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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 17, 2024 and February 03, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foreign Patent CN110957530A (IDS dated 05/17/2024, see attached English translation), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 11, Liu teaches a lithium ion battery electrolyte (pg 8-9, examples 1-16) comprising a main lithium salt (pg 8-9, examples 1-16 ‘lithium hexafluorophosphate’ as a main lithium salt) and an organic solvent (‘ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, and propyl propinoate were mixed’ pg 8, preparation of the electrolyte, line 1), wherein the electrolyte further comprises:
A first additive, the first additive selected from difluorophosphoric acid-based lithium trifluoroborate (pg 8-9, examples 1-16 were prepared by adding various amounts of compounds a-d):
PNG
media_image1.png
292
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(figure of Liu pg 8) (overlaps with formula of instant claim 1 where x=0, 1, 2, and 3 and y=1, 2, 3, and 4 and additionally overlaps with A1 and A2 of instant claim 3)
A second additive, wherein the second additive is a sulfonate compound or a sulfate compound (‘3wt% PS’ (pg 8, preparation of the electrolyte, line 2) where PS is represented by 1,3-propane sultone (represented by B4 of claim 3 and therefore overlaps with instant claims 1-2 and 11) or 1,3-propene sultone (represented by B5 of claim 3 and therefore overlaps with instant claims 1-2 and 11)’ (Pg 7, detailed description, paragraph 7)).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches a lithium-ion battery, comprising a cathode, an anode, and a diaphragm, wherein the lithium-ion battery further comprises the lithium-ion battery electrolyte according to claim 1 (‘winding a sandwich structure consisting of the positive plate, the negative plate, and the diaphragm. Respectively injecting the prepared electrolyte into a battery cell’ (pg 8, preparation of the battery, lines 1-4)).
Regarding claims 12 and 15-16, Liu teaches the lithium-ion battery electrolyte (electrolyte of examples 1-16) according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent is selected from at least one of a C3-C6 carbonate compound, a C3-C8 carboxylic ester compound, a sulfone compound or an ether compound (‘ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, and propyl propinoate were mixed’ (pg 8, preparation of the electrolyte, line 1)).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches the lithium-ion battery electrolyte (electrolytes of examples 1-16) according to claim 12, wherein the C3-C6 carbonate compound is selected from at least one of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, and diethyl carbonate (‘ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, and propyl propinoate were mixed’ (pg 8, preparation of the electrolyte, line 1)).
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches the lithium-ion battery electrolyte (electrolytes of examples 1-16) according to claim 12, wherein the C3-C8 carboxylic ester compound is selected from propyl propinoate (‘ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, and propyl propinoate were mixed’ (pg 8, preparation of the electrolyte, line 1)).
Regarding claims 17-19, Liu teaches the lithium-ion battery (batteries of examples 1-16) according to claim 10, wherein an active material of the cathode is selected from a lithium cobaltate material (‘a positive electrode active material LCO (lithium cobalt oxide)’ (pg 8, preparation of positive plate, line 1).
Regarding claim 20, Liu teaches the lithium-ion battery (batteries of examples 1-16) according to claim 10, wherein an active material of the anode is graphite (‘mixing artificial graphite serving as a negative electrode active material’ (pg 8, preparation of negative plate, line 1).
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 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Patent CN110957530A (IDS dated 05/17/2024, see attached English translation), hereinafter Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0028132, hereinafter Tsujioka.
Regarding claims 4-5, Liu teaches the lithium-ion battery electrolyte (electrolytes of examples 1-16 that contain lithium difluorophosphates a-d and 1,3-propane sultone or 1,3-propene sultone) according to claim 1, wherein a use amount of the first additive accounts for 0.1-10% (instant claim 4) as well as 0.1-2.0% (instant claim 5) of total mass of the electrolyte (‘more preferably, the mass of the boron-containing lithium difluorophosphate accounts for 0.1-3% of the total mass of the electrolyte’ (pg 7, detailed description, paragraph 4, line 3-4) This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05)).
However, Liu fails to teach that the use amount of the second additive accounts for 0.05-5.0% (instant claim 4) nor 0.1-2.0% (instant claim 5) of the total mass of the electrolyte.
Tsujioka teaches an electrolyte for an electrochemical device having a chemical structure represented by general formula (1) where M is a group 13 element, R is a halogen, m is a number of 1-4, and n is a number of 0-3 (overlaps with instant’s first additive of claim 1) (Abstract). Additives such as propane sultone (second additive) may be added in an arbitrary ratio to the electrolytic solution for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery because the compound has an overcharge preventing effect, a negative electrode film forming effect, and a positive electrode preventing effect [0047]. Therefore, the amount of propane sultone (second additive) is considered an art recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of propane sultone in the electrolyte mixture of Liu in order to optimize the overcharge preventing effect, the negative electrode film forming effect, and the positive electrode preventing effect, as taught by Tsujioka. In optimizing the propane sultone amount, one would arrive at the claimed range, barring evidence to criticality of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 6-7, Liu teaches the lithium-ion battery electrolyte (electrolytes of examples 1-16 that contain lithium difluorophosphates a-d and 1,3-propane sultone or 1,3-propene sultone) according to claim 1, further comprising a third additive (‘preferably, the additive further comprises at least one of vinylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, and fluoroethylene carbonate’ (pg 7, detailed description, paragraph 6)) (instant claim 6), wherein the third additive is selected from fluoroethylene carbonate (‘7.0 wt% FEC was added’ (pg 8, preparation of the electrolyte, line 2)) (instant claim 7).
However, Liu fails to teach that the use amount of the third additive accounts for 0.01-5.0% of total mass of electrolyte (instant claims 6-7).
Tsujioka teaches an electrolyte for an electrochemical device having a chemical structure represented by general formula (1) where M is a group 13 element, R is a halogen, m is a number of 1-4, and n is a number of 0-3 (overlaps with instant’s first additive of claim 1) (Abstract). Additives such as fluoroethylene carbonate may be added in an arbitrary ratio to the electrolytic solution for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery because the compound has an overcharge preventing effect, a negative electrode film forming effect, and a positive electrode preventing effect [0047]. Therefore, the amount of fluoroethylene carbonate (third additive) is considered an art recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of fluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte mixture of Liu in order to optimize the overcharge preventing effect, the negative electrode film forming effect, and the positive electrode preventing effect, as taught by Tsujioka. In optimizing the fluoroethylene carbonate amount, one would arrive at the claimed range, barring evidence to criticality of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 8-9, Liu teaches the lithium-ion battery electrolyte (electrolytes of examples 1-16 that contain lithium difluorophosphates a-d and 1,3-propane sultone or 1,3-propene sultone) according to claim 1, wherein the main lithium salt is lithium hexafluorophosphate (‘then 14.0 wt% lithium hexafluorophosphate was added’ (pg 8, preparation of the electrolyte, line 2)).
However, Liu fails to teach a molar concentration of the main lithium salt in the electrolyte being 0.4-1.6mol/L (instant claim 8) nor 0.6-1.2mol/L (instant claim 9).
Tsujioka teaches an electrolyte for an electrochemical device having a chemical structure represented by general formula (1) where M is a group 13 element, R is a halogen, m is a number of 1-4, and n is a number of 0-3 (overlaps with instant’s first additive of claim 1) (Abstract). Additives such as propane sultone and fluoroethylene carbonate may be added in an arbitrary ratio to the electrolytic solution for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery [0047]. Additionally, the kind of solute of the electrolytic solution for a nonaqueous electrolyte is not particularly limited, however, a specific example is LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate) [0044]. The concentration of the solute is more preferably not less than 0.9 mol/L and more preferably not more than 1.5 mol/L [0045]. This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). If the concentration is less than 0.5 mol/L, an ion conductivity is lowered thereby degrading cycle characteristics and output characteristics of the nonaqueous electrolyte battery. If the concentration exceeds 2.5 mol/L, there is a possibility that a viscosity of the electrolytic solution for a nonaqueous electrolyte battery rises thereby similarly lowering an ion conductivity thereby degrading cycle characteristics and output characteristics of the nonaqueous electrolyte battery [0045]. Therefore, the concentration of the main lithium salt is considered an art recognized result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the lithium hexafluorophosphate in the electrolyte mixture of Liu in order to maintain cycle and output characteristics, as taught by Tsujioka. In optimizing this concentration of lithium hexafluorophosphate, one would arrive at the claimed range, barring evidence to criticality of unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
