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. KR10-2022-0175696, filed on 2022-12-15.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 5 and 8 state “the organic solvent is represented by the chemical formula below”. However, these claims do not have the associated chemical formula depicted. For the purpose of this application, the examiner assumes that Claim 5 relates to Chemical Formula 2 [0013] and Claim 8 relates to Chemical Formula 3 [0020] as disclosed in the specifications. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 10-12, 14-16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuwajima et al. (EP3641043A1), using applicant’s provided documents in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuwajima et al., teaches:
A lithium secondary battery [0420] comprising:
A cathode [0421] including a cathode current collector and a cathode active material disposed on at least one surface of the cathode current collector [0422],
The cathode active material comprising first cathode active material having a shape of a single particle ([0436]- “particles of the positive electrode active material may have any shape conventionally used”),
An anode facing the cathode [0549],
And a non- aqueous electrolyte solution having a lithium salt [0173] and a non-aqueous organic solvent that comprises a difluoro-based organic solvent ([0406]- one of the embodiments is difluoro methyl methyl sulfone (which is a non-aqueous difluoro-based solvent)) wherein,
A content of the difluoro-based organic solvent is in a range from 2 vol% to 10 vol% based on a total volume of the non-aqueous organic solvent ([0407] [0408]- one of the embodiments is difluoro methyl methyl sulfone- a difluoro-based organic compound, “may be present in any amount- usually 0.3% volume or more and 30% by volume or less”).
Regarding Claim 2, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the content of the difluoro-based organic solvent is in a range from 3 vol% to 7 vol% based on the total volume of the non-aqueous organic solvent ([0407, 0408]- difluoro methyl methyl sulfone- a difluoro based organic compound “may be present in any amount- usually 0.3% volume or more and 30% by volume or less”).
Regarding Claim 3, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the cathode active material further comprises second cathode active material particles having a shape of a secondary particle ([0445]- “particles of the positive electrode active material preferably composed of secondary particles”).
Regarding Claim 7, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises a monofluoro-based organic solvent ([0406], [0407]- one of the embodiments is monofluoromethyl methyl sulfone- a monofluoro-based organic compound).
And a content of the monofluoro-based organic solvent is in a range from 2 vol% to 6 vol% based on the total volume of the non-aqueous organic solvent ([408] “may be present in any amount- usually 0.3% by volume or more and 30% by volume or less”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 7, which claim 8 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the monofluoro- based organic solvent is represented by the chemical formula below:
PNG
media_image1.png
44
112
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where R3 is a hydrocarbon group containing a C1-C6 alkyl group, a C6-C12 aryl group, a C5-C12 cycloalkyl group, a C5-C12 cycloalkenyl group, a 5 to 7- membered heterocycloalkyl group or a 5 to 7-membered heterocycloalkenyl group ([0063] Formula: R1-R2- “wherein R1 is an alkyl group having a carbon number of 1 or greater and optionally containing a fluorine atom; R2 is a C1-C3 alkylene group optionally containing a fluorine atom”- if R1 is an alkyl group having carbon number of 1 or greater and R2 has the fluorine atom, the prior art matches the formula of the claimed invention).
Regarding Claim 9, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises a propionate-based organic solvent including at least one selected from the group consisting of methyl propionate (MP), ethyl propionate (EP) and propyl propionate (PP) [0048].
Regarding Claim 10, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 9 and claim 1, which claim 10 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 9, wherein the content of the propionate-based organic solvent is in a range from 10 vol% to 30 vol% based on the total volume of the non-aqueous organic solvent ([0050]- “the non-fluorinated acyclic ester (the propionate-based solvent) is preferably present in the amount of 0 to 90% by volume”).
Regarding Claim 11, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 11 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises a non-fluoro solvent including at least one selected from the group consisting of a carbonate- based solvent, an ester-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, a ketone-based solvent, an alcohol-based solvent, and an aprotic solvent ([0024]- “the solvent preferably further contains a carbonate or an ester”).
Regarding Claim 12, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 11 and claim 1, which claim 11 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
the lithium secondary battery of claim 11, wherein content of the non-fluoro solvent is in a range from 60 vol% to 80 vol% based on the total volume of the non-aqueous organic solvent ([0051]- “the non- fluorinated acyclic ester (an organic solvent) is preferably present in an amount of 0 to 90% by volume”).
Regarding Claim 14, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 13, which claim 14 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 13, wherein the boron-based compound includes at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium bis(oxalate) borate (LiBOB), tris(trimethylsilyl) borate (TMSB), and lithium difluoro(oxalato) borate (LiFOB) ([0165]- Chemical Formula 41- LiBOB).
PNG
media_image2.png
164
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 15 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte further comprises an auxiliary additive including at least one selected from the group consisting of an alkyl sultone-based compound and an alkenyl sultone-based compound ([0269]- “the electrolyte solution of the invention may contain a cyclic sulfonate”, [0272]- “more preferred amount these are 1,3 propanesultone”- an alkyl sultone).
Regarding Claim 16, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 16 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., further teaches:
The lithium secondary battery of clam 1, wherein the lithium salt includes at least one of lithium tetrafluoroborate (LiBF4), lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) ([0176]- “preferred examples thereof include a combination of LiPF6 and LiBF4”).
Regarding Claim 17, Kuwajima et al., teaches:
A lithium secondary battery comprising, [0420]
A cathode including a cathode current collector and a cathode active material disposed on at least one surface of the cathode current collector ([0421], [0422], [0435], and [0436]).
The cathode active material comprising:
First cathode active materials comprising less than 10 lithium-transition metal oxide particles in contact with or attached to each other ([0441]- the paragraph highlights the size of average secondary particles size of 5 micrometer or less while [0446] highlights the size of secondary particles as 40 micrometer or less highlighting that at least 8 primary particles are needed to agglomerate to form secondary particles).
And the second cathode active material particles comprising more than 10 of the lithium-transition metal oxides particles aggregated together ([0441], [0446]- as highlighted above, 8 or more primary particles are needed to form secondary particles).
An anode facing the cathode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0549] and [0173]).
Regarding Claim 19, Kuwajima teaches the limitations of independent claim 17, and dependent claim 18 which claim 19 depends upon. Kuwajima further teaches:
And a content of the difluoro-based organic solvent is in a range from 2 vol% to 10 vol% based on a total volume of the non-aqueous organic solvent ([0407]- one of the preferred embodiment is a difluoro methyl methyl sulfone (a difluoro-based organic solvent), [0408]- “the sulfone-based compound may be present in any amount, usually 0.3% by volume or more and 40% by volume or less”).
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.
23. 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwajima et al. (EP3641043A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hodge et al., (PGPUB- US20120202113).
Regarding Claim 4, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 is dependent upon. However, Kuwajima is silent on:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein a content of the first cathode active material particles is in a range from 10 wt.% to 40wt% based on a total weight of the cathode active material.
However, Hodge et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
“the cathode active material having a bimodal distribution of lithium iron phosphate particles. In additional embodiments of this battery, the first plurality of lithium iron phosphate particles can be included in the cathode material in a weight percentage in a range of 5 wt.% to 60 wt.% [0029]
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. The claimed range of 10 wt.% to 40 wt.% falls entirely within the broader range of 5 wt.% to 60 wt.% disclosed by Hodge et al. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have found the claimed range to be an obvious subset of the disclosed range and be motivated to optimize the disclosed parameter within the disclosed range through routine experimentation. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
MPEP 2131.03: Prior Art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates the claim if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwajima et al. (EP3641043A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hodge et al., (US20120202113).
Regarding Claim 18, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 17, which claim 18 is dependent upon. However, Kuwajima is silent on:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 17, wherein a content of the first cathode active material particles is in a range from 10 wt.% to 40 wt.% based on a total weight of the cathode active material.
However, Hodge et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
“the cathode active material having a bimodal distribution of lithium iron phosphate particles. In additional embodiments of this battery, the first plurality of lithium iron phosphate particles can be included in the cathode material in a weight percentage in a range of 5 wt.% to 60 wt.%.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. The claimed range of 10 wt.% to 40 wt.% falls entirely within the broader range of 5 wt.% to 60 wt.% disclosed by Hodge et al. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have found the claimed range to be an obvious subset of the disclosed range and be motivated to optimize the disclosed parameter within the disclosed range through routine experimentation. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
MPEP 2131.03: Prior Art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates the claim if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”.
Claim 5,6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwajima et al. (EP3641043A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burkhardt et al. (PGPUB- US20160087307)
Regarding Claim 5, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., however, is silent on the specific formula:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the difluoro-based organic solvent is represented by the chemical formula below:
PNG
media_image3.png
146
338
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Where R1 is a hydrocarbon containing a C1-C6 alkyl group or a C6-C12 aryl group, and R2 is a hydrocarbon group containing a C1-C6 alkyl group or a C2-C6 alkenyl group.
However, Burkhardt et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
“Suitable examples for the at least one fluorinated compound, R1COOR2, can include, CH3COOCH2CF2H where R1 and R2 are both Carbon-based alkyl group” [21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Kuwajima et al., and Burkhardt et al. to have a difluoro-based organic solvent that has the formula of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Kuwajima et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends upon. Kuwajima et al., however, is silent on:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the difluoro-based organic solvent comprises of 2,2- difluoro ethyl acetate.
However, Burkhard et al., in a similar field of endeavor teaches:
“Suitable examples for the at least one fluorinated compound, R1COOR2, can include, CH3COOCH2CF2H” [21]. This compound is 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Burkhardt et al., and incorporate it into the type of solvent present in the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13, Kuwajima et al., teaches the claim limitations of claim 1, which claim 13 depends upon. Kuwajima, however is silent on:
The lithium secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte solution further comprises an additive having a boron-based compound and a content of the additive is in a range from 0.1 wt.% to 1.0 wt.% based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution.
However, Burkhardt et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
“The electrolyte composition can contain an amount of the lithium/boron compound in the range of from 0.1 to 10.0 percent by weight” [0025].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kuwajima et al., and Burkhard et al., to have a non-aqueous electrolyte solution that comprises an additive having a boron-based compound in the concentration range that is claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Do et al., (PGPUB- US20210066743).
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