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 (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2022/0123368 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liang discloses a secondary battery (Claim 1) comprising:
a positive electrode (Claim 1);
a negative electrode (Claim 1); and
an electrolyte solution including a first electrolyte salt and a second electrolyte salt (Para. [0009] mentions that the electrolyte solution is comprised of a primary lithium salt while para. [0011] states that the electrolyte solution is comprised of a secondary lithium salt.), wherein
the first electrolyte salt includes a first anion and a first cation (Para. [0008] lists a variety of primary lithium salts which all include a first cation and a first anion.)
the second electrolyte salt includes a second anion and a second cation (Para. [0010] lists a variety of secondary lithium salts which all include a second cation and a second anion.)
the first anion includes at least one of a first imide anion represented by Formula (1), a second imide anion represented by Formula (2), a third imide anion represented by Formula (3), or a fourth imide anion represented by Formula (4) (Para. [0008] lists a plethora of primary lithium salts which include a first imide anion represented by Formula (1) (such as FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and others) and a second imide anion represented by Formula (2) (such as FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and others).),
the second anion includes at least one of a hexafluorophosphate ion (PF6-),a tetrafluoroborate ion (BF4-), or a bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide ion (N(FSO2)2-) (Para. [0010] states that the secondary lithium salt within the electrolyte solution may be selected from one or more of lithium hexafluorophosphate and lithium tetrafluoroborate.),
a sum of the content of the first cation in the electrolytic solution and a content of the second cation in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 0.7 moles per kilogram and less than or equal to 2.2 moles per kilogram (Table 1, example 23 displays FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, which represents Formula (1), as the primary lithium salt at 15% of the content of the electrolytic solution and LiPF6 as the secondary lithium salt at 3% of the content of the electrolytic solution. FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F has a molecular weight of 274.10 g/mol. At 15% of the total electrolyte:
150
g
274.10
g
/
m
o
l
= 0.547 mol, which is then divided by
0.547
m
o
l
1
k
g
= 0.547 mol/kg of Formula 1 salt is present. Since each individual primary lithium salt is comprised of two lithium cations for every imide dianion, this gives
2(0.547 mol/kg) = 1.094 mol/kg
of the first cation and 0.547 mol/kg of the first anion.
Lithium hexafluorophosphate has a molecular weight of 151.9 g/mol. At 3% of the total electrolyte:
30
g
151.9
g
/
m
o
l
= 0.197 mol, which is then divided by
0.197
m
o
l
1
k
g
= 0.197 mol/kg of the secondary lithium salt is present. Therefore, the sum of a content of the first cation in the electrolytic solution and a content of the second cation in the electrolytic solution is
1.094 mol/kg + 0.197 mol/kg = 1.291 mol/kg, which falls within the claimed range of 0.7-2.2 mol/kg.), and
a ratio of the number of moles of the second anion in the electrolytic solution to a number of moles of the first anion in the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 13 mole percent and less than or equal to 6000 mole percent (Table 1, example 23 displays FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, which represents Formula (1), as the primary lithium salt and LiPF6 as the secondary lithium salt within the electrolytic solution. Using the values derived for solving the sum of the content of the first cation and the content of the second cation, a ratio of a number of moles of the second anion (PF6-) in the electrolytic solution to a number of moles of the first anion (FSO2N-SO2N-SO2F) in the electrolytic solution may be calculated. The claimed molar ratio of hexafluorophosphate ions to diimide ions is:
0.197
m
o
l
/
k
g
0.547
m
o
l
/
k
g
x 100 = 36.0 mole percent, which falls within the claimed range of 13-6000 mole percent.
Formula (1) where each of R1 and R2 is either a fluorine group or a fluorinated alkyl group, and
each of W1, W2, and W3 is any one of a carbonyl group, a sulfinyl group, or a sulfonyl group,
Formula (2) where each of R3 and R4 is either a fluorine group or a fluorinated alkyl group, and
each of X1, X2, X3, and X4 is any one of a carbonyl group, a sulfinyl group, or a sulfonyl group,
Formula (3) where R5 is a fluorinated alkylene group, and each of Y1, Y2, and Y3 is any one of a carbonyl group, a sulfinyl group, or a sulfonyl group,
Formula (4) where each of R6 and R7 is either a fluorine group or a fluorinated alkyl group, R8 is any one of an alkylene group, a phenylene group, a fluorinated alkylene group, or a fluorinated phenylene group, and each of Z1, Z2, Z3, and Z4 is any one of a carbonyl group, a sulfinyl group, or a sulfonyl group (Para. [0008] lists a plethora of primary lithium salts which include a first imide anion represented by Formula (1) (such as FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and others) and a second imide anion represented by Formula (2) (such as FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2F, FSO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2N-(Li+)SO2CF3, and others).),
Liang does not explicitly teach that the electrolytic solution of example 23 further includes at least one of an unsaturated cyclic carbonic acid ester, a fluorinated cyclic carbonic acid ester, a sulfonic acid ester, a dicarboxylic acid anhydride, a disulfonic acid anhydride, a sulfuric acid ester, a nitrile compound, or an isocyanate compound.
However, Liang further teaches wherein the electrolytic solution further includes at least one of an unsaturated cyclic carbonate ester, a fluorinated cyclic carbonic acid ester, a sulfonic acid ester, a dicarboxylic acid anhydride, a disulfonic acid anhydride, a sulfuric acid ester, a nitrile compound, or an isocyanate compound (para. [0070] states that maleic anhydride, which is a dicarboxylic acid anhydride, may be used as an additive within the electrolytic solution.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Liang to include an electrolytic solution that further contains maleic anhydride (dicarboxylic acid anhydride) because Liang teaches that using maleic anhydride as an additive enables it to participate in SEI film formation, inhibit the further occurrence of side reactions and improve the cycle performance of said secondary battery (para. [0071]) and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (A).
Regarding claims 2-3, Liang discloses the secondary battery wherein each of the first cation and the second cation include a light metal ion, as claimed in instant claim 2, and wherein the light metal ion includes a lithium ion, as claimed in instant claim 3 (Claim 4 of Liang lists the primary lithium salts which have a first cation, wherein every primary lithium salt possesses a first cation comprised of a lithium ion. Furthermore, claim 6 of Liang lists the secondary lithium salts which have a second cation, wherein every secondary lithium salt possesses a second cation comprised of a lithium ion.)
Regarding claim 4, Liang discloses wherein the electrolytic solution further includes lithium bis(oxalato)borate, lithium difluorophosphate, or both (Para. [0067] states that lithium bis(oxalato)borate may be selected from the one or more various lithium salts that may be used of the secondary lithium salt with the electrolytic solution. Furthermore, para. [0070] states that lithium difluorophosphate may be selected as an additive in the electrolytic solution.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Liang to include an electrolytic solution that further contains lithium bis(oxalato)borate, lithium difluorophosphate, or both because Liang teaches that using lithium difluorophosphate as an additive enables it to participate in SEI film formation, inhibit the further occurrence of side reactions and improve the cycle performance of said secondary battery (para. [0071]) and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (A).
Regarding claim 5, Liang discloses wherein the secondary battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery (Paras. [0115-0118] state that the secondary battery is a lithium-ion secondary battery.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Terada et al. (US 2022/0271340 A1) discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte solution containing an electrolyte salt that contains an imide anion. Faiz et al. (Faiz, Ahmed et al., Journal of Power Sources, 455 (2020) 227980) discloses the synthesis and application of fluorosulfonyl imide-based electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries. Faiz et al. (Faiz, Ahmed et al., Electrochimica Acta, 298 (2018) 709-716) discloses the synthesis and application of organo-lithium salts for use in rechargeable batteries. Song et al. (CN 103641751 A) discloses alkali salts containing imide anions for use in secondary lithium-ion batteries. Kim et al. (US 2024/0047746 A1) discloses an electrolyte salt comprising of an alkali metal and an imide anion.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTINO M SERVAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-0847. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/SANTINO MICHALE SERVAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights