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
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (Liu, Ruifeng, et al. “Enhanced electrochemical performances of coal liquefaction residue derived hard carbon coated by graphene as anode materials for sodium-ion batteries.” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 178, Sept. 2018, pp. 35–40).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches an electrochemical cell (para. 0018, [battery]), comprising: an anode disposed on an anode current collector (Fig. 2); a cathode disposed on a cathode current collector (Fig. 2); a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode, the separator (Fig. 2) having a first side adjacent to the cathode (Fig. 2) and a second side adjacent to the anode (Fig. 2); and a coating layer disposed on the separator (Fig.2, [cathode-protecting layer]), the coating layer configured to reduce dendrite formation in the electrochemical cell (para. 0180 and 0184, [observations can be made from the … cathode-protecting layers: … The lithium dendrite … issue is also suppressed or eliminated]).
He does not teach that the coating layer includes a mixture of carbon and an electrolyte.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a coating layer, made of graphene layers, including hard carbon, which improves the cell conductivity and alleviates the cell’s overpotential (Liu, pg. 39, column 1) and therefore teaches the use of a conductive carbon.
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 made He’s coating layer out of graphene layers and hard carbon – as the conductive carbon material- , as taught by Liu, in order to avoid dendrite formation, which benefits the safety and the cycling stability of batteries, as taught by Liu (Liu, pg. 39, column 1).
Examiner notes that the instant specification recognizes hard carbon as a material suitable for the coating layer (see, e.g. Claims 17-18).
Examiner also notes that He’s battery includes the use of a liquid electrolyte (He, para. 0046), and, when in combination with the hard carbon of modified He’s battery, teaches that the coating layer includes a mixture of carbon and an electrolyte (He, para. 0063, [This cathode protecting layer … also acts to maintain a good contact between the separator [if liquid electrolyte is used] and the cathode active material layer]).
Examiner further notes that the inclusion of carbon and electrolyte within the coating would be configured to act as a lithium host, similarly to the instant’s invention, which also includes carbon and an electrolyte within the coating. Furthermore, He teaches that the coating layer reduces dendrite formation in the electrochemical cell (He, para. 0180 and 0184, [observations can be made from the … cathode-protecting layers: … The lithium dendrite … issue is also suppressed or eliminated]).
Regarding claim 3, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 1, wherein the coating layer has a thickness between about 100 nm and about 20 µm (He, 0049, [1 nm to 100 µm]).
Regarding claim 4, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 1, wherein the coating layer is disposed on the first side of the separator (He, Fig 2, the cathode protecting layer is on the first side of the separator).
Regarding claim 5, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 4, wherein the coating layer is a first coating layer (Fig. 2, the cathode protecting layer is on the first side (cathode side) of the separator), the electrochemical cell further comprising a second coating layer, the second coating layer disposed on the second side of the separator (He, Fig. 2, the 1st anode protecting layer is on the second side (anode side) of the separator).
Regarding claim 7, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 5, wherein the second coating layer has a thickness between about 10 nm and about 2 µm (He, para. 0021, 1 nm to 100 µm).
Regarding claim 9, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 1, wherein the coating layer includes an active material (He, 0049, [first cathode-protecting layer …. comprised of electron-conducting material]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (Liu, Ruifeng, et al. “Enhanced electrochemical performances of coal liquefaction residue derived hard carbon coated by graphene as anode materials for sodium-ion batteries.” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 178, Sept. 2018, pp. 35–40), and Yong (US 20050266150 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 5. He does not teach wherein the second coating layer includes Al2O3.
Yong, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches an anode coated with a Al2O3 layer (Yong, para. 0108).
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 used a second coating layer composed of Al2O3 in He’s electrochemical cell, as taught by Yong, in order to improve lithium-ion conductivity and contribute to improve battery performance, as taught by Yong (Yong, para. 0044).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (Liu, Ruifeng, et al. “Enhanced electrochemical performances of coal liquefaction residue derived hard carbon coated by graphene as anode materials for sodium-ion batteries.” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 178, Sept. 2018, pp. 35–40), and Anandan (US 20200075959 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 1.
He does not teach wherein the anode and/or the cathode includes a semi-solid electrode material, the semi-solid electrode material including an active material and a conductive material in a liquid electrolyte.
Anandan, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the cathode includes a semi-solid electrode material (para. 0017, the cathode is a mixture of liquid [liquid electrolyte] and solid [carbon] phases), the semi-solid electrode material including an active material (para. 0017, [cathode includes an active material]) and a conductive material in a liquid electrolyte (para. 0017, [cathode includes … a liquid electrolyte that includes a lithium salt]).
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 used a semi-solid electrode material in modified He’s battery, as taught by Anandan, in order to have a hybrid battery design (anode or cathode is semi-solid), suitable in high temperature environments, as taught by Anandan (0018).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), and further in view of Liu et al. (Liu, Ruifeng, et al. “Enhanced electrochemical performances of coal liquefaction residue derived hard carbon coated by graphene as anode materials for sodium-ion batteries.” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 178, Sept. 2018, pp. 35–40), and Abe (US 20140356695 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 9.
He does not teach wherein the active material includes at least one of lithium manganese iron phosphate, lithium iron phosphate, lithium manganese oxide, or lithium nickel dioxide doped with manganese.
Abe, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the active material includes lithium iron phosphate (Abe, para. 0059, [a positive electrode active material may include at least one compound from the group of lithium iron phosphate).
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 incorporated lithium iron phosphate as an active material in modified He’s battery, as taught by Abe, in order to select a suitable material to provide a battery capable of achieving high power, as taught by Abe (Abe, 0059).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), and further in view of Kim (US 20180309109 A1), Anandan (US 20200075959 A1).
Regarding claim 11, He teaches an electrode (Fig. 2, anode and cathode), comprising:
a current collector (Fig. 2);
an electrode material disposed on the current collector (Fig. 2 shows the cathode disposed on the cathode current collector);
a separator (Fig. 2); and
a coating layer disposed on a first side of the separator (Fig. 2, the cathode protecting layer is on the first side (cathode side) of the separator).
He does not teach:
a semi-solid electrode material
wherein the semi-solid electrode material is disposed on the first side of the separator.
the coating layer including hard carbon
and wherein the coating layer includes hard carbon in an amount sufficient to reduce overpotential losses at an interface between the separator and the semi-solid electrode material by at least about 10%.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches
a coating layer of hard carbon that is coated onto the separator (para. 0086).
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 incorporated a hard carbon support layer into He’s electrochemical cell, as taught by Kim, in order to prevent dendritic growth of lithium metal which dimmish the battery’s electrochemical performance, as taught by Kim (para. 0062). Kim utilizes organized materials, such as hard carbon, to resolve dendritic growth issues.
Since Kim teaches a coating layer (abstract, monolayer) with thicknesses in the range of (10 nm – 50 µm) (para. 0094), which overlap the instant specification teachings of a coating layer which has thickness in the range of (100 nm - 20 µm) (para. 0004 of the instant specification), there is reasonable basis to conclude that Kim teaches that the coating layer includes hard carbon in an amount sufficient to reduce overpotential losses at an interface between the separator and the semi-solid electrode material by at least about 10%.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
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 a coated He’s separator layer-by-layer as taught by Kim, in order to yield a superb electrochemical performance of the battery, as taught by Kim (0091).
He and Kim do not teach:
a semi-solid electrode material
wherein the semi-solid electrode material is disposed on the first side of the separator.
Anandan, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a semi-solid electrode material (para. 0017, the cathode is a mixture of liquid [liquid electrolyte] and solid [carbon] phases).
Therefore, modified He teaches a semi-solid electrode material disposed on the current collector (He, Fig. 2).
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 used a semi-solid cathode (the cathode being on the right side of the separator as shown in Fig. 2) in modified He’s battery, as taught by Anandan, in order to have a hybrid battery design (anode or cathode is semi-solid), suitable in high temperature environments, as taught by Anandan (0018).
Modified He teaches the coating layer includes a mixture of a conductive carbon (Kim, para. 0086) and an electrolyte (He, para. 0046).
Examiner further notes that the inclusion of carbon and electrolyte within the coating would be configured to act as a lithium host, similarly to the instant’s invention, which also includes carbon and an electrolyte within the coating. Furthermore, He teaches that the coating layer reduces dendrite formation in the electrochemical cell (He, para. 0180 and 0184, [observations can be made from the … cathode-protecting layers: … The lithium dendrite … issue is also suppressed or eliminated]).
Regarding claim 12, modified He teaches the electrode of claim 11, wherein the coating layer has a thickness between about 100 nm and about 20 µm (Kim, para. 0094, [10 nm – 50 µm]).
Regarding claim 13, modified He teaches the electrode of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the electrode material includes a semi-solid electrode material (He, para. 0017, the cathode is a mixture of liquid [liquid electrolyte] and solid [carbon] phases), the semi-solid electrode material including an active material (He, para. 0017, [cathode includes an active material]) and a conductive material in a liquid electrolyte (He, para. 0017, [cathode includes … a liquid electrolyte that includes a lithium salt]).
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 used a semi-solid electrode material in modified He’s battery, as taught by Anandan, in order to have a hybrid battery design (anode or cathode is semi-solid), suitable in high temperature environments, as taught by Anandan (0018).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), in view of Kim (US 20180309109 A1)and further in view of Park (US 10418609 B2).
Regarding claim 14, modified He teaches the electrode of claim 11. Modified He does not teach wherein the coating material further includes a binder, the binder configured to prevent the coating material from detaching from the separator.
Park, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the coating material further includes a binder (column 6, lines 20-24 [since the binder polymer is generally distributed in the coating layer]), the binder configured to prevent the coating material from detaching from the separator (column 6, lines 20-24, [since the binder polymer is generally distributed in the coating layer the electrode may closely adhere to the entire adhesion surface of the separator]).
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 added a binder material to the coating layer of modified He’s electrochemical cell, as taught by Park, in order to adhere to the entire adhesion surface of the separator, as taught by Park (column 6, lines 20-24).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), in view of Kim (US 20180309109 A1), and further in view of Park (US 10418609 B2) and the machine translation of Li (CN 114597410 A).
Regarding claim 15, modified He teaches the electrode of claim 14. Modified He does not teach wherein the binder includes ethylene carbonate.
Li, in the same field of endeavor, electrodes, teaches a binder including ethylene carbonate (Li, para. 14).
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 added ethylene carbonate into the binder material of modified He’s electrochemical cell, as taught by Li, in order to include a solvent that is compatible with the binder at high temperatures, as taught by Li (Li, para. 14).
Claims 16, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), in view of Anandan (US 20200075959 A1) and further in view of Liu et al. (Liu, Ruifeng, et al. “Enhanced electrochemical performances of coal liquefaction residue derived hard carbon coated by graphene as anode materials for sodium-ion batteries.” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 178, Sept. 2018, pp. 35–40)
Regarding claim 16, He teaches an electrochemical cell, comprising: an anode disposed on an anode current collector (He, Fig. 2); a cathode disposed on a cathode current collector (He, Fig. 2); a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (He, Fig. 2), the separator having a first side adjacent to the anode and a second side adjacent to the cathode; and a coating layer disposed at an interface between the separator and the cathode (He, Fig. 2).
He does not teach:
a semi-solid cathode
the coating layer having a conductivity sufficient to reduce overpotential at the interface between the separator and the semi-solid cathode by at least about 10%.
Anandan, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the cathode includes a semi-solid electrode material (Anandan, para. 0017, the cathode is a mixture of liquid [liquid electrolyte] and solid [carbon] phases), the semi-solid electrode material including an active material (Anandan, para. 0017, [cathode includes an active material]) and a conductive material in a liquid electrolyte (Anandan, para. 0017, [cathode includes … a liquid electrolyte that includes a lithium salt]).
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 used a semi-solid electrode material in He’s battery, as taught by Anandan, in order to have a hybrid battery design (anode or cathode is semi-solid), suitable in high temperature environments, as taught by Anandan (0018).
He and Anandan do not teach:
the coating layer having a conductivity sufficient to reduce overpotential at the interface between the separator and the semi-solid cathode by at least about 10%.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a coating layer, made of graphene layers, including hard carbon, which improves the cell conductivity and alleviates the cell’s overpotential (pg. 39, column 1).
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 made modified He’s coating layer out of graphene layers and hard carbon, as taught by Liu, in order to avoid dendrite formation, which benefits the safety and the cycling stability of batteries, as taught by Liu (pg. 39, column 1).
Because the instant specification recognizes hard carbon as a material suitable for the coating layer (see, e.g. Claims 17-18), and because the thickness of the coating layer encompasses the claimed thickness range (see, e.g. Claim 19), there is reasonable basis to conclude that the coating layer of modified He has “a conductivity sufficient to reduce overpotential at the interface between the separate and the semi-sold cathode by at least 10%.”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reduced the overpotential to a certain percentage, based on the conductivity detected by voltammetry tests and EIS analysis (Liu, abstract).
Modified He teaches that the coating layer includes a mixture of carbon (Liu, pg. 39, column 1, graphene layers and hard carbon) and an electrolyte (He, para. 0046).
Examiner further notes that the inclusion of carbon and electrolyte within the coating would be configured to act as a lithium host, similarly to the instant’s invention, which also includes carbon and an electrolyte within the coating. Furthermore, He teaches that the coating layer reduces dendrite formation in the electrochemical cell (He, para. 0180 and 0184, [observations can be made from the … cathode-protecting layers: … The lithium dendrite … issue is also suppressed or eliminated]).
Regarding claim 19, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 16, and He further teaches wherein the coating layer has a thickness between about 100 nm and about 20 µm (He, 0049, [1 nm to 100 µm]).
Regarding claim 20, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 16, and He further teaches wherein the coating layer is a first coating layer (He, coating layer disposed between the separator and the semi-solid cathode is shown in Fig. 2 as the cathode protecting layer), the electrochemical cell further comprising: a second coating layer disposed at an interface between the separator and the anode (He, Fig. 2, anode protecting layer).
Regarding claim 22, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 16, wherein the coating layer has a conductivity sufficient to reduce overpotential at the interface between the separator and the semi-solid cathode by at least about 20% (Liu, pg. 39, column 1).
Because the instant specification recognizes hard carbon as a material suitable for the coating layer (see, e.g. Claims 17-18), and because the thickness of the coating layer encompasses the claimed thickness range (see, e.g. Claim 19), there is reasonable basis to conclude that the coating layer of modified He has “a conductivity sufficient to reduce overpotential at the interface between the separate and the semi-sold cathode by at least about 20%.”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), in view of Anandan (US 20200075959 A1), Liu et al. (Liu, Ruifeng, et al. “Enhanced electrochemical performances of coal liquefaction residue derived hard carbon coated by graphene as anode materials for sodium-ion batteries.” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 178, Sept. 2018, pp. 35–40), and further in view of the machine translation of Kobayashi (WO 2015088252 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 16.
Modified He does not teach wherein the coating layer includes at least about 90% hard carbon by mass.
Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the coating layer includes at least about 90% hard carbon by mass (para. 334, the total mass of the surface particles is 75 to 90% mass % with respect to the total mass of the hard carbon).
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 included a mass of 75% to 90% of hard carbon, in the coating layer of He, as taught by Kobayashi, to improve the cycle life of the battery, as taught by Kobayashi (para. 334).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), in view of Anandan (US 20200075959 A1) and Liu et al. (Liu, Ruifeng, et al. “Enhanced electrochemical performances of coal liquefaction residue derived hard carbon coated by graphene as anode materials for sodium-ion batteries.” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 178, Sept. 2018, pp. 35–40), and further in view of Yong (US 20050266150 A1).
Regarding claim 21, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 20. He does not teach wherein the second coating layer includes A12O3.
Yong, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches an anode coated with a Al2O3 layer (Yong, para. 0108).
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 used a second coating layer composed of Al2O3 in He’s electrochemical cell, as taught by Yong, in order to improve lithium-ion conductivity and contribute to improve battery performance, as taught by Yong (para. 0044).
Claims 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20190386296 A1), in view of Anandan (US 20200075959 A1) and further in view of Hatzell et al. (“Materials for suspension (semi-solid) electrodes for energy and water technologies.” Chemical Society Reviews, vol. 44, no. 23, 2015, pp. 8664–8687.)and Liu et al. (Liu, Ruifeng, et al. “Enhanced electrochemical performances of coal liquefaction residue derived hard carbon coated by graphene as anode materials for sodium-ion batteries.” Fuel Processing Technology, vol. 178, Sept. 2018, pp. 35–40).
Regarding claim 23, He teaches an electrochemical cell, comprising: an anode disposed on an anode current collector (Fig. 2); a cathode disposed on a cathode current collector (Fig. 2); and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode (Fig. 2), the separator having a first side adjacent to the anode and a second side adjacent to the cathode (Fig. 2).
He further teaches a coating layer at the interface between the separator and the semi-solid cathode (He, para. 0048, the cathode protecting layer is disposed between the cathode and the separator) (He, para. 0049, [a first cathode-protecting layer comprising a thin layer of electron-conducting material]).
He does not teach:
a semi-solid cathode
wherein the semi-solid cathode is stable at a voltage sufficient to reduce overpotential at an interface between the separator and the semi-solid cathode by at least about 10%.
Anandan, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the cathode includes a semi-solid electrode material (para. 0017, the cathode is a mixture of liquid [liquid electrolyte] and solid [carbon] phases), the semi-solid electrode material including an active material (para. 0017, [cathode includes an active material]) and a conductive material in a liquid electrolyte (para. 0017, [cathode includes … a liquid electrolyte that includes a lithium salt]).
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 used a semi-solid electrode material in He’s battery, as taught by Anandan, in order to have a hybrid battery design (anode or cathode is semi-solid), suitable in high temperature environments, as taught by Anandan (0018).
He and Anandan do not teach:
wherein the semi-solid cathode is stable at a voltage sufficient to reduce overpotential at an interface between the separator and the semi-solid cathode by at least about 10%.
Hatzell, in the same field of endeavor, electrodes, teaches materials for semi-solid electrodes that utilize chemistries with high working voltages (section 3.2.1, paragraph 1) and further teaches that overpotential in a suspension (semi-solid) electrode could be decreased through the removal of surface organic residues (sections 3.2.1, paragraph 2).
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 used a cathode material such as LiCoO2 in He’s electrochemical cell, as taught by Hatzell, in order to use a material with a high working voltage, which prevents the growth of a solid electrolyte interface thus leading to a reduction of overpotentials during galvanostatic operation, as taught by Hatzell (section 3.2.1, paragraph 1).
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine selection of a material with high a high working voltage and the routine optimization of the removal of organic surface residues of the semi-solid electrode would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure with the properties recited in Claim 23, without undue experimentation.
He does not teach that the coating layer includes a mixture of carbon and an electrolyte.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a coating layer, made of graphene layers, including hard carbon, which improves the cell conductivity and alleviates the cell’s overpotential (Liu, pg. 39, column 1) and therefore teaches the use of a conductive carbon.
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 made modified He’s coating layer out of graphene layers and hard carbon – as the conductive carbon material- , as taught by Liu, in order to avoid dendrite formation, which benefits the safety and the cycling stability of batteries, as taught by Liu (Liu, pg. 39, column 1).
Examiner notes that the instant specification recognizes hard carbon as a material suitable for the coating layer (see, e.g. Claims 17-18).
Therefore, modified He teaches that the coating layer includes a mixture of carbon (Liu, pg. 39, column 1, graphene layers and hard carbon) and an electrolyte (He, para. 0046).
Examiner further notes that the inclusion of carbon and electrolyte within the coating would be configured to act as a lithium host, similarly to the instant’s invention, which also includes carbon and an electrolyte within the coating. Furthermore, He teaches that the coating layer reduces dendrite formation in the electrochemical cell (He, para. 0180 and 0184, [observations can be made from the … cathode-protecting layers: … The lithium dendrite … issue is also suppressed or eliminated]).
Regarding claim 26, modified He teaches the electrochemical cell of claim 23, and further teaches wherein layer of conductive material has a thickness between about 100 nm and about 20 µm (0049, [1 nm to 100 µm]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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 at (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