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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirata et al (JP 2013-145732 and its machine translation).
Hirata et al disclose a battery wherein the battery comprises a positive electrode, negative electrode, separator, and non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt, (XSO1)(X’SO2)N- Li+, as an additive and a solvent. The compound comprises Li, N, and S, and has a structure similar to those preferred by the instant invention. The reference teaches that the additive creates a coating on the surface of the positive and/or negative electrode, and wherein S is present in that coating in 0.5% or greater, preferably 1 % or more, and 5% or less (abstract, [0006], [0011]). The additive forms a coating on the electrode surfaces which suppressed the internal resistance and therefore the deterioration of the battery ([0031]). The coating is formed by initial charging/ discharging of the battery ([0060]).
The instant specification teaches that the coating layer is formed during the initial charging of the battery to induce an electrochemical reaction of the electrolyte composition of the positive and negative electrodes. The process as taught by the reference includes a rate of 0.2C at 30 o C, to a charge of 3.5 to 4.2 V, which falls within the conditions described as optimal by the instant invention ([0047], [0048]).
Therefore, given the electrolyte composition and additives, the types of electrodes, and initial charge/ discharge conditions of the battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the composition of the coating formed on the electrodes through initial charge/ discharge cycling to be similar to that of the instant invention and fall within the scope of the instant claim 1, and comprise Li, N, and S in the claimed amounts absent evidence to the contrary.
The positive electrode comprises a lithium transition metal oxide ([0024]), and the negative electrode a material such as an Si-based material (Si, Si alloy, SiO), non-graphitizable carbon, or natural or artificial graphite ([0027]’ instant claim 8).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al (6,627,099).
Ono et al disclose a battery and non-aqueous electrolyte composition wherein the electrolyte composition comprises a salt comprising Li, N, and S.
The reference electrolyte includes a salt comprising a cation and / or anion (column 8, lines 48-52), wherein cations may be organic such as tetraalkyl ammonium or phosphonium (column 9, lines 1-65), or inorganic including Li, Na, or other alkali metal ions (which would include K), Mg, ammonium, and others known in the art (column 10, lines 40-48).
Exemplified anions include those falling within the scope of the instant Formula 1 and similar compounds:
PNG
media_image1.png
76
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
70
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein in A-14, the instant R1 is H or methyl, X is O, R2 is alkyl substituted with -O-, and R3 is alkyl with -CH2-CH2-O- meet the limitations of the instant claims 3 and 4 wherein M is a cation as described above.
The battery further comprises a positive electrode comprising a lithium transition metal oxide (column 45, line 26 to line 52) and a negative electrode comprising a carbonaceous material such as natural graphite, non-graphitized carbon, artificial graphite, acetylene black, carbon black, ketjen black (column 46, line 10 to column 48, line 15, example column 60) and a separator (columns 49, lines 1-49; instant claims 1, 8).
The reference further teaches that a carbonaceous material may be used in combination with a Si material (column 46, line 56 to column 47, line 64), which includes SiO (instant claim 9). The reference fails to teach the amount of Si added to the electrode mixture, however the reference broadly teaches that materials including Si mixed with carbonaceous material is advantageous and preferable for battery properties (column 47, lines 59-64, column 48, lines 1-15) given that the reference clearly teaches that Si may be added, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the amount of 1 to 20% by weight through routine experimentation and optimization of battery electrode/ negative electrode properties and the resultant material would meet the limitations of the instant claim 10.
With respect to the coating thickness as claimed by the instant claim 2, the instant specification teaches that the coating layer is formed during the initial charging of the battery to induce an electrochemical reaction of the electrolyte composition of the positive and negative electrodes. The reference teaches that the additive is included to the electrolyte comprises a polymerizable group and is included to prevent battery deterioration due to volatilization. While the reference does not discuss the coating thickness, the reference discloses initial charge/ discharge cycling to established an initial charge and capacity of the battery, wherein the initial voltage is 4.2V (examples, column 61) and can be assumed around room temperature which includes the low end of the conditions described by the instant specification for the temperature. Therefore, given the electrolyte composition and additives, the types of electrodes, and initial charge/ discharge conditions of the battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the coating thickness of the coating formed on the electrodes through initial charge/ discharge cycling to be similar to that of the instant invention and fall within the scope of the instant claim 2. Furthermore, given that the reference aims to improve battery durability and maintain capacity, one of skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed thickness through routine experimentation and optimization of the coating layer thickness to improve the battery properties.
That said, given how the instant specification teaches the coating layer is formed, and the teachings of the reference for similar materials and methods, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the coating layer formed from additive through the charging of the battery to inherently fall within the scope of the amounts of Li, N, and S in the coating layer given the similarity of the compounds of the reference to those as described by the instant invention with similar (similar number of Li, S, and N atoms with respect to the other elements in the compounds) absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the battery of Ono et al, choosing as the salt, that as taught by the reference as discussed above comprising each of Li, N, and S, wherein the resultant battery comprises a coating on the positive and/ or negative electrode, having amounts of Li, N, and S as claimed.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al.
Hirata et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches an additive comprising S, Li, and N in the electrolyte to aid in forming a coating on the electrode surfaces comprising at least S to improve the battery cycle characteristics.
As noted above, given the electrolyte composition and additives, the types of electrodes, and initial charge/ discharge conditions of the battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the coating layer to comprise Li, S, and N in the amounts as claimed.
However, the reference fails to specifically teach the amount of the compound and coating layer thickness.
Given the electrolyte composition and additives, the types of electrodes, and initial charge/ discharge conditions of the battery, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the coating thickness of the coating formed on the electrodes through initial charge/ discharge cycling to be similar to that of the instant invention and fall within the scope of the instant claim 2. Furthermore, given that the reference aims to improve battery durability and maintain performance, one of skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed thickness through routine experimentation and optimization of the coating layer thickness to improve the battery properties.
With respect to the instant claim 5, the reference is broad with the moles/ L for the additive in the composition. Given that the reference aims to improve battery durability and maintain performance through the formation of the coating layer(s), one of skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed amount of additive through routine experimentation and optimization of the coating layer thickness to improve the battery properties.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al in view of Lim et al (11,476,459).
Ono et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches broadly, as discussed above, that the positive electrode may comprise a lithium transition metal oxide, with broad examples including Ni, Co, Mn, Al, and more. However, the reference fails to specifically teach the compound wherein there is a high nickel content or a formula with M and Mn as set forth by the instant claims 6 and 7.
Lim et al disclose a lithium secondary battery having high storage characteristics, wherein the battery comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte solution. The electrolyte solution comprises additives for forming a protective film on the electrodes, with additives known in the art. The negative electrode includes natural or artificial graphite, silicon-containing materials such as Si, Si alloys, and SiO (column 7), and the positive electrode comprises a lithium transition metal oxide including preferably a Ni content of 0.65 or greater, which improves the energy density of the battery (column 5). Examples include Li (Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2)O2, LiNi1-yMnyO4, and Li(Ni0.8Mn0.1Co0.1)O2 (claims 1-3, column 5, example 1; instant claims 6-8). The reference teaches that these positive electrode materials are known and provide advantages over those not having a high Ni content.
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Ono et al, choosing as the positive electrode material, the high Ni lithium transition metal oxides as taught to be known and to provide improved storage properties by Lim et al. The resultant material would meet the limitations of the instant claims 6 and 7.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al in view of Oh et al (2018/0026257).
Ono et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches that known negative electrode material may be used, wherein suggested suitable materials broadly include carbon-based materials and silicon and/ or silicon oxide-based materials. The reference fails to specifically suggest a Si-C composite.
Oh et al disclose a negative electrode having a silicon-carbon composite, wherein the active material provides improved efficiency and capacity ([0024]). The material includes natural or artificial graphite ([0037]), and SiO or SiO/ Si particles. The Si to carbon ratio is 1:4 to 1.5: 3.5, with the SiO added in an amount of about 8 to 13 wt% ([0024]-[0025]). The materials teach the additives and amounts as set forth by the instant claims 8-10.
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Ono et al, choosing as the negative electrode, a silicon-carbon composite as taught by Oh et al to improve battery efficiency and capacity.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al on view of Ueno et al (2016/00261006).
Ono et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches broadly an initial charging step to form the SEI layer, but fails to specifically disclose the SOC.
Ueno et al disclose a battery and initial charging method, wherein the reference teaches aging (initial charging) the battery at a temperature of 40- 70 o C, at a charging rate of 0.1 to 5C, preferably 0.5 to 2C (abstract, [0016], [0049], [0050], [0052]), to an SOC of greater than 30%, preferably 65% or higher, which overlaps the claimed range of 40 to 70%. By doing so, an SEI film composed of the decomposition product of the electrolyte additive is formed on the electrodes ([0017]).
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the battery of Ono et al, choosing to form the coating (SEI) layer on the electrode during initial charging/ discharging (aging) via the process as taught by Ueno et al to an SOC of about 65% (or more broadly, greater than 30% to 110% or less) wherein the SOC to perform the process and form the layer falls within the claimed range to 40 to 70%, and the battery achieves a suitable layer and decreased internal resistance.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al in view of Park et al (11,735, 767).
Ono et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches the inclusion of compounds and/or polymers comprising a salt, wherein the compound may be a polymer and comprise the following group -S(=O)2N-S(=O)2-, and provides a broad teaching for the types of compounds/ polymer structures (formula 5, column 25), but fails to specifically teach those as set by the instant claims.
Park et al disclose a polymer electrolyte wherein the polymer is dissolved into a non-aqueous organic solvent with a lithium salt (column 1, lines 53-61, column 2, lines 58-65).
The polymer has a general structure similar to that of Ono et al wherein the anionic group A is S(=O)2N-S(=O)2-CF3 (preferably).
PNG
media_image3.png
284
306
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
110
296
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the examplified preferred compound and formula, the instant R1 is H or Alkyl, the instant X is O, the instant R2 is ethyl (but may be 1-6 carbons), and the instant R3 is -CF3 and would meet the limitations of the instant claims 3, 4. The additive is included in an amount of 0.1 to 60 wt%, preferably 1 to 20 wt % formula 1 and formula 2, but formula 1 to formula 2 in a weight ratio of 40:60 to 80:20 which when calculated the amoutn of formula 2 would overlap or fall withint he claimed range (within with the preferred range), when included with additional polymers/ oliogmer of formula 1.
While Ono et al disclose a compound, which may be a polymer, and wherein more than one may be used in combination, wherein the total amount is 50 to 90% of combinaed compound salts. The reference does not specifically disclose the amout of polymer salt compound in the compositions, however, given that the Park et al reference teaches a similar composition an dmay comrpise a polymer of similar strucutre to that of Ono et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the composition of Ono et al, choosing as the polymeric salt, that having a similar structure and having improved inonic conducitivity as taught by Park et al, in an amount as taught by Park et al, wherein the resultant composition, device, and method would also meet the limitations of the instant claims.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al in view of Ueno et al, and in further view of Park et al.
All three references have been discussed above. Ono et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches broadly an initial charging step to form the SEI layer, but fails to specifically disclose the SOC. As discussed above, Ono et al in view of Ueno et al teach the limitations of the instant claim 11.
Ono et al teaches the inclusion of compounds and/or polymers comprising a salt, wherein the compound may be a polymer and comprise the following group -S(=O)2N-S(=O)2-, and provides a broad teaching for the types of compounds/ polymer structures (formula 5, column 25), but fails to specifically teach those as set by the instant claims.
Park et al disclose a polymer electrolyte wherein the polymer is dissolved into a non-aqueous organic solvent with a lithium salt (column 1, lines 53-61, column 2, lines 58-65).
In the examplified preferred compound and formula, the instant R1 is H or Alkyl, the instant X is O, the instant R2 is ethyl (but may be 1-6 carbons), and the instant R3 is -CF3 and would meet the limitations of the instant claims 13, and 15, and structural formula 13, when the alkyl group is ethyl (two carbons). The additive is included in an amount of 0.1 to 60 wt%, preferably 1 to 20 wt % formula 1 and formula 2, but formula 1 to formula 2 in a weight ratio of 40:60 to 80:20 which when calculated the amoutn of formula 2 would overlap or fall withint he claimed range (within with the preferred range), when included with additional polymers/ oliogmer of formula 1 as required by the instnt claim 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the composition of Ono et al in view of Ueno et al, choosing as the polymeric salt, that having a similar structure and having improved inonic conducitivity as taught by Park et al, in an amount as taught by Park et al, wherein the resultant composition, device, and method would also meet the limitations of the instant claims 13-15.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al in view of Lim et al.
Hirata et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches broadly, as discussed above, that the positive electrode may comprise a lithium transition metal oxide, with broad examples including Ni, Co, Mn, and more. However, the reference fails to specifically teach the compound wherein there is a high nickel content or a formula with M and Mn as set forth by the instant claims 6 and 7.
Lim et al disclose a lithium secondary battery having high storage characteristics, wherein the battery comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolyte solution. The electrolyte solution comprises additives for forming a protective film on the electrodes, with additives known in the art. The negative electrode includes natural or artificial graphite, silicon-containing materials such as Si, Si alloys, and SiO (column 7), and the positive electrode comprises a lithium transition metal oxide including preferably a Ni content of 0.65 or greater, which improves the energy density of the battery (column 5). Examples include Li (Ni0.6Co0.2Mn0.2)O2, LiNi1-yMnyO4, and Li(Ni0.8Mn0.1Co0.1)O2 (claims 1-3, column 5, example 1; instant claims 6-8). The reference teaches that these positive electrode materials are known and provide advantages over those not having a high Ni content.
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Hirata et al, choosing as the positive electrode material, the high Ni lithium transition metal oxides as taught to be known and to provide improved storage properties by Lim et al. The resultant material would meet the limitations of the instant claims 6 and 7.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al in view of Oh et al.
Hirata et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches that known negative electrode material may be used, wherein suggested suitable materials broadly include carbon-based materials and silicon and/ or silicon oxide-based materials. The reference fails to specifically suggest a Si-C composite.
Oh et al disclose a negative electrode having a silicon-carbon composite, wherein the active material provides improved efficiency and capacity ([0024]). The material includes natural or artificial graphite ([0037]), and SiO or SiO/ Si particles. The Si to carbon ratio is 1:4 to 1.5: 3.5, with the SiO added in an amount of about 8 to 13 wt% ([0024]-[0025]). The materials teach the additives and amounts as set forth by the instant claims 8-10.
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Hirata et al, choosing as the negative electrode, a silicon-carbon composite as taught by Oh et al to improve battery efficiency and capacity.
Claim(s) 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata et al in view of Ueno et al.
Hirata et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches broadly an initial charging step to form the SEI layer, but fails to specifically disclose the SOC.
Ueno et al disclose a battery and initial charging method, wherein the reference teaches aging (initial charging) the battery at a temperature of 40- 70 o C, at a charging rate of 0.1 to 5C, preferably 0.5 to 2C (abstract, [0016], [0049], [0050], [0052]), to an SOC of greater than 30%, preferably 65% or higher, which overlaps the claimed range of 40 to 70%. By doing so, an SEI film composed of the decomposition product of the electrolyte additive is formed on the electrodes ([0017]).
Given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the battery of Hirata et al, choosing to form the coating (SEI) layer on the electrode during initial charging/ discharging (aging) via the process as taught by Ueno et al to an SOC of about 65% (or more broadly, greater than 30% to 110% or less) wherein the SOC to perform the process and form the layer falls within the claimed range to 40 to 70%, and the battery achieves a suitable layer and decreased internal resistance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722