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 Objections
Claims 6-7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 7 – the units “mol/L” should be parenthesized.
Claim 7 and 11 – the units “wg/cm2” should be parenthesized.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7, 11, 16 and 19 are 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.
Claims 7 and 11 recite, “a coating weight of the positive active material is w mg/cm2” and “a coating weight of the positive active material denoted as w mg/cm2”, respectively. It is unclear whether these pertain to the limitation in claim 1 which requires “a coating weight of the positive active material disposed on the current collector is w (mg/cm2)”, or a coating weigh of a separate or additional coating provided on a different region or surface of the current collector. A review of the instant specification confirms that there are no separate or additional coatings provided on a different region or surface of the current collector. Thus, for examination purposes, examiner has interpreted the respective claim recitations to refer to the coating weight of the positive active material recited in claim 1. In order to correct the ambiguity raised by the respective claim recitations, examiner suggest amending claims 7 and 11 to delete these specific recitations.
Claims 16 and 19 are similarly rejected by virtue of being dependent on rejected claims 7 and 11, respectively.
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, 8, 11-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Won (US20210234199A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Won discloses an electrochemical device (a lithium-ion secondary battery pouch cell) [Abstract; pars. 0001,0154,0158,0162-0165; Table 1], comprising:
a positive electrode,
a negative electrode, and
an electrolyte [pars. 0008,0154,0165; Table 1];
wherein the electrolyte comprises a fluorine-substituted linear carboxylate ester (2,2-difluoroethyl acetate [DFEA]) [pars. 0020,0069,0142,0154; Table 1], and based on a total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percent of the fluorine-substituted linear carboxylate ester is a%, where 10≤a≤70 (Won discloses DFEA in amounts of 64.34 wt% in EX1-EX3 and 72.63 wt% in EX4, and broadly from 70% to 95 wt%) [pars. 0010,0072,0154,0174; Table 1, Table 3];
the positive electrode comprises a positive current collector (15 micron thick aluminum foil) and a positive active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive current collector (coated onto both sides of the aluminum foil) [par. 0162], the positive active material layer comprises a nickel-containing positive active material Li1.005M’0.995O2, where M’ = M′=Ni0.625Mn0.175Co0.20, containing 37.8 wt% Ni) [par. 0161]; and based on a total mass of the positive active material layer, a mass percent of nickel is x%, where 33≤x≤55 (in paragraph [0162], the positive active material layer consists of 92 wt% of said active material, 4wt% conductive carbon, and 4 wt% PVDF binder, yielding a nickel content of x = 37.8 wt% x 0.92 = 34.78 wt%, satisfying 33≤x≤55 [pars. 0161-0162]; and
a coating weight of the positive active material disposed on the positive current collector is w (mg/cm2), where 6.5≤w≤19.5, (Won explicitly discloses a cathode active material loading weight of w = 13.9 mg/cm2 [par. 0162]; and 1.0≤a/w≤8.2 (in Won EX1-EX3, a = 64.34 wt% and w = 13.9 mg/cm2, resulting in an a/w ratio of 64.34/13.9 = 4.63, which satisfies the claimed range of 1.0≤a/w≤8.2) [pars. 0154,0162; Table 1].
Regarding Claim 2, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 1, wherein the fluorine-substituted linear carboxylate ester comprises at least one of compounds represented by Formula I wherein R1 and R2 each independently are an unsubstituted or fluorine-substituted C1 to C3 alkyl, and at least one of R1 or R2 is a fluorine-substituted C1 to C3 alkyl (Won discloses 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate [DFEA], wherein R1 is methyl and R2 is –CH2CF2H, as well as 2,2-difluoroethyl propionate) [pars. 0054-0069; claim 8].
Regarding Claim 3, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 2, wherein the fluorine-substituted linear carboxylate ester comprises 2,2-difluoroethyl acetate (Formula I-5) [pars. 0069,0142,0154; Table 1; claim 8].
Regarding Claim 8, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 1, wherein the electrolyte further comprises a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate ester, and the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate ester comprises propylene carbonate (PC) [pars. 0009,0035-0043,0154; Table 1, Table 3; claims 1, 3].
Regarding Claims 11 and 19, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 8, wherein based on the total mass of the electrolyte, b2% is a mass percent of PC [pars. 0043,0154,0174], the coating weight of the positive active material is w = 13.9 mg/cm2 [par. 0162], and 0.3≤b2/w≤5.4, or 0.5≤b2/w≤5.0 (Won explicitly discloses in EX4 that the electrolyte contains b2 = 8.45 wt% PC, yielding a ratio b2/w = 8.45/13.9 = 0.61and in EX1-EX3 that the electrolyte contains b2 = 18.01 wt% PC, yielding a ratio b2/w = 18.01/13.9 = 1.30, both of which fall within 0.3≤b2/w≤5.4 or 0.5≤b2/w≤5.0 [pars. 0154,0162,0174; Table 1, Table 3].
Regarding Claim 12, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 1, wherein the electrolyte further satisfies:
condition (2) wherein the electrolyte comprises a fluorinated carbonate ester (fluoroethylene carbonate [FEC]) in an amount of 0.1% to 5% by mass based on the total mass of the electrolyte (Won explicitly discloses 3.43 wt% FEC in EX1-EX3 and 3.38 wt% FEC in EX4) [pars. 0009,0052,0154,0174; Table 1, Table 3];
condition (3) wherein the electrolyte comprises a cyclic sultone (1,3-propane sultone [PS]) in an amount of 0.1% to 5% by mass (Won discloses 1.5 wt% PS in EX3) [pars. 0013,0101-0102,0154; Table 1]; and
condition (4) wherein the electrolyte comprises a cyclic sulfate (1,3,2-dioxathiolane-2,2-dioxide [ESa] or 1,3,2-dioxathiane-2,2-dioxide [PES]) in an amount of 0.1% to 5% by mass (Won discloses 1.5 wt% ESa in EX1 and 1.5 wt% PES in EX2) [pars. 0013,0097-0100,0154; Table 1].
Regarding Claim 13, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 12, wherein the fluorinated carbonate ester comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) [pars. 0049,0154; Table 1]; the cyclic sultone comprises 1,3-propane sultone (PS) [pars. 0101-0102,0154; Table 1]; and the cyclic sulfate comprises 1,3,2-dioxathiolane-2,2-dioxide (ESa / ethylene sulfate) [pars. 0097-0099,0154; Table 1].
Regarding Claim 20, Won discloses an electronic device comprising the electrochemical device of Claim 1 which is identical to the electrochemical device of instant claim (Won explicitly discloses that secondary battery cells comprising the electrolyte composition and high-voltage cathodes are utilized in portable electronic devices, including mobile phones, laptop computers, and cameras) [par. 0004].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won, as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 respectively.
Regarding Claims 5, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 1, wherein the electrolyte comprises an electrolyte salt [pars. 0011,0073-0078,0154; Table 1], but fails to explicitly use lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) in Example 1 (which utilizes LiPF6) [par. 0154; Table 1].
However, Won explicitly discloses that the electrolyte salt can be selected from lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) [pars. 0074,0076,0125; claim 19]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to substitute LiPF6 with LiFSI as taught by Won [pars. 0074,0076] in the electrolyte composition of Won [Table 1] in order to enhance ionic conductivity and provide an electrolyte salt known for high thermal stability and superior kinetic performance in secondary batteries [par. 0076].
Regarding Claim 6, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 5, wherein the electrolyte salt is present in an amount ranging from 5% to 20% by weight, preferably 9% to 16% by weight, and specifically utilizes 11.37 wt% salt corresponding to approximately 1.0 mol/L concentration [pars. 0077,0154; Table 1]. To the extent Won does not explicitly state the molar concentration of LiFSI as c (mol/L) where 0.3≤c≤1.2, Won discloses standard lithium salt concentrations in nonaqueous liquid electrolytes of around 1.0M (corresponding to c=1.0mol/L, which satisfies 0.3≤c≤1.2) [pars. 0074,0077,0154]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan to formulate the LiFSI salt of Won at a concentration of 0.3≤c≤1.2mol/L (such as 1.0mol/L) in order to ensure optimal ion dissociation, minimize viscosity, and achieve sufficient electrical conductivity [pars. 0017,0077].
Regarding Claim 7, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 5, wherein a concentration of the lithium salt is c is about 1.0 mol/L [pars. 0077,0154] and the coating weight of the positive active material is w = 13.9 mg/cm2 [par. 0162]. Calculating the quotient c/w yields 1.0/13.9 = 0.072 which falls within the claimed range 0.04≤c/w≤0.18. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan to employ the disclosed loading weight of 13.9 mg/cm2 with a standard 1.0 M lithium salt concentration in Won, thereby arriving at the claimed ratio c/w to ensure sufficient lithium-ion availability relative to cathode mass loading [pars. 0077,0162].
Regarding Claim 15, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 6, wherein the lithium salt concentration satisfies 0.5≤c≤1.2. (Won discloses standard salt concentrations of c = 1.0 mol/L) [pars. 0077,0154].
Regarding Claim 16, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 7, wherein c/w satisfies 0.05≤c/w≤0.16 (in Won, c = 1.0 mol/L and w = 13.9 mg/cm2, yielding c/w = 1.0/13.9 = 0.072) [pars. 0077,0162].
Claim(s) 4, 9, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won, as applied to claims 3 and 8, respectively, and further in view of Uehara (US20140017572A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 3, wherein the electrolyte comprises a fluorine-substituted linear carboxylate ester (DFEA) in an amount of 64.34 wt% [pars. 0069,0154; Table 1]. Won fails to explicitly disclose that the electrolyte comprises a compound of Formula I-1 (fluoromethyl acetate) and a compound of Formula I-2 (methyl difluoroacetate), wherein 10≤a1+a2≤70. Uehara discloses nonaqueous electrolyte compositions for lithium secondary batteries comprising chain-type fluorinated ester compounds represented by formula (1) [pars. 0029,0044-0053]. Uehara explicitly discloses the compound of Formula I-1 (R1= –CH3, R2= –CH2F, fluoromethyl acetate) [pars. 0125,0147; Tables 1, 2, 6] and the compound of Formula I-2 (R1 = –CHF2, R2= –CH3, methyl difluoroacetate) [Tables 1, 2, 6, Examples 5, 31, 83], and explicitly teaches that "The chain-type fluorinated ester compound can be used alone, or in combination with two or more kinds" [par. 0052]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to modify Won by combining the fluorinated linear esters taught by Uehara (specifically combining the compound of Formula I-1 and the compound of Formula I-2) [pars. 0049-0052,0125; Tables 1, 2, 6] as the fluorinated linear carboxylate ester component in the electrolyte composition of Won [Table 1], in an amount of 10≤a1+a2≤70 (such as the 64.34 wt% total ester loading disclosed in Won EX1), in order to optimize oxidation resistance, lower electrolyte viscosity, and suppress electrolyte decomposition and gas evolution at high operating voltages [pars. 0041,0043,0072; par. 0005]
Regarding Claim 14, Won in view of Uehara discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 4 [pars. 0049-0052,0125,0154; Table 1], wherein 40≤a1+a2≤70 (Won explicitly formulates its fluorinated linear ester at 64.34 wt%, which falls directly within 40≤a1+a2≤70) [par. 0154; Table 1]. Won and Uehara fail to explicitly specify the combined concentration of Formula I-1 and Formula I-2 as 40≤a1+a2≤70. Won discloses formulating fluorinated linear esters in bulk solvent concentrations of 64.34wt% to 72.63 wt% [pars. 0010,0072,0154,0174; Table 1, Table 3]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to modify Won by employing the binary ester blend of Formula I-1 and Formula I-2 taught by Uehara [pars. 0052,0125] at the total concentration of 64.34 wt% taught by Won [par. 0154; Table 1] in order to satisfy 40≤a1+a2≤70 to improve high-temperature cycle performance and reduce direct-current resistance [par. 0015; par. 0043].
Regarding Claim 9, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 8, comprising an electrolyte that contains a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate (PC) in an amount of 5% to 17 wt% [pars. 0009,0041-0043,0154; Table 1]. Won fails to explicitly disclose an electrolyte containing both ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC) satisfying 5≤b1+b2≤40, and 0.2≤b1/b2≤5 in its working examples (which utilize PC without EC in EX1-EX4) [Table 1, Table 3].
In this regard, Uehara discloses nonaqueous electrolyte lithium-ion secondary batteries comprising a fluorinated acyclic ester compound [pars. 0029,0044-0053,0125] and a carbonate solvent mixture comprising both ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC) [pars. 0070-0073,0125]. Specifically, in paragraph [0125], Uehara prepares an electrolyte comprising 70 vol% of a carbonate solvent mixture consisting of EC/PC/DMC/EMC/DEC = 20/20/20/20/20 by volume, representing 14 vol% EC b1 and 14 vol% PC b2 relative to the total solvent [par. 0125]. Taking into account standard liquid densities EC = 1.32 g/cm3, PC = 1.20 g/cm3, the combined mass percent of EC and PC (b1+b2) is approximately 27 wt%, satisfying 5≤b1+b2≤40; and the mass ratio b1/b2 = (14 x 1.32)/(14 x 1.20) = 1.1, which satisfies 0.2≤b1/b2≤5 [par. 0125]. Uehara further teaches that co-formulating cyclic carbonates such as EC and PC improves lithium-salt dissociation and ionic mobility while mitigating gas evolution in secondary cells [pars. 0071,0075]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to modify the non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate solvent system of Won by incorporating a co-solvent mixture of EC and PC in equal volumetric proportions (satisfying 5≤b1+b2≤40, and 0.2≤b1/b2≤5) as taught by Uehara [par. 0125] in order to enhance lithium salt dissociation, increase dielectric constant, and improve low-temperature viscosity and cycling performance [pars. 0071,0072,0075].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 9, wherein b1+b2 and b1/b2 satisfy 10≤b1+b2≤40 and 0.5≤b1/b2≤5 (as established above, Uehara's equal volumetric mixture provides b1+b2 approximately 27 wt% and b1/b2 = 1.1) [par. 0125].
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Arora (US20160164057A1 – see IDS).
Regarding Claim 10, Won discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 8, comprising a positive active material layer where the mass percent of nickel is x = 34.78 wt% 33≤x≤55 [pars. 0161,0162], and an electrolyte comprising a non-fluorinated cyclic carbonate [pars. 0009,0041-0043,0154; Table 1]. Won fails to explicitly use ethylene carbonate (EC) in an amount b1% satisfying 0.1≤b1/x≤1.0 in its working examples (which utilize PC in EX1-EX4) [Table 1, Table 3]. However, Arora discloses nonaqueous electrolytes for lithium-ion batteries comprising a fluorinated linear carboxylate ester (DFEA) co-formulated with ethylene carbonate (EC) [pars. 0128,0224]. Specifically, in paragraph [0224], Arora discloses an electrolyte containing 3.10 g of EC in an 11.77 g total formulation, yielding an EC mass percent of b1 = [3.10 / (7.32 + 3.10 + 1.35)] x 100% = 26.3 wt% [par. 0224]. Combining Arora's EC mass percent (b1 = 26.3 wt%) with Won's active layer nickel content (x = 34.78 wt%) yields a ratio of b1/x = 26.3/34.75 = 0.76, which squarely satisfies 0.1≤b_1/x≤1.0. Arora teaches that EC provides high dielectric constant to dissociate lithium salts and promotes stable SEI film formation at high operating voltages [pars. 0108,0128]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to modify Won by substituting or combining the cyclic carbonate component with ethylene carbonate at a concentration of b1 = 26.3 wt% as taught by Arora [par. 0224] in order to satisfy 0.1≤b_1/x≤1.0 to promote effective film formation at the negative electrode and reduce side reactions on the nickel-containing positive active material layer [pars. 0108,0128].
Regarding Claim 18, Won in view of Arora discloses the electrochemical device of Claim 10, wherein b1/x satisfies 0.2≤b1/x≤0.8 (as calculated above, combining Arora's EC content b1 = 26.3 wt% with Won's active layer nickel content x = 34.78wt% yields b1/x = 0.76, which satisfies 0.2≤b1/x≤0.8 [par. 0224; pars. 0161,0162].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights