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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-3, 17, 19-21, 27, and 29-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Green (US 2013/0224583 A1) in view of Pan et al. (US 2018/0248173 A1), hereinafter “Pan ‘173,” Chen et al. (US 2019/0088981 A1), hereinafter “Chen,” and Zhamu et al. (US 2019/0165374 A1), hereinafter “Zhamu ‘374,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
The rejection of claims 4-6 and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Pan ‘173, Chen, Zhamu ‘374, and Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0287142 A1), hereinafter “Zhamu ‘142,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
The rejection of claims 18, 23-26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Pan ‘173, Chen, Zhamu ‘374, and Zhamu et al. (US 2019/0165365 A1), hereinafter “Zhamu ‘365” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Pan ‘173, Chen, Zhamu ‘374 and Brewer et al. (US 2019/0267631 A1), hereinafter “Brewer,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
Claims 1-3, 17, 19-21, 27, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Green in view of Pan ‘173, Chen, and Pan et al. (US 2019/0280301 A1), hereinafter “Pan ‘301.”
Regarding claim 1, Green discloses a porous anode for a lithium battery comprising:
multiple particles of an electrode active material, in this case particles that are electroactive (¶ [0021]), a conductive additive, in this case conductive elements (¶ [0024]), and a polymer binder that bonds said particles and conductive additive together (¶ [0055]) to form said electrode wherein said multiple particles and conductive additive have pores occupying a pore volume faction Vp, in this case the electroactive particles may be porous particles (¶ [0041]), and said electrode has pores, external to the multiple particles, occupying a volume fraction Ve, in this case the electroactive particles may be porous (¶ [0023]), wherein Ve and Vp are all based on total electrode volume exclusive of an current collector, and the total pore volume fraction Vt = Vp + Ve is from 10% to 80%, in this case 35% to 80% in an uncharged state (¶ [0031]), in such a manner that a volume expansion of the electrode in a battery cell during battery charge/discharge operations does not exceed 30%, in this case ensuring that the total porosity is 20% to 30% in a charged state (¶ [0030]) which would result in a volume expansion of 10% or less;
wherein the binder polymer further comprises 0.01% to 50% by weight of a conductive reinforcement material dispersed in or bonded by the binder, in this case a conductive material may be present in the anode mix in an amount of 1% to 20% by weight and selected from carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, acetylene black, and metal whiskers (¶ [0060]). Green is silent as to the elastic coating polymer’s recoverable tensile strain and cross-linked polymer linkage. However, Pan ‘173 discloses an elastic polymer coating for silicon active materials that contains a lightly cross-linked network polymer chains having an ether linkage, nitrile-derived linkage, benzo peroxide-derived linkage, ethylene oxide linkage, propylene oxide linkage, vinyl alcohol linkage, cyano-resin linkage, triacrylate monomer-derived linkage, tetraacrylate monomer-derived linkage, or a combination thereof, in the cross-linked network of polymer chains (¶ [0038]). Furthermore, Pan ‘173 discloses that the elastic polymers exhibit a recoverable tensile strain of 5% to 700% (¶ [0033]-[0034]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such an elastic polymer with the linkage would have exhibited a unique combination of a high elasticity (high elastic deformation strain) and high lithium-ion conductivity (¶ [0038]), thereby facilitating improved anode performance.
Pan ‘173 discloses elastic polymers such as polyaniline, polypyrrole, and polythiophene (¶ [0033]), but does not disclose the recited elastic polymers. However, Chen discloses polymers such as polyacetylene, polyparaphenylene, poly-(p-phenylene vinylene), their derivatives, and others may be used as alternatives to polyaniline, polypyrrole, and polythiophene (¶ [0017]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the polymers disclosed by Chen for those of Pan ‘173 would have yielded the predictable result of providing a polymer coating with the desired properties to promote electrode operation. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the polymers disclosed by Chen for those of Pan ‘173 in order to yield the predictable result of providing a polymer coating with the desired properties to promote electrode operation.
Green does not teach that the conductive reinforcement is selected from the group consisting of graphite nano-fibers, carbon particles, graphite particles, and metal nanowires. However, Pan ‘301 teaches that graphite particles can be used in lieu of acetylene black as a conductive additive (¶ [0028]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the graphite particles for the conductive additives disclosed by Green would have yielded the predictable result of improving the electrode’s electrical conductivity. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted graphite particles for the acetylene black disclosed by Green in order to yield the predictable result improved electrode electrical conductivity.
Regarding claim 2, Green further discloses that the multiple particles comprise porous primary particles, in this case hollow particles having a core comprising a first silicon comprising material and a coating comprising a second silicon comprising material (¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Green discloses that the electrode’s total porosity is preferably between 40% to 75% (¶ [0031]), and the volume expansion during charge/discharge operations does not exceed 10%, in this case ensuring that the total porosity is 20% to 30% in a charged state (¶ [0030]) which would result in a volume expansion of 10% or less. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that making the total porosity to be between 20% to 70% would ensure that electrolyte access is not inhibited (see ¶ [0030]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the electrode’s total porosity to be between 20% to 70% in order to facilitate improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 17, Green further discloses that the electrode active material is selected from the group consisting of silicon, silicon alloys, and others (¶ [0023]).
