DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-7, 9, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu (CN112820941 as cited within the IDS), and further in view of Moon (US 2019/0386297).
As to claim 1, Lui discloses a rechargeable lithium battery ([0011], [0025] and discussed throughout), comprising:
a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material ([0058], discussed throughout);
a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material ([0058] and discussed throughout); and
an electrolyte ([0013], and discussed throughout),
wherein:
the electrolyte ([0013] and discussed throughout) comprises:
a lithium salt ([0029], discussed throughout);
a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0030], discussed throughout);
a first additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 ([0022], 1, 1, 2, 2-tetrafluoroethyl 2, 2, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropyl ether and discussed throughout);
a second additive represented by Chemical Formula 2 ([0029] lithium difluorooxalato and discussed throughout); and
a third additive represented by Chemical Formula 3 ([0016], perfluoro-2-methyl-3-pentanone; and discussed throughout):R1—O—R2 Chemical Formula 1
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1,
R1 and R2 are each independently a fluorine atom or a C1 to C10 fluoroalkyl group ([0022], 1, 1, 2, 2-tetrafluoroethyl 2, 2, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropyl ether and discussed throughout);
PNG
media_image1.png
230
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 2,
R3 and R4 are each independently a halogen atom or a C1 to C10 fluoroalkyl group ([0029] lithium difluorooxalato and discussed throughout); and
PNG
media_image2.png
155
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, in n Chemical Formula 3,
R5 and R6 are each independently a fluorine atom or a C1 to C10 fluoroalkyl group ([0016], perfluoro-2-methyl-3-pentanone; and discussed throughout).
Lui is silent to wherein, an active mass density of the negative electrode is greater than or equal to about 1.7 g/cc. Moon discloses a lithium battery ([0006]) wherein, the negative electrode has active mass density in the rage of 1.60 g/cc to about 1.70 g/cc ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the negative electrode active mass density from Moon within Lui because when the negative electrode has active mass density within the foregoing range, the active mass density is high, and accordingly, high energy density and high capacity may be obtained ([0051]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 2, modified Lui discloses wherein, the first additive is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1:
PNG
media_image3.png
227
811
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1-1,
R11 to R15 are each a hydrogen atom or a fluorine atom, provided that at least one selected from R11 to R15 is a fluorine atom; and
R21 to R27 are each a hydrogen atom or a fluorine atom, provided that at least one selected from R21 to R27 is a fluorine atom ([0022], 1, 1, 2, 2-tetrafluoroethyl 2, 2, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropyl ether and discussed throughout).
As to claim 3, modified Lui discloses wherein, the first additive is represented by Chemical Formula 1-1-1:
PNG
media_image4.png
221
810
media_image4.png
Greyscale
([0022], 1, 1, 2, 2-tetrafluoroethyl 2, 2, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropyl ether and discussed throughout).
As to claim 4, modified Lui discloses wherein, both R3 and R4 are fluorine atoms ([0029] lithium difluorooxalato and discussed throughout).
As to claim 5, modified Lui discloses wherein, the third additive is represented by Chemical Formula 3-1:
PNG
media_image5.png
294
782
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 3-1,
R51 to R55 are each a hydrogen atom or a fluorine atom, provided that at least one of R51 to R55 is a fluorine atom; and
R61 to R67 are each a hydrogen atom or a fluorine atom, provided that at least one of R61 to R67 is a fluorine atom ([0016], perfluoro-2-methyl-3-pentanone; and discussed throughout).
As to claim 6, modified Lui discloses wherein, the third additive is represented by Chemical Formula 3-1-1:
PNG
media_image6.png
288
780
media_image6.png
Greyscale
([0016], perfluoro-2-methyl-3-pentanone; and discussed throughout).
As to claim 7, modified Lui discloses wherein, the first additive is included in an amount of about 1 to about 20 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte ([0024], [0031] and discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 9, modified Lui discloses wherein, the third additive is included in an amount of about 1 to about 10 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte ([0024], [0017], [0031] and discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 11, modified Lui discloses wherein, the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a carbonate-based solvent and a propionate-based solvent ([0030], and discussed throughout).
As to claim 13, modified Lui discloses wherein, the lithium salt is LiPF6 ([0029] and discussed throughout).
As to claim 15, modified Lui discloses wherein, the positive electrode active material comprises lithium nickel-based oxide, lithium cobalt-based oxide, lithium manganese-based oxide, a lithium iron phosphate-based compound, cobalt-free lithium nickel-manganese-based oxide, or a combination thereof ([0058] and discussed throughout).
As to claim 16, modified Lui discloses wherein, the negative electrode active material comprises a carbon-based negative electrode active material, a Si-based negative electrode active material, or a combination thereof ([0058] and discussed throughout).
Claims 8, 10, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lui as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Han (US 2024/0283024).
As to claim 8, modified Lui is wherein, the second additive is included in an amount of about 1 to about 10 wt % based on a total amount of the electrolyte. Han discloses an electrolyte for a secondary battery (abstract) wherein lithium oxylyldifluoroborate (lithium difluorooxalato) is used within the electrolyte in a range of 0.01 to 10 wt% bases of the total weight of the electrolyte solution ([0064]-[0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the same amount of lithium difluorooxalato from Han within Lui as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 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 (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 10, modified Lui discloses wherein, about 1 to about 100 parts by weight of the third additive are included based on 10 parts by weight of the first additive ([0024], [0017], [0031] and discussed throughout). Lui is silent to about 1 to about 100 parts by weight of the second additive based on 10 parts by weight of the first additive. Han discloses an electrolyte for a secondary battery (abstract) wherein lithium oxylyldifluoroborate (lithium difluorooxalato the second additive) is used within the electrolyte in a range of 0.01 to 10 wt% bases of the total weight of the electrolyte solution ([0064]-[0068]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the same amount of lithium difluorooxalato from Han within Lui as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 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 (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 12, modified Lui is silent to wherein, the propionate-based solvent is included in an amount of greater than or equal to about 70 volume % based on a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent. Han discloses an electrolyte for a secondary battery (abstract) wherein propionate-based solvent is included in an amount of greater than or equal to about 70 volume % based on a total amount of the non-aqueous organic solvent ([0101], [0106], [0108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the same solvent ratio from Han within Lui as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
As to claim 14, modified Lui discloses wherein, a concentration of the lithium salt is about 0.1 M to about 2.0 M. Han discloses an electrolyte for a secondary battery (abstract) wherein the lithium salt is within the range of 1 M to 3 M ([0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the concentration of the lithium salt from Han within Lui as within the range the electrolyte solution to obtain an optimum effect of forming a film for preventing corrosion of the surface of the electrode ([0030])
As to claim 17, modified Lui is silent to wherein, the rechargeable lithium battery has an upper charge limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.5 V. Han discloses a lithium ion battery (abstract) wherein the battery operating at a voltage of 4.45 V or more ([0104], discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to have Lui operate at the voltage discloses within Han as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights