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 .
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0154694, filed on November 11, 2021.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20200044287 A1) in view of Jilek et al. (US20180048025 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Kim discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator interposed between the positive and the negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising a lithium salt and an organic solvent (paragraph [0021], [0052], [0055], [0127], [0133]). Kim further discloses that the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material and teaches a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt based oxide as a suitable positive electrode active material (paragraph [0056]). Kim also discloses a propargyl-group-containing compound represented by the Formula 2 as an additive for the non-aqueous electrolyte solution, wherein the Formula 2 compound comprises the claimed heterocyclic/heteroaryl group and alkylene group. In particular, the references teach Formula 2a-c that reads on the claimed Formula 2.
Kim does not disclose a first additive represented by LiSO3R, wherein R is an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms and being unsubstituted or substituted with fluorine, as claimed.
Jilek teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte composition containing lithium salts, organic solvents, and one or more chemical additives (paragraph [0012], [0086]). Jilek further teaches that the additives may be included individually or in combination and identifies lithium triflate (LiOTf) as a suitable electrolyte additive. Lithium triflate has the chemical structure LiCF3SO3 (LiSO3CF3) and therefore corresponds to the claimed Formula 1, LiSO3R, where R is CF3 which is a C1 alkyl group substituted with fluorine (See Table II).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include lithium triflate (LiOTf) as taught by Jilek as an additional electrolyte additive in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Kim because Jilek teaches that electrolyte additive may be used individually or in combination in other to provide beneficial electrolyte formulations ([paragraph [0086]).
Regarding Claim 2: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jilek further teaches lithium triflate (LiOTf) as a suitable electrolyte additive. Lithium triflate has the chemical structure LiCF3SO3 (LiSO3CF3) and therefore corresponds to the first additive represented by LiSO3CnF2n+1, where n = 1.
Because n = 1 falls within the claimed range of 1 to 5, Jilek teaches the additional limitation of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kim further teaches a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic or heteroaryl group and provides imidazole-containing species among the disclosed compounds (paragraph [0095], Formula 2 and 2a-2c). Accordingly, Kim in view of Jilek teaches the additional limitation of claim 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
94
337
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
99
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kim further teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution may further comprise an additive for forming an SEI and identifies vinylene carbonate (VC) and vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC) as suitable additives, which may be used alone or in combination (paragraph [0115], claim 17).
Accordingly, Kim in view of Jilek teaches the additional limitation of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jilek further teaches lithium triflate (LiOTf) as a suitable electrolyte additive. Jilek teaches that an individual additive or combination of additive selected from Table II may comprise between 0 to 10 wt% of the total electrolyte mass (paragraph [0088]- [0089]).
The claimed amount of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% falls within the range taught by Jilek.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an amount of the first additive within the claimed range through routine optimization of the additive concentration, particularly because Jilek teaches that the ratios between the solvent or additive can be varied according to individual needs (paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 6: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kim further teaches that the propargyl-group-containing compound may be included in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution in the amount of 0.05 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte solution (paragraph [0053]).
The claimed range 0.01 wt% to 2 wt% overlaps the range taught by Kim. Accordingly, Kim teaches the claimed amount of the second additive.
Regarding Claim 7: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kim further teaches that organic solvent of the non-aqueous electrolyte may comprise a cyclic carbonate compound and a linear compound and further teaches that a cyclic carbonate compound may be used in combination with a low-viscosity linear carbonate compound to prepare an electrolyte having a high ionic conductivity (paragraph [0109]- [0112]).
Accordingly, Kim in view of Jilek teaches the additional limitations of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 11: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jilek further teaches that the negative electrode active material may comprise silicon (Si) as an anode material (paragraph [0093].
Accordingly, Kim in view of Jilek teaches the additional limitations of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jilek further teaches lithium triflate (LiOTf) as a suitable electrolyte additive. Lithium triflate has the chemical structure LiCF3SO3 (LiSO3CF3) and therefore corresponds to the first additive represented by LiSO3CnF2n+1, where n = 1, thereby satisfying the claimed requirement that n ≤ 3.
Jilek further teaches that an individual additive or combination of additive selected from Table II may comprise between 0 to 10 wt% of the total electrolyte mass (paragraph [0088]) and expressly teaches that the ratios between the solvent or additive can be varied according to individual needs (paragraph [0089]).
The claimed amount of 2 wt% to 4 wt% falls within the range taught by Jilek.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an amount of the first additive within the claimed range through routine optimization of the additive concentration, particularly because Jilek teaches that the ratios between the solvent or additive can be varied according to individual needs (paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 13: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Jilek teaches lithium perfluorobutenesulfonate (LiPFBS) as a suitable additive (Table II). LiPFBS has the formula LiC4F9SO3, which corresponds to LiSO3CnF2n+1, wherein n = 4, thereby satisfying the claimed requirement of n ≥ 4.
Jilek further teaches that an individual additive or combination of additive selected from Table II may comprise between 0 to 10 wt% of the total electrolyte mass (paragraph [0088]) and expressly teaches that the ratios between the solvent or additive can be varied according to individual needs (paragraph [0089]).
The claimed amount of 0.1 wt% to 1 wt% falls within the range taught by Jilek.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an amount of the first additive within the claimed range through routine optimization of the additive concentration, particularly because Jilek teaches that the ratios between the solvent or additive can be varied according to individual needs (paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 14 and 15: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kim further teaches a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic or heteroaryl group and provides imidazole-containing species among the disclosed compounds (paragraph [0095]). Formula 2 and 2a-2c). The compound of Formula 2c-1 falls within the scope of the claimed Formula 2-1, wherein the heterocyclic group is imidazole and R1 is a C2 alkylene group.
Accordingly, Kim in view of Jilek teaches the additional limitations of claim 14 and 15.
PNG
media_image2.png
99
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18: Kim in view of Jilek teaches the lithium secondary battery of claim 11 as discussed above.
Jilek further teaches silicon (Si) as a suitable anode material (paragraph [0093]). Because the claim is written in the alternative, the express disclosure of Si alone satisfies the limitation of claim 18.
Accordingly, Jilek teaches the additional limitation of claim 18.
Claims 8-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20200044287 A1) and Jilek et al. (US20180048025 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Michot (US20200274161 A1).
Regarding Claim 8: Kim-Jilek teaches the lithium secondar battery of claim 1 as discussed above. Kim-Jilek does not disclose that nickel is present in an amount of 70 mol% or more based on the total number of moles of transition metals in the lithium composite transition metal oxide.
Michot teaches a nickel-rich lithium composite transition metal oxide cathode materials, including NCMA [Li (Ni0.89Co0.05Mn0.05Al0.01) O2] (paragraph [0234]). In the disclosed NCMA composition, Ni is present in the amount of 89 mol%, which satisfies the claim requirement.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nickel-rich NCMA positive electrode active material taught by Michot as the lithium composite transition metal oxide of Kim because Michot teaches such nickel rich NMC/NCMA materials as suitable cathode materials for lithium secondary batteries.
Regarding Claim 9: Kim-Jilek teaches the lithium secondar battery of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kim-Jilek does not disclose that the lithium composite transition metal represented by Formula 3, Li1+x(NiaCobMncMd)O2, with the recited ranges.
Michot teaches NCMA positive electrode active material having the composition Li(Ni0.89Co0.05Mn0.05Al0.01) O2 (paragraph [0234]). The disclosed NCMA composition corresponds to the claimed Formula 3, Li1+x(NiaCobMncMd)O2, wherein:
x = 0, which satisfies -0.2 ≤ x ≤ 0.2
a = 0.89, which satisfies 0.70 ≤ a ≤ 1
b = 0.05, which satisfies 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.25
c = 0.05, which satisfies 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.25
d = 0.01, which satisfies 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.1
M = Al, which I sone of the elements recited for M.
Further, a + b + c + d = 1, satisfying the requirement.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nickel-rich NCMA positive electrode active material taught by Michot as the lithium composite transition metal oxide of Kim because Michot teaches such nickel rich NMC/NCMA materials as suitable cathode materials for lithium secondary batteries and teaches that its use provides higher energy density, and improved high temperature cycling capacities (paragraph [0234]).
Regarding Claim 10: Kim-Jilek teaches the lithium secondar battery of claim 9 as discussed above.
Michot expressly teaches NCMA positive electrode active material having the composition Li(Ni0.89Co0.05Mn0.05Al0.01) O2 (paragraph [0234]). The disclosed NCMA composition corresponds to the claimed Formula 3, Li1+x(NiaCobMncMd)O2, wherein:
a = 0.89, which satisfies 0.80 ≤ a ≤ 1
b = 0.05, which satisfies 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.15
c = 0.05, which satisfies 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.15
d = 0.01, which satisfies 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.05
Accordingly, Michot teaches the additional limitations of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 17: Kim-Jilek teaches the lithium secondar battery of claim 9 as discussed above.
Michot expressly teaches NCMA positive electrode active material having the composition Li(Ni0.89Co0.05Mn0.05Al0.01) O2 (paragraph [0234]). In the disclosed composition, the element corresponding to M in Formula 3 is Al, with d = 0.01.
Accordingly, Michot teaches the additional limitation of claim 17.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20200044287 A1) and Jilek et al. (US20180048025 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US20080248397 A1).
Regarding Claim 16: Kim-Jilek teaches the lithium secondar battery of claim 4 as discussed above, including a non-aqueous electrolyte further comprising a third additive comprising vinylene carbonate (VC).
Kim-Jilek does not teach that the third additive is present in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 3 wt% based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte.
Jung teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising lithium salt, a non-aqueous organic solver and an additive comprising vinylene carbonate (paragraph [0009]). Jung further teaches that the vinylene carbonate is present in the amount of 0.01 wt% to 9 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte (paragraph [0037]). Jung provides specific examples containing vinylene carbonate at 0.01 wt%, 2 wt% and 3 wt% (Examples 13-16, paragraph [0111]- [0114]), which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 wt% to 3 wt%.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vinylene carbonate additive taught by Kim in an amount within the range taught by Jung because Jung teaches that controlling the amount of vinylene carbonate within the disclosed ranges provides improved storage stability at high temperatures (paragraph [0137]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALY M RESTO OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)895-1575. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/NMRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights