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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed July 18, 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 an initialed copied is attached herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a pore volume of 1.5 – 10 cm3 g-1”, and the claim also recites “a pore volume of 1.5 – 2 cm3 g-1” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. An appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-20 are rejected based on dependency to claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “an average pore diameter of less than 10 nm”, and the claim also recites “an average pore diameter of 1 nm to 3 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. An appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-20 are rejected based on dependency to claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). An appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-20 are rejected based on dependency to claim 1.
Regarding claims 4-5, 13-14, 17-18, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). An appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). An appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 are rejected based on dependency to claim 8.
Regarding claims 10 & 17, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). An appropriate correction is required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “porosity of the cathode is less than 40%”, and the claim also recites “porosity of the cathode is less than 30%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. An appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10 & 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. US Pub. 2020/0328405.
With respect to claim 1, Xu teaches a cathode for an electrochemical cell (carbon nanomaterials are compounded with selenium to obtain a carbon-selenium composite material, which is used as a cathode material that pairs with anode material containing lithium, resulting in a lithium-selenium battery; [0009]), wherein the cathode comprises a composite material comprising: i. electrochemically active selenium, or a mixture of electrochemically active selenium and electrochemically active sulfur (carbon-selenium composite material as a cathode material; selenium may be doped with other elements, such as, but not limited to, sulfur; [0024]) and ii. an electronically conductive carbon material having an average pore diameter of less than 10 nm (pore size of 1 – 100 angstroms which equals 0.1 – 10 nm; [0090]), for example an average pore volume of 1.5 - 2 cm3 g.1 (pore volume of the carbon skeleton may be as low as 0.01 mL/g and may be as much as 5 mL/g; [0091]). With respect to claim 2,
the electrochemically active selenium, or mixture of electrochemically active selenium and electrochemically active sulfur, is present in a S:Se ratio of from 0:100 to 50:50 (Se95S5, Se80S20, Se65S35; Table 4), preferably from 10:90 to 30:70 (Se80S20; Table 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, the composite comprises greater than 60% by weight of electrochemically active selenium, or 60% by weight of a mixture of electrochemically active selenium and electrochemically active sulfur, based on the total weight of the composite (selenium loading between 50% and 60% (including 60%) of selenium loading (by weight) in the Se—C composite; [0277]). With respect to claim 4,
the sulfur material comprises elemental sulfur; or an alkali metal sulfide, for example LhS (The cathode can comprise at least one element of a chalcogen group including sulfur; [0027]). With respect to claim 5, the selenium material comprises elemental selenium; or an alkali metal selenide, for example LhSe (The cathode can comprise at least one element of a chalcogen group including selenium; [0027]). With respect to claim 6, the composite material further comprises electrochemically active tellurium (The cathode can comprise at least one element of a chalcogen group including tellurium; [0027]). With respect to claim 10, the cathode further comprises electronically conductive carbon additives such as carbon black and carbon nanotubes (selenium carbon composites are mixed with carbon black; [0060]), and optionally further comprises a binder (binder CMC/SBR; [0060]). With respect to claim 15,
the layer is formed by atomic layer deposition, molecular layer deposition, CVD, PE-CVD, sol gel coating, hydrothermal precipitation, solvothermal precipitation; or a combination thereof, are process limitations in a product claim. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, so long as the product of the prior art is the same as that of the claims, the limitations are satisfied. Here, the product of Xu is the same as set forth by the instant claims. With respect to claim 16, the cell further comprises an anode formed from an alkali metal and/or an alkali metal alloy and/or silicon (anode material containing lithium; [0009]); and an electrolyte (an electrolyte; [0016]). With respect to claim 17, the electrolyte is a liquid electrolyte (electrolyte can be one or several of a carbonate electrolyte, an ether electrolyte, and ionic liquids; [0017]); for example wherein the electrolyte comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl) imide (LiTFSI); [0018]); or wherein the electrolyte comprises carbonate based solvents such as fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), vinylene carbonate (VC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), or ethylene carbonate (EC) (ethylene carbonate (EC); [0018]; dimethyl carbonate (DMC); [0155]). With respect to claim 18, the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte; for example wherein the electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte (solid electrolyte [0111]; a solid electrolyte separator; [0154]). With respect to claim 20, a method for forming an electrochemical cell comprising: b. introducing electrochemically active selenium, and optionally electrochemically active sulfur (carbon-selenium composite material as a cathode material; selenium may be doped with other elements, such as, but not limited to, sulfur; [0024]), into the carbon host material to form a composite material (carbon nanomaterials are compounded with selenium to obtain a carbon-selenium composite material, which is used as a cathode material; [0009]); c. depositing said composite material onto a current collector to form a cathode (slurry can be coated onto a current collector or can be shaped into self-supported electrodes like disk electrodes; [0304]); d. placing the cathode in contact with an electrolyte; and placing an anode in contact with the electrolyte (Next, 240 μL of electrolyte 7 comprising LiPF.sub.6 (1M) in ethylene carbonate (EC) and dimethyl carbonate (DMC) solvent (50-50 in weight) was introduced into the positive case 2 followed by placing a lithium foil disc 8 (15.6 mm in diameter and 250 microns in thickness) on a side of the separator 6 opposite the cathode disc 4; [0155]).
Although Xu teaches an electronically conductive carbon material having an average pore diameter of 0.1 – 10 nm [0090]; and a pore volume of 0.01 mL/g to 5 mL/g; [0091], the reference does not teach or suggest: an average pore volume of 1.5 - 10 cm3 g.1 and an average pore diameter of 1 nm to 3 nm (claims 1 & 20); the porosity of the cathode is less than 40%, preferably wherein the porosity of the cathode is less than 30% (claim 7); the layer has a thickness of less than 100 nm, for example less than 50 nm (claim 14); the electrolyte has a solubility for sulfur and selenium-containing species of less than 15 mM (claim 19).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an average pore volume of 1.5 - 10 cm3 g.1 and an average pore diameter of 1 nm to 3 nm (claims 1 & 20); in the cathode of Xu, in order to increase utilization of the carbon material. The skilled artisan recognizes that the pore characteristics directly affect reactive surface area. Xu teaches an electronically conductive carbon material having an average pore diameter of 0.1 – 10 nm [0090]; and a pore volume of 0.01 mL/g to 5 mL/g; [0091]. Therefore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the porosity of the cathode is less than 40%, preferably wherein the porosity of the cathode is less than 30% (claim 7); it would have been obvious in the cathode of Xu, in order to increase utilization of the cathode material. The skilled artisan recognizes that the pore characteristics directly affect reactive surface area. Xu teaches that about 14% of pores described as meso and microporosity. See paragraph [0300]. Therefore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the layer having a thickness of less than 100 nm, for example less than 50 nm (claim 14); it would have been obvious in the cathode of Xu, as minimizing cathode thickness lowers stack weight, volume, and cost of materials, with a concomitant increase in the cell power density. Xu teaches sheet edges being interconnected with sample thickness between 500 nm and 100 nm. See paragraph [0129]. Therefore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the electrolyte having a solubility for sulfur and selenium-containing species of less than 15 mM (claim 19); it would have been reasonable to expect in the cathode of Xu, as “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, Xu teaches the same electrochemically active elemental sulfur and selenium as set forth by Applicant. See MPEP 2112.01.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 8-9 & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. US Pub. 2020/0328405 in view of Fasching et al EP2816639A2.
Xu teaches a cathode for an electrochemical cell (carbon nanomaterials are compounded with selenium to obtain a carbon-selenium composite material, which is used as a cathode material that pairs with anode material containing lithium, resulting in a lithium-selenium battery; [0009]; selenium may be doped with other elements, such as, but not limited to, sulfur; [0024] ), as described in the rejection recited herein above. With respect to the composite material comprising composite particles of electronically conductive carbon material (carbon nanomaterials are compounded with selenium to obtain a cathode material; [0009]); and electrochemically active selenium (a carbon-selenium composite material; [0009]), or a mixture of electrochemically active selenium and electrochemically active sulfur (selenium may be doped with other elements, such as, but not limited to, sulfur; [0024]).
Xu does not teach or suggest: the cathode further comprises ionically conductive additives such as an ionically conductive ceramic, ionically conductive polymer, or mixtures thereof (claim 8); the ionically conductive ceramic is selected from LiPON, LLZO, LATP, LGPS, LPS and LAGP, or mixtures thereof (claim 9); a polymer, a ceramic-polymer hybrid material, or combinations thereof, wherein the layer covers the exterior surface of each of the particles (claim 11); and a layer comprising a ceramic,
the ceramic is selected from aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, silicon oxide, vanadium oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, zirconium oxide, boron oxide, yttrium oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, and boron nitride, or combinations thereof (claim 12).
Fasching teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: coating on the surface of sulfur containing cathode active material (teaching claim 2) an ionically conductive additives such as an ionically conductive ceramic, ionically conductive polymer, or mixtures thereof (the ion material may be formed in coverings around active material particles to increase the ion conductivity of the electrode; See “Composition of Cathodes: Conducting Component” paragraph 5; LiPON and alumina; See “Composition of Cathodes: Conducting Component” paragraph 5; claim 8); the ionically conductive ceramic is selected from LiPON, LLZO, LATP, LGPS, LPS and LAGP, or mixtures thereof (LiPON and alumina; See “Composition of Cathodes: Conducting Component” paragraph 5; claim 9); a polymer, a ceramic-polymer hybrid material, or combinations thereof, wherein the layer covers the exterior surface of each of the particles (the ion material may be formed in coverings around active material particles to increase the ion conductivity of the electrode; See “Composition of Cathodes: Conducting Component” paragraph 5; LiPON and alumina; See “Composition of Cathodes: Conducting Component” paragraph 5; claim 11); and a layer comprising a ceramic, the ceramic is selected from aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, silicon oxide, vanadium oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, zirconium oxide, boron oxide, yttrium oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, and boron nitride, or combinations thereof (alumina; See “Composition of Cathodes: Conducting Component” paragraph 5; claim 12).
Xu and Fasching are analogous art from the same of endeavor, namely fabricated sulfur containing cathode materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the an ionically conductive ceramic of Fasching, as coating on the cathode of Xu, to increase ion conductivity as taught by Fasching. See “Composition of Cathodes: Conducting Component” paragraph 5.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. US Pub. 2020/0328405 in view of Fasching et al EP2816639A2, and even in further in view of Xing US Pub. 2019/0027724.
Xu in view of Fasching teach a cathode for an electrochemical cell (carbon nanomaterials are compounded with selenium to obtain a carbon-selenium composite material, which is used as a cathode material that pairs with anode material containing lithium, resulting in a lithium-selenium battery; [0009]; selenium may be doped with other elements, such as, but not limited to, sulfur; [0024] ), as described in the rejection recited herein above.
Xu does not teach or suggest: the ceramic-polymer hybrid material is a metalcone, for example alucone, titanicone, zircone, and zincone, or combinations thereof (claim 13).
Xing teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: alucone coating on the surface of sulfur containing cathode active material (alucone coating [0089]; claim 13).
Xu, Fasching and Xing are analogous art from the same of endeavor, namely fabricated sulfur containing cathode materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the alucone coating of Xing, on the cathode of Xu in view of Fasching, to increase ion conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723