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 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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US 20220200039 A1) and further in view of Okuzawa (US 6115479 A), and Musser et al. (Musser, Barbara J., and Peter K. Kilpatrick. “Molecular characterization of wax isolated from a variety of crude oils.” Energy & Fuels, vol. 12, no. 4, 2 June 1998, pp. 715–725.)
Regarding claim 1, Xiao discloses a thermal runaway-inhibiting composition for a lithium-ion battery (abstract) comprising a plurality of particles (para. 0033, [composite flame retardant particles]) (para. 0027, [composite flame retardant particles … used to circumvent conditions leading to thermal runaway]) the thermal runaway-inhibiting composition includes particles of a particulate host material and a flame retardant material), each particle including: a flame retardant additive encapsulated by the encapsulant (para. 0014, [each of the composite flame retardant particles may be encapsulated within a polymeric shell]), the plurality of particles having a size distribution to inhibit thermal runaway in a battery cell (para. 0033, [the flame retardant undergoes certain physical changes that help stabilize thermodynamic conditions within the battery] (para. 0038, the particles have a range of sizes [50 nm to 10 µm]).
Xiao does not teach a microcrystalline wax encapsulant having a weight-average molecular weight of 500 to 800 and a melting point of 60 to 90 degrees Celsius.
Okuzawa, in the same field of endeavor, waxes for flame-retardant particles, teaches a microcrystalline wax (col. 2, lines 47—53, [Microwax 190 Y, Mobil Petroleum Co.] as the base for the flame retardant [triaryl phosphoric ester]) and a melting point of 60 to 90 (col2, lines 52-54, [with a melting point of about 90 deg. Celsius]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have encapsulated Xiao’s flame retardant particles with a microcrystalline wax, as the flame retardant particles of Okuzawa are coated by wax, in order to hold the flame resistant particles in a sufficient amount, which imparts the property of exhibiting sufficient flame resistance (col. 3, lines 28-31 [more than 50% and less than 150%), as taught by Okuzawa (col. 3, lines 28-31).
Okuzawa does not teach that the wax has a weight-average molecular weight of 500 to 800.
Musser, in the same field of endeavor, microcrystalline waxes, teaches that microcrystalline waxes have a weight-average molecular weight of 500 to 800. (abstract, [Microcrystalline waxes are aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds containing a substantial amount of branches and rings]) (pg. 721, gel permeation chromatography, [the median molecular weight was between 300 and 700 amu … most tailed off before 2000 amu]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a microcrystalline wax with a molecular weight between 500 to 800, as that is the median molecular weight for waxes (abstract, microcrystalline waxes), as taught by Musser (abstract and pg. 721).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Xiao discloses the thermal runaway-inhibiting composition of claim 1, wherein the plurality of particles have an average particle size from about 1 to 50 microns (para. 0038, [the particulate host material may comprise particles in a range of 50 nm to 10 µm]).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Xiao discloses the thermal runaway-inhibiting composition of claim 1, wherein the flame retardant additive is selected from the group consisting of triphenyl phosphate (para. 0035, [triphenyl phosphate]).
Regarding claim 7, Xiao discloses an electrode for a lithium-ion battery (abstract) comprising; a current collector (para. 0003); an electrochemically active layer disposed over the current collector (para. 0003, [active material layer disposed on the major surface of the negative/positive current collector]); and a thermal runaway-inhibiting composition dispersed in the electrochemically active layer (para. 0003, the electron transport path is between the current collector and active material layer. The composite flame retardant particles (thermal runaway composition) may be positioned along the electron transport path), the thermal runaway-inhibiting composition includes a plurality of particles (para. 0033, [composite flame retardant particles]), each particle including: a flame retardant additive encapsulated by the encapsulant (para. 0014, [each of the composite flame retardant particles may be encapsulated within a polymeric shell]), the flame retardant additive being present in a sufficient amount to inhibit thermal runaway in a battery when the thermal runaway-inhibiting composition is included therein (para. 0033, [the composite flame retardant particles undergo certain chemical reactions … to help stabilize thermodynamic conditions within the battery]).
Xiao does not teach a microcrystalline wax encapsulant having a weight-average molecular weight of 500 to 800 and a melting point of 60 to 90 degrees Celsius.
Okuzawa, in the same field of endeavor, waxes for flame-retardant particles, teaches a microcrystalline wax (col. 2, lines 47—53, [Microwax 190 Y, Mobil Petroleum Co.] as the base for the flame retardant [triaryl phosphoric ester]) and a melting point of 60 to 90 (col2, lines 52-54, [with a melting point of about 90 deg. Celsius]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have encapsulated Xiao’s flame retardant particles with a microcrystalline wax, as the flame retardant particles of Okuzawa are coated by wax, in order to hold the flame resistant particles in a sufficient amount, which imparts the property of exhibiting sufficient flame resistance (col. 3, lines 28-31 [more than 50% and less than 150%), as taught by Okuzawa (col. 3, lines 28-31).
Okuzawa does not teach that the wax has a weight-average molecular weight of 500 to 800.
Musser, in the same field of endeavor, microcrystalline waxes, teaches that microcrystalline waxes have a weight-average molecular weight of 500 to 800. (abstract, [Microcrystalline waxes are aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds containing a substantial amount of branches and rings]) (pg. 721, gel permeation chromatography, [the median molecular weight was between 300 and 700 amu … most tailed off before 2000 amu]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a microcrystalline wax with a molecular weight between 500 to 800, as that is the median molecular weight for waxes (abstract, microcrystalline waxes), as taught by Musser (abstract and pg. 721).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Xiao discloses the electrode of claim 7, wherein the electrode is a positive electrode (para. 0003) and the electrochemically active layer is a positive electrode active layer (para. 0003).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Xiao discloses the electrode of claim 7, wherein the flame retardant additive is selected from the group consisting of triphenyl phosphate (TPP) (para. 0035, [triphenyl phosphate]).
Regarding claim 14, Xiao discloses a rechargeable lithium-ion battery (para. 0020) comprising at least one lithium-ion battery cell (para. 0020), each lithium-ion battery cell including: a flame retardant additive encapsulated by the encapsulant (para. 0014, [each of the composite flame retardant particles may be encapsulated within a polymeric shell]), the flame retardant additive being present in a sufficient amount to inhibit thermal runaway (para. 0033, [the composite flame retardant particles undergo certain chemical reactions … to help stabilize thermodynamic conditions within the battery]).
Xiao does not teach a microcrystalline wax encapsulant having a weight-average molecular weight of 500 to 800 and a melting point of 60 to 90 degrees Celsius.
Okuzawa, in the same field of endeavor, waxes for flame-retardant particles, teaches a microcrystalline wax (col. 2, lines 47—53, [Microwax 190 Y, Mobil Petroleum Co.] as the base for the flame retardant [triaryl phosphoric ester]) and a melting point of 60 to 90 (col2, lines 52-54, [with a melting point of about 90 deg. Celsius]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have encapsulated Xiao’s flame retardant particles with a microcrystalline wax, as the flame retardant particles of Okuzawa are coated by wax, in order to hold the flame resistant particles in a sufficient amount, which imparts the property of exhibiting sufficient flame resistance (col. 3, lines 28-31 [more than 50% and less than 150%), as taught by Okuzawa (col. 3, lines 28-31).
Okuzawa does not teach that the wax has a weight-average molecular weight of 500 to 800.
Musser, in the same field of endeavor, microcrystalline waxes, teaches that microcrystalline waxes have a weight-average molecular weight of 500 to 800. (abstract, [Microcrystalline waxes are aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds containing a substantial amount of branches and rings]) (pg. 721, gel permeation chromatography, [the median molecular weight was between 300 and 700 amu … most tailed off before 2000 amu]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a microcrystalline wax with a molecular weight between 500 to 800, as that is the median molecular weight for waxes (abstract, microcrystalline waxes), as taught by Musser (abstract and pg. 721).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Xiao discloses the rechargeable lithium-ion battery of claim 14, wherein the at least one lithium-ion battery cell is a plurality of battery cells (para. 0016, [a plurality of electrochemical cells]).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Xiao discloses the rechargeable lithium-ion battery of claim 14, wherein each battery cell further includes a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 0003, [a separator disposed between the negative electrode and positive electrode]).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Xiao discloses the rechargeable lithium-ion battery of claim 14, wherein the plurality of particles have an average particle size from about 1 to 50 microns (para. 0038, [the particulate host material may comprise particles in a range of 50 nm to 10 µm).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Xiao discloses the rechargeable lithium-ion battery of claim 14, wherein the flame retardant additive is selected from the group consisting of triphenyl phosphate (TPP) (para. 0035, [triphenyl phosphate]).
Other Pertinent Art
US 20220223926 A1
Regarding a lithium-ion battery that uses a flame-retardant additive in the form of encapsulated particles
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,7, and 14 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.
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 VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721