Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
No claim amendments were made, and new claim 23 was added. Claims 1-20 and 22-23 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 2 and 3 recite the broad recitation component (i) present in the amount of 5-40 wt% and component (ii) present in the amount of 30-70wt% (claim 2) and component (i) present in the amount of 10-30 wt% and component (ii) present in the amount of 30-70wt% (claim 3), thus having overlap in the range of 30-40 wt% (claim 2) and at 30% (claim 3), and both claims also recites component (ii) is present in an amount greater than component (i) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation since the broader ranges overlap. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purpose of examination, so long as component (i) and (ii) are present in the broader presented ranges, they will read on claims and 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 15-18, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doelle et al. (U.S. 20160087311).
With respect to claims 1-5, 7-8, and 23 Doelle discloses a lithium-ion battery ([abstract]) comprising:
(a) an anode (negative electrode) ([0003]);
(b) a cathode (positive electrode) ([0003]); and
(c) an electrolyte composition comprising lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) dissolved in a solvent system ([077]) consisting of the following solvent components:
(i) ethylene carbonate (EC) in an amount of about 33.3 wt% by weight of the solvent system ([0077]), thus overlapping the claimed ranges of 5-70 wt% (claim 1) and 5-40 wt% (claim 2) with sufficient specificity, and approaching the claimed range of 10-30 wt% (claim 3) by weight of the solvent system;
(ii) acyclic ester solvents (dimethyl carbonate (DMC)), thus reading on claims 4 and 8) having a molecular weight of no more than 110 g/mol (DMC molecular weight: 90.078 g/mol) ([0077]), wherein said at least one additional solvent is in an amount of about 33.3 wt% by weight of the solvent system ([0077]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 30-70 wt% (claims 1-3) by weight of the solvent system with sufficient specificity, and, and optionally,
(iii) a higher molecular weight solvent acyclic ether, that being diethyl carbonate (DEC), (thus reading on claims 5, 7, and 23) having a molecular weight above 110 g/mol (DEC molecular weight: 118.13 g/mol) ([0077]), wherein said higher molecular weight solvent is in an amount of about 33.33 wt % by weight of the solvent system ([0038]), thus approaching the claimed ranges of up to 30 wt% by weight of the solvent system;
wherein the wt% amounts for solvent components (i), (ii), and (iii) sum to 100 wt% (ratio is 1:1:1, [0077]), and
wherein said LiFSI is present in the solvent system in a concentration of 1.2 mol/L (M) ([0077]), thus overlapping the claimed ranges of 1.2 M to about 2 M (claim 1).
While it is noted by the examiner that the prior art teaches that the combination of the above solvent, a fluorinated ethylene carbonate (FEC), and a nitrate salt helps to facilitate the formation of the SEI, it is noted that only the FEC is categorized as a “solvent additive,” and it is explicitly stated in applicant’s disclosure that FEC may or may not be present in the solvent system. Therefore, it is the addition of the nitrate salt which forms the SEI, which is not a solvent additive.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 15-18, Doelle discloses the cathode can have a composition comprising lithium, nickel, and oxygen (LiNiO.sub.2) ([0047]) (claim 15), a composition comprising lithium, nickel, manganese, and oxygen (Li.sub.1.0Ni.sub.0.5Mn.sub.1.5O.sub.4) ([0047]) (claim 16 and lithium nickel manganese oxide formula of claim 17), or a composition comprising lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, and oxide (LiNi.sub.0.33Mn.sub.0.33Co.sub.0.33O.sub.2) (claim 18).
With respect to claim 22, Chen discloses the electrolyte composition of EC/DEC/DMC 1:1:1 ([0077]) without any borates or phosphates.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doelle as applied to claim 1 above in view of Deguchi (U.S. 20120107700).
With respect to claim 6, Doelle discloses a content of DEC of 33.3 wt% in the electrolyte system, thus being outside the claimed range of up to 20 wt %.
Deguchi discloses an electrolyte solvent system comprising DEC ([abstract]) and teaches that the content of DEC is 10-50 wt% ([0052]), thus overlapping the claimed range of less than 20 wt%. Deguchi further teaches that this reduced content of DEC reduces the opportunity for decomposition of the DEC and facilitates the deposition of lithium ([0023-0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the DEC disclosed by Doelle was in the content range taught by Deguchi in order to reduce the opportunity for the decomposition of the DEC and facilitate the deposition of lithium.
Claims 9-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doelle as applied to claim 1 above in view of Park et al. (U.S. 20190140318).
With respect to claims 9-12, Doelle discloses LiFSI at 1.2 M as the salt in the solvent system for the electrolyte (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose the concentration of LiFSI is in the range of 1.5-2.0 M (claim 9), 1.5-1.8M (claim 10), 1.6-2.0M (claim 11), or 1.7-2.0M (claim 12).
Park discloses the use of LiFSI in an electrolyte for a battery ([0063]) wherein the solvent system is a carbonate-based system ([0020]) and teaches the concentration of LiFSI is 0.2-2.0M ([0064]), thus encompassing the claimed ranges of 1.5-2.0 M (claim 9), 1.5-1.8M (claim 10), 1.6-2.0M (claim 11), or 1.7-2.0M (claim 12). Park further teaches concentrations in this range prevent a decrease in battery performance, while maintaining proper viscosity of the electrolyte ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to ensure the concentration of LiFSI disclosed by Doelle was in the range taught by Park in order to prevent a decrease in battery performance, while maintaining proper viscosity of the electrolyte.
Claims 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. as applied to claim 1 above in view of Bolomey et al. (WO 2006115737A1, Espacenet translation provided as part of the non-final office action of 02/08/2024).
With respect to claims 13-14, With respect to claim 13, Doelle discloses the anode is up to 60 wt% graphite (crystalline allotrope of elemental carbon) ([0045]), but does not disclose it is at least 90 wt% elemental carbon.
Bolomey discloses an anode ([0016]) and teaches the anode is 95 wt% graphite (thus reading on claim 14) ([0016, 0023]), thus being encompassed by the claimed range of at least 90% elemental carbon. Bolomey further teaches that this results in very good cell performance ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the anode disclosed by Doelle could be made of 95 wt% graphite as taught by Bolomey as the cell would exhibit good performance.
With respect to claims 19-20, Doelle discloses the above mentioned cathode compositions (see rejected claims 15-18), but does not disclose a composition comprising lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt and oxygen (LiMnxCoyNixO2), wherein 0≤x, y, z≤1 and x+y+z=1 ([0017]), and the composition being LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2.
Bolomey discloses a cathode ([0017]) and teaches the cathode can have a composition comprising lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt and oxygen (LiMnxCoyNixO2), wherein 0≤x, y, z≤1 and x+y+z=1 ([0017]), thus LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 would reading on the formula of claim 19 and the composition of claim 20. Bolomey further teaches that these are suitable cathode compositions as they allow for the transfer of ions using the electrolyte salt ([0011]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the cathode disclosed by Doelle could have a composition taught by Bolomey as they are suitable compositions to support the transfer of ions using the electrolyte salt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3 of response, filed 11/17/2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Cheng have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Doelle et al. which discloses an electrolytic system consisting solely of EC, DMC, and DEC, instead of a solvent system requiring an ether as disclosed in Cheng.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727