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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, after “(MPEGA)”, please delete “;”; and change “(LiPF6)” to --(LiPF6)--.
Regarding claim 17, after “a solvent”, please delete “,”; after “a solute”, please delete “,”; and change “(LiPF6)” to --(LiPF6)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, support for the claimed limitation “wherein the electrolyte is a polymer electrolyte comprising: a solvent comprising 90-98% poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA); and 2-10% polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA); and a solute comprising lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) prepared in a mixture comprising: bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE); and at least one of: ethylene carbonate (EC); dimethyl carbonate (DMC); diethyl carbonate (DEC); triethyl phosphate (TEP); and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC).” is not found in the original disclosure. Published Specification [0008] discloses “a polymer electrolyte can comprise 90-98% poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA), 2-10% polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), and lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6).”
Regarding claim 17, support for the claimed limitation “[a] polymer electrolyte comprising: a solvent, comprising poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA) / polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) at a ratio of 95/5 by weight; and a solute, comprising lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) prepared in a mixture comprising: bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE); and at least one of: ethylene carbonate (EC); dimethyl carbonate (DMC);diethyl carbonate (DEC);triethyl phosphate (TEP); and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)” is not found in the original disclosure. Published Specification [0008] discloses “a polymer electrolyte can comprise 90-98% poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA), 2-10% polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), and lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6).” Published Specification [0050] discloses “[t]he electrolytes were polymer based using poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA) and polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) at a ratio of MPEGA/PEGDA 95/5 by weight.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 8-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (“Andersen”, US 20180040880 A1) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh”, US 20190074516 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Andersen teaches an energy storage device (Andersen, Title, Abstract, [0052], e.g., lithium-ion battery) comprising:
a cathode (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0052], e.g., cathode);
an anode (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0052], e.g., anode) comprising:
a support structure (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0041], [0052], e.g., anode comprises a metal foil as a current collector; current collector); and
an electrode layer disposed on the support structure (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0041]-[0049], [0052], e.g., anode comprises a metal foil as a current collector; silicon-carbon composite anode; the Si—C composite material layer deposited on the metal foil current collector), the electrode layer comprising:
40-80% silicon (Andersen, [0026], [0031], [0057], [0071], [0082], e.g., 40-80 weight % of silicon particles);
5-30% graphite, which is close to the claimed range of 32.5-40% graphite; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Andersen, [0028], [0085], claim 2, e.g., the amount of graphite is 5-30 weight % (which is close to that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)));
overlaps the claimed range of 5-15%carbon (Andersen, [0032], [0058], [0083], e.g., 12.5-17.5 weight % of carbon black (which overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)); about 15 weight % of carbon black);
falls in the claimed range of 0-15% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (Andersen, [0029], [0034], [0035], [0060], e.g., about 7.5 weight % of CMC);
overlaps the claimed range of 0-5% styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (Andersen, [0029], [0034], [0035], [0091], e.g., 10-17.5 weight % of a combination of CMC and SBR as a binder; the mass ratio CMC/SBR is from 0.8:1 to 1:0.8; the amount of binders CMC and SBR in the present Si—C composite anode is 7.5-30 weight %, for instance 10-17.5 weight %, or 12.5-15 weight %; the mass CMC:SBR ratio is from 0.8:1 to 1:0.8, for instance from 0.9:1 to 1:0.9. e.g. 1:1 (which includes 4 weight % of SBR, overlapping that of the claimed range 0-5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)));
a separator disposed between the anode and cathode which is expected to prevent internal shorting of the energy storage device; the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112) (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0052], [0004], e.g., separator; separator is provided between anode layer and cathode layer; (as shown in Figs. 1a-1b, a separator disposed between the anode and cathode and is expected to prevent internal shorting of the energy storage device; the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112))); and
an electrolyte which is expected to be capable of allowing movement of ions between the anode and cathode; the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112) (Andersen, Figs. 1a-1b, [0052], [0004], e.g., electrolyte (which is expected to be capable of allowing movement of ions between the anode and cathode; the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112)); a liquid electrolyte material is dispersed within the porous spacer or separator, the composite anode layer and the composite cathode layer).
Andersen’s ranges overlap that of the claimed ranges; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Andersen’s range closes to that of the claimed ranges; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Andersen does not teach 5-20% poly(acrylic acid).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches a lithium secondary battery including an electrode; the composition may include (A) an electrode active material, (B) a conductive material, and (C) a binder including a cellulose compound, styrene-butadiene rubber and lithium polyacrylic acid (Oh, Fig. 1, [0002]). The secondary battery including an anode active material of graphite, silicon or a graphite-silicon composite material (Oh, Fig. 1 [0021]). The lithium polyacrylic acid (LiPAA) may be contained in a range of about 0.001 to 10 wt % (which overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)) based on the total weight of the electrode slurry (OH, Fig. 1, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 5-20% poly(acrylic acid), for the purpose of providing optimum adhesion improving effect and the silicon volume increase suppressing effect and/or lifespan of the battery (Oh, [0058]). Oh’s range overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Andersen in view of Oh teaches the energy storage device of claim 1 and 11 as disclosed above. Andersen teaches
a range overlaps the claimed 42.5% silicon (Andersen, [0026], [0031], [0057], [0071], [0082], e.g., 40-80 weight % of silicon particles (which overlaps that of the claimed 42.5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)));
a range closes to the claimed 32.5% graphite (Andersen, [0028], [0085], claim 2, e.g., amount of graphite is 5-30 weight % (which is close to that of the claimed 32.5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)));
a range overlaps the claimed 10% carbon (Andersen, [0028], [0058], [0083], e.g., amount of carbon black is 5-17.5 weight % of (which overlaps that of the claimed 10%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)); about 15 weight % of carbon black);
a range closes to the claimed 2.5% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (Andersen, [0029], [0091], e.g., the amount of binders CMC and SBR in the present Si—C composite anode is 7.5-30 weight %; the mass CMC:SBR ratio is from 0.8:1 to 1:0.8, for instance from 0.9:1 to 1:0.9. e.g. 1:1 (which includes 3.75 weight % of CMC, closes to the claimed 2.5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)));
a range close to the claimed 2.5% styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (Andersen, [0029], [0091], e.g., the amount of binders CMC and SBR in the present Si—C composite anode is 7.5-30 weight %; the mass CMC:SBR ratio is from 0.8:1 to 1:0.8, for instance from 0.9:1 to 1:0.9. e.g. 1:1 (which includes 3.75 weight % of SBR, closes to the claimed 2.5%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Andersen teaches ranges overlap that of the claimed amount; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Andersen teaches ranges close to that of the claimed amount; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Andersen does not teach the 5-20% poly(acrylic acid) is 10% lithium-neutralized poly(acrylic acid) (PAL).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches a lithium secondary battery including an electrode; the composition may include (A) an electrode active material, (B) a conductive material, and (C) a binder including a cellulose compound, styrene-butadiene rubber and lithium polyacrylic acid (Oh, Fig. 1, [0002]). The secondary battery including an anode active material of graphite, silicon or a graphite-silicon composite material (Oh, Fig. 1 [0021]). The lithium polyacrylic acid (LiPAA) may be contained in a range of about 0.001 to 10 wt % (which overlaps that of the claimed 10%; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)) based on the total weight of the electrode slurry (OH, Fig. 1, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the 5-20% poly(acrylic acid) is 10% lithium-neutralized poly(acrylic acid) (PAL), for the purpose of providing optimum adhesion improving effect and the silicon volume increase suppressing effect and/or lifespan of the battery (Oh, [0058]). Oh’s range close to that of the claimed amount; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Andersen in view of Oh teaches the energy storage device comprising the 40-80% silicon as disclosed in claim 1 and 11 above. Andersen teaches wherein the 40-80% silicon is structured as fine particles having an average size overlapping that of the claimed range of approximately 3 um or less; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Andersen, [0026], [0075], e.g., the silicon particles used for production of the present Si—C composite anode preferably have a D.sub.50 particle size between 1-10 um (which overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Andersen in view of Oh teaches the energy storage device comprising the 40-80% silicon as disclosed in claim 1 and 11 above. Andersen teaches wherein the 40-80% silicon is structured as fine particles having an average size close to that of the claimed range of approximately 100 nm or less; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Andersen, [0026], [0075], e.g., the silicon particles used for production of the present Si—C composite anode preferably have a D.sub.50 particle size between 1-10 um (which is close to that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Regarding claim 10, Andersen in view of Oh teaches an energy storage device substantially identical to that of claim 1 as disclosed above. Andersen in view of Oh is expected to have wherein a Coulombic efficiency of the energy storage device is approximately 90% or greater over approximately 25 charge and discharge cycles or more. The burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. (See MPEP § 2112).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (“Andersen”, US 20180040880 A1) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh”, US 20190074516 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gerasopoulos et al. (“Gerasopoulos”, US 20200411906 A1) and Cao et al. (“Cao”, US 20220115706 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Andersen in view of Oh teaches the energy storage device comprising the electrolyte as disclosed in claim 1 above. Andersen in view of Oh does not teach wherein the electrolyte is a polymer electrolyte comprising: a solvent comprising 90-98% poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA); and 2-10% polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA); and a solute comprising lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) prepared in a mixture comprising: bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE); and at least one of: ethylene carbonate (EC); dimethyl carbonate (DMC); diethyl carbonate (DEC); triethyl phosphate (TEP); and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gerasopoulos teaches a battery comprising a gel polymer electrolyte compositions including a solvent comprising 90% poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA) and 10% polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) (Gerasopoulos, Title, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, [0082], [0169], e.g., battery; 90 wt % MPEGA-480, 10 wt % PEGDA-700).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the electrolyte is a polymer electrolyte comprising: a solvent comprising a poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA) falling in the claimed range of 90-98%; and a polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) falling in the claimed range of 2-10%, for the purpose of providing a height Columbic Efficiency (Gerasopoulos, [0169]).
Andersen in view of Oh and Gerasopoulos does not teach a solute comprising lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) prepared in a mixture comprising: bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE); and at least one of: ethylene carbonate (EC); dimethyl carbonate (DMC); diethyl carbonate (DEC); triethyl phosphate (TEP); and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cao teaches an electrolyte for lithium ion battery with carbon- and silicon-based anodes include a solute comprising lithium salt lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6); a nonaqueous solvent dimethyl carbonate (DMC), wherein the lithium salt is soluble in the solvent; a diluent bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE), wherein the lithium salt has a solubility in the diluent at least 10 times less than a solubility of the lithium salt in the solvent; and an additive fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) a different composition than the lithium salt, a different composition than the solvent, and a different composition than the diluent (Cao, Title, Abstract, [0005]-[0007], e.g., the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤8, 0≤y≤2, and 0.5≤z≤5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a solute comprising lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) prepared in a mixture comprising: bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE); and at least one of: ethylene carbonate (EC); dimethyl carbonate (DMC); diethyl carbonate (DEC); triethyl phosphate (TEP); and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), for the purpose of providing stable cycling of lithium-ion batteries operating under high capacity, high current density, high temperature, and/or high voltage conditions (Cao, [0003]).
Andersen in view of Oh and Gerasopoulos and Cao teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Claim 4 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of Andersen in view of Oh and Gerasopoulos and Cao.
Regarding claim 6, Andersen in view of Oh, Gerasopoulos and Cao teaches the energy storage device of claim 5 as disclosed above. Andersen does not teach wherein the DMC, FEC, and BTFE have a ratio of approximately 70%, 10%, and 20%, respectively.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cao teaches an electrolyte for lithium ion battery with carbon- and silicon-based anodes include a lithium salt lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6); a nonaqueous solvent dimethyl carbonate (DMC), wherein the lithium salt is soluble in the solvent; a diluent bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE), wherein the lithium salt has a solubility in the diluent at least 10 times less than a solubility of the lithium salt in the solvent; and an additive fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) a different composition than the lithium salt, a different composition than the solvent, and a different composition than the diluent (Cao, Title, Abstract, [0005]-[0007], e.g., the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤8, 0≤y≤2, and 0.5≤z≤5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the DMC, FEC, and BTFE have a ratio overlapping the claimed approximately 70%, 10%, and 20%, respectively, for the purpose of providing stable cycling of lithium-ion batteries operating under high capacity, high current density, high temperature, and/or high voltage conditions (Cao, [0003]). Cao’s ranges overlap that of the claimed percentages; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersen et al. (“Andersen”, US 20180040880 A1) in view of Oh et al. (“Oh”, US 20190074516 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (“Sakamoto”, US 20190326601 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Andersen in view of Oh teaches the energy storage device comprising the 40-80% silicon and 32.5-40% graphite as disclosed in claims 1 and 11 above. Andersen in view of Oh does not teach wherein an active loading rate corresponding to the 40-80% silicon and 32.5-40% graphite is approximately 1-5 mg/cm2.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sakamoto teaches a negative electrode of a lithium ion battery (Sakamoto, Abstract) comprising Si—C granulated body (Si:artificial graphite) as the active material, a sufficient discharge capacity is obtained when the skeleton density is 0.03 to 3.45 mg/cm2 (which is being interpreted as active loading rate) (which overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)) (Sakamoto, [0225]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein an active loading rate corresponding to the 40-80% silicon and 32.5-40% graphite is approximately 1-5 mg/cm2, for the purpose of obtaining a sufficient discharge capacity (Sakamoto, [0225]). Sakamoto’s range overlaps that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Andersen in view of Oh and Sakamoto teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Claims 7 and 14 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of Andersen in view of Oh and Sakamoto.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerasopoulos et al. (“Gerasopoulos”, US 20200411906 A1) in view of Cao et al. (“Cao”, US 20220115706 A1).
Regarding claims 17-18, Gerasopoulos teaches a polymer electrolyte comprising a solvent, comprising 90 wt% poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA) and 10 wt% polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), which is close to the claimed ratio of 95/5 by weight; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Gerasopoulos, Title, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, [0082], [0169], e.g., battery; 90 wt % MPEGA-480, 10 wt % PEGDA-700 (which is close to the claimed ratio of 95/5 by weight; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Gerasopoulos does not teach lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) prepared in a mixture comprising: bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE); and at least one of: ethylene carbonate (EC); dimethyl carbonate (DMC); diethyl carbonate (DEC); triethyl phosphate (TEP); and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cao teaches an electrolyte for lithium ion battery with carbon- and silicon-based anodes include a lithium salt lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6); a nonaqueous solvent dimethyl carbonate (DMC), wherein the lithium salt is soluble in the solvent; a diluent bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE), wherein the lithium salt has a solubility in the diluent at least 10 times less than a solubility of the lithium salt in the solvent; and an additive fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) a different composition than the lithium salt, a different composition than the solvent, and a different composition than the diluent (Cao, Title, Abstract, [0005]-[0007], e.g., the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤8, 0≤y≤2, and 0.5≤z≤5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) prepared in a mixture comprising: bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE); and at least one of: ethylene carbonate (EC); dimethyl carbonate (DMC); diethyl carbonate (DEC); triethyl phosphate (TEP); and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), for the purpose of providing stable cycling of lithium-ion batteries operating under high capacity, high current density, high temperature, and/or high voltage conditions (Cao, [0003]).
Gerasopoulos in view of Cao teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP § 2113).
Claim 17 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of Gerasopoulos in view of Cao.
Regarding claim 19, Gerasopoulos in view of Cao teaches the energy storage device of claim 17 as disclosed above. Gerasopoulos does not teach wherein the DMC, FEC, and BTFE have a ratio of approximately 70%, 10%, and 20%, respectively.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cao teaches an electrolyte for lithium ion battery with carbon- and silicon-based anodes include a lithium salt lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6); a nonaqueous solvent dimethyl carbonate (DMC), wherein the lithium salt is soluble in the solvent; a diluent bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE), wherein the lithium salt has a solubility in the diluent at least 10 times less than a solubility of the lithium salt in the solvent; and an additive fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) a different composition than the lithium salt, a different composition than the solvent, and a different composition than the diluent (Cao, Title, Abstract, [0005]-[0007], e.g., the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤8, 0≤y≤2, and 0.5≤z≤5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the DMC, FEC, and BTFE have a ratio overlapping the claimed approximately 70%, 10%, and 20%, respectively, for the purpose of providing stable cycling of lithium-ion batteries operating under high capacity, high current density, high temperature, and/or high voltage conditions (Cao, [0003]). Cao’s ranges overlap that of the claimed percentages; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “[t]he Examiner points to paragraphs [0028], [0085], and claim 2 of Andersen in support of the graphite limitation. These passages disclose, respectively, "5-30 weight%" of graphite, "30 weight %, for instance 8.5 weight % graphite, or 8.5-12.5 weight % graphite," and "5-30 weight%" of graphite, respectively. None of these disclosures teach the range 32.4-40 weight % graphite. In fact, preferred embodiments disclosed in Anderson teach graphite percentages far below the 30 weight % upper limit discussed in Andersen, [0028]. See Andersen, [0033], [0038] (disclosing 8.5-20 weight % and 12.5-17.5 weight % as "preferred embodiment[s]" of the anode), [0059] (disclosing about 10 weight % of graphite as an "especially preferred" embodiment). Similarly, no disclosure in Oh teaches or suggests 32.5-40% graphite, as recited in claims 1 and 11. And neither Andersen nor Oh present any motivation to get within the claimed 32.5-40% graphite range. … The Office Action alleges that Andersen's disclosure of the range 5-30 weight % graphite "is close to that of the claimed 32.5%." Office Action, ¶28. However, the Examiner fails to show that the upper limit of 30 % is sufficiently close to the claimed 32.5% value such that a skilled artisan would have expected these compositions to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The Examiner fails to consider the unexpectedly superior properties of the claimed batteries as claimed, such as the high cycle stability and Columbic efficiency displayed by the claimed compositions. … Andersen does not disclose a "substantively identical" disclosure to that of the claimed invention because at least the claimed graphite range differs substantially from any embodiment described in Andersen. Further, Andersen fails to disclose any Columbic efficiency values of its embodiments, much less the claimed Columbic efficiency described in claim 10. … Gerasopoulos does not appear to teach or suggest a MPEGA/PEGDA ratio of 95/5, as recited in amended claim 17. The Examiner alleges that Gerasopoulos teaches a MPEGA/PEGDA ratio of 90/10. However, it does not appear Gerasopoulos, alone or in combination with Cao, teaches or suggests a MPEGA/PEGDA ratio of 95/5.” (Remarks, Pages 8-10).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Andersen teaches 5-30% graphite, which is close to the claimed range of 32.5-40% graphite; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Andersen, [0028], [0085], claim 2, e.g., the amount of graphite is 5-30 weight % (which is close to that of the claimed range; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Applicant has not provided any new or unexpected results of the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Andersen in view of Oh teaches an energy storage device substantially identical to that of claim 1 as disclosed above. Andersen in view of Oh is expected to have wherein a Coulombic efficiency of the energy storage device is approximately 90% or greater over approximately 25 charge and discharge cycles or more. The burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. (See MPEP § 2112).
Applicant has not provided objective evidence to the contrary.
Gerasopoulos teaches a polymer electrolyte comprising a solvent, comprising 90 wt% poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether acrylate (MPEGA) and 10 wt% polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), which is close to the claimed ratio of 95/5 by weight; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.) (Gerasopoulos, Title, Abstract, Figs. 1-2, [0082], [0169], e.g., battery; 90 wt % MPEGA-480, 10 wt % PEGDA-700 (which is close to the claimed ratio of 95/5 by weight; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (See MPEP § 2144.05, I.))).
Applicant has not provided any new or unexpected results of the claimed range.
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 HAIXIA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Tuesday 9-5.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/HAIXIA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723