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
Claims 4, 7, and 23 were cancelled and claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-20 and 22 are currently pending.
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) 1-3, 5, 8, 15-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (U.S. 20190140318) in view of Doelle et al. (U.S. 20160087311) and Kotado et al. (JP 2010113951A; translation not available on Espacenet, GooglePatent translation attached for reference).
With respect to claims 1-3, 5, and 8-12, Park discloses a lithium-ion battery ([abstract]) comprising:
(a) an anode (negative electrode) ([abstract]);
(b) a cathode (positive electrode) ([abstract]); and
(c) an electrolyte composition comprising lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) dissolved in a solvent system ([0063]);
wherein the solvent system consists of the following solvent components:
(i) ethylene carbonate (EC) ([0085]);
(ii) dimethyl carbonate (DMC, thus reading on claim 8) ([0085]);
(iii) diethyl carbonate (DEC, thus reading on claim 5) ([0085]);
wherein said LiFSI (lithium salt) is present in the solvent system in a concentration of 0.2-2M ([0064]), thus overlapping the claimed ranges of 1.2 M to about 2 M (claim 1), 1.5-2.0 M (claim 9), 1.5-1.8 M (claim 10), 1.6-2.0 M (claim 11), and 1.7-2.0 M (claim 12).
Park does not disclose the weight ratios of the solvent system, instead giving volumetric ratios.
Doelle discloses a lithium-ion battery ([abstract]) comprising LIFSI dissolved in a solvent system of EC/DMC/DEC ([0077]) and teaches the following content of the solvent system:
(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) dimethyl carbonate (DMC) ([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) being diethyl carbonate (DEC) ([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]). Doelle further teaches this solvent system is desirable as it is a common, commercially available nonaqueous solvent ([0077]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art when the application was effectively filed to include the EC/DMC/DEC solvent system disclosed by Park in the weight ratios taught by Doelle as the solvent system in the weight ratios taught by Doelle are common and commercially available.
It is noted by the examiner that Park teaches the addition of vinylene carbonate (VC) to the electrolyte ([0085]). However, it is explicitly disclosed in Park that the VC is used as an additive to the electrolyte system as a whole, and not to the solvent ([0065]). Further, the VC is not used in the formation of an SEI, but rather added in order to enhance battery cycle properties and high temperature safety ([0065]). Thus the addition of VC does not teach away from claim 1.
Neither Park nor Doelle teach that DMC is present in a greater amount than EC as limited by claims 2-3.
Kotado discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0003]) utilizing an EC/DMC/ethylmethyl carbonate (EMC)/DEC solvent system ([0018]) and teaches the DMC is present in an amount greater (DMC: 40-80 %vol [0020]) vs. EC: 5-30%vol ([0019]). Kotado further teaches that this higher content of DMC helps to improve electrical conductivity of the electrolyte and battery after storage ([0020]).
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 solvent system disclosed by modified Park had a content of DMC greater than that of EC as taught by Kotado in order to improve electrical conductivity of the electrolyte and battery after storage.
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, modified Park discloses the cathode can have a composition comprising lithium, nickel, and oxygen (LiNiO.sub.2) ([0041]) (claim 15), a composition comprising lithium, nickel, manganese, and oxygen (LiNi.sub.xMn.sub.2−xO.sub.4) ([0041]) (claim 16 and lithium nickel manganese oxide formula of claim 17), or a composition comprising lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, and oxide ([0041]) (claim 18).
With respect to claim 22, modified Park discloses the electrolyte composition of EC/DEC/DMC ([0085]) without any borates or phosphates.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Doelle and Kotado as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deguchi (U.S. 20120107700).
With respect to claim 6, modified Park 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 modified Park 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 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Doelle and Kotado as applied to claim 1 above, and further 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, modified Park discloses an anode (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose it is at least 90 wt% elemental carbon or graphite.
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 modified Park could be made of 95 wt% graphite as taught by Bolomey as the cell would exhibit good performance.
With respect to claims 19-20, modified Park 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 modified Park 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 5-7 of response, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Doelle et al. 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Park et al., Doelle et al., and Kotado et al.
The prior art of Park has been brought in to read on the general solvent system of EC/ DMC/ DEC without any added components to the solvent system. Doelle has still been relied upon to read on the ranges of the wt% of the solvent system, while Kotado was introduced to read on the limitations of claim 2-3 and which limit the presence of DMC (component ii) to be present in a greater content than EC (component i).
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 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
Prosecution Insights