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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 05/08/2024 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 05/08/2024 were received and are approved by the examiner.
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(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eom et al. (KR20040091288A, Espacenet translation provided for reference).
With respect to claim 1, Eom discloses an electrolyte for lithium secondary batteries ([abstract]), the electrolyte comprising:
a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0011]); and
a lithium salt ([0011]),
wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises 4-fluorotoluene (1F-substituted aromatic solvent, 1-FAS) ([0021]).
With respect to claim 3, Eom discloses the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises dimethoxyethane (1,2-dimethoxyethane) ([0021]).
With respect to claim 5, Eom discloses the lithium salt is LiPF6 ([0021]).
With respect to claim 7, Eom discloses a method of preparing an electrolyte for lithium secondary batteries ([0061]), the method comprising:
preparing a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0011]); and
adding a lithium salt to the non-aqueous organic solvent ([0011]),
wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises 4-fluorotoluene (1F-substituted aromatic solvent, 1-FAS) ([0021]).
With respect to claim 9, Eom discloses the non-aqueous organic solvent further comprises dimethoxyethane (1,2-dimethoxyethane) ([0021]).
With respect to claim 11, Eom discloses the lithium salt is LiPF6 ([0021]).
With respect to claim 13, Eom discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0002]) comprising:
the electrolyte of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1);
a cathode ([0023]); and
an anode ([024]).
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) 4, 6, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 above.
With respect to claims 4 and 10, Eom discloses the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises 4-fluorotoluene and dimethoxyethane (see above rejection of claims 3 and 9), but does not disclose the weight ratio between the two. However, Eom does teach that the inclusion of the 4-fluorotoluene improves the low-temperature characteristics of the solvent system ([0059]). Thus, the amount of the 4-fluorotoluene added is a result-effective variable. Therefore, applicant is reminded that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)). In the instant case, as the workable ranges for the weight ratio between 4-fluorotolune and dimethoxyethane are broad and either component can be present in a greater amount than the other, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to try weight ratios in the claimed range to find an optimum level of low-temperature characteristics within the solvent system.
With respect to claims 6 and 12, Eom discloses the lithium salt is contained at a concentration of 0.6 to 1.5M in the electrolyte([0058]), thus encompassing the claimed range of 0.9 to 1.5M.
Applicant is reminded that 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).
Claim(s) 2 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (U.S. 20010024757).
With respect to claims 2 and 8, Eom discloses 4-fluorotoluene present in an electrolyte (see above rejection of claims 1 and 7), but does not disclose a content of the 4-fluorotoluene is 30 to 70 vol% based on 100 vol% of a total volume of the non-aqueous organic solvent.
Hwang discloses an electrolyte organic solvent including a fluorinated toluene, specifically 4-fluorotoluene ([0019]) and teaches a content of the fluorinated toluene is 5-30% by volume ([0021]), thus coextensively overlapping the claims ranged of 30 to 70 vol %. Hwang further teaches this content range improves the effect of the high-temperature exposure characteristic ([0013]; [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art when the application was effectively filed to include the 4-fluorotoluene disclosed by Eom in the content taught by Hwang in order to improve the effect of the high-temperature exposure characteristic.
Applicant is reminded that 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (U.S. 20110244339).
With respect to claim 14, Eom discloses the cathode can comprise a lithium transition metal composite oxide ([0072]), but does not specifically disclose LiNixMnyCo1-x-yO2 (0≤x≤0.9).
Jeon discloses a battery with an electrolyte comprising 4-fluorotoluene ([0045]) and teaches the cathode active material is Li(Ni.sub.aCo.sub.bMn.sub.c)O.sub.2(0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, a+b+c=1) ([0035]), thus satisfying the lithium transition metal oxide formula as claimed. Jeon further teaches that the Li(Ni.sub.aCo.sub.bMn.sub.c)O.sub.2(0<a<1, 0<b<1, 0<c<1, a+b+c=1) is appropriate for a cathode as it is capable of intercalating and disintercalating lithium ions ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to use the lithium transition metal oxides taught by Jeon as the lithium transition metal oxide in the cathode disclosed by Eom as it is capable of intercalating and disintercalating lithium ions.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eom et al. as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20230044082A; Espacenet translation provided for reference).
With respect to claim 15, Eom discloses the anode comprises graphite ([0066]), but does not disclose the anode comprises silicon (Si), wherein a content of the silicon is 1 to 20 wt% based on a total of 100 wt% of the anode.
Kim discloses an electrolyte for use within a battery comprising 4-fluorotoluene ([0136]) and teaches the anode comprises graphite ([0152]) or graphite and silicon ([0152]), wherein the silicon is present at 11% by weight ([0214]), thus falling into the claimed range of 1 to 20 wt%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to substitute the graphite active material disclosed by Eom with the graphite and silicon active material taught by Kim, as a rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.B).
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
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights