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 § 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170288268), hereinafter Kim, in view of Zheng et al. (Zheng et al., 2018), hereinafter Zheng, in further view of Shi et al. (Shi et al., 2005), hereinafter Shi, in further view of Dai et al. (US 20220407112), hereinafter Dai.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches:
An electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising (Abstract):
a lithium salt (Abstract);
a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0008]);
Kim fails to teach:
a first additive represented by Chemical Formula 1;
a second additive represented by Chemical Formula 2:
Chemical Formula 1
PNG
media_image1.png
88
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R1 is a hydrogen atom or a C1 to C10 alkyl group;
and x, y, and z are each independently integers from 1 to 20;
Chemical Formula 2,
PNG
media_image2.png
124
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
R2 and R3 are each independently a halogen atom, or a C1 to C10 fluoroalkyl group.
Zheng teaches:
An electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising (Abstract):
a lithium salt (Experimental, LiPF6);
a non-aqueous organic solvent (Experimental, PC, DMC);
a first additive represented by Chemical Formula 1 (Experimental);
Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
88
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R1 is a hydrogen atom or a C1 to C10 alkyl group (Experimental, methyl = C1, PEG-PPG-PEG);
Shi teaches:
Chemical Formula 1 (Pluronic copolymer L31):
PNG
media_image1.png
88
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and x, y, and z are each independently integers from 1 to 20 (Pluronic copolymer L31, EO2PO16EO2).
Dai teaches:
a second additive represented by Chemical Formula 2 ([0006]);
Chemical Formula 2,
PNG
media_image2.png
124
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
R2 and R3 are each independently a halogen atom, or a C1 to C10 fluoroalkyl group ([0006], LiDFOB, two fluorine substituents).
Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolytes and additives for rechargeable lithium batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrolyte of Kim to include the PEG-PPG-PEG triblock polyether taught by Zheng and the second additive taught by Dai, and to select the EO2PO16EO2 PEG-PPG-PEG species taught by Shi, because Zheng teaches that PEG-PPG-PEG triblock polyether’s are useful electrolyte additives for improving separator wettability and suppressing lithium dendrite growth, while Dai teaches the use of claimed formula 2 additive in a lithium battery electrolyte. Shi further demonstrates that PEG-PPG-PEG copolymers having different EO and PO block lengths, including EO2PO16EO2, were known members of the same class of triblock copolymers. Thus, selecting EO2PO16EO2 as the PEG-PPG-PEG additive and incorporating the Formula 2 additive of Dai into Kim’s known lithium battery electrolyte would have been the use of known additives for their known purposes, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim fails to teach R1 is a methyl group.
Zheng teaches R1 is a methyl group (Experimental, methyl = C1).
Kim and Zheng are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolytes and additives for rechargeable lithium batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrolyte of Kim to include the PEG-PPG-PEG triblock polyether taught by Zheng, because Zheng teaches that PEG-PPG-PEG triblock polyether’s are useful electrolyte additives for improving separator wettability and suppressing lithium dendrite growth.
Regarding claim 3, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim fails to teach a number average molecular weight of the first additive is about 500 to about 10,000 g/mol.
Zheng teaches a number average molecular weight of the first additive is about 5,800 g/mol (Experimental).
Kim and Zheng are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolytes and additives for rechargeable lithium batteries. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a molecular weight of the first additive within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 4, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim fails to teach both R2 and R3 are fluorine atoms.
Dai teaches R2 and R3 are fluorine atoms (R2 and R3 are fluorine atoms).
Kim and Dai are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolytes and additives for rechargeable lithium batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the electrolyte of Kim to include the Formula 2 additive taught by Dai because Dai expressly teaches incorporating oxalatoborate-based compounds, including LiDFOB, into lithium battery electrolyte as additives for improving battery lifespan and high-temperature storage characteristics by coordinating with the cathode surface and suppressing gas generation resulting from decomposition reactions between the electrolyte solvent and the cathode surface ([0025-0028]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim fails to teach the first additive is included in an amount of about 0.1 to about 5 wt% based on a total amount of the electrolyte.
Zheng teaches the first additive is included in an amount of about 0.1 to about 5 wt% based on a total amount of the electrolyte (0.2-1% wt).
Kim and Zheng are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolytes and additives for rechargeable lithium batteries. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a weight percentage of the first additive within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 6, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim fails to teach the second additive is included in an amount of about 0.1 to about 5 wt% based on a total amount of the electrolyte.
Dai teaches the second additive is included in an amount of about 0.1 to about 5 wt% based on a total amount of the electrolyte ([0036]).
Kim and Dai are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolytes and additives for rechargeable lithium batteries. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a weight percentage of the second additive within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 7, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. With respect to the additional limitation of claim 7, Zheng and Shi teach incorporating the first additive, P123/L31, into the electrolyte, while Dai teaches incorporating the second additive into a lithium battery electrolyte.
Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolytes and additives for rechargeable lithium batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to select and appropriate weight ratio of the first additive to the second additive because the relative amounts of electrolyte additives are result-effective variables that would have been routinely optimized to obtain the desired electrolyte and battery properties. In particular, varying the relative concentration of the additives would have been expected to affect properties such as separator wettability, lithium dendrite suppression, electrolyte stability, and battery performance. A skilled artisan would therefore have been motivated to adjust the relative amount of the first and second additives through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve a desired balance of their respective effects. Selecting a particular ratio within the claimed range would have been an optimization of a result-effective variable and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence of unexpected results of attributable to the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 8, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim teaches the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a carbonate-based solvent and a propionate-based solvent (Abstract, [0041-0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim teaches 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 ([0041-0042], 10-80%). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a volume percentage of the non-aqueous organic solvent within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 10, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim teaches the lithium salt is LiPF6 ([0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim teaches a concentration of the lithium salt is about 0.1 M to about 2.0 M ([0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim teaches:
A positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material ([0025]);
a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material ([0025]);
The electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 ([0025]).
Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrolytes and additives for rechargeable lithium batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to use the electrolyte taught by the combination of Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi in the rechargeable lithium battery of Kim because Kim expressly teaches using the disclosed electrolyte in a rechargeable lithium battery having positive and negative electrodes. Further, Kim teaches that the disclosed electrolyte is intended to improve the performance and durability of rechargeable lithium batteries.
Regarding claim 13, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim teaches:
The positive electrode active material comprises ([0025]):
lithium nickel-based oxide ([0004]),
lithium cobalt-based oxide ([0004]),
lithium manganese-based oxide ([0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim teaches:
The negative electrode active material comprises ([0004]):
a carbon-based negative electrode active material ([0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim, Zheng, Dai, and Shi teach the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Kim teaches the rechargeable lithium battery has an upper charge limit voltage of greater than or equal to about 4.4 V ([0026]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select upper charge limit voltage within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights