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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 2 repeats the following limitation from claim 1: “a molar ratio of the first lithium salt to the second lithium salt is 0.65:0.35 to 0.75:0.25”. This repeat claim limitation should be removed from claim 2.
Claim 3 should be amended as follows for proper antecedent basis, due to these limitations previously introduced in claim 1:
“the first lithium salt containing [[a]] the fluorosulfonyl group and the solvent containing [[a]] the fluorosulfonyl group do not contain a trifluoromethanesulfonyl group”
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20180124722A machine translation (Cho) in view of “N,N-dimethyl fluorosulfonamide for suppressed aluminum corrosion in lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide-based electrolytes” (Wu).
With regard to claim 1, Cho teaches the following claim limitations:
An electrolyte for a lithium metal battery (page 1, lines 15-16; page 3, lines 38-42), the electrolyte comprising:
a first lithium salt containing a fluorosulfonyl group represented by Chemical Formula 1 (page 3, line 16; Figure A below: LiFSI);
a second lithium salt containing a trifluoromethanesulfonyl group represented by Chemical Formula 2 (page 3, line 17; Figure A: LiTFSI)…
[Chemical Formula 1] [Chemical Formula 2]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Cho Figure 1
PNG
media_image3.png
174
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cho also teaches the following claim limitation:
wherein a molar ratio of the first lithium salt to the second lithium salt is 0.65:0.35 to 0.75:0.25 (page 3, lines 16-17: 0.2 to 0.4 M LiFSI and 0.2 to 0.4 M LiTFSI):
Cho thus teaches 0.33:0.67 to 0.67:0.33 molar ratios (
0.2
0.2
+
0.4
=
0.33
,
0.4
0.4
+
0.2
=
0.67
). MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Given that Cho’s range overlaps the claimed range, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the claimed range is an obvious variant of Cho’s range.
Cho, however, fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation, which is taught by Wu:
a solvent containing a fluorosulfonyl group represented by Chemical Formula 1
Wu teaches N,N-dimethyl fluorosulfonamide, also called DMFSA, in an electrolyte. DMFSA is the same as Chemical Formula 8 in present claim 9. As illustrated in Figure B below, the left portion of DMFSA / Chemical Formula 8 is the same as Chemical Formula 1 in present claim 1.
Figure B: Wu Figure 1
PNG
media_image4.png
404
1087
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wu teaches that a lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) electrolyte causes aluminum current collector corrosion (abstract). LiTFSI is the same as Chemical Formula 7 in present claim 8. DMFSA suppresses this aluminum corrosion (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Cho’s electrolyte, that includes LiTFSI, to also include DMFSA, as taught by Wu, to suppress aluminum corrosion.
With regard to claim 2, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Cho and Wu also teach the following limitations of claim 2:
the first lithium salt comprises a first lithium salt represented by Chemical Formula 3 (Cho page 3, line 16; Figure A above: LiFSI),
the second lithium salt comprises a second lithium salt represented by Chemical Formula 4 (Cho page 3, line 17; Figure A: LiTFSI),
the solvent comprises a solvent represented by Chemical Formula 5 (Wu abstract; Figure B above: DMFSA), and
a molar ratio of the first lithium salt to the second lithium salt is 0.65:0.35 to 0.75:0.25 (this repeated limitation is discussed under the claim 1 rejection above),
[Chemical Formula 3] [Chemical Formula 4] [Chemical Formula 5]
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
130
159
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are substituted with one functional group selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, and
R3 and R4 are each independently substituted with one functional group selected from the group consisting of hydrogen and an unsubstituted C1-10 alkyl group
With regard to claim 3, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Cho and Wu also teach the following limitations of claim 3:
the first lithium salt containing a fluorosulfonyl group… do not contain a trifluoromethanesulfonyl group (Cho’s LiFSI doesn’t have a trifluoromethanesulfonyl group)
…the solvent containing a fluorosulfonyl group do not contain a trifluoromethanesulfonyl group (Wu’s DMFSA doesn’t have a trifluoromethanesulfonyl group)
With regard to claim 4, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Cho also teaches the following limitation of claim 4:
the second lithium salt containing a trifluoromethanesulfonyl group does not contain a fluorosulfonyl group (Cho’s LiTFSI doesn’t have a fluorosulfonyl group)
With regard to claim 7, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Cho also teaches the following limitation of claim 7:
the first lithium salt is a lithium salt represented by Chemical Formula 6:
[Chemical Formula 6]
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Cho’s LiFSI (Figure A above) is the same as Chemical Formula 6.
With regard to claim 8, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Cho also teaches the following limitation of claim 8:
the second lithium salt is a lithium salt represented by Chemical Formula 7:
[Chemical Formula 7]
PNG
media_image9.png
200
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Cho’s LiTFSI (Figure A above) is the same as Chemical Formula 7.
With regard to claim 9, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Cho also teaches the following limitation of claim 7:
the solvent is a solvent represented by Chemical Formula 8:
[Chemical Formula 8]
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Wu’s DMFSA (Figure B above) is the same as Chemical Formula 8.
With regard to claim 10, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Cho also teaches the following limitation of claim 10:
one or more additives selected from… fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)… (page 3, lines 9-12)
With regard to claim 11, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 10 as described above. Claim 11 states:
the lithium nitrate is contained in an amount of 0.01 to 0.1 wt% with respect to a total weight of the electrolyte for a lithium metal battery
This claim limitation further defines lithium nitrate in the group of additives in claim 10, but is doesn’t require that the electrolyte includes lithium nitrate. Cho teaches FEC, so there is no requirement for Cho to also include lithium nitrate, including the wt% range of claim 11.
With regard to claim 12, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 12 states:
the molar ratio of the first lithium salt to the second lithium salt is 0.7:0.3
Cho teaches a 0.67:0.33 molar ratio (page 3, lines 16-17, see also claim 1 rejection above). Cho’s 0.67:0.33 is close to, but not exactly the same as, 0.7:0.3 in claim 12. MPEP 2144.05 (I) provides the law for this issue:
“Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)… ‘The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.’”
Given that there is only a slight difference between Cho’s 0.67:0.33 and 0.7:0.3 in claim 12, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the claimed range is an obvious variant of Cho’s range.
With regard to claim 19, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Cho also teaches the following limitation of claim 19:
A battery comprising the electrolyte of claim 1 (page 1, lines 15-16; page 3, lines 38-42)
Claims 5-6 & 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20180124722A machine translation (Cho) in view of “N,N-dimethyl fluorosulfonamide for suppressed aluminum corrosion in lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide-based electrolytes” (Wu), as applied to claims 1 & 12, and further in view of US20230318049A1 (Matsumoto). Cho fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Matsumoto:
Claim 5
a molar ratio of the solvent to a complex salt comprising the first lithium salt and the second lithium salt is 1:1 to 1:10 (paragraph 45)
Claim 6
the molar ratio of the solvent to the complex salt comprising the first lithium salt and the second lithium salt is 1:3 (paragraph 45)
Claim 13
a molar ratio of the solvent to a complex salt comprising the first lithium salt and the second lithium salt is 1:1 to 1:10 (paragraph 45)
Claim 14
the molar ratio of the solvent to the complex salt comprising the first lithium salt and the second lithium salt is 1:3 (paragraph 45)
Matsumoto teaches a 1:0 to 1:2 molar ratio of lithium salt to solvent, which is equal to a 0:1 to 2:1 molar ratio of solvent to lithium salt (paragraph 45). Matsumoto’s 0:1 to 2:1 range overlaps the claimed 1:1 to 1:10 range and the 1:3 ratio. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Given that Matsumoto’s range is similar to and substantially overlaps the claimed range & ratio, and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range & ratio, the claimed range is an obvious variant of Matsumoto’s range.
Matsumoto is directed to suppressing lithium ion secondary battery capacity reduction (paragraph 9). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Cho’s electrolyte to have a 0:1 to 2:1 molar ratio of solvent to lithium salt, as taught by Matsumoto, for suppressing lithium ion secondary battery capacity reduction.
Claims 15-18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20180124722A machine translation (Cho) in view of “N,N-dimethyl fluorosulfonamide for suppressed aluminum corrosion in lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide-based electrolytes” (Wu), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20230387459A1 (Doguchi).
With regard to claim 15, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Cho, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claim 15, which are taught by Doguchi:
A lithium metal battery (paragraphs 73-74; figures 5A-5B) comprising: a cathode (paragraph 73; figure 5A: cathode 70); an anode (paragraphs 73-74; figures 5A-5B: anode 30); and an electrolyte (paragraphs 73-74; figures 5A-5B: electrolyte layer 40) located between the cathode and the anode, wherein the electrolyte is the electrolyte for a lithium metal battery of claim 1 (see discussion in the claim 1 rejection above).
Doguchi is directed to a secondary battery with a high-ionic-conductivity solid electrolyte (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Cho’s electrolyte to be part of Doguchi’s battery, as taught by Doguchi, for a secondary battery with a high-ionic-conductivity solid electrolyte.
With regard to claim 16-17, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 15, as discussed above. Claims 16-17 state:
Claim 16
when charged to 4.25 V and then discharged to 2.5 V at 25°C under 1 C-1 C conditions in one cycle, the lithium metal battery has a capacity retention of 70% or more after 120 cycles
Claim 17
when charged to 4.25 V and then discharged to 2.5 V at 25°C under 1/3 C-1/3 C conditions in one cycle, a molar ratio of the total lithium salts to the solvent in the lithium metal battery is 1:1 to 1:10 after 50 cycles
Cho fails to explicitly teach these claim limitations. The present specification teaches that these properties result from the claimed electrolyte and battery (page 7, lines 2-13; page 16, line 18 through page 17, line 9); therefore, modified Cho’s electrolyte and battery presumably also have these properties. MPEP 2112(I) provides guidance for this issue:
“‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’ Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
The patent office does not have the ability to test, or to obtain data for, every possible property. Measurement of a property does not make an old substance patentable.
With regard to claim 18, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 15, as discussed above. Claim 18 states:
in the lithium metal battery, a lithium deposition layer disposed on the anode has a thickness of 40 μm or less
Cho fails to explicitly teach the lithium deposition layer. This lithium deposition layer is a result of operation of the claimed battery. Modified Cho teaches the claimed battery, so the lithium deposition layer would result from operation of the battery of modified Cho.
With regard to claim 20, modified Cho teaches the limitations of claims 1 & 15, as discussed above. Claim 20 states:
A battery comprising the lithium metal battery of claim 15
Cho modified by Doguchi teach this battery, as discussed in claim 15.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon, but made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20230395866A1 solvent to lithium salt molar ratio is 1 to 5 [0008].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
