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
The amendment filed 12/22/20025 has been entered. The scope of claim 1 is narrowed by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues against the Kang reference, in light of the narrowed amendment to claim 1. While Kang taught a specific example in [0099] of 0.1 wt.% caffeine as the electrolyte additive, and the new claim limitation is narrowed to “greater than 0.1 weight% …” of caffeine in the electrolyte (which, examiner notes, does abut the cited Kang example such that this Kang example may be sufficiently close to obviate the claimed range), Kang also teaches (as cited of record and in the below rejection) in [0047] the range of additive (i.e., caffeine) included in a range of about 0.005 wt % to about 5 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte. This range of Kang encompasses the narrowed, amended claimed range. As cited of record and below, per MPEP 2144.05 I: in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, Kang is still applicable as the closest prior art in the 35 USC 103 rejection of the instant claims, below.
In response to applicant's argument that Kang used caffeine as a radical oxidation agent, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Examiner notes that Kang indeed teaches caffeine as a suitable electrolyte additive, thus meeting the instantly claimed “the nonaqueous electrolyte solution comprises … caffeine” (see Kang [0015, 0017] teaching an electrolyte including nonaqueous organic solvent and an additive, e.g. caffeine).
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed invention achieves improved battery stability and cycle life, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Examiner notes that Kang also teaches inventive goals of the electrolyte having high electrochemical stability and thermal stability in order to obtain excellent battery performances (Kang [0007, 0049]). Thus, these advantages argued by Applicant would not be unpredictable when using the caffeine additive taught by Kang.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2012/0251892 A1, as cited in the 03/18/2021 IDS and previous Office action) in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2014/0255796 A1, as cited in the 03/18/2021 IDS and previous Office actions).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a nonaqueous secondary battery (lithium secondary battery 100; Kang abstract, [0020, 0076], and Fig. 1) including a nonaqueous electrolyte solution (electrolyte includes nonaqueous organic solvent, Kang abstract and [0015, 0068-0069]) wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte solution comprises:
a nonaqueous solvent (electrolyte includes a nonaqueous organic solvent, Kang [0015, 0034, 0068-0069]);
a lithium salt (electrolyte includes a lithium salt, Kang [0015, 0034, 0068-0069]); and
caffeine (electrolyte includes additive per Kang [0015]; caffeine is an exemplary compound for electrolyte additive listed in Kang [0017, 0035, 0070])
wherein the content of caffeine is greater than 0.1 weight% to 0.5 weight% based on the total weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution (additive included in a range of about 0.005 wt % to about 5 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte, Kang [0047] – in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists per MPEP 2144.05 I), and
wherein the nonaqueous secondary battery comprises a positive electrode (lithium secondary battery includes cathode containing cathode active material, Kang [0020-0021, 0023]) containing:
a lithium-phosphorus metal oxide having an olivine structure represented by the following formula (Xba): LiwMIIPO4 (Xba) (exemplary cathode active materials from Kang [0023] include: LiFePO4, LiMPO4 {where M is Mn, Co, or Ni}, Li3M2(PO4)3 {where M is Fe, V, or Ti})
{where M" represents one or more transition metal elements, including at least one transition metal element that contains Fe, and the value of w is determined by the charge-discharge state of the battery and represents a value of 0.05 to 1.10} (LiFePO4 per Kang [0023, 0085-0086], wherein M" = Fe and w = 1; lithium ion extraction/insertion at cathode due to charge/discharge of lithium-ion battery per Kang [0005-0007] which reads on Li subscript being “determined by the charge-discharge state of the battery”);
and/or
a lithium-containing metal oxides represented by the following formula (at): LipNiqCorMnsMtOu (at) (examples per Kang [0023]: Li[NixCo1−2xMnx]O2 (0<x<0.5) or Li1+x(Ni,Co,Mn)1−yOz (0<x≦1, 0≦y<1, 2≦z≦4))
where M is at least one metal selected from the group consisting of … Fe, V, … Ti, … (M not required by instant claim since subscript t can equal 0 per below limitation; still, Kang [0023] teaches other exemplary lithium complex oxide formulas which may also include transition metal M such as Ti, V, Fe),
the ranges: 0 < p < 1.3 (1, or 1 to 2, in above-cited lithium complex oxide examples of Kang [0023]), 0.5 < q <1.2 (abutting at 0.5 or up to 1 in above-cited lithium complex oxide examples of Kang [0023]), 0 < r <1.2 (0 up to 1 in above-cited lithium complex oxide examples of Kang [0023]), 0 ≤ s < 0.5 (up to 0.5 or up to 1 in above-cited lithium complex oxide examples of Kang [0023]), 0 ≤ t <0.3 (0 in above-cited lithium complex oxide examples of Kang [0023]), 0.7 ≤ q + r + s + t ≤ 1.2 (up to 1 in above-cited lithium complex oxide examples of Kang [0023]), 1.8 < u < 2.2 (2, or 2 to 4, in above-cited lithium complex oxide examples of Kang [0023]) are satisfied (per MPEP 2144.05 I, overlapping ranges in the prior art obviate the claimed ranges), and
p is a value determined by the charge-discharge state of the battery (lithium ion extraction/insertion at cathode due to charge/discharge of lithium-ion battery per Kang [0005-0007] which reads on Li subscript being “determined by the charge-discharge state of the battery”).
Examiner notes that per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from among the cathode material options taught by Kang, thus obviating the above limitations of instant claim 1.
Further regarding claim 1, Kang fails to teach that the nonaqueous solvent contains specifically acetonitrile at 5 vol% to 95 vol%, nor wherein the nonaqueous electrolyte solution includes unsaturated bond-containing cyclic carbonate as an electrode-protecting additive.
Regarding the limitation: the nonaqueous solvent contains acetonitrile at 5 vol% to 95 vol%:
Kang does teach in [0052] that the nonaqueous organic solvent functions as a medium in which ions participating in electrochemical reactions of a battery may be transferred, and is not limited as long as it is generally used in the art, specifically welcoming nitrile-based solvents in [0058].
Matsuoka, which is analogous in the art of non-aqueous secondary batteries and electrolyte solutions used therein, similarly teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery including an electrolyte solution that contains a lithium salt and a non-aqueous solvent (Matsuoka abstract) and teaches that the non-aqueous solvent is not especially limited, as long as the predetermined level of ion conductivity can be obtained in combination with the other components (Matsuoka [0060]). Matsuoka specifically teaches in [0062] that:
the non-aqueous solvent preferably has a low viscosity and a high permittivity,
among such solvents, a nitrile-based solvent is preferred due to its excellent balance between viscosity and permittivity, and
especially since acetonitrile is a solvent having an outstanding performance, it is more preferred for the nitrile-based solvent to include acetonitrile.
Matsuoka further teaches in [0027-0028, 0065] that adjusting the acetonitrile content within the electrolyte solution to be 5 to 97 vol. % based on the total amount of the non-aqueous solvent achieves the benefits of:
increased ion conductivity, enabling a high rate characteristic to be exhibited,
suppression of problems caused by volatilization,
mitigation of a reduction and decomposition reaction at the negative electrode,
a large improvement in all the long-term cycling performance characteristic and other battery characteristics while maintaining the excellent performance of acetonitrile.
From these teachings of Matsuoka, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nonaqueous solvent used within the electrolyte of Kang to be acetonitrile as taught by Matsuoka, specifically within the preferable volumetric percentage range also taught by Matsuoka (5-97 vol%), with the motivation of achieving outstanding solvent performance including increased ion conductivity, improved battery cycle performance, suppressing volatilization problems, and mitigating decomposition of the negative electrode. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists per MPEP 2144.05 I; such is the case with the volumetric percentage range of acetonitrile within electrolyte solution taught by Matsuoka being 5-97 vol%, thus encompassing the 5-95 vol% range as instantly claimed.
Regarding the limitation: the nonaqueous electrolyte solution includes unsaturated bond-containing cyclic carbonates as the electrode-protecting additives:
Kang does welcome in [0060] the use of carbonate-based solvent including cyclic carbonate within the electrolyte.
Matsuoka teaches that the electrolyte solution also includes additive substance(s) (one or a combination of) that protects the electrodes and contributes to improving the performance of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution and the non-aqueous secondary battery (Matsuoka [0075, 0079]). Matsuoka teaches specific examples of the additive being unsaturated bond-containing cyclic carbonates represented by vinylene carbonate, 4,5-dimethyl vinylene carbonate, and vinyl ethylene carbonate (Matsuoka [0080]). Matsuoka teaches in [0082-0083] that from the perspective of improving the durability of the SEI (solid electrolyte interface as an electrode-protective film, per Matsuoka [0075]) an additive forming a cyclic structure with an unsaturated bond can be used, and teaches specifically in [0095] that also from the perspective of improving the durability of the SEI that it is preferable for the electrolyte solution includes vinylene carbonate (an example of an unsaturated bond-containing cyclic carbonate per above citation to Matsuoka [0080]) for dramatically improved durability.
When modifying Kang in view of Matsuoka to include the organic solvent of Matsuoka within the electrolyte solution of Kang, it would have further been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to also include an additive substance that protects the electrodes and contributes to improving the performance of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution and the non-aqueous secondary battery as taught by Matsuoka. From the above teachings of Matsuoka, selecting this additive to be an unsaturated bond-containing cyclic carbonate such as exemplary vinylene carbonate to achieve improved SEI durability, and thus function as an electrode-protectant, would have been obvious. Per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material (i.e., from among the carbonates taught by Matsuoka) based on its suitability for its intended use (i.e., stabilizing SEI, protecting electrode, improving battery performance as taught by Matsuoka above) supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
In summary, Kang welcomes additional components within the electrolyte (beyond the polycyclic heterocyclic structure) including nonaqueous organic solvents (Kang [0034, 0059]) such as nitriles (Kang [0058]) and cyclic carbonate-based solvents (Kang [0060]). As explained above, Matsuoka teaches toward acetonitrile as a preferred nitrile-based solvent (Matsuoka [0062]) and toward exemplary vinylene carbonate as a useful unsaturated bond-containing cyclic carbonate within an electrolyte for improving durability of the protective SEI formed on the electrode surface (Matsuoka [0075, 0080, 0095]). Therefore, Matsuoka provides rationale for including these additional components within the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of Kang as welcomed by Kang.
Thus, all limitations of instant claim 1 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kang teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches wherein the positive electrode (cathode 114 in Kang Fig. 2) contains the lithium-phosphorus metal oxide (e.g., LiFePO4 per Kang [0023] as cited above in regards to claim 1 – obvious to select LiFePO4 from options in Kang [0023] as the cathode active material especially since the selection of a known suitable material is obvious per MPEP 2144.07; see also Kang [0085-0086]), and
the nonaqueous secondary battery comprises a negative electrode (lithium secondary battery includes… an anode having an anode active material, Kang [0020]; anode 112 in Kang Fig. 2) that contains graphite (anode active material may include graphite, Kang [0024, 0081]) or one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti, V, Sn, Cr, … Fe, … Zn, AI, Si and B (anode active material may include a Si-T alloy where T includes exemplary elements Ti, V, Sn, Cr, Fe, Zn, Al, B, etc.; Kang [0024, 0079-0080] – the selection of a known material suitable for its intended use is obvious per MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2012/0251892 A1, as cited in the 03/18/2021 IDS and previous Office action) in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2014/0255796 A1, as cited in the 03/18/2021 IDS and previous Office actions) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2015/0050563 A1, as cited in the 03/18/2021 IDS and previous Office action).
Regarding claim 8 and claim 9, modified Kang teaches all limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach that the nonaqueous electrolyte solution contains a cyclic acid anhydride, nor specifically that the cyclic acid anhydride includes at least one selected from the group consisting of malonic anhydride, succinic anhydride, glutaric anhydride, maleic anhydride, phthalic anhydride, 1,2-cyclohexanedicarboxylic anhydride, 2,3-naphthalenedicarboxylic anhydride and naphthalene-1,4,5,8-tetracarboxylic dianhydride.
Yamada, which is analogous in the art of electrolytic solutions for lithium secondary batteries, teaches a lithium secondary battery electrolytic solution containing a nonaqueous solvent and a lithium salt (Yamada abstract) and teaches that the electrolytic solution can further contain functional additives for improving the function of the electrolytic solution, such as characteristic improvement assistants for improving cycle characteristics (Yamada [0053]). Yamada teaches that such characteristic improvement assistants for improving cycle characteristics and capacity sustaining characteristics after being stored at a high temperature include carboxylic anhydrides such as carboxylic anhydrides such as carboxylic anhydrides such as succinic anhydride, glutaric anhydride, maleic anhydride, citraconic anhydride, glutaconic anhydride, itaconic anhydride, diglycolic anhydride, cyclohexanedicarboxylic anhydride, cyclopentanetetracarboxylic dianhydride, and phenyl succinic anhydride; and that one or a combination of two or more assistant additives can be used (Yamada [0057]). (Examiner notes the bolded cyclic acid anhydrides taught by the list of Yamada overlap those within instantly claimed list.)
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrolyte solution of modified Kang to further include characteristic improvement assistants as taught by Yamada with the motivation of achieving improved cycle characteristics and capacity sustaining characteristics of the electrolyte after being stored at a high temperature. Per MPEP 2144.07, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Thus, the selection of cyclic acid anhydride characteristic improvement assistants from the list taught by Yamada, overlapping the claimed list, would have been obvious to achieve the desired characteristic improvements.
Thus, the instant claims 8-9 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kang teaches all limitations of claim 8 above and further teaches wherein the content of the cyclic acid anhydride is 0.01 to 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution (when the electrolytic solution contains a characteristic improvement assistant, the contained amount of the characteristic improvement assistant in the electrolytic solution is preferably 0.01 to 5 mass %; Yamada [0057]).
That is, when modifying the electrolyte solution of modified Kang in regards to claim 8 above to include a characteristic improvement assistant per the teachings of Yamada [0057], it would have further been obvious to include such assistant within the electrolyte solution to also be within the preferable weight (i.e., mass) percentage range also taught by Yamada to ensure that the benefits (explained above in regards to claim 8) taught by Yamada were sufficiently realized. The range 0.01-5 mass% of Yamada [0057] overlaps the 0.01-10 out of 100 parts by weight of the instant claim; in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Thereby, claim 10 is obvious.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2012/0251892 A1, as cited in the 03/18/2021 IDS and previous Office action) in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2014/0255796 A1, as cited in the 03/18/2021 IDS and previous Office actions) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (“Effect of Mixtures of Lithium Hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) and Lithium Bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) as Salts in Li[Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3]O2 /Graphite Pouch Cells”, 2015 J. Electrochem. Soc. 162 A169, DOI 10.1149/2.0821501jes; as cited in the previous Office action).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kang teaches all limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the lithium salt includes LiPF6 (example of the lithium salt is LiPF6, Kang [0065]) but fails to teach specifically that such also includes a lithium-containing imide salt.
Kang does teach in [0065] that the lithium salt included in the electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery is a material capable of allowing the basic operation of the lithium secondary battery to be performed by dissolving in the organic solvent and acting as a supply source of lithium ions in the battery, and that such lithium salt may be any lithium salt that is generally used in a lithium battery and can be used in combinations of different lithium salts.
Wang, which is analogous in the art of electrolyte additives for lithium-ion battery cells, teaches that the use of electrolyte additives is one of the most economical and effective ways to improve the performance of Li-ion cells (Wang pg. A169, col. 1, para. 1). Wang teaches that lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) is the most commonly used salt additive in Li-ion cells to achieve balance of properties, such as high dissociation constant, high conductivity and good electrochemical stability against corrosion (Wang pg. A169, col. 1, para. 1), and further teaches that lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) – i.e., a lithium-containing imide salt – is also a beneficial electrolyte additive due to exhibiting thermal stability up to 200°C (Wang pg. A169, col. 1, para. 2). Wang teaches in its Abstract and Fig. 1 that electrolytes containing both LiPF6 and LiFSI lithium salts shows better performance in terms of voltage retention over time and at higher storage temperatures when compared to LiPF6 additive alone (see Wang Fig. 1(a) and 1(c)). Wang notes that cells containing mixtures of LiFSI and LiPF6 show smaller voltage drop during storage after each storage than cells containing 1 M LiPF6 alone (Wang pg. A171, col. 1., para. 2 and Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium salt included in the electrolyte for the lithium secondary battery of Kang to include the lithium-containing imide salt LiFSI in addition to the LiPF6 taught by Wang with the motivation of achieving improved voltage retention (i.e., lower voltage drop) of the nonaqueous electrolyte battery when stored at higher temperatures.
Thus, the instant claim 11 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kang teaches all limitations of claim 11 above and teaches the content of the LiPF6 is 0.01 mol/L or greater and less than 0.1 mol/L with respect to the nonaqueous solvent (the concentration of the lithium salt in the electrolyte may be in a range of about 0.1 M to about 2.0 M, Kang [0066]).
Examiner notes that 0.1 M = 0.1 mol/L as is known in the chemical arts, such that the range taught by Kang [0066] abuts the instantly claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05 I, prima facie cases of obviousness exist in the case where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, as well as the case where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Additionally, since modified Kang teaches both LiPF6 and LiFSI in combination making up the lithium salt within the electrolyte per the modification in view of Wang above regarding claim 11, and since Kang teaches in [0066] in view of [0065] that the lithium salt included in the electrolyte can be a combination of lithium salts, the concentration of the total lithium salt content in the electrolyte being in a range of about 0.1 M to about 2.0 M indicates that the concentration of the individual LiPF6 would be even less (therefore, overlapping the claimed range of 0.01-0.1 mol/L – i.e., 0.01-0.1M).
Furthermore, Kang does welcome other molarity ranges for the concentration of the lithium salt within the electrolyte, such that performance of the electrolyte may be improved by properly maintaining the concentration of the electrolyte, and mobility of lithium ions may be improved by properly maintaining a viscosity of the electrolyte (Kang [0065]).
Thereby, claim 12 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kang teaches all limitations of claim 11 above but fails to explicitly teach that the molar ratio of the lithium-containing imide salt with respect to the LiPF6 is greater than 10.
Wang does teach that mixtures of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) and lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) with different molar ratios in the electrolyte achieve different effects within the overall lithium-ion battery cell (Wang Abstract). Wang teaches that there is a trade-off between properties including electrochemical anti-corrosion stability versus thermal stability at high temperature when LiPF6 versus LiFSI are used as lithium salt additives within the electrolyte (Wang pg. A169, col. 1., paras. 1-2). Wang further teaches in Figs. 1(a), 1(c), 2 and on page A171 (in col. 1., para. 2) that that battery cells containing mixtures of LiFSI and LiPF6 within their electrolytes show smaller voltage drops after each storage than cells containing 1 M LiPF6 alone, wherein Wang Figs. 1(a) and 1(c) specifically show decreased voltage drop at higher molar concentrations of LiFSI versus LiPF6. Such indicates that an increased molar ratio of the lithium-containing imide salt with respect to the LiPF6 is beneficial to retain the battery voltage during storage at high temperatures.
Thus, Wang teaches that the molar ratio of the lithium-containing imide salt with respect to the LiPF6 is a result-effective variable that can be studied as well as optimized in order to achieve a balance of properties, including high dissociation constant, high conductivity and good electrochemical stability, thermal stability, and voltage retention (Wang Abstract and A169, col. 1., paras. 1-2 – as cited above); see also MPEP 2144.05 II B regarding the recognition of result-effective variables within the prior art. Therefore, when modifying modified Kang to include both the lithium-containing imide salt LiFSI in addition to the LiPF6 lithium salt additive within the electrolyte solution in regards to claim 11 above, a skilled artisan would have further found it obvious to use routine experimentation – such as is conducted within the Wang reference – in order to optimize the amount of LiFSI versus LiPF6 such that the molar ratio was sufficiently high, in order to achieve a desirable balance of properties as taught by Wang per the above citations and explanation.
Per MPEP 2144.05 II A: Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, the claimed molar ratio being greater than 10 is found obvious per routine optimization.
Thereby, claim 13 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2012/0251892 A1, as cited in the 03/18/2021 IDS and previous Office action) in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2014/0255796 A1, as cited in the 03/18/2021 IDS and previous Office actions) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (“Effect of back-side-coated electrodes on electrochemical performances of lithium-ion batteries”, Journal of Power Sources Volume 275, 1 February 2015, Pages 712-719, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.11.029>; as cited in the previous Office action).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kang teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and but fails to explicitly teach that the basis weight of the positive electrode per side is 15 mg/cm2 or greater.
Kang does teach in [0003] that lithium ion batteries are known in the art to have beneficially high energy density per unit weight.
Matsuoka, which is analogous in the art of positive electrodes for non-aqueous secondary batteries (see Matsuoka abstract), teaches that a basis weight of a positive-electrode active material layer included in the positive electrode is preferably 24 to 100 mg/cm2 in order to improve volumetric energy density while maintaining a balance with the battery rate performance (Matsuoka [0021, 0116]). Matsuoka teaches that when forming the electrode active material layer on both faces of the current collector, the basis weight represents the mass of the electrode active material layer included per 1 cm2 area of the electrode on each face, and that a large amount of the electrode active material coated on the electrode current collector per unit area increases the capacity of the battery (Matsuoka [0117]). Matsuoka further teaches that the basis weight is calculated per each face of electrode current collector having electrode active material thereon and that the basis weight of the electrode active material layer can be adjusted by controlling the coating thickness of the active material layer when coating on the current collector and by controlling the concentration of the electrode mixture-containing slurry (Matsuoka [0118-0119]).
Lee, which is analogous in the art of lithium-ion battery electrodes, teaches that the effect of back-side coating of cathodes (i.e., positive electrodes) is improved cell performance (Lee Abstract). Specifically, double-side-coated cathodes have a notable positive effect on cell performances since cathodes act as noble lithium (Li) ion suppliers for lithium-ion batteries (Lee Abstract). As shown in Lee exemplary Fig. 1 and Fig. 2(c), a double-side-coated cathode is a structure where a current collector is coated with cathode active material on both side surfaces. Lee teaches in Fig. 5 (as explained on pg. 716, col. 2, para. 3) that Coulombic efficiency and discharge capacities are clearly and largely influenced by the presence of back-side coating, and specifically that increased back-side cathode coating improved these characteristics.
From the teachings of Matsuoka, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode of modified Kang to ensure that the basis weight of a positive-electrode active material layer included in the positive electrode is preferably 24 to 100 mg/cm2 (which encompasses the claimed “15 mg/cm2 or greater” – see also MPEP 2144.05 I) in order to improve volumetric energy density while maintaining a balance with the battery rate performance. From the teaching of Lee, it would have further been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the positive electrode of modified Kang was coated with active material on both side surfaces of the collector in order to achieve improved battery cell performance characteristics including Coulombic efficiency and discharge capacities, such that basis weight of the positive electrode within modified Kang was measured “per side”.
Thus, the instant claim 20 is rendered obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chul (KR-20200105001-A, with citations to attached machine translation) teaches a wt.% of caffeine being 5 to 25 parts based on 100 parts of carbon nanofibers in a fuel cell electrode catalyst, but the caffeine is present in the said catalyst material as a nitrogen source instead of being used as electrolyte additive (Chul translation, at last 2 paragraphs on page 2).
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 Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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 (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728