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 Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 2 “LiAl04” should recite “LiAlO4”
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR20180027999A). The English machine translation of Kim et al. is attached and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt, a non-aqueous organic solvent and an electrolyte additive, wherein the additives comprise 0.5 wt% ethylene sulfate based on the total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. a first additive, the first additive contains a compound having an atomic groups with 3 to 5 atoms represented by Formula 1 as claimed in an amount of 15 weight % or less based on 100 weight% of the electrolyte, the atomic groups having 2 to 4 atoms with electronegativity of 3 or more and having at least one double bond) and 0.5 wt% cesium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Para. [0147]) (i.e. a second additive, the second additive contains a compound having an atomic group with 3 to 5 atoms and a symmetric structure in an amount of 0.01 to 10 weight% based on 100 weight% of the electrolyte, the atomic group having 2 to 4 atoms with electronegativity of 3 or more and having at least one double bond).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches ethylene sulfate (Para. [0147]) (i.e. the first additive is Formula 4, wherein A is sulfur, X1 and X1’ are oxygen, R1 and R1’ are unsubstituted alkylene with 1 carbon atom and n is 0).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches cesium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Para. [0147]) (i.e. wherein the second additive is a compound containing a pair of at least one cation selected from the group consisting of alkali metal ions (excluding lithium) and an anion represented by Formula 14 as claimed wherein R1 and R2 -are branched alkyl group containing a halogen substituent with 1 carbon atom and h is 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches cesium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Para. [0147]) (i.e. wherein in the anion represented by Formula 14, the halogen substituent is fluorine).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches cesium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Para. [0147]) (i.e. wherein the second additive is a compound containing a pair of a cation of cesium and at least one anion of Formula 15 as claimed).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches 0.5 wt% ethylene sulfate based on the total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. a first additive) and 0.5 wt% cesium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Para. [0147]) (i.e. a second additive), such that the first additive and the second additive are included in a weight ratio of 1:1, within the claimed range of 1:0.5 to 2.5.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches LiPF6 as a lithium salt (Para. [0147]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches ethylene carbonate, ethylmethyl carbonate and dimethyl carbonate as non-aqueous organic solvent (Para. [0147]) (i.e. at least two organic solvents in the group listed in the claim).
Regarding Claim 10, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches the additive may be one or more of propane sultone and propene sultone (Para. [0036]) (i.e. at least one third additive of a sulfur compound) wherein the additive is 0.05 to 10 weight percent based on the total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0043]) (i.e. in an amount of 10 weight% or less based on a total of 100 weight% of the electrolyte).
Regarding Claim 11, Kim et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt, a non-aqueous organic solvent and an electrolyte additive, wherein the additives comprise 0.5 wt% ethylene sulfate based on the total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. a compound selected from Formula 5 wherein A is sulfur, X1 and X1’ are oxygen, R1 and R1’ are unsubstituted alkylene with 1 carbon atom and n is 0) and 0.5 wt% cesium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (i.e. a compound containing a pair of cesium cation and an anion represented by Formula 14 as claimed wherein R1 and R2 -are branched alkyl group containing a halogen substituent with 1 carbon atom and h is 1) (Para. [0147]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches 0.5 wt% ethylene sulfate based on the total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. a first additive) and 0.5 wt% cesium bis (trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Para. [0147]) (i.e. a second additive), such that the first additive and the second additive are included in a weight ratio of 1:1, within the claimed range of 1:0.5 to 2.5.
Regarding Claim 13, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the electrolyte in claim 1 as explained above.
Kim et al. teaches a lithium ion secondary battery, includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0058]) (i.e. wherein the electrolyte is an electrolyte according to claim 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the electrolyte in claim 13 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches use of the lithium secondary batteries for low and high-temperature storage (Para. [0044], [0077]) (i.e. wherein the secondary battery is a battery for an energy storage system).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20180027999A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakazawa et al. (US 2017/0200976).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches ethylene sulfate (Para. [0147]).
Kim et al. does not teach the first additive at least one selected from the compounds represented by Formulas 7 to 13.
However, Nakazawa et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte solution may contain a cyclic sulfonic ester (Para. [0062]) such as propylene sulfate (Para. [0242]) (i.e. Formula 11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sulfur atom-containing heterocyclic additive compound of Kim et al. to incorporate the teaching of propylene sulfate as taught by Nakazawa et al., as such an additive compound in a non-aqueous electrolyte solution provides improvement of battery characteristics (Para. [0062]), such as output characteristics, cycle characteristics and load characteristics (Para. [0247]).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20180027999A).
Regarding Claims 14-17, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the electrolyte in claim 13 as explained above.
Kim et al. teaches the identical composition as claimed as explained in the rejection to claim 13 above. Accordingly, the lithium secondary battery of Kim et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the discharge resistance, recovery capacity, thickness increase rate, and coulombic efficiency as claimed in claims 14-17 or (b) differences in the properties claimed set forth in the instant claims, would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition is identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the lithium secondary battery of Kim et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the claimed functional properties) would be small and obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights