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 § 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 1-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (EP 1758198 A1) in view of Liu et al. (CN 115000509 A) and Lee et al. (US 20180040898 A1). It is noted that the disclosures of Liu et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
Regarding claims 1-6, 12, 14, and 16-17:
Abe et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (0009) comprising a positive electrode active material, such as a lithium compound oxide containing cobalt, manganese or nickel. Only one of such positive electrode active materials may be selectively used, or they may be used in combination of two or more thereof. As the lithium compound oxide, there may be mentioned, for example, LiCoO2, LiMn2O4, LiNiO2, LiCO1-xNixO2 (0.01<x) (0032).
Abe et al. also teaches a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material capable of occluding and releasing lithium. For example, a carbon material (for example, thermally decomposed carbon materials, cokes, graphites (such as artificial graphite and natural graphite), fired organic polymer bodies, and carbonfibers), and silicon or silicon compounds. Part or all of carbon materials may be substituted by silicon or a silicon compound so as to increase the battery capacity (0035). A density of a layer of the negative electrode material formed on a copper foil is preferably 1.3 to 2.0 g/cm3 (0037).
Further, Abe et al. teaches lithium salts having a linear alkyl group or groups such as LiPF6 may be used (0027), and the nonaqueous solvent may be comprised of cyclic carbonates such as ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), butylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, dimethylvinylene carbonate and vinyl ethylene carbonate; linear carbonates such as dimethyl carbonate (DMC), methyl ethyl carbonate (MEC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), methyl propyl carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, methyl butyl carbonate and dibutyl carbonate (0023) and linear esters such as methyl propionate (0023), i.e. a nonaqueous organic solvent.
However, Abe et al. does not teach a first additive represented by Formula 1-1-1, a second additive represented by Formula 2-1-1, and a third additive represented by Formula 3.
Liu et al. teaches a nonpolar fluorinated ether co-solvent is 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3 tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) (n0006), i.e. first additive represented by Formula 1-1-1, and the addition of highly fluorinated, solvent-free fluorinated ethers further reduces the amount of free carbonate solvent, effectively alleviating the continuous decomposition of carbonate on the sodium metal anode and improving the cycle performance of the battery (n0014).
Liu et al. also teaches adding perfluorohexanone, i.e. second additive represented by Formula 2-1-1, a fire extinguishing agent, to a traditional electrolyte significantly increases the electrolyte's heat dissipation and fire extinguishing capabilities, making it inherently non-flammable and improving battery safety (n0014)
In light of the motivation for using TTE and perfluorohexanone disclosed by Liu et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use TTE and perfluorohexanone in the electrolyte of the lithium secondary battery of Abe et al. in order to improve the cycle performance and safety of the battery.
Lee et al. teaches a lithium battery including a polymer electrolyte comprising a crosslinked polymer electrolyte. The crosslinked polymer electrolyte may anchor a polymer electrolyte coating layer to a surface of a carbonaceous material more firmly. Thus, an amount of the electrolyte may be considerably reduced. As a result, a metal air battery may have a reduced weight and an increased energy density per unit weight (0061). The polymer electrolyte may include a block copolymer (0062), for example, the block copolymer may be an uncrosslinked or crosslinked block copolymer (0072) and include a polyethylene glycol-b-polypropylene glycol-b-polyethylene glycol triblock copolymer (0073), i.e. third additive represented by Formula 3.
In light of the motivation for using polyethylene glycol-b-polypropylene glycol-b-polyethylene glycol triblock copolymer disclosed by Lee et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyethylene glycol-b-polypropylene glycol-b-polyethylene glycol triblock copolymer in the electrolyte of the lithium secondary battery of Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. in order to increase energy density per unit weight.
Regarding claim 7:
Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. teach a lithium secondary battery as set forth above.
Further, Lee et al. teaches a number average molecular weight, Mn, of the block copolymer may be about 3,000 Da to about 60,000 Da (0076). While Lee et al. does not disclose the weight average molecular weight of the block copolymer, given the relationship between weight average molecular weight (Mw) and number average molecular weight (Mn), i.e. Mw/Mn>1, it is clear that the weight average molecular weight of the block copolymer disclosed by Lee et al. would necessarily overlap that presently claimed.
Regarding claim 8:
Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. teach a lithium secondary battery as set forth above.
However, Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. do not disclose the amount of first additive.
Liu et al. disclose the TTE improves the cycle performance of the battery (n0014).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of first additive is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the cycle performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of TTE, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of TTE in Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired cycle performance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 9:
Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. teach a lithium secondary battery as set forth above.
However, Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. do not disclose the amount of second additive.
Liu et al. disclose the perfluorohexanone increases the electrolyte's heat dissipation and fire extinguishing capabilities, making it inherently non-flammable and improving battery safety (n0014).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of second additive is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the electrolyte's heat dissipation and fire extinguishing capabilities and battery safety are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of perfluorohexanone, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of perfluorohexanone in Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired heat dissipation and fire extinguishing capabilities, making the electrolyte inherently non-flammable and improving battery safety (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 10:
Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. teach a lithium secondary battery as set forth above.
However, Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. do not disclose the amount of third additive.
Lee et al. disclose the polyethylene glycol-b-polypropylene glycol-b-polyethylene glycol triblock copolymer increases energy density per unit weight (0061, 0073).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of third additive is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the energy density per unit weight is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of polyethylene glycol-b-polypropylene glycol-b-polyethylene glycol triblock copolymer, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of polyethylene glycol-b-polypropylene glycol-b-polyethylene glycol triblock copolymer in Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired increase in energy density per unit weight (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 11:
Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. teach a lithium secondary battery as set forth above.
However, Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. do not disclose the amounts of each of the first additive, second additive and third additive.
Liu et al. disclose the perfluorhexanone increases the electrolyte's heat dissipation and fire extinguishing capabilities, making it inherently non-flammable and improving battery safety while the TTE improves the cycle performance of the battery (n0014). Lee et al. disclose that the block copolymer polyethylene glycol-b-polypropylene glycol-b-polyethylene glycol triblock copolymer anchors the electrolyte to the electrode and thereby reduces the weight of the battery and increases the energy density (0061).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amounts of first additive, second additive, and third additive are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the flammability, battery safety, cycle performance, battery weight, and energy density are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of each of the first additive, second additive, and third additive, the precise amounts would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of each of the first additive, second additive, and third additive in Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired flammability, battery safety, cycle performance, battery weight, and energy density (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 15:
Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. teach a lithium secondary battery as set forth above.
Further, Abe et al. teaches a concentration of all of the electrolyte salts in which they are dissolved and used is generally preferably at least 0.3 M. The concentration of these electrolyte salts is preferably not greater than 3 M (0027)
Regarding claim 18:
Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. teach a lithium secondary battery as set forth above.
Further, given that Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. teach a lithium secondary battery as presently claimed, a charging upper limit voltage of the lithium secondary battery would necessarily inherently be 4.4 V or higher.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (EP 1758198 A1) in view of Liu et al. (CN 115000509 A), Lee et al. (US 20180040898 A1), and Kwok et al. (US 20200243828 A1).
Regarding claim 13:
Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. teach a lithium secondary battery as set forth above.
However, Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. do not disclose the amount of propionate-based solvent.
Kwok et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery, and that in order to improve the low-temperature characteristic of the lithium secondary battery, methyl propionate can be further added to the organic solvent in the electrolyte (0117).
In light of the motivation for using methyl propionate disclosed by Kwok et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use methyl propionate in the electrolyte of the lithium secondary battery of Abe et al. in view of Liu et al. and Lee et al. in order to improve the low-temperature characteristic of the lithium secondary battery.
Kwok et al. disclose the methyl propionate improve the low-temperature characteristic of the lithium secondary battery (0117).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific amount of propionate-based solvent is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the low-temperature characteristic of the lithium secondary battery is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of methyl propionate, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of methyl propionate in Abe et al. in view of Liu et al., Lee et al., and Kwok et al. to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the low-temperature characteristic of the lithium secondary battery (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights