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 .
Foreign Priority Conditions Not Met
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in
China on 11/20/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202111380965.4 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. In the case of a design application, the certified copy must be filed during the pendency of the application, unless filed with a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(g) together with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g)(1), that includes a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the certified copy of the foreign application. If the certified copy of the foreign application is filed after the date the issue fee is paid, the patent will not include the priority claim unless corrected by a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323.
The Office attempted to electronically retrieve the foreign priority document under the priority document exchange program, but the retrieval attempt failed (see Failure Status Report sent on 7/5/2024). The applicant will need to file the foreign priority document accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the electrolyte lithium salt,” “the organic solvent,” and “the ethylene sulfate.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these three limitations in Claim 7 because the claims upon which it depends (Claims 1 and 4) do not introduce any of these. Claim 5, which depends on Claim 4, does introduce all three of these limitations and no others. Therefore, the examiner will interpret Claim 7 as, “The electrolyte according to claim 5…”.
Claim 8 is rejected as indefinite due its dependence on Claim 7.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsunoda, et al. (JP-2010044883-A in IDS, see machine translation for citation purposes), hereafter referred to as Tsunoda.
Regarding Claim 1, Tsunoda teaches an electrolyte additive composition, comprising: a fluorine-containing pyridine compound having a structure represented by formula (I); and a phosphite compound having a structure represented by formula (II);
wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, halogen, C1 to C20 alkyl, C1 to C20 halogenated alkyl, C6 to C26 aryl, C6 to C26 halogenated aryl, amino, isocyano, and alkoxy [see Formula 5 in original patent document; “In general formula (5), R1 to R5 are each independently a hydrogen atom, a C1-C20 alkyl group, a C2-C20 alkenyl group, a C1-C4 alkoxy group, a C6-C10 aryloxy group, a C2-C8 dialkylamino group, a 3-thienyl group, a cyano group, a fluoro group, a chloro group,” paragraph 56; “Preferred pyridine compounds used in the present invention include 2-propylpyridine, 3-propylpyridine, 4-propylpyridine, 2-isopropylpyridine, 4-isopropylpyridine, 3-butylpyridine, 4-butylpyridine, 4-isobutylpyridine, 2-methyl-5-butylpyridine, 2-tert-butylpyridine, 4-tert-butylpyridine, 2,6-di-tert-butylpyridine, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylpyridine, 2,4,6-tri-tert-butylpyridine, 2-tert-butyl-6-methylpyridine, 2-tert-butyl-4-methylpyridine, and 4-tert-butyl-2 -Methylpyridine, 2-tert-butyl-6-isopropylpyridine, 4-(5-nonyl)pyridine, 2-pentylpyridine, 2-(3-pentyl)pyridine, 4-(3-pentyl)pyridine, 2-hexylpyridine, 4-octylpyridine, 2-undecylpyridine, 2-(1-butylpentyl)pyridine, 4-(1-propenylbutenyl)pyridine, 4-(1-butenylpentenyl)pyridine, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-(dimethylamino)pyridine, 2-(3-thienyl)pyridine, 2-cyanopyridine, 2-fluoropyridine, pentafluoropyridine,” paragraph 372]; and R5, R6, and R7 are each independently selected from the group consisting of C1 to C20 alkyl, C1 to C20 halogenated alkyl, C6 to C26 aryl, and C6 to C26 halogenated aryl (“the trialkyl phosphite is at least one selected from trimethyl phosphite, triethyl phosphite, tri-n-propyl phosphite, and tri-n-butyl phosphite,” paragraph 12).
Tsunoda also teaches that wherein a mass ratio of the fluorine-containing pyridine compound to the phosphite compound is (3 to 10): 1 [“The content of trialkyl phosphite is preferably 0.001% to 10% by mass relative to the total non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 251; “The content of the compound represented by the general formula (5), which is the third component, is preferably 0.001% to 10% by mass relative to the entire non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 380, where general formula 5 is the pyridine-based template]. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 2, Tsunoda teaches he electrolyte additive composition according to claim 1, wherein the fluorine-containing pyridine compound is selected from the group consisting of F1-F9 [see Formula 5; “In general formula (5), R1 to R5 are each independently a hydrogen atom, a C1-C20 alkyl group, a C2-C20 alkenyl group, a C1-C4 alkoxy group, a C6-C10 aryloxy group, a C2-C8 dialkylamino group, a 3-thienyl group, a cyano group, a fluoro group, a chloro group,” paragraph 56, “Preferred pyridine compounds used in the present invention include 2-propylpyridine, 3-propylpyridine, 4-propylpyridine, 2-isopropylpyridine, 4-isopropylpyridine, 3-butylpyridine, 4-butylpyridine, 4-isobutylpyridine, 2-methyl-5-butylpyridine, 2-tert-butylpyridine, 4-tert-butylpyridine, 2,6-di-tert-butylpyridine, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylpyridine, 2,4,6-tri-tert-butylpyridine, 2-tert-butyl-6-methylpyridine, 2-tert-butyl-4-methylpyridine, and 4-tert-butyl-2 -Methylpyridine, 2-tert-butyl-6-isopropylpyridine, 4-(5-nonyl)pyridine, 2-pentylpyridine, 2-(3-pentyl)pyridine, 4-(3-pentyl)pyridine, 2-hexylpyridine, 4-octylpyridine, 2-undecylpyridine, 2-(1-butylpentyl)pyridine, 4-(1-propenylbutenyl)pyridine, 4-(1-butenylpentenyl)pyridine, 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-(dimethylamino)pyridine, 2-(3-thienyl)pyridine, 2-cyanopyridine, 2-fluoropyridine, pentafluoropyridine,” paragraph 372].
Regarding Claim 3, Tsunoda teaches the electrolyte additive composition according to claim 1, wherein the phosphite compound is selected from the group consisting of P1-P9 (“the trialkyl phosphite is at least one selected from trimethyl phosphite, triethyl phosphite, tri-n-propyl phosphite, and tri-n-butyl phosphite,” paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsunoda teaches an electrolyte, comprising the electrolyte additive composition according to claim 1 (“The object of the present invention is to provide a non-aqueous electrolyte and a lithium secondary battery using the same non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Tsunoda teaches a lithium secondary battery, comprising the electrolyte according to claim 4 (“The object of the present invention is to provide a non-aqueous electrolyte and a lithium secondary battery using the same non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 5).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda in view of Wang, et al. (WO-2018120787-A1 in IDS, see machine translation for citation purposes), hereafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding Claim 5, Tsunoda teaches the electrolyte according to claim 4, further comprising an electrolyte lithium salt (“In the non-aqueous electrolyte of the present invention, various known electrolytes can be used, and any electrolyte that is commonly used for non-aqueous electrolytes can be used,” paragraph 272; “In addition, lithium salts represented by the following general formula can also be used,” paragraph 272), an organic solvent (“Examples of cyclic aprotic solvents include cyclic carbonates such as ethylene carbonate, cyclic carboxylic acid esters such as γ-butyrolactone, cyclic sulfones such as sulfolane, and cyclic ethers such as dioxolane,” paragraph 254).
Tsunoda does not teach adding ethylene sulfate. However, Wang teaches an electrolyte comprising an electrolyte salt, organic solvent, and cyclic sulfate. Therein, Wang specifically teaches that the cyclic sulfate can be ethylene sulfate (“In the electrolyte according to the first aspect of the invention, the cyclic sulfate is selected from one or more compounds represented by Formula II,” paragraph 21; “In the electrolyte according to the first aspect of the invention, specifically, the cyclic sulfate is selected from one or more of the following compounds,” paragraph 23, where compound 1 is ethylene sulfate, shown in the original patent document). Wang teaches the benefit of adding such a compound, “Cyclic sulfates have a high reduction potential and can preferentially form a film on the negative electrode surface, inhibiting the reduction of carboxylic acid ester compounds, thereby improving the cycle performance of secondary batteries,” paragraph 13.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the electrolyte taught by Tsunoda and modify it to include ethylene sulfate in order to improve the cycle performance of the secondary battery, as taught by Wang. Furthermore, the instant application also notes that ethylene sulfate “, as a commonly used low-resistance and high-performance functional electrolyte additive in the electrolyte, has become an indispensable substance in the electrolyte,” paragraph 6, indicating that the compound is well-established as an electrolyte additive prior to the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Tsunoda modified by Wang teaches the electrolyte according to claim 5, wherein: the organic solvent is at least two selected from ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, ethyl acetate, and propyl acetate (“Specifically, the organic solvent may also include one or more of ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), butyl carbonate, amyl carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate (DEC), dipropyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate, γ-butyrolactone, and tetrahydrofuran,” paragraph 31);
and the electrolyte lithium salt is selected from the group consisting of lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium bis(oxalate) borate, lithium difluorophosphate, lithium difluoro(oxalato) phosphate, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, and combinations thereof [“lithium salts are particularly preferred as electrolytes, and even more preferably LiPF6, LiBF4, LiOSO2CkF2k+1 (K = integer from 1 to 8), LiClO4, LiAsF6, LiNSO2[CkF2k+1]2 (k = integer from 1 to 8), and LiPFn[CkF2k+1]6-n (n = 1 to 5, k = integer from 1 to 8),” paragraph 274].
Regarding Claim 7, Tsunoda modified by Wang teaches the electrolyte according to claim 5, wherein: Tsunoda teaches a concentration of the electrolyte lithium salt in the organic solvent ranges from 0.8 mol/L to 1.5 mol/L (“lithium salts are particularly preferred as electrolytes,” paragraph 274; “Such electrolytes are preferably contained in a non-aqueous electrolyte at a concentration of 0.1 to 3 moles/liter, preferably 0.5 to 2 moles/liter,” paragraph 276) and an addition amount of the electrolyte additive composition accounts for 0.05% to 1.5% of a total mass of the electrolyte [“The content of trialkyl phosphite is preferably 0.001% to 10% by mass relative to the total non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 251; “The content of the compound represented by the general formula (5), which is the third component, is preferably 0.001% to 10% by mass relative to the entire non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 380, where general formula 5 is the pyridine-based template]. Wang teaches an addition amount of the ethylene sulfate accounts for 0.5% to 3% of the total mass of the electrolyte (“Preferably, the content of the cyclic sulfate is 1% to 5% of the total weight of the electrolyte,” paragraph 29). Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 8, Tsunoda modified by Wang teaches the electrolyte according to claim 7, wherein: an addition amount of the fluorine-containing pyridine compound having the structure represented by formula (I) accounts for 0.03% to 1% of the total mass of the electrolyte [“The content of the compound represented by the general formula (5), which is the third component, is preferably 0.001% to 10% by mass relative to the entire non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 380, where general formula 5 is the pyridine-based template]; and an addition amount of the phosphite compound having the structure represented by formula (II) accounts for 0.01% to 0.1% of the total mass of the electrolyte (“The content of trialkyl phosphite is preferably 0.001% to 10% by mass relative to the total non-aqueous electrolyte,” paragraph 251). Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 9 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunoda in view of Cui, et al. (CN-113451646-A in IDS, see machine translation for citation purposes), hereafter referred to as Cui.
Regarding Claim 9, Tsunoda teaches the electrolyte according to claim 4, but not further comprising a functional additive selected from at least one of tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate, tris(trimethylsilyl)borate, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, ethylene carbonate, vinyl ethylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, and 1,3-propane sultone. However, Cui teaches an electrolyte containing a phosphorous-containing additive, pyridine additive, and lithium electrolyte salt. Therein, Cui teaching adding a function additive selected from the group above (“The boron-based lithium salt is one or more of lithium bis(oxalate)borate, lithium difluorooxalateborate, lithium difluorodimalonateborate, and lithium tetrafluoroborate, preferably one or more of lithium bis(oxalate)borate and lithium difluorooxalateborate,” paragraph n0006). Cui teaches the benefit is that “the addition of lithium difluorooxalateborate can preferentially form a passivation film rich in Al-F, B-O/B-F and Al2O3 on the surface of the positive electrode, effectively inhibiting the corrosion of aluminum current collector,” paragraph 18.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the electrolyte taught by Tsunoda and modify the electrolyte to include the functional additive lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate to inhibit corrosion of the current collector, as taught by Cui.
Regarding Claim 10, Tsunoda modified by Cui teach the electrolyte according to claim 9, wherein Cui further teaches an addition amount of the functional additive accounts for 0.5% to 5% of the total mass of the electrolyte [“lithium difluorooxalate borate (1 wt% of electrolyte weight),” paragraph 27].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights