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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/25/2023 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 5/25/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albano et al (US 20160351973 A1) in view of Chen et al (US 20190348705 A1 ) and Song et al (US 20130199030 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Albano discloses a cathode for a lithium-ion battery comprising an cathode active material, a conductive additive, an inorganic oxide, a polymeric binder [paragraph 0025, , 0028, 0030, 0053-0057, 0081, 0083, 0208, 0230, 0280]. Albano remains silent about providing a catholyte in the cathode and specifics of the polymeric binder. However, it is known in the art to utilize a catholyte (comprising a salt and a solvent) in the cathode in order to improve the performance of the redox electrochemistry and/or safety of the cathode as taught by Chen [Abstract; paragraph 0033, 0049, 0059, 0060, 0084, 0087; claim 1]. And Song teaches a fluoropolymer binder comprising a PVdF-HFP copolymer binder (binder A) having about 12 wt% HFP and a PVdF-based binder (binder B) in order to impart improved adherence to the electrode contacting the separator [paragraph 0049-0050, 0101-0102]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 2-3, Song teaches that the HFP content of the VDF-HFP copolymer forming part of the composition of said fluoropolymer A is has a HFP content of not less than 8% and not more than 55% [paragraph 0102].
Regarding claim 4, Song teaches that the ratio by mass of polymer A to polymer B is more than 1 [paragraph 0102].
Regarding claim 5, Albano teaches that the cathode active material can be lithium-iron phosphate [paragraph 0208] which LiMPO4 type wherein M is Co, Ni, Mn, Fe or a combination of these.
Regarding claim 6, Albano teaches that the conductive additive is selected from the group consisting of carbon blacks, graphite and carbon nanotubes [paragraph 0057].
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches that catholyte can be nitriles [paragraph 0060-0061].
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches that the lithium salt present in said catholyte is selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiFSI and LiTFSI [paragraph 0060-0061].
Regarding claims 9-12, providing optimized/specific amounts of salt concentration, binder to catholyte or conductive additive ratios and the active material amount are within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan and would be obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Albano teaches an all-solid-state secondary lithium ion battery comprising an anode, a cathode and a separator [paragraph 0024, 0030, 0037-0038, 0074, 0233-0234].
Regarding claim 14, Song teaches that the separator comprises one or more porous layers of polypropylene and/or polyethylene [paragraph 0007, 0055, 0108].
Regarding claim 18, Albano teaches a method for manufacturing an Li-ion battery [paragraph 0002, 0090, 0199].
Regarding claim 19, Albano teaches providing electrolyte comprising a solvent and a lithium salt in the cell [paragraph 0011-0012].
9. Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albano et al (US 20160351973 A1) in view of Chen et al (US 20190348705 A1 ) and Song et al (US 20130199030 A1) as applied in claim 13 and further in view of Gutel et al (US 20230402605 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Albano teaches a separator but remains silent that the separator is a gelled polymeric membrane. However, Gutel teaches a battery comprising a gelled polymer membrane, this membrane advantageously comprising an organic portion comprising at least one fluorinated polymer (F) comprising at least one repeating unit resulting from the polymerization of a fluorinated monomer [paragraph 0077, 0109, 0150]. And Song teaches a fluoropolymer binder comprising a PVdF-HFP copolymer binder (binder A) having about 12 wt% HFP and a PVdF-based binder (binder B) in order to impart improved adherence to the electrode contacting the separator [paragraph 0049-0050, 0101-0102]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Gutel teaches that the solvent is selected from the group consisting of ethers, esters and nitriles [paragraph 0109].
Regarding claim 17, Gutel teaches that the lithium salt is selected from the group consisting of LiTDI, LiPF6, and LiTFSI [paragraph 0134-0135, 0138, 0146].
10. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albano et al (US 20160351973 A1) in view of Chen et al (US 20190348705 A1 ) and Song et al (US 20130199030 A1) as applied in claim 19 and further in view of Momose et al (US 20130316234 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Albano remains silent about a heating step, however, Momose teaches a battery wherein a heating treatment is performed for 1 minute to 10 hours at preferably 60 to 250 oC [paragraph 0077]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights