DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim 5 recites and depicts a Chemical Formula 1-3. However, claim 5 recites that the alkyl fluorinated propionate is represented only by Chemical Formula 1-1 or 1-2. It is unclear if the alkyl fluorinated propionate can also be represented by Chemical Formula 1-3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smart et al. (US-20080305401-A1, hereinafter “Smart”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Smart is directed to an electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery that can be charged and discharged ([0008]) (i.e., an electrolyte for a rechargeable lithium battery), and discloses that the electrolyte comprises:
A co-solvents comprising ethylene carbonate (EC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), and a fluorinated ester solvent (i.e., non-aqueous organic solvents, and meets the recited non-aqueous organic solvent further comprising a carbonate-based solvent in claim 11), wherein a lithium salt is dissolved into the co-solvent (i.e., a non-aqueous organic solvent and a lithium salt) (lines 1-4 of [0010] and lines 1-4 of [0012]); and
A co-solvent embodiment comprising a fluoroester solvent such as methyl pentafluoropropionate (i.e., alkyl fluorinated propionate). Other non-fluorinated ester co-solvents may also be used such as propyl propionate (i.e., the non-aqueous organic solvent includes two or more propionate-based solvents, and the propionate-based solvents comprise alkyl fluorinated propionate and propyl propionate) (lines 1-2 and 12 of [0012] and lines 1-6 of [0049]).
Regarding claims 2-5, Smart discloses using a co-solvent comprising an alkyl fluorinated propionate such as methyl pentafluoropropionate, which meets the structure of Chemical Formula 1 in claim 2 and is the molecule depicted in Chemical Formula 1-2 in claim 5. Methyl pentafluoropropionate has a methyl group bonded to an oxygen that has a single bond with carbon 1 of the propionate chain (i.e., R1 in claim 2 and claim 3). Methyl pentafluoropropionate features a propionate chain wherein all five hydrogens on carbons 2 and 3 are replaced by fluorine atoms (i.e., X1 to X5 in claim 2 and claim 4).
Regarding claims 6-8, Smart discloses a volume % of the fluorinated ester co-solvent (i.e., alkyl fluorinated propionate) to vary between 5% to 80% (i.e., the alkyl fluorinated propionate is included in an amount of about 1 volume% to about 30 volume% based on 100 volume% of the non-aqueous organic solvent in claim 6) and the non-fluorinated ester co-solvent, such as propyl propionate, to vary between 10% to 80% of the co-solvent’s volume (i.e., propyl propionate is included in an amount of about 30 volume% to about 90 volume% based on 100 volume% of the non-aqueous organic solvent in claim 7) ([0049]). Therefore, the volume ratio of the fluorinated ester co-solvent to the propyl propionate may vary between about 1:0.1 and 1:16, calculated by using the upper and lower bounds of the volume %s (i.e., a volume ratio of the alkyl fluorinated propionate and the propyl propionate is about 1:1 to about 1:9 in claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, Smart discloses that the solvent can further comprise one or more of non-fluorinated ester co-solvents that include ethyl propionate, methyl propionate, and propyl propionate (i.e., propionate-based solvent further comprises methyl propionate, ethyl propionate, or a combination thereof) (Smart, claim 6 on pg. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Smart discloses a volume % of the fluorinated ester co-solvent, such as methyl pentafluoropropionate, to vary between 5% to 80% and the non-fluorinated ester co-solvent, such as propyl propionate, to vary between 10% to 80% of the co-solvent’s volume. Therefore, the minimum volume % of propionate-based solvent is 15% of the co-solvent’s volume. The ethyl carbonate and methyl ethyl carbonate solvent can each have as little as 10% volume ([0012] and [0049]), therefore the minimum volume % of carbonate-based solvent is 20% and a maximum volume % of propionate-based solvent is 80% of the co-solvent’s volume. Thus, the volume % range of propionate-based solvent is between 15% and 80% of the co-solvent’s volume (i.e., the propionate-based solvent is included in an amount of about 50 to about 90 volume% based on 100 volume% of the non-aqueous organic solvent).
Regarding claim 12, Smart discloses that the carbonate-based solvent has a minimum of 20% and a maximum of 85% of the co-solvent’s volume, and the propionate-based solvent has a minimum of 15% and a maximum of 80% of the co-solvent’s volume, as set forth above ([0012] and [0049]). Thus, the volume ratio of carbonate-based solvent to propionate-based solvent can range between about 1:0.2 and 1:4, calculated by using the upper and lower bounds of the volume %s (i.e., volume ratio of the carbonate-based solvent and the propionate-based solvent is about 1:2 to about 1:3).
Regarding claim 13, Smart discloses that the lithium salt can be lithium hexafluoro phosphate (LiPF6) (lines 1-2 of [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, Smart disclose the use of vinylene carbonate (VC) as an effective additive (i.e., the electrolyte further comprises a carbonate-based additive) (lines 7-10 of [0031]).
Regarding claims 15, 17, and 18, Smart discloses a rechargeable lithium-ion battery comprising a cathode and an anode with an electrolyte (i.e., a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material; a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material; and the electrolyte as claimed in claim 1 of claim 15). The cathode can comprise of lithium cobalt oxide (i.e., the positive electrode active material comprises a lithium cobalt oxide in claim 17) (lines 1-7 of [0008] and lines 2-6 of [0009]). The anode can comprise of graphite (i.e., the negative electrode active material comprises graphite in claim 18) (Smart, claim 4 on pg. 7).
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 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smart as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 16, Smart does not disclose a rechargeable lithium battery having a charging voltage of about 4.5 V or more. However, Smart does disclose all of the recited structural limitations of the claimed rechargeable lithium battery and the electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect that the electrolyte disclosed by Smart could work with the disclosed rechargeable lithium battery at a charging voltage of about 4.5 V or more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1950. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am-4pm; Fri 7am-11a.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/NATHAN NGOC-NGOC HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights