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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US-2024-0405279-A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 23MAY2024 and 22APR2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
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) 1-13, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US-20230121761-A1; “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a lithium secondary battery [0011] including a non-aqueous electrolyte containing an (electrolyte) additive represented by the following chemical formula [0012]:
PNG
media_image1.png
389
1047
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chemical Formula 1 of Lee [0015] - Rl and R2 are each independently an alkylene group having 1 carbon atom [0017] – this forms Chemical Formula 1-2 of Claim 4, shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
315
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chemical Formula 1-2 of Claim 4
A from Claim 1 is an unsubstituted C6 aliphatic ring in Chemical Formula 1 of Lee above; X1 from Claim 1 is O and X2 from Claim 1 is O in Chemical Formula 1 of Lee above.
Lee teaches that the battery may be charged and discharged (rechargeable) [0025]. Moreover, it is important to note wherein the electrolyte additive is for a rechargeable battery relates to the intended use of the device claimed. Structural claims, such as claims directed to an article or apparatus, must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein; see also In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959) ("Claims drawn to an apparatus must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function"); In re Gardiner, 171 F.2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948) ("It is trite to state that the patentability of apparatus claims must be shown in the structure claimed and not merely upon a use, function, or result thereof."). The record fails to establish how the intended use results in a structural difference from the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches A from Claim 2 is a cyclohexane ring (see Chemical Formula 1 of Lee, above wherein Rl and R2 are each independently an alkylene group having 1 carbon atom [0017]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches the electrolyte wherein X1 from Claim 3 is O, X2 from Claim 3 is O (see Chemical Formula 1 of Lee, above wherein Rl and R2 are each independently an alkylene group having 1 carbon atom [0017]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches Chemical Formula 1-2 of Claim 4, which is formed when Rl and R2 are each independently an alkylene group having 1 carbon atom [0017].
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches the lithium secondary battery including a non-aqueous electrolyte including a lithium salt, a (non-aqueous) organic solvent and the Chemical Formula 1 of Lee additive above, wherein Rl and R2 are each independently an alkylene group having 1 carbon atom ([0017], [0031]). Lee teaches A from Claim 5 is an unsubstituted C6 aliphatic ring, wherein X1 is O, X2 is O, wherein the electrolyte is for a rechargeable lithium battery [0031] (see Chemical Formula 1 of Lee above wherein Rl and R2 are each independently an alkylene group having 1 carbon atom [0017]).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches that the content of the additive may be 0.5 wt% to 3 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 wt% to 3.0 wt% [0044]. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode [0013], a negative electrode [0014], and the electrolyte according to claim 5 [0012].
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches that the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium composite transition metal oxide having a nickel content of 70 mol % or more among a total transition metal content (nickel-based) [0093].
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches a lithium-based nickel composite oxide shown below:
Li1+x(NiaCobMnCMd)O2 [Chemical Formula 3 of Lee]
in which x=0, a=0.8, b=0.15, c=0.15, d =0, which are possible values ([0095] – [0098]), resulting in:
Li(Ni0.8Co0.15Mn0.15)O2 ,
which matches a possible chemical formula generated by Chemical Formula 11 of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee teaches a lithium secondary battery including a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0122].
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches that the content of the additive may be 0.5 wt% to 3 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 wt% to 3.0 wt% [0044]. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee teaches that the organic solvent may be a carbonate-based solvent or an ester-based solvent [0079].
Regarding Claim 13, Lee teaches that the organic solvent may be one or more selected from the group consisting of dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) [0081], or ethylene carbonate [0080].
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches that the content of the additive may be 0.5 wt% to 3 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 wt% to 3.0 wt% [0044]. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches the organic solvent may be one or more selected from the group consisting of dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) [0081], or ethylene carbonate [0080].
Regarding Claim 18, Lee teaches the preparation of non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt (LiPF6), a non-aqueous organic solution with a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 of Claim 18 [0132] shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
196
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chemical Formula 1A of Lee, duplicated from [0043], wherein A from Claim 18 is an unsubstituted C5 aliphatic ring, X1 from Claim 18 is O, and X2 from Claim 18 is O
Lee also teaches preparing a positive electrode [0134], preparing a negative electrode [0135], preparing an electrode assembly comprising the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the separator [0136], and injecting the prepared non-aqueous electrode into the electrode assembly [0137].
Regarding Claim 19, Lee teaches 0.5 wt% of the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1A of Lee above, which falls within the claimed range of about 0.05% to about 3.0 wt%, based on total weight (100 wt%) of the electrolyte [0132]. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee teaches that the non-aqueous organic solvent ethylene carbonate (EC): dimethyl carbonate (DMC) was mixed (comprising a carbonate-based solvent) along with propane sultone (an ester-based solvent) [0132].
Claims 1-13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokuda (JP-2015164126-A; “Tokuda”) as evidenced by PubChem (“Pyromellitic dianhydride”; “PubChem”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tokuda teaches an acid anhydride in which R1 and R2 of the following structure are bonded together to form pyromellitic anhydride, whose chemical structure matches that of Chemical Formula 1 of Claim 1, where A from Claim 1 is a benzene ring (second full paragraph of Page 18). The chemical structure of pyromellitic anhydride is shown below as evidenced by PubChem:
PNG
media_image4.png
359
435
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chemical Structure Description from Page 3 of PubChem
Regarding Claim 2, Tokuda teaches A from Claim 2 is a benzene ring (see Chemical Formula 1 of Tokuda, above).
Regarding Claim 3, Tokuda teaches the electrolyte wherein X1 from Claim 3 is O, X2 from Claim 3 is O (see Chemical Structure Description from Page 3 of PubChem).
Regarding Claim 4, Tokuda teaches Chemical Formula 1-1 of Claim 4 (see Chemical Structure Description from Page 3 of PubChem).
Regarding Claim 5, Tokuda teaches the lithium secondary battery including a non-aqueous electrolyte including a lithium salt (last full paragraph of Page 3), an organic solvent (first paragraph of Page 24) and the Chemical Formula 1 additive from Claim 5 above (second full paragraph of Page 6 and see Chemical Structure Description from Page 3 of PubChem). Tokuda teaches pyromellitic anhydride (second full paragraph of Page 18) wherein A from Claim 5 is an unsubstituted C6 aromatic ring, X1 is O, X2 is O, wherein the electrolyte is for a rechargeable lithium battery (see Chemical Formula 1 of Tokuda above).
Regarding Claim 6, Tokuda teaches that the content of the additive may be 0.05 wt% to 1 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 wt% to 3.0 wt% (fourth full paragraph of Page 20). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claim 7, Tokuda teaches a lithium secondary battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and the electrolyte according to claim 5 (third full paragraph of Page 70).
Regarding Claim 8, Tokuda teaches that the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium/nickel (nickel-based) composite oxide (fourth full paragraph of Page 62).
Regarding Claim 9, Tokuda teaches a lithium-based nickel composite oxide shown below:
LiNi0.85Co0.10 Al0. 05O2 (sixth full paragraph of Page 62)
which matches a possible chemical formula generated by Chemical Formula 11 of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, Tokuda teaches that a separator is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (fifth full paragraph of Page 68).
Regarding Claim 11, Tokuda teaches that the content of the additive may be 0.05 wt% to 1 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 wt% to 3.0 wt% (fourth full paragraph of Page 20). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claim 12, Tokuda teaches for the non-aqueous solvent, cyclic carbonates (carbonate-based solvents) (fifth full paragraph of Page 21) and chain carbonates (second full paragraph of Page 22), and chain carboxylic acid esters (ester-based solvents) (first full paragraph of Page 24).
Regarding Claim 13, Tokuda teaches a mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (first and second full paragraph of Page 23).
Regarding Claim 15, Tokuda teaches that the content of the additive may be 0.05 wt% to 1 wt%, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 wt% to 3.0 wt% (fourth full paragraph of Page 20). Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claim 16, Tokuda teaches a mixture of ethylene carbonate (EC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (first and second full paragraph of Page 23).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuda (JP-2015164126-A; “Tokuda”).
Tokuda teaches the limitations of Claims 13 and 16 as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 14 and 17, Tokuda teaches the content of ethylene carbonate may range from 20% by volume (second full paragraph of Page 23).
Tokuda teaches the content of ethyl methyl carbonate ranges from 30% by volume to 45% by volume (second full paragraph of Page 23).
Tokuda teaches the content of dimethyl carbonate ranges from 30% by volume to 45% by volume (second full paragraph of Page 23).
The volume ratio of ethylene carbonate (EC): ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC): dimethyl carbonate (DMC) of 2:(3-4.5):(3-4.5) overlaps with the claimed volume ratio of 2:4:4 for ethylene carbonate (EC): ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC): dimethyl carbonate (DMC).
Tokuda and the claims differ in that Tokuda does not teach the exact same proportions as recited in the instant claims. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by Tokuda overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20060115739-A1 to Yamaguchi A. teaches in the electrolyte solution various additives, including cyclic compounds that may be formed by dehydrating carbonic acids or dehydrating a compound including a carbonic acid and a sulfonic acid, or a compound containing a sulfonic acid and a sulfonic acid [0046]
Teaches pyromellitic dianhydride [0046]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-0315. The examiner can normally be reached 8a.m.-5p.m..
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE/
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights