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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2024 and 09/21/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 3 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. Specifically, claim 3 states “wherein… a pH of the acid is 3.5 of less.” pH is a metric used to measure the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution, and is not a property of an acid alone. Therefore, an acid cannot have a specific pH. For examination purposes, claim 3 will be examined as if it is referring to the pH of a solution containing 80-99% by weight of acid and 1-20% of compound represented by formula 1.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan (US 20070031734 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
An electrolyte, (“The above problems and others are overcome by the herein disclosed additives to the electrolyte employed in a lithium battery.” Fan [0023])
comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below and an acid: [Chemical Formula 1] PxOy, wherein P is phosphorus, O is oxygen, x is a multiple of 2, and y is 5x/2. (“The studied compound is phosphorus pentoxide methanesulfonic acid” Fan [0024]. In this case, the compound represented by chemical formula 1 is phosphorus pentoxide, and the acid is methanesulfonic acid.)
Regarding claim 3, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein, when the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is comprised in an amount of 1 to 20 % by weight, a pH of thecompound-acid solution is 3.5 or less. (The instant specification teaches that by dissolving 3% by weight of phosphorus pentoxide in methanesulfonic acid, that the pH of the solution would be between 0 and 1 [instant spec example 1]. Since Fan teaches the use of a mixture of phosphorus pentoxide and methanesulfonic acid, then this limitation would inherently be met if the quantity of phosphorus pentoxide was the same. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 4, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte, a semi-solid electrolyte, or a solid electrolyte. (“The disclosed device relates to the field of batteries. More particularly it relates to a non-aqueous electrolyte for use in a Lithium ion cell” Fan [0002] and “During the initial charging process of lithium batteries, highly reactive lithium reacts with the solvent like EC in the electrolyte to form a thin film on a surface of the negative electrode. The thin film so formed is generally called a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) film or layer.” Fan [0004]. If the electrolyte is nonaqueous and forms a solid electrolyte layer, it is at a minimum a semi-solid electrolyte.)
Regarding claim 5, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 is P205,P4010, or a mixture thereof. (Phosphorus pentoxide, as used by Fan, see [0024], would anticipate this claim.)
Regarding claim 6, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the acid is an inorganic acid or an organic acid. (Methanesulfonic acid, which is used by Fan, is an organic acid, and thus anticipates this limitation.)
Regarding claim 7, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte according to claim 6, wherein the acid comprises one or more selected from phosphoric acid, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, acetic acid, trifluoromethanesulfonic acid, fluorosulfonic acid, and alkylsulfonic acid. (Methanesulfonic acid, the acid used by Fan in their electrolyte additive, is an alkylsulfonic acid, and thus anticipates the limitations of claim 7.)
Regarding claim 9, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises an organic solvent. (“The invention as herein disclosed enhances electrolytes employed in lithium ion cells or lithium metal cells. Such electrolytes include but are not limited to electrolytes which include solvents such as PC, EC, DMC, DEC combined with lithium salts, such as LiPF.sub.6, LiPF.sub.3(C.sub.2F.sub.5).sub.3, Li bis(oxalato) borate, and other lithium salts as would occur to those skilled in the art.” Fan [0036])
Regarding claim 10, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte according to claim 9, wherein the organic solvent comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of ethylene carbonate (EC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), propylene carbonate (PC), dipropyl carbonate (DPC), butylene carbonate, methylpropyl carbonate, ethylpropyl carbonate, methyl propionate (MP), ethyl propionate (EP), and propyl propionate (PP). (“The invention as herein disclosed enhances electrolytes employed in lithium ion cells or lithium metal cells. Such electrolytes include but are not limited to electrolytes which include solvents such as PC, EC, DMC, DEC combined with lithium salts, such as LiPF.sub.6, LiPF.sub.3(C.sub.2F.sub.5).sub.3, Li bis(oxalato) borate, and other lithium salts as would occur to those skilled in the art.” Fan [0036])
Regarding claim 11, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises lithium salt. (“The invention as herein disclosed enhances electrolytes employed in lithium ion cells or lithium metal cells. Such electrolytes include but are not limited to electrolytes which include solvents such as PC, EC, DMC, DEC combined with lithium salts, such as LiPF.sub.6, LiPF.sub.3(C.sub.2F.sub.5).sub.3, Li bis(oxalato) borate, and other lithium salts as would occur to those skilled in the art.” Fan [0036])
Regarding claim 12, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
The electrolyte according to claim 11, wherein the lithium salt comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiFS, LiF4, LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiClO4, LiB1oClio, LiCF3SO3, LiCF3CO2, LiAsF6, LiSbF6, LiAlCl4, CH3SO3Li, CF3SO3Li, and (CF3SO2)2NLi. (“The invention as herein disclosed enhances electrolytes employed in lithium ion cells or lithium metal cells. Such electrolytes include but are not limited to electrolytes which include solvents such as PC, EC, DMC, DEC combined with lithium salts, such as LiPF.sub.6, LiPF.sub.3(C.sub.2F.sub.5).sub.3, Li bis(oxalato) borate, and other lithium salts as would occur to those skilled in the art.” Fan [0036])
Regarding claim 14, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
A method of preparing an electrolyte, (“The preferred embodiment of the disclosed device and method resulting in an electrolyte having improved operational characteristics for SEI layer formation to thereby yield improved non-aqueous cells employs one or a combination of additives which are added to the electrolyte to be introduced into a lithium ion cell or lithium metal cell battery.” Fan [0035])
comprising preparing an acidic PxOy solution by mixing a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below and an acid; [Chemical Formula 1] PxOy, wherein P is phosphorus, O is oxygen, x is a multiple of 2, and y is 5x/2. (“The studied compound is phosphorus pentoxide methanesulfonic acid with the structure R.sub.1O.sub.2S--[--P(.dbd.O) (OSO.sub.2R.sub.2)--O-].sub.n--SO.sub.2R.sub.3 where R1, R2 and R3 are all in the CH3 group. The liquid form of these additives makes them especially easy to incorporate into conventional battery manufacturing processes.” Fan [0037]. By using an additive that is a mixture of phosphorus pentoxide and methanesulfonic acid, it is assured that an acidic PxOy solution was formed in the manufacturing of this product.)
and mixing the prepared acidic PxOy solution with an electrolyte solvent or lithium salt: (“Such electrolytes include but are not limited to electrolytes which include solvents such as PC, EC, DMC, DEC combined with lithium salts, such as LiPF.sub.6, LiPF.sub.3(C.sub.2F.sub.5).sub.3, Li bis(oxalato) borate, and other lithium salts as would occur to those skilled in the art. To that conventional mixture of electrolyte is added one or a combination of the following additives which have been found to enhance the SEI layer properties during the initial charge of the cell.” Fan [0036])
Regarding claim 16, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
An additive for secondary battery electrolytes, (“FIG. 1 is a graphic depiction of the reduction peak of phosphorus pentoxide methanesulfonic acid additive and resulting cell performance improvement over conventional electrolyte.” Fan [0031])
comprising a compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 below and an acid: [Chemical Formula 1] PxOy, wherein P is phosphorus, O is oxygen, x is a multiple of 2, and y is 5x/2. (“The studied compound is phosphorus pentoxide methanesulfonic acid” Fan [0024]. In this case, the compound represented by chemical formula 1 is phosphorus pentoxide, and the acid is methanesulfonic acid.)
Regarding claim 18, Fan teaches all of the following elements:
A secondary battery, comprising an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte is the electrolyte according to claim 1. (“FIG. 4 is a cross-sectional view of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary cell or prismatic cell employing the improved electrolyte mixture noted above. In a method of manufacturing such a cell, a positive electrode 16 would be provided for operative placement adjacent to a positive current collector 17 and negative electrode 14 would be provided for operative positioning adjacent to the negative current collector 15.” Fan [0044])
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20070031734 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fan teaches the following elements:
The electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises an acidic PxOy solution obtained by dissolving the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 in the acid. (“However, there are some weak points in these additives. The dissolution of P.sub.2O.sub.5 is limited in the electrolyte while the carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide are a gas at the room temperature, rendering it very difficult to use.” Fan [0006] and “It has been found that forming an SEI layer on the negative surface, consisting of sulfur and phosphorus-based compounds which are difficult to dissolve into the electrolyte at the high temperature, enhances the layer to resist high temperature degradation.” Fan [0013] and “dissolving said additive mixture into a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and an organic solvent, interposing said electrolyte between the positive electrode and the negative electrode;” Fan claim 17. Essentially Fan describes a problem of P2O5 being difficult to dissolve, and then proposes the use of an additive which includes P2O5 combined with an acid, which is then dissolved into the electrolyte along with a lithium salt and organic solvent. While Fan does not explicitly state that the PxOy solution is obtained by dissolving the compound in an acid, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that that is how this mixture would be obtained, particularly because Fan speaks on a desire to improve the ability to dissolve P2O5--. Therefore, the teachings of Fan would render obvious all of the limitations of claim 8 that are not explicitly stated in the prior art.)
Regarding claim 19, Fan teaches all of the following limitations. Specifically, it would be obvious to use the battery of Fan in an automobile, even if it is not explicitly mentioned.
The secondary battery according to claim 18, wherein the secondary battery is a battery for automobiles. (While Fan does not explicitly mention the use of its battery in automobiles, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a common use of secondary lithium ion batteries is in automobiles, and therefore it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the secondary battery of claim 18, of which Fan teaches, in an automobile.)
Claim(s) 2, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US 20070031734 A1) in view of Boeller (US 4937156 A).
Regarding claim 2, Fan teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Fan is silent on the following elements of claim 2:
The electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises 1 to 20 % by weight of the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and 80 to 99 % by weight of the acid. (Boeller)
However, Boeller teaches all of the elements of claim 2 that are not found in Fan. Specifically, Boeller teaches a combination of an oxide and a sulfur-based acid to form an electrolyte additive, using percentages that meet the limitations of claim 2:
The electrolyte according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises 1 to 20 % by weight of the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and 80 to 99 % by weight of the acid. (“Additionally, an electrolyte filling kit for storing the components is also provided. This kit comprises, in separate containers: (A) sulfuric acid at a concentration of 50-80% by weight, optionally together with up to 3% by weight of suspended silica;” Boeller page 2 column 2 lines 11-16. In this case, component (A) of Boeller is an electrolyte additive comprising up to 80% by weight of sulfuric acid and 3% of weight of SiO2. While these are not the same exact components used by Fan, the teachings of Boeller show that not only are the weight ranges of compound/acid of the instant invention known in the art, but also that it would be obvious to optimize the amounts to achieve desired results. By using 80% by weight of methanesulfonic acid and 3% by weight of phosphorus pentoxide to form an electrolyte additive, all of the limitations of claim 2 would be met.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 50-80% by weight of acid in the oxide/acid solution overlaps the claimed range of 80-99% for the same parameter. The oxide weight of 3% anticipates the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Boeller and Fan are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of electrolyte materials for batteries containing an oxide and an acid being mixed together. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Fan, which use a phosphorus pentoxide-methanesulfonic acid mixture as an electrolyte additive, to optimize the weight percent of each component of the mixture to and to be within the claimed ranges, as taught by Boeller. This would be obvious both because Boeller teaches that these ranges are known in the art, and also because Boeller teaches that the weight percentage of each component in the mixture is an important parameter, thus it would be within the scope of routine experimentation/optimization to alter the weight percentage of each component in order to achieve optimal results/characteristics.
By modifying Fan to meet the limitations of claim 2, the additional limitations of claims 15 and 17 would be met as well without requiring any further modification or motivation.
Regarding claim 15, Fan teaches all of the elements of claim 14, as shown above. Fan is silent on the following elements of claim 15:
The method according to claim 14, wherein the acidic PxOy solution has a pH of 3.5 or less.
However, if the methanesulfonic acid/phosphorus pentoxide solution were formed with the amounts taught by Boeller, as applied to claim 2 above, then this limitation would be met:
The method according to claim 14, wherein the acidic PxOy solution has a pH of 3.5 or less. (The instant specification teaches that by dissolving 3% by weight of phosphorus pentoxide in methanesulfonic acid, that the pH of the solution would be between 0 and 1 [instant spec example 1]. Since Fan teaches the use of a mixture of phosphorus pentoxide and methanesulfonic acid, then by modifying Fan to use a 3% amount of compound 1 and 80% of methanesulfonic acid, the pH of the solution would inherently be less than 3.5. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 17, Fan teaches all of the elements of claim 16, as shown above. Fan is silent on the following elements of claim 17:
The additive according to claim 16, wherein the additive comprises 1 to 20 % by weight of the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and 80 to 99 % by weight of the acid.
However, Boeller teaches all of the elements of claim 17 that are not found in Fan. Specifically, Boeller teaches a combination of an oxide and a sulfur-based acid to form an electrolyte additive, using percentages that meet the limitations of claim 17:
The additive according to claim 16, wherein the additive comprises 1 to 20 % by weight of the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 and 80 to 99 % by weight of the acid. (“Additionally, an electrolyte filling kit for storing the components is also provided. This kit comprises, in separate containers: (A) sulfuric acid at a concentration of 50-80% by weight, optionally together with up to 3% by weight of suspended silica;” Boeller page 2 column 2 lines 11-16. In this case, component (A) of Boeller is an electrolyte additive comprising up to 80% by weight of sulfuric acid and 3% of weight of SiO2. While these are not the same exact components used by Fan, the teachings of Boeller show that not only are the weight ranges of compound/acid of the instant invention known in the art, but also that it would be obvious to optimize the amounts to achieve desired results. By using 80% by weight of methanesulfonic acid and 3% by weight of phosphorus pentoxide to form an electrolyte additive, all of the limitations of claim 17 would be met.)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 50-80% by weight of acid in the oxide/acid solution overlaps the claimed range of 80-99% for the same parameter. The oxide weight of 3% anticipates the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US 20070031734 A1) in view of Kishimoto (JP 2014207092 A)
Regarding claim 13, Fan teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Fan is silent on the following elements of claim 13.
The electrolyte according to claim 11, wherein, based on 100 mol% in total of the electrolyte, the electrolyte comprises the lithium salt at a concentration of 0.6 to 2 M.
However, Kishimoto teaches all of the elements of claim 13 that are not found in Fan:
The electrolyte according to claim 11, wherein, based on 100 mol% in total of the electrolyte, the electrolyte comprises the lithium salt at a concentration of 0.6 to 2 M. (“The method for preparing the non-aqueous electrolyte according to the present invention is not limited in any way. For example, it can be obtained by adding boric acid and phosphorus pentoxide to an electrolyte containing PF 6-anion.” Kishimoto [20] and “Here, the concentration of PF 6-anion contained in the electrolyte before adding boric acid, that is, the concentration of LiPF 6 dissolved in the electrolyte before adding boric acid is preferably 0.1 mol / l or more, 0 0.5 mol / l or more is more preferable, and 1.00 mol / l or more is the most preferable. Moreover, 2.0 mol / l or less is preferable, 1.5 mol / l or less is more preferable, and 1.15 mol / l or less is the most preferable.” Kishimoto [22].)
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.1 M-2M for the concentration of lithium salt in an electrolyte solution encompasses the claimed range of 0.6-2M for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Kishimoto and Fan are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of electrolytes including a phosphorus pentoxide/acid additive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium salt of Fan to have the concentration as taught by Kishimoto in order to achieve the optimal quantity of PF6 anion, and therefore achieve desirable results such as reduced swelling and excellent cycle performance characteristics (“According to this invention, the swelling of the battery at the time of non-aqueous electrolyte battery manufacture can be suppressed, and the non-aqueous electrolyte battery excellent in charging / discharging cycle performance can be provided.” Kishimoto [18])
Conclusion
The following references were considered to be relevant upon a thorough prior art search, but were not used in the above rejection:
Angell (US 20170237101 A1)—teaches electrolyte additives that combine phosphoric acids with metal compounds.
Xu (US 20110281177 A1)—teaches the use of phosphorus pentoxide mixed with malonic acid for use as an electrolyte additive
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights