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 based on application filed in the Republic of Korea on 10/04/2021 and 10/06/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-0126135 or KR10-2021-0132194 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 04/04/2024 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Additives For An Electrolyte And Secondary Battery Comprising Same.
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)(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) 1-10, 12-14, and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (U.S. 20240072303).
With respect to claims 1-7 and 12, Kim discloses an electrolyte ([abstract]), which includes an organic solvent ([abstract]), lithium salt ([abstract]), a first additive (second compound additive) and a second additive (first compound additive) ([abstract]),
wherein the first additive (second compound additive) contains a compound having a structure
PNG
media_image1.png
94
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0044], 2a; thus satisfying formula 1 of claims 1 and 12, formula 2 of claim 2, and formula 3 of claim 3) in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt % or less based on 100 weight% of the electrolyte ([0045]), thus falling into the claimed range of 15% or less with sufficient specificity,
wherein the second additive (second compound additive, cesium salt compound) contains a compound
PNG
media_image2.png
97
169
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0023], Chemical formula 3-2), thus satisfying claim 1, formula 5 of claim 4, formula 6 of claims 5 and 12, the anion of fluorine of claim 6, and formula 7 of claim 7 in an amount of 0.05-3 weight% based on 100 weight% of the electrolyte ([0025]), thus being encompassed by the claimed range of 0.0 to 10 wt % with sufficient specificity.
With respect to claims 8 and 13, Kim discloses the first additive (second compound) and the second additive (first compound) in a weight ratio of 1:0.5 to 1:2 ([0047]), thus being encompassed by the claimed range of 1:0.5 to 2.5 with sufficient specificity.
With respect to claim 9, Kim discloses the lithium salt is LiPF6 ([0208]; [0218], Example 1).
With respect to claim 10, Kim discloses the organic solvent is ethylene carbonate, ethylmethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate ([0208],[0218]; Example 1).
With respect to claim 14, Kim discloses a lithium secondary battery (100) (Fig. 1), which includes a negative electrode (112), a positive electrode (114), a separator (113) interposed between the negative electrode (112) and the positive electrode (114) (Fig. 1; [0078]), and an electrolyte ([abstract]),
wherein the electrolyte is an electrolyte according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 19, Kim discloses the secondary battery is a battery for an energy storage system (high-temperature storage) ([0059]).
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:
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.
Claim(s) 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1.
With respect to claims 15-18, Kim discloses the secondary battery, but does not disclose the specific operating values of the discharge resistance (claim 15), recover capacity (claim 16), thickness increase rate (claim 17), or Coulombic efficiency (claim 18). However, these are all example of properties of the battery resulting from the claimed structure. Applicant is reminded that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent ( In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). In this instance, the electrolyte composition has already shown to be identical in the rejection of claims 1-10, the positive electrode active material of the instant application is lithium composite metal oxide, identical to that of the prior art ([0159]), and the negative electrode active material of the instant application is graphite, identical to that of the prior art ([0176]), as well as a binder and conductive agent to form the negative electrode ([0188]). Thus the structure of the battery is substantially identical, and the claimed resulting properties of the battery would inherently be in the claimed ranges.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scott et al. (U.S. 20100279155).
With respect to claim 11, Kim discloses a first and second additive (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose a third additive added to the electrolyte.
Scott discloses an electrolyte additive ([0016]) and teaches the additive is a boron compound ([0016]). Scott further teaches the boron-compound additive improves resistance to corrosion of the battery ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include a third additive with a boron compound as taught by Scott to the electrolyte of Kim in order to improve the resistance to corrosion of the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights