DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the March 4th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on March 4th, 2026:
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending in the current application. Claim 14 is cancelled. Claims 1, 6, 12-13, 16, and 20 are amended. Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1 and 20 are amended to further limit the group representing the electrolyte additive; and is further amended to clarify that the electrolyte, rather than the electrolyte additive, includes the solvent mixture. Therefore, the amendment overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); and said rejection is withdrawn.
Claims 6 and 16 are amended to specify that the electrolyte additive comprises a first electrolyte additive and a second electrolyte additive.
Claim 12 is amended to further limit the group representing the electrolyte additive.
Claim 13 is amended to include the limitations from cancelled Claim 14 in which describe a mass ratio between EC and DMC of about 3:7.
Claim 21 is newly added to further limit the silicon-based negative electroactive material.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure as originally filed including the specification and claims. Therefore, no new matter has been added.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Onagi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150287537 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 8 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasamatsu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20080160412 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243848 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 12-13, 15-17, and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210249656 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment. The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 14 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210249656 A1), and further in view of Onagi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150287537 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 18 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210249656 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243848 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 4th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant’s arguments are based on the claims as amended. Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that the applied prior art references fail to teach an electrolyte additive selected from the group as amended (see pg. 11 of the “Remarks”). However, primary reference Munaoka et al. teaches multiple suitable additives within the amended list including maleic anhydride and glutaric anhydride ([0157]). Therefore, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Munaoka et al.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) (“Munaoka et al.”)
Previously Cited Onagi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150287537 A1) (“Onagi et al.”)
Previously Cited Kasamatsu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20080160412 A1) (“Kasamatsu et al.”)
Previously Cited Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243848 A1) (“Kim et al.”)
Previously Cited Wang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210249656 A1) (“Wang et al.”)
Previously Cited Onagi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150287537 A1) (“Onagi et al.”)
Takahashi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210028447 A1) (“Takahashi et al.”)
Jiang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210036368 A1) (“Jiang et al.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Munaoka et al. teaches an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (lithium ion secondary battery, para. 33), the electrochemical cell comprising:
a first electrode (positive electrode, para. 121) comprising a nickel-rich positive electroactive material (para. 125, 132) comprising 80% of nickel (LiNi.sub.0.8Co.sub.0.15Al.sub.0.05O.sub.2, para. 131), within the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 80 % of nickel (Ni); ‘[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.’ Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2131.03(I)).
a second (negative) electrode comprising a silicon-based negative electroactive material (para. 262-263);
a separating layer (separator) disposed between the first (positive) electrode and the second (negative) electrode (para. 142);
and an electrolyte comprising 1 wt.% of an electrolyte additive (Table 7), within the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 3 wt.%, in which the electrolyte additive can include maleic anhydride or glutaric anhydride (para. 157) (see MPEP 2131.03(I)). The electrolyte is brought in close contact with the first electrode comprising the nickel-rich positive electroactive material and the second electrode comprising the silicon-based negative electroactive material (para. 192). The electrolyte must be in direct contact with the electrode active material to allow transfer of ions between the anode and cathode and facilitate the chemical reactions needed for charging and discharging.
Regarding Claim 2, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Further, Munaoka et al. teaches the electrolyte further comprising a solvent mixture including ethylene carbonate (EC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (para. 270). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Further, Munaoka et al. teaches the electrolyte further comprising a solvent mixture including ethylene carbonate (EC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (para. 270). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 5, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Munaoka et al. teaches that the electrolyte can include 1 wt.% of the electrolyte additive (Table 7). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the nickel-rich positive electroactive material can include LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (para. 131), meeting the limitations of the Claimed formula LiM1xM2yM3zM4(1-x-y-z) where M1 comprises nickel (Ni) and x is 0.8 (within the claimed range of 0.8 to 1 inclusive); M2 and M3 are independently transition metals cobalt (Co) and aluminum (Al) where y is 0.15 (within the claimed range of 0 to 1 inclusive), and z is 0.05 (within the claimed range of 0 to 1 inclusive); further, manganese can be included and represented by element M4 with subscript (1-x-y-z) equal to zero to achieve an atomic ratio of 1 or 100% (para. 131-132). Therefore, Munaoka et al. teaches an amount of nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and manganese with subscripts (atomic ratios) within the claimed range (see MPEP 2131.03(I)) in which all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 9, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Munaoka et al. teaches the second electrode (negative electrode) is a composite (a mixture of two or more constituent materials) electrode comprising the silicon-based negative electroactive material (silicon-based material) and a carbonaceous negative electroactive material (carbon material) (para. 263). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 11, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Munaoka et al. teaches that the silicon-based active material can include silicon or SiOv where v ranges from 0 to 2 inclusive (equivalent to the claimed SiOx (where x is less than 2 inclusive))(para. 54). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Onagi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150287537 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 3 above.
Munaoka et al. does not teach that the mass ratio between the ethylene carbonate (EC) and the dimethyl carbonate (DMC) is about 3:7.
Onagi et al. teaches a mass ratio of EC:DMC of about 3:7 in an electrolyte to achieve high battery capacity (para. 185).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolyte of Munaoka et al. to include a mass ratio of EC:DMC of about 3:7 in an electrolyte as taught by Onagi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to achieve high battery capacity (para. 185).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210036368 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Munaoka et al. teaches that the electrolyte additive can be selected from the group comprising succinic anhydride, glutaric anhydride, and maleic anhydride ([0157]).
Munaoka et al. does not teach a first electrolyte additive and second electrolyte additive, in which the second electrolyte additive is succinic anhydride.
Jiang et al. teaches an additive (additive B) for an electrolyte in which can comprise one or more acid anhydrides selected from a group comprising succinic anhydride, maleic anhydride, and glutaric anhydride ([0014], Claim 5). The additive (additive B) functions to absorb moisture in the electrolyte, preventing generation of HF in the electrolyte which can cause corrosion and damage to the surface of the positive active material ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Munaoka et al. to include one or more additives selected from succinic anhydride, maleic anhydride, and glutaric anhydride as taught by Jiang et al. Therefore, it would be obvious to select any combination of additives including a first electrolyte additive (maleic anhydride or glutaric anhydride) and a second electrolyte additive (succinic anhydride) in which falls within the scope of the teachings of Jiang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a method to absorb moisture in the electrolyte, preventing generation of HF in the electrolyte and corrosion/damage to the surface of the positive active material as described above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasamatsu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20080160412 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Munaoka et al. does not teach that the nickel-rich positive electroactive material can be represented by
PNG
media_image1.png
70
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
as claimed.
Kasamatsu et al. teaches a lithium containing composite oxide used as a positive electroactive material represented by formula (4)
PNG
media_image2.png
94
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in which is inexpensive and is capable of maintaining stable battery performances (para. 64), meeting the limitations of the claimed formula where subscript ranges for x, y, and z lie inside and/or overlap with subscript ranges c, b, and d of Kasamatsu et al., representing an amount of cobalt, manganese, and aluminum, respectively. Material “CO” in formula (4) represents cobalt (para. 66) rather than a carbon-oxygen compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel-rich positive electroactive material of Munaoka et al. to include a compound represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
94
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as taught by Kasamatsu et al. (meeting the limitations of the claimed formula where subscript ranges for x, y, and z lie inside and/or overlap with subscript ranges c, b, and d of Kasamatsu et al., representing an amount of cobalt, manganese, and aluminum, respectively). “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(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide an inexpensive electrode material capable of maintaining stable battery performances (para. 64).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243848 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 9 above. Munaoka et al. teaches the composite electrode comprising 10 wt.% of the silicon-based negative electroactive material (within the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.%) and 90 wt. % of the carbonaceous negative electroactive material (para. 263).
Munaoka et al. does not teach a suitable range for the carbonaceous negative electroactive material of greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 80 wt.% as claimed.
Kim et al. teaches a composite electrode comprising 10 wt. % to 60% of a silicon-based negative electroactive material (within and overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.%); and 40% to 90% of the carbonaceous negative electroactive material (overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 80 wt.%) (10:90-60:40 silicon to carbon weight ratio, para. 33). When the content of the composite electrode is within the defined range, “the carbonaceous active material and pores of the electrode may alleviate a collapse of the structure of an electrode caused by the silicon-based active material” (para. 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the composite electrode Munaoka et al. to include 40% to 90% of the carbonaceous negative electroactive material (overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 80 wt.%) as taught by Kim et al. (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to alleviate a collapse of the structure of an electrode caused by the silicon-based active material (para. 33). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Kim et al. useful in providing a suitable range of the silicon to carbon weight ratio to provide beneficial results as Munaoka et al. only discloses a single weight ratio.
Claims 12, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210249656 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Munaoka et al. teaches an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (lithium ion secondary battery, para. 33), the electrochemical cell comprising:
a first electrode (positive electrode, para. 121) comprising a nickel-rich positive electroactive material (para. 125, 132); the nickel-rich positive electroactive material can include LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (para. 131), meeting the limitations of the Claimed formula LiM1xM2yM3zM4(1-x-y-z) where M1 comprises nickel (Ni) and x is 0.8 (within the claimed range of 0.8 to 1 inclusive); M2 and M3 are independently transition metals cobalt (Co) and aluminum (Al) where y is 0.15 (within the claimed range of 0 to 1 inclusive), and z is 0.05 (within the claimed range of 0 to 1 inclusive); further, manganese can be included and represented by element M4 with subscript (1-x-y-z) equal to zero to achieve an atomic ratio of 1 or 100% (para. 131-132). Therefore, Munaoka et al. teaches an amount of nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and manganese with subscripts (atomic ratios) within the claimed range.
a second (negative) electrode comprising a silicon-based negative electroactive material (para. 262-263);
a separating layer (separator) disposed between the first (positive) electrode and the second (negative) electrode (para. 142);
and an electrolyte comprising 1 wt.%, within the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 3 wt.%, of an electrolyte additive (Table 7), in which the electrolyte additive can include maleic anhydride or glutaric anhydride (para. 157).
The electrolyte is brought in close contact with the first electrode comprising the nickel-rich positive electroactive material and the second electrode comprising the silicon-based negative electroactive material (para. 192). The electrolyte must be in direct contact with the active material to allow transfer of ions between the anode and cathode and facilitate the chemical reactions needed for charging and discharging.
Munaoka et al. does not teach the first and second electrode as porous structures comprising the electrolyte intermingled with the corresponding electroactive materials.
Wang et al. teaches a porous negative electrode with a porosity sufficient to reduce the liquid phase diffusion resistance of ions inside the pore channels while achieving high volume energy density; and allowing the electrolyte to diffuse there within (para. 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical cell of Munaoka et al. to include the electrode having a porous structure comprising an electrolyte intermingled with the electrode (comprising an electroactive material) as taught by Wang et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to include both the first and second electrode as porous structures to allow the electrolyte to enter through the pores to increase the interface between the electrode (positive electroactive material or negative electroactive material) and the electrolyte providing improved electron and ion transport as taught by Wang et al.
Regarding Claim 15, Munaoka et al. is modified by Wang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. As applied to Claim 12, Munaoka et al. teaches that the electrolyte can include 1 wt.% of the electrolyte additive (Table 7). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 17, Munaoka et al. is modified by Wang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. Munaoka et al. teaches the second electrode (negative electrode) is a composite (a mixture of two or more constituent materials) electrode comprising the silicon-based negative electroactive material (silicon-based material) and a carbonaceous negative electroactive material (carbon material) (para. 263). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 19, Munaoka et al. is modified by Wang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. Munaoka et al. teaches that the silicon-based active material can include silicon or SiOv where v ranges from 0 to 2 inclusive (equivalent to the claimed SiOx (where x is less than 2 inclusive))(para. 54). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210249656 A1), and further in view of Onagi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150287537 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Munaoka et al. is modified by Wang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. Further, Munaoka et al. teaches the electrolyte further comprising a solvent mixture including ethylene carbonate (EC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) (para. 270). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Munaoka et al. does not teach that the mass ratio between the ethylene carbonate (EC) and the dimethyl carbonate (DMC) is about 3:7.
Onagi et al. teaches a mass ratio of EC:DMC of about 3:7 in an electrolyte to achieve high battery capacity (para. 185).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Munaoka et al. to include a mass ratio of EC:DMC of about 3:7 in an electrolyte as taught by Onagi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to achieve high battery capacity (para. 185).
Regarding Claim 20, Munaoka et al. teaches an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (lithium ion secondary battery, para. 33), the electrochemical cell comprising:
a first electrode (positive electrode, para. 121) comprising a nickel-rich positive electroactive material (para. 125, 132); the nickel-rich positive electroactive material can include LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (para. 131), meeting the limitations of the Claimed formula LiM1xM2yM3zM4(1-x-y-z) where M1 comprises nickel (Ni) and x is 0.8 (within the claimed range of 0.8 to 1 inclusive); M2 and M3 are independently transition metals cobalt (Co) and aluminum (Al) where y is 0.15 (within the claimed range of 0 to 1 inclusive), and z is 0.05 (within the claimed range of 0 to 1 inclusive); further, manganese can be included and represented by element M4 with subscript (1-x-y-z) equal to zero to achieve an atomic ratio of 1 or 100% (para. 131-132). Therefore, Munaoka et al. teaches an amount of nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and manganese with subscripts (atomic ratios) within the claimed range.
a second (negative) electrode comprising a silicon-based negative electroactive material (para. 262-263); the silicon-based active material can include silicon or SiOv where v ranges from 0 to 2 inclusive (equivalent to the claimed SiOx (where x is less than 2 inclusive))(para. 54).
a separating layer (separator) disposed between the first (positive) electrode and the second (negative) electrode (para. 142);
and an electrolyte comprising 1 wt.%, within the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 3 wt.%, of an electrolyte additive (Table 7), in which the electrolyte additive can include maleic anhydride or glutaric anhydride (para. 157).
The electrolyte is brought in close contact with the first electrode comprising the nickel-rich positive electroactive material and the second electrode comprising the silicon-based negative electroactive material (para. 192). The electrolyte must be in direct contact with the active material to allow transfer of ions between the anode and cathode and facilitate the chemical reactions needed for charging and discharging.
Munaoka et al. does not teach the first and second electrode as porous structures comprising the electrolyte intermingled with the corresponding electroactive materials.
Wang et al. teaches a porous negative electrode with a porosity sufficient to reduce the liquid phase diffusion resistance of ions inside the pore channels while achieving high volume energy density; and allowing the electrolyte to diffuse there within (para. 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical cell of Munaoka et al. to include the electrode having a porous structure comprising an electrolyte intermingled with the electrode (comprising an electroactive material) as taught by Wang et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to include both the first and second electrode as porous structures to allow the electrolyte to enter through the pores to increase the interface between the electrode (positive electroactive material or negative electroactive material) and the electrolyte providing improved electron and ion transport as taught by Wang et al.) and the electrolyte providing improved electron and ion transport as taught by Wang et al.
Munaoka et al. does not teach that the mass ratio between the ethylene carbonate (EC) and the dimethyl carbonate (DMC) is about 3:7.
Onagi et al. teaches a mass ratio of EC:DMC of about 3:7 in an electrolyte to achieve high battery capacity (para. 185).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Munaoka et al. to include a mass ratio of EC:DMC of about 3:7 in an electrolyte as taught by Onagi et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to achieve high battery capacity (para. 185).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210249656 A1), and further in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210036368 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Munaoka et al. is modified by Wang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. As applied to Claim 12, Munaoka et al. teaches that the electrolyte additive can be selected from the group comprising succinic anhydride, glutaric anhydride, and maleic anhydride ([0157]).
Munaoka et al. does not teach a first electrolyte additive and a second electrolyte additive, in which the second electrolyte additive is succinic anhydride.
Jiang et al. teaches an additive (additive B) for an electrolyte in which can comprise one or more acid anhydrides selected from a group comprising succinic anhydride, maleic anhydride, and glutaric anhydride ([0014], Claim 5). The additive (additive B) functions to absorb moisture in the electrolyte, preventing generation of HF in the electrolyte which can cause corrosion and damage to the surface of the positive active material ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrolyte of Munaoka et al. to include one or more additives selected from succinic anhydride, maleic anhydride, and glutaric anhydride as taught by Jiang et al. Therefore, it would be obvious to select any combination of additives including a first electrolyte additive (maleic anhydride or glutaric anhydride) and a second electrolyte additive (succinic anhydride) in which falls within the scope of the teachings of Jiang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a method to absorb moisture in the electrolyte, preventing generation of HF in the electrolyte and corrosion/damage to the surface of the positive active material as described above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210249656 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200243848 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Munaoka et al. is modified by Wang et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 17 above. Munaoka et al. teaches the composite electrode comprising 10 wt.% of the silicon-based negative electroactive material (within the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.%) and 90 wt. % of the carbonaceous negative electroactive material (para. 263).
Munaoka et al. does not teach a suitable range for the carbonaceous negative electroactive material of greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 80 wt.% as claimed.
Kim et al. teaches a composite electrode comprising 10 wt. % to 60% of a silicon-based negative electroactive material (within and overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 1 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.%); and 40% to 90% of the carbonaceous negative electroactive material (overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 80 wt.%) (10:90-60:40 silicon to carbon weight ratio, para. 33). When the content of the composite electrode is within the defined range, “the carbonaceous active material and pores of the electrode may alleviate a collapse of the structure of an electrode caused by the silicon-based active material” (para. 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the composite electrode Munaoka et al. to include 40% to 90% of the carbonaceous negative electroactive material (overlapping the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 80 wt.%) as taught by Kim et al. (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to alleviate a collapse of the structure of an electrode caused by the silicon-based active material (para. 33). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Kim et al. useful in providing a suitable range of the silicon to carbon weight ratio to provide beneficial results as Munaoka et al. only discloses a single weight ratio.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munaoka et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180323434 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210028447 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Munaoka et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Munaoka et al. does not teach the silicon-based negative electroactive material comprising LixSiOy (where 2 ≤ x ≤ 6 and 4 ≤ y ≤ 7).
Takahashi et al. teaches an inventive silicon-based negative electroactive material comprising Li4Si-O4, meeting the limitations of the claimed formula (LixSiOy (where 2 ≤ x ≤ 6 and 4 ≤ y ≤ 7); the silicon-based active material enables more stable battery characteristics ([0027], [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicon-based negative electroactive material of Munaoka et al. to include Li4Si-O4 as taught by Takahashi et al., meeting the limitations of the claimed formula (LixSiOy (where 2 ≤ x ≤ 6 and 4 ≤ y ≤ 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide more stable battery characteristics as described above.
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729