Regarding claim 19, Green further that the cathode active material is selected from an inorganic material, in this case lithium metal and mixed metal oxides (¶ [0071]).
Regarding claim 20, Green further discloses that the inorganic material is selected from a metal oxide, in this case lithium metal and mixed metal oxides (¶ [0071]).
Regarding claim 21, Green further discloses that the inorganic material is selected from lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium manganese oxide, and lithium mixed-metal oxide (¶ [0071]).
Regarding claim 27, Green further discloses that the metal oxide is a layered compound LiMO2 (¶ [0071]).
Regarding claim 29, Green further discloses that the particles are coated with a layer of carbon (¶ [0047]).
Regarding claim 30, Green further discloses that the conductive additive comprises carbon or graphite materials selected from such as carbon fibers (¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 31, Green discloses that the silicon active material is lithiated (¶ [0032]), but does not specify that it is prelithiated to any particular loading. However, Pan ‘173 discloses that the anode active material has been pre-intercalated by or doped with lithium ions up to a weight fraction from 0.1% to 54.7% of Li in the lithiated product (¶ [0024] & [0028]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that so prelithiating the active material would be preferable (see ¶ [0028]) as more lithium ions would be available for transport during battery operation, thereby facilitating improved anode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have prelithiated the anode active material up to a weight fraction from 0.1% to 54.7% in order to facilitate improved anode performance.
Regarding claim 32, Green further discloses a lithium battery comprising the anode or cathode of claim 1 (¶ [0021], [0066], & [0070]).
Regarding claim 33, Green further discloses that the battery is a lithium-ion battery (¶ [0021]).
Claims 4-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Green, Pan ‘173, Chen, and Pan ‘301 as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Zhamu ‘142.
Regarding claim 4, Green does not disclose high-elasticity coating. However, Zhamu ‘142 discloses an anode active material coated with a high-elasticity polymer (¶ [0015]) with a recoverable tensile strain from 5% to 700%, in this case 5% to 200% (¶ [0016]-[0017]) and a lithium-ion conductivity of no less than 10-8 S/cm (¶ [0017]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a coating would alleviate anode expansion/shrinkage-induced capacity decay problems (¶ [0124]), thereby facilitating improved anode operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a high-elasticity polymeric coating on the electrode particles in order to facilitate improved anode operation.
Regarding claim 5, Green does not disclose high-elasticity binder component. However, Zhamu ‘142 discloses an anode active material coated with a high-elasticity polymer (¶ [0015]) with a recoverable tensile strain from 5% to 700%, in this case 5% to 200% (¶ [0016]-[0017]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a coating would alleviate anode expansion/shrinkage-induced capacity decay problems (¶ [0124]), thereby facilitating improved anode operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a high-elasticity polymeric binder component on the electrode particles in order to facilitate improved anode operation.
Regarding claim 6, Green does not disclose high-elasticity binder component. However, Zhamu ‘142 discloses an anode active material coated with a high-elasticity polymer (¶ [0015]) with a recoverable tensile strain from 5% to 700%, in this case 5% to 200% (¶ [0016]-[0017]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a coating would alleviate anode expansion/shrinkage-induced capacity decay problems (¶ [0124]), thereby facilitating improved anode operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a high-elasticity polymeric binder component on the electrode particles in order to facilitate improved anode operation.
Regarding claim 13, Green does not disclose the high-elasticity coating polymer. However, Zhamu ‘142 discloses the high-elasticity coating polymer as discussed in the rejection of claim 4, above, and further discloses including a lithium-ion conducting additive in the coating polymer (¶ [0076]). One with ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a material would have improved lithium-ion conductivity through the coating (¶ [0076]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the lithium-ion conducting additive in order to facilitate improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 14, Green does not disclose the high-elasticity coating polymer or the lithium-ion conducting additive. However, Zhamu ‘142 discloses that lithium-ion conducting additive as discussed in the rejection of claim 13, above, and further discloses that it may be a lithium salt such as LiClO4 (¶ [0083]). One with ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a material would have improved lithium-ion conductivity through the coating (¶ [0076]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the lithium-ion conducting additive in order to facilitate improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 15, Green does not disclose the high-elasticity coating polymer or the lithium-ion conducting additive. However, Zhamu ‘142 discloses that lithium-ion conducting additive as discussed in the rejection of claim 13, above, and further discloses that it may be a lithium salt such as LiPF6 (¶ [0079]). One with ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a material would have improved lithium-ion conductivity through the coating (¶ [0076]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the lithium-ion conducting additive in order to facilitate improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 16, Green does not disclose the high-elasticity coating polymer or the lithium-ion conducting additive. However, Zhamu ‘142 discloses that lithium-ion conducting additive as discussed in the rejection of claim 13, above, and further discloses that it may be a lithium-ion conducting polymer such as polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), and others (¶ [0077]). One with ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such a material would have improved lithium-ion conductivity through the coating (¶ [0076]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the lithium-ion conducting additive in order to facilitate improved battery operation.
Claims 18, 23-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Green, Pan ‘173, Chen, and Pan ‘301 as applied to claims 17 and 19, above, and further in view of Zhamu ‘365.
Regarding claim 18, Green does not disclose that the active material is pre-lithiated. However, Zhamu ‘365 discloses pre-lithiated silicon as an active material in alternative to silicon and silicon alloys (¶ [0014]-[0015] & [0098]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the pre-lithiated silicon of Zhamu ‘365 for the silicon or silicon alloy of Green would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning anode for a lithium-ion battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the pre-lithiated silicon for the silicon or silicon alloy in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning anode.
Regarding claim 23, Green does not disclose the lithium transition metal silicate. However, Zhamu ‘365 discloses lithium transition metal silicate (Li-2MSiO4) as an active material in alternative to lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides (¶ [0103]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting Li-2MSiO4 of Zhamu ‘365 for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides of Green would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning cathode for a lithium-ion battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the Li-2MSiO4 for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning cathode.
Regarding claim 24, Green does not disclose the transition metal dichalcogenide or transition metal trichalcogenide. However, Zhamu ‘365 discloses transition metal dichalcogenide or transition metal trichalcogenide as an active material in alternative to lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides (¶ [0106]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting transition metal dichalcogenide or transition metal trichalcogenide of Zhamu ‘365 for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides of Green would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning cathode for a lithium-ion battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the transition metal dichalcogenide or transition metal trichalcogenide for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning cathode.
Regarding claim 25, Green does not disclose that the inorganic material is selected from TiS2, TaS2, MoS2, NbSe3, MnO2, CoO2, an iron oxide, a vanadium oxide, or a combination thereof. However, Zhamu ‘365 discloses TiS2, TaS2, MoS2, NbSe3, MnO2, CoO2, an iron oxide, a vanadium oxide, or a combination thereof as an active material in alternative to lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides (¶ [0106]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting TiS2, TaS2, MoS2, NbSe3, MnO2, CoO2, an iron oxide, a vanadium oxide, or a combination thereof of Zhamu ‘365 for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides of Green would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning cathode for a lithium-ion battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the TiS2, TaS2, MoS2, NbSe3, MnO2, CoO2, an iron oxide, a vanadium oxide, or a combination thereof for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning cathode.
Regarding claim 26, Green does not disclose that the metal oxide contains a vanadium oxide selected from the group consisting of VO2, LixVO2, V2O5, LixV2O5, V3O8, LixV3O8, LixV3O7, V4O9, LixV4O9, V6O13, LixV6O13, their doped versions, their derivatives, and combinations thereof, wherein 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 5. However, Zhamu ‘365 discloses VO2, LixVO2, V2O5, LixV2O5, V3O8, LixV3O8, LixV3O7, V4O9, LixV4O9, V6O13, LixV6O13, their doped versions, their derivatives, and combinations thereof, wherein 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 5 as an active material in alternative to lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides (¶ [0033]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting VO2, LixVO2, V2O5, LixV2O5, V3O8, LixV3O8, LixV3O7, V4O9, LixV4O9, V6O13, LixV6O13, their doped versions, their derivatives, and combinations thereof, wherein 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 5 of Zhamu ‘365 for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides of Green would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning cathode for a lithium-ion battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the VO2, LixVO2, V2O5, LixV2O5, V3O8, LixV3O8, LixV3O7, V4O9, LixV4O9, V6O13, LixV6O13, their doped versions, their derivatives, and combinations thereof, wherein 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 5 for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning cathode.
Regarding claim 28, Green does not disclose the transition metal dichalcogenide or transition metal trichalcogenide. However, Zhamu ‘365 discloses transition metal dichalcogenide or transition metal trichalcogenide as an active material in alternative to lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides (¶ [0106]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting transition metal dichalcogenide or transition metal trichalcogenide of Zhamu ‘365 for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides of Green would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning cathode for a lithium-ion battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the transition metal dichalcogenide or transition metal trichalcogenide for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning cathode.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Green, Pan ‘173, Chen, and Pan ‘301 as applied to claim 19, above, and further in view of Brewer.
Regarding claim 22, Green does not disclose that the inorganic material is CoF3, MnF3, FeF3, VF3, VOF3, TiF3, BiF3, NiF2, FeF2, CuF2, CuF, SnF2, AgF, CuCl2, FeCl3, MnCl2, and combinations thereof. However, Brewer discloses FeF3 may be used in alternative to lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides as cathode active materials (¶ [0072]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the FeF3 of Brewer for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides of Green would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning cathode for a lithium-ion battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the FeF3 for the lithium metal oxides and lithium mixed-metal oxides in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning cathode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 13-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights