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 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (WO 2018/048189A). The English machine translation of Kim et al. is attached and cited below.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt, a non-aqueous organic solvent and an electrolyte additive (Para. [0011]) wherein the additive comprises an anion derived from a nitrogen-atom containing compound a salt of Cs and a lithium compound for forming a film (Para. [0016]) wherein the salt of the anion derived from the nitrogen atom-containing compound and Cs comprises cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Para. [0035]) (i.e. a compound containing a pair of cesium cation and an anion represented by Formula 1 as claimed wherein R1 and R2 are branched alkyl groups containing a halogen substituent with 1 carbon atom and h is 1) and the lithium compound for forming a film is LiTFSI (Para. [0036]) (i.e. a compound containing a pair of lithium cation and an anion represented by Formula 1 as claimed wherein R1 and R2 are branched alkyl groups containing a halogen substituent with 1 carbon atom and h is 1).
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2018/048189A). The English machine translation of Kim et al. is attached and cited 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 (Para. [0011]) wherein the additive comprises an anion derived from a nitrogen-atom containing compound a salt of Cs and a lithium compound for forming a film (Para. [0016]) wherein the salt of the anion derived from the nitrogen atom-containing compound and Cs comprises cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Para. [0035]) (i.e. a second additive, the second additive contains a compound having an atomic group with 3 to 5 atoms and a symmetric structure, the atomic group having 2 to 4 atoms with electronegativity of 3 or more and having at least one double bond) and the lithium compound for forming a film is LiTFSI (Para. [0036]) (i.e. wherein the first additive contains a compound containing a pair of lithium cation and an anion represented by Formula 1, wherein R1 and R2 are branched alkyl groups containing a halogen substituent with 1 carbon atom and h is 1) wherein the content of the additive is 0.1 to 3 wt% based on a total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0043]) (i.e. it is inherent that the first additive is in an amount of 15 weight% or less based on 100 weight% of the electrolyte and the amount of the second additive [cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide] is at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of 0.01 to 10 weight% based on 100 weight of the electrolyte). 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).
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 the lithium compound for forming a film is LiTFSI (Para. [0036]) (i.e. wherein in the anion represented by formula 1, the halogen substituent if fluorine).
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 the lithium compound for forming a film is LiTFSI (Para. [0036]) (i.e. wherein the first additive is a compound containing a pair of a lithium cation and an anion represented by Formula 3 as claimed, wherein h as claimed is 1).
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. [0035]) (i.e. the second additive has an atomic group represented by Formula 6 as claimed).
Regarding Claim 5, 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. [0035]) (i.e. the second additive containing a pair of a cation selected from the group of alkali metal ions excluding lithium and an anion represented by Formula 1 as claimed wherein R1 and R2 are branched alkyl groups containing a halogen substituent with 1 carbon atom and h is 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Para. [0035]) (i.e. wherein in the anion represented by Formula 1, the halogen substituent is fluorine).
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 cesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Para. [0035]) (i.e. wherein the second additive is a compound containing a pair of a cation of cesium and at least one anion represented by Formula 3 as claimed wherein h is 1).
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 the additive containing the salt of Cs and the lithium compound for film formation is included in a weight ratio of 1:1-1:4 (Para. [0042]) (i.e. wherein the first additive and the second additive are included in a weight ratio overlapping with the claimed range of 1:0.5 to 2.5). 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).
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 the lithium salt includes LiPF6, LiBF4, LiSbF6, LiAlO-4, LiAlCl4, LiClO4 (Para. [0046]).
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 organic solvent is ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, butylene carbonate (Para. [0048]), dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethylmethyl carbonate, methylpropylcarbonate, ethylpropylcarbonate (Para. [0049]) (i.e. includes at least two of the compounds in claim 10).
Regarding Claim 11, 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 includes LiPO2F2 (i.e. at least one third additive phosphorus compound) (Para. [0036]) and the content of the additive is 0.1 to 3 wt% based on a total amount of the non-aqueous electrolyte (Para. [0043]) (i.e. it is inherent that the third additive is in an amount of 10 weight% or less based on 100 weight% of the electrolyte).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches the additive containing the salt of Cs and the lithium compound for film formation is included in a weight ratio of 1:1-1:4 (Para. [0042]) (i.e. wherein the compound containing a pair of lithium cation and anion represented by Formula 1 and the compound containing a pair of cesium cation and an anion represented by Formula 1 are included in a weight ratio overlapping with the claimed range of 1:0.5 to 2.5). 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).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the electrolyte in claim 1 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches a lithium secondary battery including 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 Claims 15-18, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the electrolyte in claim 14 as explained above.
Kim et al. teaches the identical composition as claimed as explained in the rejection to claim 14 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 15-18 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).
Regarding Claims 19, Kim et al. teaches all of the elements of the electrolyte in claim 14 as explained above.
Kim et al. further teaches use of the lithium secondary batteries for low and high-temperature storage (Para. [0045], [0077]) (i.e. wherein the secondary battery is a battery for an energy storage system).
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