DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/084253, “ELECTROLYTE COMPOSITION AND LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME”, was filed with the USPTO on 12/19/22 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 3/3/22.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 1/16/26.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Cheng (US 2019/0140319) and Cheng’316 (USP 9985316).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 20, Cheng teaches an electrolyte composition for a lithium ion battery (paragraph [0002, 0052]), the electrolyte composition comprising a lithium salt; an organic solvent; and a polymer additive (paragraphs [0008-0017]), and the polymer additive is a mixture of a fluorine containing halogen based copolymer and an acrylic-based polymer (“P(VDF-HFP)… PMMA”, paragraphs [0015-0016]). It is noted that PMMA” is an acrylate comprising polymer formed of units of acrylic units consistent with Formula 2.
Claim 1 further requires that a composition ratio of the halogen-based polymer is 0.1 to 10 wt% based on the electrolyte, which is not expressly taught by Cheng.
However, Cheng does teach the polymer included in an amount of 30-70% by mass based on the electrolyte (paragraph [0047]) and the PVDF-HFP:PMMA ratio being 1:0.2 to 1:4 (paragraph [0016]), for example 0.5:1.5 (Example 4 at paragraph [0068]).
Applying the PVDF-HFP:PMMA ratio range to the total polymer content suggests a PVDF-HFP range of about 6 to 68 wt% PVDF-HFP [halogen-based polymer], including 7.5 wt% PVDF-HFP for applying the 0.5:1.5 ratio of Example 4 to the 30% limit of paragraph [0047]).
The claimed range is found to be obvious because the range suggested by Cheng overlaps the claimed range at least at the lower portion thereof.
Cheng teaches the electrolyte composition for a lithium battery, but does not detail the structure of a representative battery and therefore does not teach a battery comprising a first electrode structure and a second electrode structure separated from the first electrode structure; and an electrolyte, formed of the electrolyte composition, disposed between the first electrode structure and the second electrode structure, or wherein each electrode comprises the structure set forth in claims 9 and 10.
In the battery art, Cheng’316 teaches a conventional structure of a lithium body, which comprises a first electrode structure and a second electrode structure separated from the first electrode structure by an electrolyte composition including an electrolyte (see Fig. 1). Cheng’316 further teaches each electrode comprised of an electrode layer deposited on a current collector (c13:6-21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to employ the electrolyte of Cheng in a lithium battery comprising first and second electrode structures configured and arranged as described, with the electrolyte disposed therebetween, since these are the typical components and arrangement of a functional lithium battery as taught by Cheng’316.
Regarding claim 3 and 14, Cheng remains as applied to claim 1 and 12. Cheng does not appear to teach wherein the polymer of the electrolyte comprises a silicone-based polymer consistent with Formula 1.
In the battery art, Cheng’316 teaches that a silicon-based polymer may be added to an electrolyte composition for the benefit of improving cycle life and performance of a battery (c8:66-c9:10). Cheng further teaches that the silicon-based polymer may have a structure consistent with Formula 1 (e.g. c9:15-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include a silicone-based polymer consistent with Formula 1 in the battery for the benefit of improving cycle life and performance of the battery as taught by Cheng’316.
Regarding claim 5 and 16, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1 or 12. Cheng further teaches wherein a composition ratio of the polymer additive is from 30-70% by mass based on the electrolyte (paragraph [0047]). The claimed range of 0.1 wt% to about 30 wt% of the electrolyte is found to be obvious for overlapping the Cheng range at least at about 30% polymer.
Regarding claim 7 and 18, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1 or 12. Claims 7 and 18 further require that the polymer additive is added in a powder type to the electrolyte. This recitation describes a method of making the electrolyte, namely that the electrolyte composition is made by a process wherein the polymer additive is added in a powder type, to which Cheng is silent.
However, it has been held that "even 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” (MPEP 2113 I).
Here, the requirement that the polymer additive is added in a powder type does not necessarily or apparently imply any specific structure not disclosed by Cheng. It is noted that applicant teaches that the additive has excellent dissolution in the electrolyte and uniformly dissolve in the electrolyte even though it is added as a powder (applicant’s published paragraph [0063]). Therefore, in the electrolyte composition, the powder form is not apparently or necessarily present. Accordingly, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 for being drawn to a product which is the same as, or at least obvious over, that disclosed by Cheng since the electrolyte composition does not require powder, which is a precursor product used in a possible method of manufacture.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1 or 12. Cheng further teaches wherein the additive further comprises an auxiliary agent, and the auxiliary agent is at least one of ethylene carbonate or vinylene carbonate or combination thereof (paragraph [0019], where dimethyl carbonate is readable on the organic solvent and ethylene carbonate is readable on the auxiliary agent).
Claims 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Cheng (US 2019/0140319), Cheng’316 (USP 9985316), Wu (US 2022/0209218) and Ogura (US 2002/0061441).
Regarding claim 6 and 17, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1 and 12. Cheng teaches a polymer additive which may comprise a mixture of, for example 0.5 g PVDF-HFP copolymer and 1.5 g PMMA (e.g. Example 4 at paragraph [0067]), but is silent as to the molecular weight of the polymers of the mixture, and therefore, does not explicitly teach the combination having a molecular weight of from about 500 g/mol to about 10,000,000 g/mol.
However, a typical molecular weight of commercially available PVDF-HFP is 400,000 g/mol (Wu -US 2022/0209218 at paragraph [0051]), and that of a commercially available PMMA is 996,000 g/mol (Ogura -US 2002/0061441) at paragraph [0077]). Selection of these typical values for the Example 4 embodiment yields a molecular weight of about 847,000 g/mol, lying within the claimed range.
The claimed range is thus found to be obvious because selection of commercially available polymers, included in an amount suggested by Cheng, yields an average molecular weight lying within the claimed range.
Claims 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Cheng (US 2019/0140319), Cheng’316 (USP 9985316) and Kim (US 2009/0311589).
Regarding claim 9-11, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1 or 12. Cheng teaches a lithium battery comprising positive and negative electrodes, a separator, and the electrolyte (e.g. paragraph [0024, 0033]), but does not appear to teach the claimed structure wherein each electrode includes a current collector and an electrode [active material] layer, and the electrolyte is provided between the separator and each electrode.
In the battery art, Kim teaches a lithium battery comprised of electrodes, electrolyte and separator (paragraph [0077]), wherein each electrode comprises a current collector and an active material layer (paragraph [0063, 0073, 0075]), and the separator/electrolyte has a structure with the polymer electrolyte formed on both surfaces of the separator substrate (Fig. 2, paragraph [0051]).
Kim further teaches that such a structure may provide a high-quality battery (paragraph [0029]) and is associated with high permeability (paragraph [0055]). Kim further teaches that such a structure may facilitate the addition of inorganic particles as desired (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the battery of Cheng to have the claimed structure [CC/positive electrode active material layer/polymer electrolyte/separator/polymer electrolyte/negative electrode active material layer/CC] for the benefit of facilitating current collection to an external device using the current collectors and providing a structure which provide high permeability, increased mechanical strength [associated with inorganic particles] and/or high quality for a battery as taught by Kim.
Claims 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Kim (US 2009/0311589) and Cheng (US 2019/0140319).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-11, Kim teaches or suggests the structural limitations of the lithium battery of claims 1 and 9-11 (see above and paragraph [0064] for the lithium salt and organic solvent), but fails to teach the polymer electrolyte employing an electrolyte composition comprising a polymer additive which is a mixture of at least two or more polymers among a halogen-based polymer, a silicon-based polymer and an acrylic polymer, or a copolymer thereof.
But in the battery art, Cheng teaches a electrolyte polymer additive is a mixture a halogen-based polymer and an acrylic polymer (paragraphs [0015-0016]). Cheng further teaches that his electrolytes are associated with desirable properties such as a good combination of high ionic conductivity electrolyte absorptivity (paragraph [0005, 0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to begin with Kim and replace the electrolyte with the polymer electrolyte of Cheng for the benefit of employing a suitable polymer electrolyte having desirable ionic conductivity and absorptivity characteristics as taught by Cheng.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Pan (US 2024/0145760) battery comprising polymer matrix including one or more of polysiloxane and polymethyl methacrylate among other species;
Park (US 2019/0140318) battery comprising polymer matrix including one or more of polysiloxane and polymethyl methacrylate among other species;
Kubo (US 2018/0034103) polymerizable electrolyte additive comprising a halogen containing compound and a silicon containing compound;
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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-Thompson can be reached on (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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights