. further teaches:
Wherein in Formula 1 above, R1 each independently comprises a propargyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted alkynyl group, a boron group, a borate group, an isocyanate group, an isothiocyanate group, a silyl group, a siloxane group, a sulfonate group, a sulfate group, or a combination of two or more thereof ([0100] “The second additive may include at least one of vinylene carbonate (an alkenyl group), 1-3 propene sulfone (a sulfonate group)”.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 18 depends upon. Lee et al., further teaches:
Wherein the organic solvent comprises a cyclic carbonate-based organic solvent, and a linear carbonate-based organic solvent. ([0045])
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., in view of Kim et al., and Hwan et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al., (US20150104706).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee et al., in view of Kim et al., and Hwan et al., teaches the limitations of Claim 1 on which Claim 12 depends upon. However, it is silent on:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the overlithiated manganese-rich oxide is a compound represented by Formula X: [Formula X]: Li₁+s [NitCouMnᵥM¹w] O2+z wherein in Formula X above, M¹ is at least one selected from the group consisting of W, Cu, Fe, V, Cr, Ti, Zr, Zn, Al, In, Ta, Y, La, Sr, Ga, Sc, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Nb, Mg, B, and Mo, and 0.05≤s≤1, ost≤0.5, 0≤u≤0.3, 0.5≤v<1.0, 0≤w≤0.2, and 0≤z≤1 are satisfied.
Wu et al., in a similar field of endeavor teaches us:
“In another aspect, the disclosure also provides a lithium transition metal composite oxide powder, comprising a plurality of biwedge octahedron particles represented by a general formula: LiaNibMncCOdMeOf, wherein 0.5<a<2, b+c+d+e=1, 0<b<l, 0<c<l, 05d<1, 05e<0.15, 2<f<3, and M is at least one of Mg, Sr, Ba, Cd, Zn, Al, Ga, B, Zr, Ti, Ca, Ce, Y, Nb, Cr, Fe and V” [0007]. When the values are plugged in Wu et al.’s the stoichiometry of all the elements fall into the range of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., in view of Kim et al., Hwan et al., and Wu et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe et al., [Functional Electrolytes: Synergetic effect of electrolyte additives for lithium-ion battery, Journal of Power Sources, 2008]
Regarding claim 14 and 16, Lee et al., in view of Kim et al., Hwan et al., and Wu et al., teaches the limitations of Claim 1 on which Claim 14 depends upon. However, it is silent on:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the first additive comprises at least one of a compound represented by Formulas 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, or 1-7.
Abe et al., in a similar field of endeavor teaches us in the conclusion section that:
“combined use of the triple bonded compounds and double-bonded compounds especially propargyl methane sulfonate (PMS) and vinylene carbonate (VC), was proven to show a better battery performance than the case when the additives are singly used” and “key factors for the emergence of synergetic effect: combination of the triple-bonded moiety and a double-bonded moiety”[Pg 455, Fig 7 and Pg 452, Table 1].
PNG
media_image5.png
185
540
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
144
466
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Claimed Invention Formula 1-2 for Claims 14 and 16)][AltContent: textbox (Abe et al., propargyl attachment to an additive. Figure 7)]
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the knowledge of having a Coumarin derivative as an additive as taught by Lee et al., and have a propargyl group attachment to enhance the synergetic effect between a triple bonded moiety and double bonded moiety.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sc.D. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. Kim et al., (US11081729 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAURAV K JHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, Alison L. Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/S.K.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights