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 .
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-5, 8-14, 16-18.
The examined Claims are 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, with Claims 1, 5, 9-10, 13, 18 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Per the aforementioned amendments to the Claims, the previous rejection(s) of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Furthermore, Applicant has mainly amended (1) amended independent Claims 1 and 18 to each require the instantly claimed “d3/A” inequality and the instantly claimed “25% to 55%” mass percentage of the first solvent in the electrolyte, and (2) amended Claim 5 to limit the identity of the first solvent, and (3) amended Claims 9-10, 13 in view of the cancelled limitations of Claim 1.
Applicant argues that the prior art rejections of record are overcome because the Tang reference, at best, discloses the “fluorinated additive” at a mass percentage of 1-20% instead of the instantly claimed range of 25-55% (Pages 9-11 of Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims. It is noted, however, that all previous prior art rejections of record are hereby withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 13-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0014061), and further in view of Deng et al. (WO 2023045948, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes) and Matsuoka et al. (US 2014/0255796) and Tang et al. (US 2021/0408595).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a secondary battery (“secondary battery”) (Abstract). Wang teaches that the battery comprises a negative electrode plate (“negative electrode sheet”) and an electrolyte (“electrolyte”), wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative current collector (“negative electrode current collector”) and a negative film (“negative electrode active layer”) comprising negative active material, wherein the negative film is on at least one surface of the negative current collector ([0006], [0042]). Wang teaches that the negative film comprises graphite, or may comprise graphite in combination with a silicon-based material ([0044]-[0045]). Wang teaches that the electrolyte comprises, as a first solvent, a carboxylic ester such as methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, propyl propionate, and ethyl butyrate ([0060]). Wang teaches that the electrolyte further comprises a functional additive (“additive”), wherein the functional additive includes vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, and propane sultone (“the electrolyte further comprises an additive, at least a part of which reacts prior to the first solvent at the time of forming a solid electrolyte (SEI) film”) (it is noted that Applicant’s Specification as filed, at least based on [0064] and [0066], indicates each of said functional additives of Wang as an example of an additive which reacts, at least in part, prior to the claimed “first solvent” at a time of forming a solid electrolyte interface on the negative film) ([0060]). Wang teaches that m/Cap (where “m” represents the total mass of the electrolyte with a unit of g, and where “Cap” represents the rated capacity of the battery with a unit of Ah) is within a range of 2-6 g/Ah ([0031]). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Wang does not explicitly teach that the areal density of the negative film is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Deng teaches a secondary battery (Abstract). Deng teaches that the secondary battery comprises a negative electrode having a negative electrode material layer on a surface of a negative electrode current collector, wherein the negative electrode material layer comprises graphite ([0073]-[0074], [0088]). Deng teaches that the areal density of the negative electrode material layer is 5-150 g/m2 (i.e. 0.005-0.15 mg/mm2), wherein Deng teaches that an areal density in accordance with said range improves the dynamic performance of the battery while taking into account a higher energy density and helps ensure for control of negative electrode slurry coating processes ([0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Wang, ensure that the areal density of the negative film is within a range of 0.005-0.15 mg/mm2, as taught by Deng, given that an areal density in accordance with said range would help improves the dynamic performance of the secondary battery while taking into account a higher energy density, and help ensure for control of negative electrode slurry coating processes. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Wang, as modified by Deng, does not explicitly teach that the lithium ion conductivity of the electrolyte at 25°C is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Matsuoka teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (Abstract). Matsuoka teaches that the battery comprises an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte exhibits a lithium ion conductivity, at 25°C, of 15-50 mS/cm ([0058]). Matsuoka teaches that a lithium ion conductivity in accordance with said range helps enable a high rate performance, enables charging and discharging at a large current, and helps suppress battery degradation due to elution or peeling phenomena ([0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Wang, as modified by Deng, ensure that the lithium ion conductivity of the electrolyte at 25°C is within a range of 15-50 mS/cm, as taught by Matsuoka, given that a lithium ion conductivity in accordance with said range would help enable a high rate performance, help enable charging and discharging at a large current, and help suppress battery degradation due to elution or peeling phenomena. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka, does not explicitly teach that the first solvent (i.e. carboxylic ester) has a general structural formula as instantly claimed with at least one of R1 or R2 being C1-C5 haloalkyl, wherein a mass percentage of the first solvent in the electrolyte is 25% to 55%.
However, Tang teaches a battery comprising an electrolyte (Abstract). Tang teaches that the electrolyte comprises a fluorinated additive as a co-solvent, wherein the fluorinated additive is a carboxylic ester such as fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate ([0050], Claim 18). Tang teaches that the fluorinated additive is present in an amount of 5-50 wt% based on the weight of the electrolyte ([0054]). Tang teaches that the fluorinated additive helps improve battery cycle performance and easily forms an organic protective layers, especially in context of a silicon-containing negative electrode ([0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the first solvent in Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka, a carboxylic ester such as fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate in an amount of 5-50 wt% based on the weight of the electrolyte, as taught by Tang, given that such an amount of such a carboxylic acid ester would help improve battery cycle performance and easily forms organic protective layers. It is noted that both fluorinated methyl acetate and fluorinated ethyl acetate are described by the instantly claimed general formula with at least one of R1 or R2 being C1-C5 haloalkyl (i.e. fluoroalkyl). It is also noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the lithium ion conductivity of the electrolyte is, at 25°C, a range of 15-50 mS/cm. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the lithium ion conductivity of the electrolyte is, at 25°C, a range of 15-50 mS/cm. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the areal density of the negative film is within a range of 0.005-0.15 mg/mm2. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the first solvent is fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate (i.e. instantly claimed compounds (9) and (10)).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the functional additive includes vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, and propane sultone (i.e. the functional additive satisfies at least “(2) the additive comprises one or more of vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, vinyl sulfate, vinyl sulfite, 1,3-propane sultone, and 1,3-propene sultone).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, Wang teaches that the negative film exhibits a pressing density (“compacted density”) within a range of 0.8-2.0 g/cm3 ([0055]). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wang teaches that in addition to the carboxylic ester (See Claim 1 in context of Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang), the electrolyte further comprises, as a “second solvent,” at least one of a cyclic carbonate and a linear carbonate ([0060]).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wang further teaches that the battery comprises a positive electrode plate (“positive electrode sheet”), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive current collector (“positive electrode current collector”) and a positive film (“positive electrode active layer”) on at least one surface of the positive current collector ([0006]-[0007]). Wang teaches that the positive film comprises LiFe1-yMnyPO4 (0 ≤ y ≤ 1) (“olivine-structured lithium-containing phosphate”) ([0033], [0037]).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, does not explicitly teach an electric device comprising the secondary battery.
However, Wang further teaches that secondary batteries are utilized in portable electronic products and automotives as power sources ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, incorporate the secondary battery into a portable electronic product or automotive (“electric device comprising the secondary battery”), as taught by Wang, given that such devices are taught by Wang to specifically use/include secondary batteries as power sources therein.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0014061), and further in view of Deng et al. (WO 2023045948, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes) and Matsuoka et al. (US 2014/0255796) and Tang et al. (US 2021/0408595) and Jiang et al. (US 2022/0123366).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, does not explicitly teach a mass of the first solvent and a mass of the functional additive satisfy the instantly claimed inequality.
However, and as previously described (See Claim 1), the fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate is present in an amount of 5-50 wt%.
Furthermore, Jiang teaches a secondary battery (Abstract). Jiang teaches that the electrolyte comprises an additive therein such as vinylene carbonate or fluoroethylene carbonate ([0037]). Jiang teaches that the additive is present in the electrolyte in an amount of 10 wt% or less (i.e. 10 mass% or less), given that an unduly small amount of the additive will lead to incomplete film formation at an electrode interface and unstable structure, whereas an excessively large amount of the additive will increase film formation resistance ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, ensure that the functional additive is present in the electrolyte in an amount of 10 mass% or less, as taught by Jiang, given that such an amount of functional additive would help prevent incomplete film formation at an electrode interface while ensuring its stable structure, and help prevent increases in film formation resistance.
The aforementioned ranges of the mass of the first solvent (i.e. fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate) and the mass of the functional additive of Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang and Jiang, provide for values which result in at least an overlap with the applicable values of the instantly claimed inequality (especially, for example, assuming a basis of 100 g of electrolyte) (Applicant is welcome, however, to provide explicit evidence that said aforementioned ranges would not provide for such overlapping values). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, does not explicitly teach a mass of the first solvent, a mass of the functional additive, and a rated capacity of the battery satisfy the instantly claimed inequality.
However, and as previously described (See Claim 1), the fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate is present in an amount of 5-50 wt%, and m/Cap (where “m” represents the total mass of the electrolyte with a unit of g, and where “Cap” represents the rated capacity of the battery with a unit of Ah) is within a range of 2-6 g/Ah.
Furthermore, Jiang teaches a secondary battery (Abstract). Jiang teaches that the electrolyte comprises an additive therein such as vinylene carbonate or fluoroethylene carbonate ([0037]). Jiang teaches that the additive is present in the electrolyte in an amount of 10 wt% or less (i.e. 10 mass% or less), given that an unduly small amount of the additive will lead to incomplete film formation at an electrode interface and unstable structure, whereas an excessively large amount of the additive will increase film formation resistance ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, ensure that the functional additive is present in the electrolyte in an amount of 10 mass% or less, as taught by Jiang, given that such an amount of functional additive would help prevent incomplete film formation at an electrode interface while ensuring its stable structure, and help prevent increases in film formation resistance.
The aforementioned ranges of the mass of the first solvent (i.e. fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate), the mass of the functional additive, and the m/Cap of Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang and Jiang, provide for values which result in at least an overlap with the applicable values of the instantly claimed inequality (especially, for example, assuming a basis of 100 g of electrolyte) (Applicant is welcome, however, to provide explicit evidence that said aforementioned ranges would not provide for such overlapping values). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, Wang also teaches that the graphite is artificial graphite ([0044]).
Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, does not explicitly teach a mass of the first solvent, a mass of the functional additive, and a rated capacity of the battery satisfy the instantly claimed inequality.
However, and as previously described (See Claim 1), the fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate is present in an amount of 5-50 wt%, and m/Cap (where “m” represents the total mass of the electrolyte with a unit of g, and where “Cap” represents the rated capacity of the battery with a unit of Ah) is within a range of 2-6 g/Ah.
Furthermore, Jiang teaches a secondary battery (Abstract). Jiang teaches that the electrolyte comprises an additive therein such as vinylene carbonate or fluoroethylene carbonate ([0037]). Jiang teaches that the additive is present in the electrolyte in an amount of 10 wt% or less (i.e. 10 mass% or less), given that an unduly small amount of the additive will lead to incomplete film formation at an electrode interface and unstable structure, whereas an excessively large amount of the additive will increase film formation resistance ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, ensure that the functional additive is present in the electrolyte in an amount of 10 mass% or less, as taught by Jiang, given that such an amount of functional additive would help prevent incomplete film formation at an electrode interface while ensuring its stable structure, and help prevent increases in film formation resistance.
The aforementioned ranges of the mass of the first solvent (i.e. fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate), the mass of the functional additive, and the m/Cap of Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang and Jiang, provide for values which result in at least an overlap with the applicable values of the instantly claimed inequality (especially, for example, assuming a basis of 100 g of electrolyte) (Applicant is welcome, however, to provide explicit evidence that said aforementioned ranges would not provide for such overlapping values). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Furthermore, Wang also teaches that the graphite is natural graphite ([0044]).
Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, does not explicitly teach a mass of the first solvent, a mass of the functional additive, and a rated capacity of the battery satisfy the instantly claimed inequality.
However, and as previously described (See Claim 1), the fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate is present in an amount of 5-50 wt%, and m/Cap (where “m” represents the total mass of the electrolyte with a unit of g, and where “Cap” represents the rated capacity of the battery with a unit of Ah) is within a range of 2-6 g/Ah.
Furthermore, Jiang teaches a secondary battery (Abstract). Jiang teaches that the electrolyte comprises an additive therein such as vinylene carbonate or fluoroethylene carbonate ([0037]). Jiang teaches that the additive is present in the electrolyte in an amount of 10 wt% or less (i.e. 10 mass% or less), given that an unduly small amount of the additive will lead to incomplete film formation at an electrode interface and unstable structure, whereas an excessively large amount of the additive will increase film formation resistance ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, ensure that the functional additive is present in the electrolyte in an amount of 10 mass% or less, as taught by Jiang, given that such an amount of functional additive would help prevent incomplete film formation at an electrode interface while ensuring its stable structure, and help prevent increases in film formation resistance.
The aforementioned ranges of the mass of the first solvent (i.e. fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate), the mass of the functional additive, and the m/Cap of Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang and Jiang, provide for values which result in at least an overlap with the applicable values of the instantly claimed inequality (especially, for example, assuming a basis of 100 g of electrolyte) (Applicant is welcome, however, to provide explicit evidence that said aforementioned ranges would not provide for such overlapping values). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0014061), and further in view of Deng et al. (WO 2023045948, using the provided English machine translation for citation purposes) and Matsuoka et al. (US 2014/0255796) and Tang et al. (US 2021/0408595) and Wei et al. (CN 112768769, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang teaches a secondary battery (“secondary battery”) (Abstract). Wang teaches that the battery comprises a negative electrode plate (“negative electrode sheet”) and an electrolyte (“electrolyte”), wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative current collector (“negative electrode current collector”) and a negative film (“negative electrode active layer”) comprising negative active material, wherein the negative film is on at least one surface of the negative current collector ([0006], [0042]). Wang teaches that the negative film comprises graphite, or may comprise graphite in combination with a silicon-based material ([0044]-[0045]). Wang teaches that the electrolyte comprises, as a first solvent, a carboxylic ester such as methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, propyl propionate, and ethyl butyrate ([0060]). Wang teaches that the electrolyte further comprises a functional additive (“additive”), wherein the functional additive includes vinylene carbonate, fluoroethylene carbonate, and propane sultone (“the electrolyte further comprises an additive, at least a part of which reacts prior to the first solvent at the time of forming a solid electrolyte (SEI) film”) (it is noted that Applicant’s Specification as filed, at least based on [0064] and [0066], indicates each of said functional additives of Wang as an example of an additive which reacts, at least in part, prior to the claimed “first solvent” at a time of forming a solid electrolyte interface on the negative film) ([0060]). Wang teaches that m/Cap (where “m” represents the total mass of the electrolyte with a unit of g, and where “Cap” represents the rated capacity of the battery with a unit of Ah) is within a range of 2-6 g/Ah ([0031]). It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Wang does not explicitly teach that the areal density of the negative film is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Deng teaches a secondary battery (Abstract). Deng teaches that the secondary battery comprises a negative electrode having a negative electrode material layer on a surface of a negative electrode current collector, wherein the negative electrode material layer comprises graphite ([0073]-[0074], [0088]). Deng teaches that the areal density of the negative electrode material layer is 5-150 g/m2 (i.e. 0.005-0.15 mg/mm2), wherein Deng teaches that an areal density in accordance with said range improves the dynamic performance of the battery while taking into account a higher energy density and helps ensure for control of negative electrode slurry coating processes ([0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Wang, ensure that the areal density of the negative film is within a range of 0.005-0.15 mg/mm2, as taught by Deng, given that an areal density in accordance with said range would help improves the dynamic performance of the secondary battery while taking into account a higher energy density, and help ensure for control of negative electrode slurry coating processes. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Wang, as modified by Deng, does not explicitly teach that the lithium ion conductivity of the electrolyte at 25°C is in accordance with the instantly claimed range.
However, Matsuoka teaches a lithium ion secondary battery (Abstract). Matsuoka teaches that the battery comprises an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte exhibits a lithium ion conductivity, at 25°C, of 15-50 mS/cm ([0058]). Matsuoka teaches that a lithium ion conductivity in accordance with said range helps enable a high rate performance, enables charging and discharging at a large current, and helps suppress battery degradation due to elution or peeling phenomena ([0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, with respect to Wang, as modified by Deng, ensure that the lithium ion conductivity of the electrolyte at 25°C is within a range of 15-50 mS/cm, as taught by Matsuoka, given that a lithium ion conductivity in accordance with said range would help enable a high rate performance, help enable charging and discharging at a large current, and help suppress battery degradation due to elution or peeling phenomena. It is noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka, does not explicitly teach that the first solvent (i.e. carboxylic ester) has a general structural formula as instantly claimed with at least one of R1 or R2 being C1-C5 haloalkyl, wherein a mass percentage of the first solvent in the electrolyte is 25% to 55%.
However, Tang teaches a battery comprising an electrolyte (Abstract). Tang teaches that the electrolyte comprises a fluorinated additive as a co-solvent, wherein the fluorinated additive is a carboxylic ester such as fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate ([0050], Claim 18). Tang teaches that the fluorinated additive is present in an amount of 5-50 wt% based on the weight of the electrolyte ([0054]). Tang teaches that the fluorinated additive helps improve battery cycle performance and easily forms an organic protective layers, especially in context of a silicon-containing negative electrode ([0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the first solvent in Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka, a carboxylic ester such as fluorinated methyl acetate or fluorinated ethyl acetate in an amount of 5-50 wt% based on the weight of the electrolyte, as taught by Tang, given that such an amount of such a carboxylic acid ester would help improve battery cycle performance and easily forms organic protective layers. It is noted that both fluorinated methyl acetate and fluorinated ethyl acetate are described by the instantly claimed general formula with at least one of R1 or R2 being C1-C5 haloalkyl (i.e. fluoroalkyl). It is also noted that in the case where the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka, does not explicitly teach that the functional additive comprises vinyl sulfite.
However, Wei teaches an electrolyte for a lithium ion battery ([0001]). Wei teaches that the electrolyte comprises 0.1-15 wt% a high-voltage additive therein, wherein the high voltage additive is conventionally utilized and may specifically be vinyl sulfite ([0013]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use vinyl sulfite in an amount of 0.1-15 wt% based on the total weight of the electrolyte, as taught by Wei, as the functional additive in Wang, as modified by Deng and Matsuoka and Tang, given that such a functional additive is both conventionally utilized in electrolytes and would help enhance the high voltage characteristics of the electrolyte.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin, can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights