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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by A. Hofmann, A. Höweling, N. Bohn, M. Müller, J. R. Binder, T. Hanemann, ChemElectroChem 2019, 6, 5255.
Regarding claim 1, Hofmann discloses an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery (see Title, Abstract), the electrolyte comprising:
a lithium salt (lithium bis(oxalato) borate, lithium difluoro(oxalato) borate, LiPF6, see Abstract);
a non-aqueous organic solvent (electrolyte mixture of DMC/EC, see Abstract); and
additives comprising 1-vinyl-1,2,4-triazole (1-vinyl-1,2,4-triazole, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hofmann further discloses the lithium salt comprises LiPF6 (LiPF6, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hofmann further discloses the electrolyte comprises the lithium salt at a concentration of 0.8 to 3.0 M (1M, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Hofmann discloses a method of producing an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery (see Title, Abstract), the method comprising:
preparing a non-aqueous organic solvent (electrolyte mixture of DMC/EC, see Abstract); and
adding a lithium salt and additives to the non-aqueous organic solvent (lithium bis(oxalato) borate, lithium difluoro(oxalato) borate, LiPF6, additives, see Abstract),
wherein the additives comprise 1-vinyl-1,2,4-triazole (1-vinyl-1,2,4-triazole, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hofmann further discloses the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises at least one selected from a non-aqueous organic solvent group consisting of ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and mixtures thereof (electrolyte mixture of DMC/EC, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hofmann further discloses the lithium salt comprises LiPF6 (LiPF6, see Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hofmann further discloses the adding the lithium salt and the additives comprises adding the lithium salt at a concentration of 0.8 to 3.0 M based on the electrolyte (1M, see Abstract).
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.
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(s) 4-8, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. Hofmann, A. Höweling, N. Bohn, M. Müller, J. R. Binder, T. Hanemann, ChemElectroChem 2019, 6, 5255., as applied to claims 1-3, 9-12 above, in view of Takehara et al. (US 2003/0165733A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hofmann does not disclose content of the 1-vinyl-1,2,4-triazole is 0.05 to 0.2 wt % based on 100 wt % in total of the electrolyte.
Because Takehara discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte solution including compounds having five-membered aromatic ring skeleton containing three of more nitrogen atoms in a content of 0.01 to 10% by weight, in case where the amount thereof is too small, a sufficient coating film cannot be formed and when the amount thereof is too large, there are cases where the heterocyclic compounds remaining after coating film formation exert adverse influences on cell characteristics (Title, Abstract, [0040]-[0043]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the additive amount in order to arrive at desired film-forming properties while not exerting adverse effects (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hofmann does not disclose the additives further comprise vinylene carbonate.
Takehara discloses further including a film-forming agent such as vinylene carbonate because a film-forming agent which is thought to form a coating film on electrode surfaces to inhibit solvent decomposition on the electrodes, an overcharge inhibitor, a dehydrant, a deoxidizer, and the like ([0081]-[0082]).
Hofmann and Takehara are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hofmann by incorporating vinylene carbonate as an electrolyte additive because Takehara teaches inhibiting solvent decomposition on the electrodes, acting as an overcharge inhibitor, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hofmann does not disclose content of the vinylene carbonate is 1.0 to 2.5 wt % based on 100 wt % in total of the electrolyte.
Because Takehara discloses the film-forming agent may be incorporated into the nonaqueous solvent in an amount of from 0.1 to 10% by weight, more preferably from 0.1 to 8% by weight, whereby the capacity retention and cycle characteristics of the battery become satisfactory ([0082]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the film-forming agent amount in order to achieve satisfactory capacity retention and cycle characteristics (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hofmann does not disclose the additives further comprise 1,3-propane sultone.
Takehara discloses further including a film-forming agent such as propanesultone because a film-forming agent which is thought to form a coating film on electrode surfaces to inhibit solvent decomposition on the electrodes, an overcharge inhibitor, a dehydrant, a deoxidizer, and the like ([0081]-[0082]).
Hofmann and Takehara are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hofmann by incorporating propanesultone as an electrolyte additive because Takehara teaches inhibiting solvent decomposition on the electrodes, acting as an overcharge inhibitor, etc.
Regarding claim 8, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hofmann does not disclose content of the 1,3-propane sultone is 1.0 to 1.5 wt % based on 100 wt % in total of the electrolyte.
Because Takehara discloses the film-forming agent may be incorporated into the nonaqueous solvent in an amount of from 0.1 to 10% by weight, more preferably from 0.1 to 8% by weight, whereby the capacity retention and cycle characteristics of the battery become satisfactory ([0082]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the film-forming agent amount in order to achieve satisfactory capacity retention and cycle characteristics (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hofmann does not disclose the adding the lithium salt and the additives comprises adding the 1-vinyl-1,2,4-triazole by 0.05 to 0.2 wt % based on 100 wt % in total of the electrolyte.
Because Takehara discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte solution including compounds having five-membered aromatic ring skeleton containing three of more nitrogen atoms in a content of 0.01 to 10% by weight, in case where the amount thereof is too small, a sufficient coating film cannot be formed and when the amount thereof is too large, there are cases where the heterocyclic compounds remaining after coating film formation exert adverse influences on cell characteristics (Title, Abstract, [0040]-[0043]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the additive amount in order to arrive at desired film-forming properties while not exerting adverse effects (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hofmann does not disclose the additives further comprise vinylene carbonate.
Takehara discloses further including a film-forming agent such as vinylene carbonate because a film-forming agent which is thought to form a coating film on electrode surfaces to inhibit solvent decomposition on the electrodes, an overcharge inhibitor, a dehydrant, a deoxidizer, and the like ([0081]-[0082]).
Hofmann and Takehara are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hofmann by incorporating vinylene carbonate as an electrolyte additive because Takehara teaches inhibiting solvent decomposition on the electrodes, acting as an overcharge inhibitor, etc.
Regarding claim 15, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hofmann does not disclose the adding the lithium salt and the additives comprises adding the vinylene carbonate by 1.0 to 2.5 wt % based on 100 wt % in total of the electrolyte.
Because Takehara discloses the film-forming agent may be incorporated into the nonaqueous solvent in an amount of from 0.1 to 10% by weight, more preferably from 0.1 to 8% by weight, whereby the capacity retention and cycle characteristics of the battery become satisfactory ([0082]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the film-forming agent amount in order to achieve satisfactory capacity retention and cycle characteristics (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hofmann does not disclose the additives further comprise 1,3-propane sultone.
Takehara discloses further including a film-forming agent such as propanesultone because a film-forming agent which is thought to form a coating film on electrode surfaces to inhibit solvent decomposition on the electrodes, an overcharge inhibitor, a dehydrant, a deoxidizer, and the like ([0081]-[0082]).
Hofmann and Takehara are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrolytes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hofmann by incorporating propanesultone as an electrolyte additive because Takehara teaches inhibiting solvent decomposition on the electrodes, acting as an overcharge inhibitor, etc.
Regarding claim 17, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Hofmann does not disclose the adding the lithium salt and the additives comprises adding the 1,3-propane sultone by 1.0 to 1.5 wt % based on 100 wt % in total of the electrolyte.
Because Takehara discloses the film-forming agent may be incorporated into the nonaqueous solvent in an amount of from 0.1 to 10% by weight, more preferably from 0.1 to 8% by weight, whereby the capacity retention and cycle characteristics of the battery become satisfactory ([0082]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the film-forming agent amount in order to achieve satisfactory capacity retention and cycle characteristics (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. Hofmann, A. Höweling, N. Bohn, M. Müller, J. R. Binder, T. Hanemann, ChemElectroChem 2019, 6, 5255., as applied to claims 1-3, 9-12 above, in view of Cheng et al. (US 2009/0220858A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hofmann further discloses a lithium secondary battery (see Title, Abstract) comprising:
the electrolyte for the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and
a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material that contains any one of a carbon-based material, a silicon-based material, or mixtures thereof (graphite, see Abstract).
However, Hofmann does not disclose a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material that contains a material represented by chemical formula 1;LiFeMPO4 [Chemical formula 1]
where, M is Ni, Co, Mn, Cr, Zr, Nb, Cu, V, Ti, Zn, Al, Ga and Mg.
Cheng discloses a composite lithium compound having a mixed crystalline structure which exhibits superior electrical property and is a better cathode material for lithium secondary batteries (see Title, Abstract). Cheng further discloses the lithium iron phosphate cathode material can further include carbon coating on the exterior surfaces of the sintered product ([0038]).
Hofmann and Cheng are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hofmann by further incorporating lithium iron phosphate including a carbon coating in the cathode active material because Cheng teaches superior electrical property and obtaining a better cathode material.
Regarding claim 19, Hofmann discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Cheng further discloses the positive electrode active material is superficially coated with carbon ([0038]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 8/5/2026
Prosecution Insights