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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 11-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-40 of copending Application No. 18/580,249. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Regarding claims 11-26, US 18/580249 claims a liquid electrolyte composition for an electrochemical cell, comprising the following components:
(A) sulfur dioxide; and
(B) at least one salt, wherein the salt comprises an anionic complex having at least one bidentate ligand and the salt corresponds to Formula (I),
PNG
media_image1.png
170
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula (II),
PNG
media_image2.png
170
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or Formula (III),
PNG
media_image3.png
297
649
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and combinations thereof,
wherein
M is a metal cation selected from the group consisting of the alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, and metals of group 12 of the periodic table;
m is 1 or 2;
Z is a central ion selected from the group consisting of elements of group 2 to 16 of the periodic table, and lanthanides;
A1 to A12 each represent a coordination element that bonds to the central ion Z,
wherein A1 to A12 are each independently selected from the group consisting of elements of group 15 and 16 of the periodic table;
R1 and R2 each represent a monovalent and terminal radical and are independently selected from the group consisting of a fluorine-substituted hydrocarbon radical, triflyl radical, triflate radical, and fluorosulfonate radical; and
L1 to L6 each independently represent an aliphatic or aromatic bridging group, wherein the bridging group forms a five to eight-membered ring with the central ion Z and with two coordination elements bonded to the central ion Z and the bridging group, and wherein the ring comprises a sequence of 2 to 5 carbon atoms.
US 18/580249 claims wherein the metal cation M is lithium and the component (B) is a lithium salt.
US 18/580249 claims wherein the central ion is selected from the group consisting of B, Al, Ga, In, P, Ti, Nb, Zn, V and La.
US 18/580249 claims wherein at least one coordination element comprises oxygen.
US 18/580249 claims wherein the salt corresponds to Formula (I), wherein R1 and R2 each independently comprise a hydrocarbon radical selected from the group consisting of C1-C8 alkyl, C2-C10 alkenyl, C2-C10 alkinyl, C6-C12 cycloalkyl and C6-C12 aryl, and wherein the hydrocarbon radical is at least partly fluorine-substituted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1. Claims 11-16, 18-21, 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (US20140113202).
2. Regarding claims 11-16, 25, Sun teaches lithium ion battery may contain any of the components typically found in a lithium ion battery, including positive and negative electrodes [0113], a liquid electrolyte composition for an electrochemical cell (The present invention relates generally to electrolyte compositions for lithium ion batteries, and more particularly, to such electrolyte compositions containing ionic liquids [0002]), comprising the following components: (A) sulfur dioxide (Some particular examples of solvent additives include…sulfur dioxide (SO2) [0106]); and (B) at least one salt, wherein the salt comprises an anionic complex (FIG. 1. Structures of selected boron-containing anions (Z−) of particular consideration for ionic liquids (Y+Z−) considered herein [0011])
PNG
media_image4.png
490
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
3. Regarding claims 18-20, Sun teaches wherein the liquid electrolyte composition comprises the component (B) in a concentration of 0.01 to 15 mol/L, based on the total volume of the liquid electrolyte composition (In different embodiments, the lithium ion electrolyte is present in the electrolyte in a concentration of precisely, about, at least, above, up to, or less than, for example, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2, 2.5, or 3 M, where “M” indicates a molarity concentration [0112]).
4. Regarding claim 21, Sun teaches wherein at least one further additive in an amount of 0 wt.%, based on the total weight of the liquid electrolyte composition (The Examiner notes 0 wt% indicates a further additive is not required).
5. Regarding claims 23 and 24, Sun teaches comprises the following: at least one salt of Formula (I) or Formula (II) in a concentration of 0.01-15 mol/L (In different embodiments, the lithium ion electrolyte is present in the electrolyte in a concentration of precisely, about, at least, above, up to, or less than, for example, 0.5, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2, 2.5, or 3 M, where “M” indicates a molarity concentration [0112]), based on the total volume of the liquid electrolyte composition, wherein the salt is a lithium salt selected from the group consisting of the compounds of Formulas (IV), (V), (VI), and combinations thereof; 0-10 wt.% of at least one additive (The Examiner notes 0 wt% indicates a further additive is not required), wherein the additive is selected from the group consisting of vinylene carbonate (VC), (The invention is also directed to electrolyte compositions in which an ionic liquid of the general formula Y+X− or Y+Z− is admixed with a non-ionic solvent additive, such as vinylene carbonate (VC) [0009]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 22, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US20140113202) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210135291).
7. Regarding claim 22, Sun teaches the liquid electrolyte composition comprises at least one further additive in an amount of 0.1-2 wt.%, based on the total weight of the liquid electrolyte composition (graph plotting charge/discharge capacities and coulombic efficiencies of the NG∥Li half cells using 1.0M LiPF6/PC with 2 wt % [0013]), wherein the further additive is selected from the group consisting of vinylene carbonate (VC) (The invention is also directed to electrolyte compositions in which an ionic liquid of the general formula Y+X− or Y+Z− is admixed with a non-ionic solvent additive, such as vinylene carbonate (VC) [0009]).
8. Kim teaches Lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) salt is dissolving at a concentration of 1.2 mol/L in a mixed solvent [0270]; The electrolyte composition according to Clause 4, wherein the fluorinated cyclic carbonate is selected from 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one [0335]; wherein the fluorinated cyclic carbonate is present in the electrolyte composition in an amount ranging from 0.5% to 10% [0336] for the benefit of improved electrochemical performances at high operating voltages [0001].
9. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun with Kim’s teachings for the benefit of improved electrochemical performances at high operating voltages.
10. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US20140113202) in view of Xu (US 20120276445).
11. Xu teaches an electrolyte solution incorporating a purified lithium borate salt in concentrations of from about 0.01 M to about 2.0 M is provided. The purified lithium borate salt comprising a boron core coordinated by four (4) ligands; further comprising LiBOB, LiDFOB, LiBF.sub.4, LiBMB or LiBPFPB, and mixtures thereof [0013] for the benefit of an electrolyte delivers superior performances that include negligible irreversible capacity upon cell formation, low impedance on both cathode and anode, and excellent stability when operated at high temperatures (abstract).
12. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun with Xu’s teachings for the benefit of an electrolyte delivers superior performances that include negligible irreversible capacity upon cell formation, low impedance on both cathode and anode, and excellent stability when operated at high temperatures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLATUNJI GODO whose telephone number is (571)272-3104. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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 Smith can be reached on 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.
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights