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
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1,7, 9-12, 15-18, and 20, 22, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by (US-20250038263-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ma’
Regarding Claim 1,
Ma teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a non-aqueous organic solvent comprising a propionate solvent; and a lithium salt (Ma, “The electrolyte includes a main lithium salt, an organic solvent, a first additive, and a second additive.”, see Abstract), wherein the propionate solvent comprises at least one of ethyl propionate and propyl propionate (Ma, “The C3-C8 carboxylic ester compound is selected from at least one of γ-butyrolactone, methyl acetate, methyl propionate, methyl butyrate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, ethyl butyrate, propyl acetate, propyl propionate, ethyl fluoroacetate, or 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate”, see ), and the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate and lithium bisfluorosulfonylimide (Ma, “Preferably, the main lithium salt is selected from at least one of Lithium Hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, or lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide,”, see [0024]).
Regarding Claim 7,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises a carbonate solvent, and the carbonate solvent comprises at least one of ethylene carbonate and ethyl methyl carbonate (Ma, “Further, the C3-C6 carbonate compound is selected from at least one of Ethylene Carbonate, propylene carbonate, butene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, Ethyl Methyl Carbonate, Diethyl Carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate, ethyl propyl carbonate, Fluoroethylene Carbonate, or di-fluoro ethylene carbonate.”, see [0026]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, further comprising at least one additive selected from a group consisting of cyclic carbonate-based compounds, fluorine-substituted carbonate-based compounds, sultone-based compounds, cyclic sulfate-based compounds, cyclic sulfite-based compounds, borate-based compounds, and phosphate-based compounds (Ma, “The second additive is a sulfonate compound or a sulfate compound, the sulfonate compound comprises: a chain sulfonate compound shown in the following formula (B-1) ”, see [0014]).
Regarding Claim 10,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, further comprising at least one additive selected from a group consisting of vinyl ethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, 1,3-propane sultone, fluoro ethylene carbonate, ethylene sulfite, lithium bisoxalato borate, lithium difluorophosphate, and adiponitrile (Ma, “Preferably, the third additive is selected from at least one of Vinylene Carbonate,”, see [0022]).
Regarding Claim 11,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 9, wherein the additive is included in 0.01 wt% to 15 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte (Ma, “ The third additive is selected from at least one of a carbonate additive and derivatives thereof, or a fluorine-containing lithium salt additive, and a use amount accounts for 0.01-5.0% of total mass of the electrolyte”, see [0022]).
Regarding Claim 12,
Ma teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a cathode comprising a cathode active material (Ma, “An active material of the cathode is selected from a nickel-cobalt-manganese ternary material, a nickel-cobalt-aluminum ternary material, a lithium cobaltate material, or a lithium iron phosphate material.”, see [0031]); an anode comprising an anode active material; a separator disposed between the cathode and the anode; and an electrolyte (Ma, “ the lithium-ion power battery included a cathode plate, an anode plate, a diaphragm, the electrolyte, and battery accessories; ”, see [0069]) comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent comprising a propionate solvent and a lithium salt, wherein the propionate solvent comprises at least one of ethyl propionate and propyl propionate, and the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate and lithium bisfluorosulfonylimide (Ma, “Preferably, the main lithium salt is selected from at least one of Lithium Hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, or lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide,”, see [0024]) (Ma, “The C3-C8 carboxylic ester compound is selected from at least one of γ-butyrolactone, methyl acetate, methyl propionate, methyl butyrate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, ethyl butyrate, propyl acetate, propyl propionate, ethyl fluoroacetate, or 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate”, see [0027])
Regarding Claim 15,
Ma teaches an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a non-aqueous organic solvent comprising ethyl propionate or propyl propionate or a combination of ethyl propionate and propyl propionate; and a lithium salt comprising lithium hexafluorophosphate or a lithium bisfluorosulfonylimide, or a combination of hexafluorophosphate and lithium bisfluorosulfonylimide (Ma, “Preferably, the main lithium salt is selected from at least one of Lithium Hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, or lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide,”, see [0024]) (Ma, “The C3-C8 carboxylic ester compound is selected from at least one of γ-butyrolactone, methyl acetate, methyl propionate, methyl butyrate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, ethyl butyrate, propyl acetate, propyl propionate, ethyl fluoroacetate, or 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate”, see [0027]).
Regarding Claim 16,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 15, wherein the lithium salt comprises hexafluorophosphate and lithium bisfluorosulfonylimide (Ma, “Preferably, the main lithium salt is selected from at least one of Lithium Hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, or lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide,”, see [0024]).
Regarding Claim 17,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 15, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethyl propionate and propyl propionate (Ma, “The C3-C8 carboxylic ester compound is selected from at least one of γ-butyrolactone, methyl acetate, methyl propionate, methyl butyrate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, ethyl butyrate, propyl acetate, propyl propionate, ethyl fluoroacetate, or 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate”, see [0027]).
.
Regarding Claim 18,
The electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 15, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises ethyl propionate and propyl propionate; and wherein the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate and lithium bisfluorosulfonylimide (Ma, “Preferably, the main lithium salt is selected from at least one of Lithium Hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, or lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulphonyl)imide,”, see [0024]) (Ma, “The C3-C8 carboxylic ester compound is selected from at least one of γ-butyrolactone, methyl acetate, methyl propionate, methyl butyrate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, ethyl butyrate, propyl acetate, propyl propionate, ethyl fluoroacetate, or 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate”, see [0027]).
Regarding Claim 20,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 15, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises a carbonate solvent comprising ethylene carbonate, or ethyl methyl carbonate, or a combination of ethyl methyl carbonate (Ma, “Further, the C3-C6 carbonate compound is selected from at least one of Ethylene Carbonate, propylene carbonate, butene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, Ethyl Methyl Carbonate, Diethyl Carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate, ethyl propyl carbonate, Fluoroethylene Carbonate, or di-fluoro ethylene carbonate.”, see [0026]).
Regarding Claim 22,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 20, further comprising at least one additive selected from a group consisting of cyclic carbonate-based compounds, fluorine-substituted carbonate-based compounds, sultone-based compounds, cyclic sulfate-based compounds, cyclic sulfite-based compounds, borate-based compounds, and phosphate-based compounds (Ma, “The second additive is a sulfonate compound or a sulfate compound, the sulfonate compound comprises: a chain sulfonate compound shown in the following formula (B-1) ”, see [0014]).
Regarding Claim 23,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 20, further comprising at least one additive selected from a group consisting of vinyl ethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, 1,3-propane sultone, fluoro ethylene carbonate, ethylene sulfite, lithium bisoxalato borate, lithium difluorophosphate, and adiponitrile (Ma, “Preferably, the third additive is selected from at least one of Vinylene Carbonate,”, see [0022]).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20250038263-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ma’
Regarding Claim 2,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium hexafluorophosphate is included in a concentration of 0.5M to 0.7M with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent (Ma, “and a molar concentration in the electrolyte is 0.4-1.6 mol/L. More preferably, the main lithium salt is the Lithium Hexafluorophosphate, and the molar concentration in the electrolyte is 0.6-1.2 mol/L.”, see [0024]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.6-1.2 mol/L broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.5M to 0.7M Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 3,
Ma teaches The electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium bisfluorosulfonylimide is included in a concentration of 0.1M to 0.6M with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent (Ma, “and a molar concentration in the electrolyte is 0.4-1.6 mol/L. More preferably, the main lithium salt is the Lithium Hexafluorophosphate, and the molar concentration in the electrolyte is 0.6-1.2 mol/L.”, see [0024]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.6-1.2 mol/L broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.1M to 0.6M Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20250038263-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ma’ in view of (US-20220200053-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Sun’
Regarding Claim 4,
Ma does not teach the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the propionate solvent is included in an amount of 5 vol% to 20 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent.
Sun teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the propionate solvent is included in an amount of 5 vol% to 20 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent (Sun, “specifically including EMC at 30-50 wt %, EC at 20-30 wt %, DMC at 5-20 wt %, EP at 5-20 wt %, PC at 0-10 wt %, and DEC at 0-10 wt %.”, see [0034]) (The examiner notes that EP is ethyl propionate)(The examiner notes the prior art is wt% not vol %, but the range overlaps, if multiplying by the density the range is 5.9-23 vol% assuming a desnity of 0.9 g/ml)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5.9-23 vol% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 5 vol% to 20 vol%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Sun teaches that these percentage instill specific distinct electrochemical benefits (Sun, “The electrolyte compositions provided herein may confer distinct electrochemical benefits to a lithium ion battery (e.g., 100) by way of specific amounts of each component included therein and specific ratios between the components”, see [0035]).
Ma and Sun are analogous as they are both of the same field of electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentration of solvents in the electrolyte as taught in Ma to those as taught in Sun to get the distinct electrochemical benefits as taught in Sun.
Regarding Claim 5,
Ma does not teach the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the propionate solvent comprises the ethyl propionate in an amount of 8 vol% to 12 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent.
Sun teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the propionate solvent comprises the ethyl propionate in an amount of 8 vol% to 12 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent. (Sun, “specifically including EMC at 30-50 wt %, EC at 20-30 wt %, DMC at 5-20 wt %, EP at 5-20 wt %, PC at 0-10 wt %, and DEC at 0-10 wt %.”, see [0034]) (The examiner notes that EP is ethyl propionate) (The examiner notes that EP is ethyl propionate)(The examiner notes the prior art is wt% not vol %, but the range overlaps, if multiplying by the density the range is 5.9-23 vol% assuming a desnity of 0.9 g/ml)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5.9-23 vol% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 5 vol% to 20 vol%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Sun teaches that these percentage instill specific distinct electrochemical benefits (Sun, “The electrolyte compositions provided herein may confer distinct electrochemical benefits to a lithium ion battery (e.g., 100) by way of specific amounts of each component included therein and specific ratios between the components”, see [0035]).
Ma and Sun are analogous as they are both of the same field of electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentration of solvents in the electrolyte as taught in Ma to those as taught in Sun to get the distinct electrochemical benefits as taught in Sun.
Regarding Claim 6,
Ma teaches The electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the propionate solvent comprises the propyl propionate (Ma, “The C3-C8 carboxylic ester compound is selected from at least one of γ-butyrolactone, methyl acetate, methyl propionate, methyl butyrate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, ethyl butyrate, propyl acetate, propyl propionate, ethyl fluoroacetate, or 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate”, see
Ma does not teach in an amount of 8 vol% to 12 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent.
Sun teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the propionate solvent comprises the propyl propionate in an amount of 8 vol% to 12 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent. (Sun, “specifically including EMC at 30-50 wt %, EC at 20-30 wt %, DMC at 5-20 wt %, EP at 5-20 wt %, PC at 0-10 wt %, and DEC at 0-10 wt %.”, see [0034]) (The examiner notes that EP is ethyl propionate)((The examiner notes that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute ethyl propionate for propyl propionate as they are known for the same purpose [see MPEP 2144.05]) (The examiner notes that EP is ethyl propionate)(The examiner notes the prior art is wt% not vol %, but the range overlaps, if multiplying by the density the range is 5.9-23 vol% assuming a desnity of 0.9 g/ml)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 5.9-23 vol% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 5 vol% to 20 vol%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Sun teaches that these percentage instill specific distinct electrochemical benefits (Sun, “The electrolyte compositions provided herein may confer distinct electrochemical benefits to a lithium ion battery (e.g., 100) by way of specific amounts of each component included therein and specific ratios between the components”, see [0035]).
Ma and Sun are analogous as they are both of the same field of electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the concentration of solvents in the electrolyte as taught in Ma to those as taught in Sun to get the distinct electrochemical benefits as taught in Sun.
Claim 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20250038263-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ma’ in view of ‘Li-Ion Electrolytes Containing Ester Co-Solvents for Wide Operating Temperature Range’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Smart’
Regarding Claim 8,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the ethylene carbonate is included in an amount of 20 vol% to 30 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent (Ma, “Ethylene Carbonate (EC), Ethyl Methyl Carbonate (EMC), and Diethyl Carbonate (DEC) were well mixed according to a mass ratio being EC: EMC: DEC=3:5:2; and Lithium”, see [0038],
Ma does not teach that the ethyl methyl carbonate is included in an amount of 60 vol% to 70 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent .
Smart teaches that the ethyl methyl carbonate is included in an amount of 60 vol% to 70 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent (Smart, “1.0 M LiPF6 EC+EMC+EP (20:60:20 v/v %)”, see pg. 101) .
Smart teaches that this range is optimized to provide good low temperature performance (Smart, “1.0 M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate (EC) + ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) + X (20:60:20 v/v %) [where X = ester co-solvent]. These electrolytes have been optimized to provide good low temperature performance (down to -60oC), while still offering reasonable high temperature resilience to produce the desired wide operating temperature systems (-60 to +60oC).”, see Abstract).
Ma and Smart are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of the EMC as taught in Ma to be the percentage a taught in Smart in order to optimize performance for low temperatures.
Regarding Claim 21,
Ma teaches the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the ethylene carbonate is included in an amount of 20 vol% to 30 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent (Ma, “Ethylene Carbonate (EC), Ethyl Methyl Carbonate (EMC), and Diethyl Carbonate (DEC) were well mixed according to a mass ratio being EC: EMC: DEC=3:5:2; and Lithium”, see [0038],
Ma does not teach that the ethyl methyl carbonate is included in an amount of 60 vol% to 70 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent .
Smart teaches that the ethyl methyl carbonate is included in an amount of 60 vol% to 70 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent (Smart, “1.0 M LiPF6 EC+EMC+EP (20:60:20 v/v %)”, see pg. 101) .
Smart teaches that this range is optimized to provide good low temperature performance (Smart, “1.0 M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate (EC) + ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) + X (20:60:20 v/v %) [where X = ester co-solvent]. These electrolytes have been optimized to provide good low temperature performance (down to -60oC), while still offering reasonable high temperature resilience to produce the desired wide operating temperature systems (-60 to +60oC).”, see Abstract).
Ma and Smart are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of the EMC as taught in Ma to be the percentage a taught in Smart in order to optimize performance for low temperatures.
Claim 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20250038263-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ma’ in view of ‘A Review on the Anode and Cathode Materials for Lithium-Ion Batteries with Improved Subzero Temperature Performance’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Selinis’
Regarding Claim 13,
Ma teaches wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises a carbonate solvent (Ma, “Further, the C3-C6 carbonate compound is selected from at least one of Ethylene Carbonate, propylene carbonate, butene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, Ethyl Methyl Carbonate, Diethyl Carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate, ethyl propyl carbonate, Fluoroethylene Carbonate, or di-fluoro ethylene carbonate.”, see [0026])
Ma teaches does not teach and wherein the cathode active material comprises a lithium metal phosphate particle represented by Formula 1 below: Formula 1 LiwMxPyO4+z wherein in Formula 1, 0.9≤w≤1.2, 0.99≤x≤1.01, 0.9≤y≤1.2, -0.1≤z≤0.1, and M is at least one selected from a group consisting of Fe, Co, Ni, Mn, Ti and V.
Selinis teaches wherein the cathode active material comprises a lithium metal phosphate particle represented by Formula 1 below: Formula 1 LiwMxPyO4+z wherein in Formula 1, 0.9≤w≤1.2, 0.99≤x≤1.01, 0.9≤y≤1.2, -0.1≤z≤0.1, and M is at least one selected from a group consisting of Fe, Co, Ni, Mn, Ti and V (Selinis, “Next, we will discuss about recent developments of cathode materials and composites with improved low-temperature performance, such as lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium vanadate phosphate (LVP), vanadium pentoxide, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), Li-rich NMC, lithium nickel manganese oxide (LNMO) and lithium manganese oxide (LMO) cathodes, as shown in Fig. 8.”, see Cathode Materials).
Selinis teaches that LFP has high capacity, and thermal stability (Selinis, “Olivine-type LiFePO4 (LFP) is a popular cathode material, because of its high theoretical capacity (170 mAhg−1), stable voltage plateau at 3.5 V vs Li/Li+, inexpensiveness, natural abundance, environmental friendliness, thermal stability and good cycle stability. 98”, Lithium iron phosphate-based cathodes).
Ma and Selinis are analogous as they are both of the same field of low temperature batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the cathode as taught in Ma to use the LFP cathode a taught in Selinis in order to improve thej cycling and thermal stability of the cell.
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Ma teaches The lithium secondary battery of claim 13, wherein the M is Fe (Selinis, “Next, we will discuss about recent developments of cathode materials and composites with improved low-temperature performance, such as lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium vanadate phosphate (LVP), vanadium pentoxide, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), Li-rich NMC, lithium nickel manganese oxide (LNMO) and lithium manganese oxide (LMO) cathodes, as shown in Fig. 8.”, see Cathode Materials).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20250038263-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ma’ in view of ‘Li-Ion Electrolytes Containing Ester Co-Solvents for Wide Operating Temperature Range’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Smart’ in further view of ‘Fluorinated Solvent-Based Electrolytes for Low Temperature Li-Ion Batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Zhang’
Regarding Claim 19,
Ma teaches The electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery of claim 15, wherein the lithium hexafluorophosphate is included in a concentration of 0.5M to 0.7M with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent, wherein the lithium bisfluorosulfonylimide is included in a concentration of 0.1M to 0.6M with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent (Ma, “and a molar concentration in the electrolyte is 0.4-1.6 mol/L. More preferably, the main lithium salt is the Lithium Hexafluorophosphate, and the molar concentration in the electrolyte is 0.6-1.2 mol/L.”, see [0024])(The examiner notes that Ma does not include a single embodiment with both, but it would have been obvious to combine them as known lithium salts used for the same purpose)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.6-1.2 mol/L broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.1M to 0.6M and 0.5M to 0.7. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Ma does not teach wherein the propionate solvent is included in an amount of 5 vol% to 20 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent.
Ma does not teach that the ethyl methyl carbonate is included in an amount of 60 vol% to 70 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent .
Smart teaches wherein the propionate solvent is included in an amount of 5 vol% to 20 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent, (Smart, “1.0 M LiPF6 EC+EMC+EP (20:60:20 v/v %)”, see pg. 101) .
Smart teaches that this range is optimized to provide good low temperature performance (Smart, “1.0 M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate (EC) + ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) + X (20:60:20 v/v %) [where X = ester co-solvent]. These electrolytes have been optimized to provide good low temperature performance (down to -60oC), while still offering reasonable high temperature resilience to produce the desired wide operating temperature systems (-60 to +60oC).”, see Abstract).
Ma and Smart are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of the EMC as taught in Ma to be the percentage a taught in Smart in order to optimize performance for low temperatures.
Modified Ma does not teach wherein the propionate solvent comprises the ethyl propionate in an amount of 8 vol% to 12 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent, and wherein the propionate solvent comprises the propyl propionate in an amount of 8 vol% to 12 vol% with respect to the non-aqueous organic solvent.
Zhang teaches that ethyl propionate and propyl propionate are both ester co-solvents which contribute to low temperature performance (Zhang, see Slide 3) (Zhang, “New fluorinated carbonate-based electrolytes, i.e., trifluoropropylene carbonate (TFPC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)/butyronitrile (BN), and fluorocarbonates/propyl propionate (PP) and propyl propionate (PP) solo-solvent, were developed for LT applications which show improved cell capacity and energy at -20°C ~ -40°C compared with Gen 2 evaluated in NMC622/graphite couple”, see Slide 25).
Modified Ma and Zhang are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the 20% ester composition to include both propyl propionate and ethyl propionate considering the improve capacity and energy from both ester co-solvents and the vol % concentration a matter of optimization of the two concentrations (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights