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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-13, 15-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 have been considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7/16/2025 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.
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 14-18 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the electrolyte" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While an electrolyte additive is recited in claim 13, claim 13 does not recite an electrolyte, and the additive claimed is part of an electrode.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the electrolyte" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While an electrolyte additive is recited in claim 13, claim 13 does not recite an electrolyte, and the additive claimed is part of an electrode.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the electrolyte" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While an electrolyte additive is recited in claim 13, claim 13 does not recite an electrolyte, and the additive claimed is part of an electrode.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the electrolyte" in line2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While an electrolyte additive is recited in claim 13, claim 13 does not recite an electrolyte, and the additive claimed is part of an electrode.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the electrolyte" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While an electrolyte additive is recited in claim 13, claim 13 does not recite an electrolyte, and the additive claimed is part of an electrode.
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) 1-8, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (US 20220109146 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 20220393153 A1) hereinafter "Choi" in further view of Pires et al. (Tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite as an electrolyte additive for high-voltage lithium-ion batteries using lithium-rich layered oxide cathode, 2015) hereinafter "Pires".
Regarding claim 1, Nie teaches an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrode comprising: an electroactive material represented by: xLi2MnO3 • (1-x)LiMO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese, cobalt, aluminum, iron, and combinations thereof ([0050] Lithium rich oxides may include xLi2Mn3O2 • (1−x)LiNiaCobMncO2); and an electrolyte where the electrolyte composition may comprise multiple additives, alone or in combination including but not limited to phosphorous-containing compounds such as phosphazenes, phosphates, phosphites, and phosphonates; borates; sulfates; fluorinated sulfur-containing compounds; or derivatives thereof ([0078]-[0080]; [0074]). Nie teaches phosphate and phosphite additives can be selected from those that meet general structure IIIa and IIIb (reproduced below) ([0085]-[0087]). The examiner is interpreting the electrolyte additive as being included in the electrolyte. This interpretation is based on the instant specification, specifically par. [0051] and Examples 1-3 in par. [0074]-[0096].
PNG
media_image1.png
187
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nie is silent as to the chemical formula subscripts of the lithium rich oxide and the value of x.
However, Choi teaches an overlithiated cathode material (par. [0009]) with the formula rLi2MnO3•(1-r)LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)O2; wherein r, a, x, y, and z satisfy 0<r≤0.6, 0<a≤1, 0≤x≤1, 0≤y<1, 0≤z<1, and 0<x+y+z≤1, and M1 includes at least one selected from Na, K, Mg, Al, Fe, Cr, Y, Sn, Ti, B, P, Zr, Ru, Nb, W, Ba, Sr, La, Ga, Mg, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Fe, Al, Ta, Mo, Sc, V, Zn, Cu, In, S, B, Ge, Si, and Bi (par. [0009]-[0010] “r” in Choi is equivalent to “x” in the instant application, the case where M1 is selected as Fe or Al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the values of the subscripts and the value of x in the cathode material formula taught by Nie within the ranges taught by Choi to arrive at the claimed composition.
Overlithiated cathode materials are taught by Nie and Choi. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Choi to modify the values of the subscripts and the value of x in the cathode material formula taught by Nie to achieve the predictable result of producing an overlithiated cathode material. 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Nie does not explicitly teach specific the specific phosphite tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)phosphite.
However, Pires teaches Tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite (TTFP) as additive during initial activation and cycling of Li-rich-NMC cathode (abstract). Pires teaches that TTFP additive prevents the oxygen-related surface reactions that occur during electrochemical cycling on lithium-rich cathodes and stabilizes the electrode surface during the extended plateau (pg. 414). Further, TTFP can be used as a flame retardant in Li-ion batteries (pg. 415; pg. 423). Pires teaches that addition of TTFP to the electrolyte leads to an improvement in the cycling performance of a lithium half-cell or Graphite full cell with the Li-rich cathode, decreases the cathode material reactivity with electrolyte, and increased thermal stability of the charged cathode and electrolyte (pg. 424).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrode taught by Nie by selecting TTFP as the phosphite additive as taught by Pires.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the electrode taught by Nie by selecting TTFP as the phosphite additive as taught by Pires to improve the cycling performance of a lithium half-cell or Graphite full cell with the Li-rich cathode, decrease the cathode material reactivity with electrolyte, and increase thermal stability of the charged cathode and electrolyte (pg. 424).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nie teaches the electrode of claim 1. Nie further teaches wherein the electrode comprises greater than or equal to about 0.001 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of the electrolyte additive ([0078] “ In some embodiments, the total amount of the additive(s) may be from about 1 wt % to about 9 wt %”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nie teaches the electrode of claim 1. Nie further teaches wherein the electrolyte additive is a first electrolyte additive and the electrode further comprises; a second electrolyte additive ([0078]-[0079] the case where there are two additives) selected as, for example, lithium difluorophosphate, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, and combinations thereof ([0080]). Nie teaches the use of multiple electrolyte additives used in combination ([0078]-[0079]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could readily select the second electrolyte additive from the group taught by Nie because these electrolyte additive are known in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the electrolyte additive is a first electrolyte additive and the electrode further comprises; a second electrolyte additive ([0078]-[0079] the case where there are two additives) comprising tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphite ([0080]). Nie teaches the use of multiple electrolyte additives used in combination ([0078]-[0079]). Nie teaches the use of tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite as an electrolyte additive ([0080]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could select the second electrolyte additive as tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite with a reasonable expectation of success because tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite is an electrolyte additive are known in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the electrolyte additive is a first electrolyte additive and the electrode further comprises; a second electrolyte additive ([0078]-[0079] the case where there are two additives) comprising tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate ([0080]). Nie teaches the use of tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphate as an electrolyte additive ([0080]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could select the second electrolyte additive as tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate with a reasonable expectation of success because tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate is an electrolyte additive are known in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the electrolyte additive is a first electrolyte additive and the electrode further comprises; a second electrolyte additive ([0078]-[0079] the case where there are two additives) selected from the group consisting of: trimethyl borate, tris(trimethylsilyl)borate, and combinations thereof ([0080]; [0083]-[0084]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could select the second electrolyte additive as trimethyl borate or tris(trimethylsilyl)borate with a reasonable expectation of success because trimethyl borate and tris(trimethylsilyl)borate are electrolyte additives known in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nie teaches the electrode of claim 1 wherein the electroactive material is a first electroactive material.
Choi further teaches wherein the electrode further comprises: a second electroactive material ([0009]-[0010]; [0046]) selected from the group consisting of: an olivine- type oxide represented by LiMePO4, a monoclinic-type oxide represented by Li3Me2(PO4)3, a spinel-type oxide represented by LiMe2O4, a tavorite represented by LiMeSO4F, a tavorite represented by LiMePO4F, and combinations thereof, wherein Me is selected from the group consisting of: cobalt, nickel, manganese, iron, aluminum, vanadium, and combinations thereof (par. [0046] Formula 2 - LibMnpOq where b, p and q satisfy 0.1<b/p<2.5, and 0<q<15; par. [0049]; par. [0057] “the outside of the lithium composite oxide particles may have a spinel crystal structure”; Claim 1 & 5). Choi teaches that a cathode material having overlithiated composite oxide particles with a lithium manganese oxide outside the overlithiated composite oxide particles ([0009]) shows increased charge/discharge capacity, prevents voltage decay, and improves lithium-ion mobility and rate characteristics ([0016]-[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the electrode taught by Nie by including a second electroactive material such as a spinel type lithium manganese oxide, LiMn2O4, as taught by Choi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivate to further modify the electrode taught by Nie by including a second electroactive material such as a spinel type lithium manganese oxide, LiMn2O4, as taught by Choi to increase charge/discharge capacity, prevent voltage decay, and improve lithium-ion mobility ([0016]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nie teaches the electrode of claim 1. Nie further teaches wherein the electrolyte additive is a first electrolyte additive and the electrode comprises: second electrolyte additive ([0078]-[0079] the case where there are two additives) selected from the group consisting of: lithium difluorophosphate, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonylimide, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, tris(trimethylsily)phosphite, tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate, trimethyl borate, tris(trimethylsily)borate, succinonitrile, magnesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonylimide, calcium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonylimide, and combinations thereof ([0080]; [0106] and Table 2), the electrode comprising: greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of the first electrolyte additive; and greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of the second electrolyte additive ([0078] “the amount of each additive in the electrolyte may be from about 0.2 wt % to about 1 wt %, 0.1 wt % to about 2 wt %”; [0079]).
Regarding claim 13, Nie teaches an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (par. [0022]; par. [0098]), the electrochemical cell comprising: a first electrode having a first polarity and comprising: a positive electroactive material represented by: xLi2MnO3 • (1-x)LiMO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel, manganese, cobalt, aluminum, iron, and combinations thereof ([0050] “cathode electrodes”, Lithium rich oxides may include xLi2Mn3O2 • (1−x)LiNiaCobMncO2); and greater than or equal to about 0.001 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of an electrolyte additive disposed with the positive electroactive material ([0078] “the amount of each additive in the electrolyte may be from about 0.2 wt % to about 1 wt %”; [0098]; electrolytes and additives interact with porous electrode structures; further in par. [0045] & [0091] electrolyte additives, along with the electrolyte solvents, form a CEI layer, also meeting the limitation of “disposed with”), the electrolyte additive selected from the group consisting of: phosphorous-containing compounds such as phosphazenes, phosphates, phosphites, and phosphonates; borates; sulfates; fluorinated sulfur-containing compounds; or derivatives thereof ([0078]-[0080]; [0074]); a second electrode having a second polarity opposite from the first polarity and comprising a negative electroactive material; and a separating layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (par. [0022]). The examiner is interpreting the electrolyte additive as being included in an electrolyte. This interpretation is based on the instant specification, specifically par. [0051] and Examples 1-4 in par. [0074]-[0098] in which an additive is added to an electrolyte. Nie teaches phosphate and phosphite additives can be selected from those that meet general structure IIIa and IIIb (reproduced below) ([0085]-[0087]).
PNG
media_image1.png
187
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nie is silent as to the chemical formula subscripts of the lithium rich oxide and the value of x.
However, Choi teaches an overlithiated cathode material ([0009]) with the formula rLi2MnO3•(1-r)LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)O2; wherein r, a, x, y, and z satisfy 0<r≤0.6, 0<a≤1, 0≤x≤1, 0≤y<1, 0≤z<1, and 0<x+y+z≤1, and M1 includes at least one selected from Na, K, Mg, Al, Fe, Cr, Y, Sn, Ti, B, P, Zr, Ru, Nb, W, Ba, Sr, La, Ga, Mg, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Fe, Al, Ta, Mo, Sc, V, Zn, Cu, In, S, B, Ge, Si, and Bi (par. [0009]-[0010] “r” in Choi is equivalent to “x” in the instant application, the case where M1 is selected as Fe or Al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the values of the subscripts and the value of x in the cathode material formula taught by Nie within the ranges taught by Choi to arrive at the claimed composition.
Overlithiated cathode materials are taught by Nie and Choi. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Choi to modify the values of the subscripts and the value of x in the cathode material formula taught by Nie to achieve the predictable result of producing an overlithiated cathode material. 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Nie does not explicitly teach specific the specific phosphite tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)phosphite.
However, Pires teaches Tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite (TTFP) as additive during initial activation and cycling of Li-rich-NMC cathode (abstract). Pires teaches that TTFP additive prevents the oxygen-related surface reactions that occur during electrochemical cycling on lithium-rich cathodes and stabilizes the electrode surface during the extended plateau (pg. 414). Further, TTFP can be used as a flame retardant in Li-ion batteries (pg. 415; pg. 423). Pires teaches that addition of TTFP to the electrolyte leads to an improvement in the cycling performance of a lithium half-cell or Graphite full cell with the Li-rich cathode, decreases the cathode material reactivity with electrolyte, and increased thermal stability of the charged cathode and electrolyte (pg. 424).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrode taught by Nie by selecting TTFP as the phosphite additive as taught by Pires.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the electrode taught by Nie by selecting TTFP as the phosphite additive as taught by Pires to improve the cycling performance of a lithium half-cell or Graphite full cell with the Li-rich cathode, decrease the cathode material reactivity with electrolyte, and increase thermal stability of the charged cathode and electrolyte (pg. 424).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nie teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 13. Nie further teaches wherein the electrolyte is also disposed with the negative electroactive material in the second electrode and within the separating layer ([0098]; Fig. 1; [0049] anode electrodes, porous silicon active material; [0097]; electrolytes and additives interact with porous electrode structures; further in [0091] “electrolyte additives, along with the electrolyte solvents, may be oxidized on a cathode surface to form a CEI layer” also meeting the limitation of “disposed with”).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nie teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 13. Nie further teaches wherein the electrolyte additive is a first electrolyte additive and the electrolyte further comprises; a second electrolyte additive ([0078]-[0079] the case where there are two additives) selected as, for example, lithium difluorophosphate, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, and combinations thereof ([0080]). Nie teaches the use of multiple electrolyte additives used in combination ([0078]-[0079]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could readily select the second electrolyte additive from the group taught by Nie because these electrolyte additive are known in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nie teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 13. Nie further teaches wherein the electrolyte additive is a first electrolyte additive and the electrolyte further comprises; a second electrolyte additive ([0078]-[0079] the case where there are two additives) comprising tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphite ([0080]). Nie teaches the use of multiple electrolyte additives used in combination ([0078]-[0079]). Nie teaches the use of tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite as an electrolyte additive ([0080]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could select the second electrolyte additive as tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite with a reasonable expectation of success because tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphite is an electrolyte additive known in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 17, modified Nie teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 13. Nie further teaches wherein the electrolyte additive is a first electrolyte additive and the electrolyte further comprises; a second electrolyte additive ([0078]-[0079] the case where there are two additives) comprising tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate ([0080]). Nie teaches the use of multiple electrolyte additives used in combination ([0078]-[0079]). Nie teaches the use of tris(trimethylsilyl) phosphate as an electrolyte additive ([0080]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could select the second electrolyte additive as tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate with a reasonable expectation of success because tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate is an electrolyte additive known in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, modified Nie teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 13. Nie further teaches wherein the electrolyte additive is a first electrolyte additive and the electrode further comprises; a second electrolyte additive ([0078]-[0079] the case where there are two additives) selected from the group consisting of: trimethyl borate, tris(trimethylsilyl)borate, and combinations thereof ([0080]; [0083]-[0084]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could select the second electrolyte additive as trimethyl borate or tris(trimethylsilyl)borate with a reasonable expectation of success because trimethyl borate and tris(trimethylsilyl)borate are electrolyte additives known in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 19, modified Nie teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 13.
However, Choi teaches a cathode material containing a layered electroactive material ([0009] “layered crystal structure inside the lithium composite oxide particles”) wherein the first electrode further comprises: a second electroactive material ([0009]-[0010]; par. [0046]) selected from the group consisting of: an olivine- type oxide represented by LiMePO4, a monoclinic-type oxide represented by Li3Me2(PO4)3, a spinel-type oxide represented by LiMe2O4, a tavorite represented by LiMeSO4F, a tavorite represented by LiMePO4F, and combinations thereof, wherein Me is selected from the group consisting of: cobalt, nickel, manganese, iron, aluminum, vanadium, and combinations thereof ([0046] Formula 2 - LibMnpOq where b, p and q satisfy 0.1<b/p<2.5, and 0<q<15; [0049]; [0057] “the outside of the lithium composite oxide particles may have a spinel crystal structure”; Claim 1 & 5). Choi teaches that a cathode material having overlithiated composite oxide particles with a lithium manganese oxide outside the overlithiated composite oxide particles ([0009]) shows increased charge/discharge capacity, prevents voltage decay, and improves lithium-ion mobility and rate characteristics ([0016]-[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further the electrode taught by Nie by including a second electroactive material such as a spinel type lithium manganese oxide, LiMn2O4, as taught by Choi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivate to modify the electrode taught by Nie by including a second electroactive material such as a spinel type lithium manganese oxide, LiMn2O4, as taught by Choi to increase charge/discharge capacity, prevent voltage decay, and improve lithium-ion mobility (par. [0016]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Nie teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 13. Nie further teaches wherein the electrolyte additive is a first electrolyte additive and the electrode comprises: second electrolyte additive ([0078]-[0079] the case where there are two additives) selected from the group consisting of: lithium difluorophosphate, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonylimide, lithium bis(oxalato)borate, tris(trimethylsily)phosphite, tris(trimethylsilyl)phosphate, trimethyl borate, tris(trimethylsily)borate, succinonitrile, magnesium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonylimide, calcium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonylimide, and combinations thereof ([0080]; [0106] and Table 2), the electrode comprising: greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of the first electrolyte additive; and greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 5 wt.% of the second electrolyte additive ([0078] “the amount of each additive in the electrolyte may be from about 0.2 wt % to about 1 wt %, 0.1 wt % to about 2 wt %”; [0079]).
Claim(s) 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (US 20220109146 A1) in view of Pires et al. (Tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite as an electrolyte additive for high-voltage lithium-ion batteries using lithium-rich layered oxide cathode, 2015) hereinafter "Pires".
Regarding claim 9, Nie teaches an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, the electrode comprising: a layered electroactive material (par. [0050] “lithium-rich layered oxides); and an electrolyte where the electrolyte composition may comprise multiple additives, alone or in combination including but not limited to phosphorous-containing compounds such as phosphazenes, phosphates, phosphites, and phosphonates; borates; sulfates; fluorinated sulfur-containing compounds; or derivatives thereof ([0078]-[0080]; [0074]). Nie teaches phosphate and phosphite additives can be selected from those that meet general structure IIIa and IIIb (reproduced below) ([0085]-[0087]). The examiner is interpreting the electrolyte additive as being included in the electrolyte. This interpretation is based on the instant specification, specifically par. [0051] and Examples 1-3 in par. [0074]-[0096].
PNG
media_image1.png
187
431
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nie does not explicitly teach specific the specific phosphite tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)phosphite.
However, Pires teaches Tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite (TTFP) as additive during initial activation and cycling of Li-rich-NMC cathode (abstract). Pires teaches that TTFP additive prevents the oxygen-related surface reactions that occur during electrochemical cycling on lithium-rich cathodes and stabilizes the electrode surface during the extended plateau (pg. 414). Further, TTFP can be used as a flame retardant in Li-ion batteries (pg. 415; pg. 423). Pires teaches that addition of TTFP to the electrolyte leads to an improvement in the cycling performance of a lithium half-cell or Graphite full cell with the Li-rich cathode, decreases the cathode material reactivity with electrolyte, and increased thermal stability of the charged cathode and electrolyte (pg. 424).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrode taught by Nie by selecting TTFP as the phosphite additive as taught by Pires.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the electrode taught by Nie by selecting TTFP as the phosphite additive as taught by Pires to improve the cycling performance of a lithium half-cell or Graphite full cell with the Li-rich cathode, decrease the cathode material reactivity with electrolyte, and increase thermal stability of the charged cathode and electrolyte (pg. 424).
Regarding claim 11, Nie in view of Pires teaches the electrode of claim 9. Nie further teaches wherein the electrode comprises greater than or equal to about 0.001 wt.% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of the electrolyte additive (par. [0078] “the amount of each additive in the electrolyte may be from about 0.2 wt % to about 1 wt %”). The examiner is interpreting the electrolyte additive as being included in the electrolyte. This interpretation is based on the instant specification, specifically par. [0051] and Examples 1-3 in par. [0074]-[0096].
Claim(s) 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie (US 20220109146 A1) in view of Pires et al. (Tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) phosphite as an electrolyte additive for high-voltage lithium-ion batteries using lithium-rich layered oxide cathode, 2015) hereinafter "Pires" in further view of Choi et al. (US 20220393153 A1) hereinafter "Choi".
Regarding claim 10, Nie in view of Pires teaches the electrode of claim 9. Nie further teaches wherein the layered electroactive material is represented by: xLi2MnO3•(1-x)LiMO2 where M is selected from the group consisting of: nickel, manganese, cobalt, aluminum, iron, and combinations thereof ([0050] Lithium rich oxides may include xLi2Mn3O2 • (1−x)LiNiaCobMncO2).
Nie is silent as to the chemical formula subscripts of the disclosed lithium rich oxide and the value of x.
However, Choi teaches an overlithiated cathode material (par. [0009]) with the formula rLi2MnO3•(1-r)LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)O2; wherein r, a, x, y, and z satisfy 0<r≤0.6, 0<a≤1, 0≤x≤1, 0≤y<1, 0≤z<1, and 0<x+y+z≤1, and M1 includes at least one selected from Na, K, Mg, Al, Fe, Cr, Y, Sn, Ti, B, P, Zr, Ru, Nb, W, Ba, Sr, La, Ga, Mg, Gd, Sm, Ca, Ce, Fe, Al, Ta, Mo, Sc, V, Zn, Cu, In, S, B, Ge, Si, and Bi ([0009]-[0010] “r” in Choi is equivalent to “x” in the instant application, the case where M1 is selected as Fe or Al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the values of the subscripts and the value of x in the cathode material formula taught by Nie within the ranges taught by Choi to arrive at the claimed composition.
Overlithiated cathode materials are taught by Nie and Choi. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Choi to modify the values of the subscripts and the value of x in the cathode material formula taught by Nie to achieve the predictable result of producing an overlithiated cathode material. 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Nie in view of Pires teaches the electrode of claim 9.
Nie does not disclose wherein the electrode further comprises: a second electroactive material selected from the group consisting of: an olivine- type oxide represented by LiMePO4, a monoclinic-type oxide represented by Li3Me2(PO4)3, a spinel-type oxide represented by LiMe2O4, a tavorite represented by LiMeSO4F, a tavorite represented by LiMePO4F, and combinations thereof, wherein Me is selected from the group consisting of: cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), aluminum (Al), vanadium (V), and combinations thereof
However, Choi teaches a cathode material containing a layered electroactive material (par. [0009] “layered crystal structure inside the lithium composite oxide particles”) wherein the electrode further comprises: a second electroactive material (par. [0009]-[0010]; par. [0046]) selected from the group consisting of: an olivine- type oxide represented by LiMePO4, a monoclinic-type oxide represented by Li3Me2(PO4)3, a spinel-type oxide represented by LiMe2O4, a tavorite represented by LiMeSO4F, a tavorite represented by LiMePO4F, and combinations thereof, wherein Me is selected from the group consisting of: cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), aluminum (Al), vanadium (V), and combinations thereof (par. [0046] Formula 2 - LibMnpOq where b, p and q satisfy 0.1<b/p<2.5, and 0<q<15; par. [0049]; par. [0057] “the outside of the lithium composite oxide particles may have a spinel crystal structure”; Claim 1 & 5). Choi teaches that a cathode material having overlithiated composite oxide particles with a lithium manganese oxide outside the overlithiated composite oxide particles (par. [0009]) shows increased charge/discharge capacity, prevents voltage decay, and improves lithium-ion mobility and rate characteristics (par. [0016]-[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further the electrode taught by Nie by including a second electroactive material such as a spinel type lithium manganese oxide, LiMn2O4, as taught by Choi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivate to modify the electrode taught by Nie by including a second electroactive material such as a spinel type lithium manganese oxide, LiMn2O4, as taught by Choi to increase charge/discharge capacity, prevent voltage decay, and improve lithium-ion mobility (par. [0016]-[0018]).
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights