DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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. KR10-2023-0108784, filed on August 21st, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on March 19th, 2024 has been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Prior Art
Shin US PG Publication 2020/0365939 (“Shin”)
Han US PG Publication 2020/0075996 (“Han”)
Li US PG Publication 2021/0083282 (“Li”)
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, 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:
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin US PG Publication 2020/0365939 in view of Han US PG Publication 2020/0075996.
Regarding Claim 1, Shin discloses an ionic liquid for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a cation represented by Chemical Formula 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
210
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R5 and R6 are each independently an alkyl group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms
and an anion ([0038]-[0042]).
Shin does not specifically teach wherein R5 is a sulfonyl fluoride group.
However, Han discloses electrolyte compositions for lithium batteries including at least one compound of an anion and a cation (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Han teaches the use of a sulfonyl fluoride group (SO2F) due to their ability to improve the performance of lithium ion batteries and durability of the batteries at high temperatures when used within electrolyte compositions ([0005]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the cation of Shin such that the R5 group is a sulfonyl fluoride group (SO2F) due to the ability of the sulfonyl fluoride group to improve the performance of the lithium secondary battery and durability of the lithium secondary battery at high temperatures when used within the ionic liquid of the electrolyte, as taught by Han.
The skilled artisan would recognize that the cation of Shin in view of Han reads on the instantly claimed Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
177
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in the instance wherein n=0, m=0, R1 and R2 form an alicyclic hydrocarbon ring having 4 carbon atoms, and R3 is an alkyl group.
Regarding Claim 2, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed ionic liquid according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Shin in view of Han discloses wherein two of R1, R2, and R3 are connected to each other to form an alicyclic hydrocarbon ring having 4 carbon atoms (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 3 to 5 carbon atoms) (Shin [0038]-[0042, Han [0005]-[0007]).
Regarding Claim 3, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed ionic liquid according to Claim 1, and Shin discloses wherein the anion comprises at least one selected from the group including N(SO2F)2-, FSI-, N(SO2CF3)2-, and PF6- (which meets the instantly claimed limitation of N(SO2F)2-, FSI-, CF3SO3-, N(SO2CF3)2-, N(COCF3)(SO2CF3)-, BF4-, B(CN)4-, CH3BF3-, CH2CHBF3-, CF3BF3-, C2F5BF3-, n-C3F7BF3-, n-C4F9BF3-, PF6-, CF3CO2-, N(CN)2-, C(CN)3-, SCN-, SeCN-, CuCl2-, AlCl4-, F(HF)2.3, Cl-, F-, Br-, I-, and combinations thereof) ([0038]).
Regarding Claim 4, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed ionic liquid according to Claim 1. Since the ionic liquid of Shin in view of Han covers the entirety of the claimed ionic liquid, the ionic liquid of Shin in view of Han would inherently have the same properties1, including the ratio (LUMOIL/LUMODMSF) of LUMO (lowest unoccupied molecular orbital) energy level of the ionic liquid (LUMOIL) to LUMO energy level of DMSF (N,N-dimethylsulfamoyl fluoride) (LUMODMSF).
1 Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Regarding Claim 5, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed ionic liquid according to Claim 1. Since the ionic liquid of Shin in view of Han covers the entirety of the claimed ionic liquid, the ionic liquid of Shin in view of Han would inherently have the same properties1, including the absolute value (|LUMOIL-LUMODMSF|) of a difference between LUMO (lowest unoccupied molecular orbital) energy level of the ionic liquid (LUMOIL) and LUMO energy level of DMSF (N,N-dimethylsulfamoyl fluoride) (LUMODMSF).
1 Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Regarding Claim 6, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed ionic liquid according to Claim 1. Since the ionic liquid of Shin in view of Han covers the entirety of the claimed ionic liquid, the ionic liquid of Shin in view of Han would inherently have the same properties1, including the relationship between LUMO (lowest unoccupied molecular orbital) energy level of the ionic liquid (LUMOIL) and the LUMO energy level of a conventional ionic liquid (LUMOCOV).
1 Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Regarding Claim 7, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed ionic liquid according to Claim 6. Since the ionic liquid of Shin in view of Han covers the entirety of the claimed ionic liquid, the ionic liquid of Shin in view of Han would inherently have the same properties1, including the ratio (LUMOIL/LUMOCOV) of the LUMO energy level of the ionic liquid (LUMOIL) to the LUMO energy level of a conventional ionic liquid (LUMOCOV).
1 Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Regarding Claim 8, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed ionic liquid according to Claim 1. Since the ionic liquid of Shin in view of Han covers the entirety of the claimed ionic liquid, the ionic liquid of Shin in view of Han would inherently have the same properties1, including the relationship between the HOMO (highest occupied molecular orbital) energy level of the ionic liquid (HOMOIL) and the HOMO energy level of DMSF (N,N-dimethylsulfamoyl fluoride) (HOMODMSF).
1 Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Regarding Claim 9, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed ionic liquid according to Claim 1. Shin further discloses an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery ([0016]), comprising the ionic liquid of Claim 1 ([0016]); and a lithium salt ([0016]).
Regarding Claim 10, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 9, and Shin discloses wherein the lithium salt comprises at least one selected from the group including LiFSI, LiTFSI, LiPF6, LiClO4, and LiBF4 (which meets the instantly claimed limitation of at least one selected from the group consisting of LiFSI, LiTFSI, LiPF6, LiClO4, LiBF4, LiSO3CF3, LiBOB, LiFOB, LiDFBP, LiTFOP, LiPO2F2, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiB10Cl10, LiCF3SO3, LiCF3CO2, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, CH3SO3Li, CF3SO3Li, LiSCN, LiC(CF3SO2)3 and combinations thereof) ([0101]).
Regarding Claim 11, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed electrolyte according to Claim 9, and Shin discloses wherein the electrolyte further comprises an organic solvent ([0103]-[0104]).
Regarding Claim 12, Shin discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0016]), comprising a positive electrode (cathode) ([0242]); a negative electrode (anode) ([0242]); a separator interposed between the cathode and the anode ([0242]); and the electrolyte of Shin in view of Han, as described in the rejection of Claim 9, with which the separator is impregnated (which meets the claim limitation with which at least one of the cathode, the anode, or the separator is impregnated) ([0272]-[0273]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin US PG Publication 2020/0365939 in view of Han US PG Publication 2020/0075996, as applied to Claim 12, further in view of Li US PG Publication 20201/0083282.
Regarding Claims 13-14, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed lithium secondary battery according to Claim 12. Shin in view of Han fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anode comprises a film located on at least a portion of a surface thereof.
However, Li discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a negative electrode plate (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Li teaches covering the surface of the negative electrode material with a sulfur-containing solid electrolyte interface film comprising either S- or S2-, to effectively block undesired dissolved ions from the positive active material from entering the negative active material ([0007]-[0008], [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the lithium secondary battery of Shin in view of Han such that the anode comprises a film located on at least a portion of a surface thereof, wherein the film comprises a sulfur-containing compound comprising either S- or S2- in order to effectively block undesired dissolved ions from the positive active material from entering the negative active material, as taught by Li.
Claim 13 is considered a product-by-process claim. The lithium secondary battery of Shin in view of Han and Li teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation (i.e. the limitation “the film is formed by reductive decomposition of the cation” in line 3 of Claim 13). If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding Claim 15, Shin in view of Han teaches the instantly claimed ionic liquid according to Claim 13. Since the lithium secondary battery of Shin in view of Han and Li covers the entirety of the claimed lithium secondary battery, the lithium secondary battery of Shin in view of Han and Li would inherently have the same properties2, including the result of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) of the film disposed on the anode.
2 Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights