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 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "the fifth additive." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Claim 18 depends from Claim 10 (instead of Claim 7), given that Claim 10 initially references the presence of “a fifth additive.”
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)(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.
Claims 1-6, 11-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al. (CN 111740163, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Cao teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte solution for a lithium secondary battery, and a lithium secondary battery comprising the nonaqueous electrolyte solution ([0002], [0050]-[0053]). In an embodiment (i.e. Example 9), Cao teaches that the electrolyte solution comprises an EC/PC/DEC/EP solvent (“organic solvent”), LiPF6 (“lithium salt”), tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphite (i.e. TMSP) (“first additive” represented by “Formula 1” with “R1” being a methyl group), 1,3-propanesulfonate lactone (i.e. 1,3-propane sultone, or PS) (“second additive” represented by “Formula 2” with “n” being 1), and vinylene carbonate (“third additive” which is “vinylene carbonate”) ([0050]-[0053], Table 1, Example 9).
Regarding Claim 2, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Cao teaches that the electrolyte solution comprises tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphite (i.e. TMSP) (“first additive” represented by “Formula 1” with “R1” being a methyl group).
Regarding Claim 3, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Cao teaches that the electrolyte solution comprises 1,3-propanesulfonate lactone (i.e. 1,3-propane sultone, or PS) (“second additive” represented by “Formula 2” with “n” being 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As outlined in Table 1, Cao teaches that the embodiment (i.e. Example 9) comprises the TMSP in an amount of 0.5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution.
Regarding Claim 5, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As outlined in Table 1, Cao teaches that the embodiment (i.e. Example 9) comprises the PS in an amount of 1 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution.
Regarding Claim 6, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As outlined in Table 1, Cao teaches that the embodiment (i.e. Example 9) comprises the TMSP in an amount of 0.5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution, and comprises the vinylene carbonate in an amount of 0.8 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (“weight ratio of the third additive to the first additive is greater than 1”).
Regarding Claim 11, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Cao teaches that the electrolyte solution comprises an EC/PC/DEC/EP solvent (the “organic solvent” comprises a “mixture” of a “cyclic carbonate-based solvent” such as EC or PC and a “linear carbonate-based solvent” such as DEC or EP).
Regarding Claim 12, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Cao teaches that the nonaqueous electrolyte solution is comprised in a lithium secondary battery. In particular, Cao teaches that the lithium secondary battery comprises a positive electrode comprising LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 (“positive electrode active material”), a negative electrode comprising graphite (“negative electrode active material”), the nonaqueous electrolyte solution, and a separator positive between said positive and negative electrodes (given that a separator, or a structure acting in the manner of a separator, is a necessary structural feature of a lithium secondary battery, and Cao discloses the formation of a lithium secondary battery, Cao’s lithium secondary battery is considered to necessarily comprise a “separator” as instantly claimed) ([0070]-[0071]).
Regarding Claim 13, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 12, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 12), the positive electrode comprises LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 (“lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese-based composite oxide”).
Regarding Claim 14, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 13), the positive electrode comprises LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 (which is represented by “Formula 3”).
Regarding Claim 16, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As outlined in Table 1, Cao teaches that the embodiment (i.e. Example 9) comprises the TMSP in an amount of 0.5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution, and comprises vinylene carbonate in an amount of 0.8 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (i.e. the “weight ratio” of TMSP to vinylene carbonate is 0.625 which is “less than 1:1 and greater than or equal to 1:10”).
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.
Claims 7-9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 111740163, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20200089623, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 7, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Cao does not explicitly teach that the electrolyte solution comprises a fourth additive which is an imidazole-based compound.
However, it is first noted that as previously described (See Claim 1), Cao teaches that the electrolyte solution comprises LiPF6.
Kim teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte of a lithium secondary battery ([0001]). Kim teaches that the electrolyte comprises an additive such as propargyl 1H-imidazole-1-carboxylate (i.e. formula 2a) ([0096]-[0111]). Kim teaches that said additive is present, for example in an amount of 0.01-5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte (i.e. Kim teaches that the additive is present, for example, in a 1:1 weight ratio with a first additive which is present in an amount of 0.01-5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte) ([0091], [0114]). Kim teaches that the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt such as LiPF6 ([0062]). Kim teaches that the additive, for example, helps stabilize the lithium salt of the electrolyte especially in high temperature conditions ([0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would include 0.01-5 wt% of propargyl 1H-imidazole-1-carboxylate (“fourth additive”), as taught by Kim, in the electrolyte solution of Cao, given that such an additive would help stabilize the LiPF6 especially in high temperature conditions.
Regarding Claim 8, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 7, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 7), the electrolyte solution comprises 0.01-5 wt% of propargyl 1H-imidazole-1-carboxylate.
Regarding Claim 9, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 7, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 7), the electrolyte solution comprises 0.01-5 wt% of propargyl 1H-imidazole-1-carboxylate. Given that the TMSP is present in an amount of 0.5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (See Example 9 of Table 1 of Cao), the weight ratio of the TMSP and the propargyl 1H-imidazole-1-carboxylate overlaps with the instantly claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 17, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 7, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 7), the electrolyte solution comprises 0.01-5 wt% of propargyl 1H-imidazole-1-carboxylate. Given that the TMSP is present in an amount of 0.5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (See Example 9 of Table 1 of Cao), the weight ratio of the propargyl 1H-imidazole-1-carboxylate and the TMSP overlaps with the instantly claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claims 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 111740163, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20200089623, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 10, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 7, as previously described.
Cao does not explicitly teach that the electrolyte solution comprises a fifth additive which is N,N’-Dicyclohexyl carboimide.
However, Liu teaches a lithium ion battery electrolyte ([0002]). Liu teaches that the electrolyte comprises, as an additive therein, 0.05-0.15 wt% of N,N’-dicylohexyl carbodiimide (i.e. DCC) ([0008]-[0009]). Liu teaches that the DCC helps remove trace amounts of water and acid from the electrolyte ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would include 0.05-0.15 wt% of N,N’-dicylohexyl carbodiimide (“fifth additive”), as taught by Liu, in the electrolyte solution of Cao, given that such an additive would hgelp ensure that trance amounts of water and acid are removed from the electrolyte solution.
Regarding Claim 18, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 10, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 10), the electrolyte solution comprises 0.05-0.15 wt% of N,N’-dicylohexyl carbodiimide. Given that the TMSP is present in an amount of 0.5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte solution (See Example 9 of Table 1 of Cao), the weight ratio of the N,N’-dicylohexyl carbodiimide and the TMSP overlaps with the instantly claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 111740163, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2020/071814, using the equivalent US 2020/0403231 for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 15, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 12, as previously described.
Cao does not explicitly teach that the graphite is a blend of natural graphite and artificial graphite, or double-layer graphite.
However, Kim teaches an anode for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract). Kim teaches that the anode comprises an anode active material which is a mixture of artificial and natural graphite ([0022]). Kim teaches that said mixture helps increase adhesive and stability characteristics while helping prevent deterioration to lifespan characteristics ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the graphite of Cao as a mixture of artificial and natural graphite, as taught by Kim, given that such a mixture would help increase adhesive and stability characteristics while helping prevent deterioration to lifespan characteristics.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN 111740163, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2020/130575, using the equivalent US 2021/0328266 for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 19, Cao teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 12, as previously described.
Cao does not explicitly teach one of the instantly claimed materials.
However, Kim teaches a lithium secondary battery (Abstract). Kim teaches that the positive electrode of the battery comprises a positive active material which is Li(Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2)O2, Li(Ni0.7Co0.15Mn0.15)O2, or Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1)O2 ([0092]). Kim teaches that said positive active materials provide for significant improvements to capacity and stability characteristics ([0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, Li(Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2)O2, Li(Ni0.7Co0.15Mn0.15)O2, or Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn0.1)O2, as taught by Kim, as the positive electrode active material in Cao, given that such materials would provide for significant improvements to capacity and stability characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights