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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 9//23/25 is acknowledged. Claims 19-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 recites “wherein the first electrode has a S loading of about 0.6 mg-S/cm2 to about 4.5 mg-S/cm2.”. In the absence of further specification explanation of “mg-S” within the specification, Examiner notes that “mg-S” was interpreted to mean “mg of Sulfur”.
Claim 15 recites “the electrochemical device of Claim 1 having a cycle rate of about 0.25C-rate”. Based on support from the instant specification [0055], Examiner notes that the claim was interpreted to mean “capable of cycling” at a rate of about 0.25C-rate.
Claim 16 recites “the electrochemical device of Claim 1 having a discharge current density greater than 0.4 mA/cm2”. Based on support from the instant specification [0056], Examiner notes that the claim was interpreted to mean “capable of performing” at a discharge current density of 0.4 mA/cm2.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the binder comprises one or more of about 0.2wt% to about 25wt% carboxymethyl cellulose and about 0.01wt% to about 13wt% styrene-butadiene rubber”. It is unclear if Applicant is intending that the weight percent are based on the weight of the binder within the overall first electrode composition, or if the weight percents are based on the overall weight of the first electrode composition, and thus the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the examiner notes that the claim was interpreted to be referring to the weight percents based on the overall weight of the first electrode composition.
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.
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, 4-5, 8-10, 12-15, & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solis et al. US 2020/0227733 A1, and further in view of Lanning et al. US 2019/0386314 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Solis discloses an electrochemical device (lithium selenium secondary battery) comprising a first electrode (cathode comprising a carbon selenium composite material) [0009], a second electrode opposing the first electrode (lithium containing anode), and an electrolyte between the first and second electrodes [0016]. Solis discloses that the first electrode (cathode) comprises immobilized selenium and a carbon skeleton [0023], and further discloses that the immobilized selenium is further doped with sulfur [0024, 0108]. Thus Solis discloses a first electrode (cathode) comprising immobilized sulfur (immobilized sulfur-doped selenium). Further, Solis discloses that the first electrode comprising sulfur contains sulfur in an amount of up to 85wt% [0108], which falls within the claimed range of 50-99wt%. Solis discloses that the first electrode comprises a binder [0060], which is contained in an amount of 10wt% (Example 15) [0301], which falls within the claimed range of 1-12wt%. Solis additionally discloses that the first electrode comprises a porous composition (“electric-conductivity promoter” such as carbon black, graphene, or carbon nanotubes) [0301] (in Example 15). Solis discloses that the porous composition (electric-conductivity promoter) is contained in an amount of 5wt% [0301], which falls within the claimed range.
Solis fails to specifically disclose that the porous composition has a first porous material having an average pore size less than 2nm and a second porous material having an average pore size of 2-100nm, contained in the claimed weight percentages.
Lanning discloses a lithium ion battery with a cathode on a first substrate, and anode on a second substrate, and an electrolyte [Abstract]. Lanning discloses that the cathode comprises sulfur [0031] deposited in pores of structured composite material (“particulate carbon”) [0030]. Lanning further discloses that the particulate carbon has a multimodal pore size distribution [0035], and has pore sizes from 0.1-10nm, 10-100nm, 100-1um, and larger than 1um [0035]. Thus, Lanning discloses a porous composition (particulate carbon) for use in a sulfur containing cathode that has a first porous material with a pore size of less than 2nm (particulate carbon with pore size of 0.1-10nm) and a second porous material with a pore size of 2-100nm (particulate carbon with pore size of 10-100nm).
Lanning discloses that a cathode comprising carbon additives such as this has high compositional purity of the carbon additive, high electrical conductivity, and high surface area, which contributes to efficiently conducting ions [0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the particulate carbon of Lanning in place of the porous composition (electric conductivity promoter) in the cathode of Solis to achieve a cathode that meets the claim limitations of Claim 1, and provides a cathode that has high compositional purity, high electrical conductivity, and high surface area for efficiently conducting ions, while enabling trapping of the sulfur ions within the cathode.
Additionally, Lanning discloses that a porous material with a multimodal distribution is beneficial for sulfur containing cathodes because the smaller pore sizes confine the sulfur and control the crystallinity, and the larger pore sizes enable rapid diffusion of lithium ions [0035].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the amount of small pores versus large pores as a result effective variable and would seek to optimize this parameter, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range of weight percentages of the first porous material (smaller pores) versus the second porous material (larger pores). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a weight percent of the first porous material (smaller pores sized 1-4nm) for the benefit of confining the sulfur and a weight percent of the second porous material (larger pores sized 30-50nm) for the benefit of enabling rapid ion diffusion, as suggested by Lanning.
Regarding Claim 4, Solis discloses that the first electrode comprises selenium [0023], which is known to be a chalcogen element.
Regarding Claim 5, Solis discloses that the second electrode (anode) comprises lithium [0016], which is known to be an alkali metal.
Regarding Claim 8, Solis discloses a lithium foil disc with a thickness of 250µm as the second electrode (anode) [0155], which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 9, Solis discloses that the second electrode comprises lithium [0016], [0155].
Regarding Claim 10, Solis discloses that the electrolyte comprises a carbonate, an ether, or an ionic liquid [0017], and further discloses that the electrolyte is more specifically LiPF6 [0062].
Regarding Claim 12, Solis discloses that the binder comprises a mixture of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) [0060].
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood by the examiner, Solis discloses that the binder comprises a 1:1 ratio of CMC and SBR [0060], and further discloses in Example 15 that the binder is added in an amount of 10wt% [0301], thus Solis discloses that the binder comprises 5wt% of CMC and 5wt% of SBR, which fall within the claimed range. In regards to the composition of the binder, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the composition disclosed in Solis anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 13. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Regarding Claim 14, Solis discloses that the sulfur is contained in an amount of up to 85wt% of the immobilized composition [0108], which falls within the claimed range of 20-95wt%. In regards to the amount of sulfur, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the amount of sulfur disclosed in Solis anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 14. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Regarding Claim 15, Solis discloses that the battery of the invention is capable of cycling rates at 0.1C, 0.2 C, 0.5 C, 1 C, 2 C, 5 C, and 10 C [0114], cycling rate is 0.1C [0114] thus Solis discloses that the electrochemical device (battery) is capable of a cycle rate of 0.1-10 C rate, thus meeting the claim limitations of Claim 15, as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 17, Solis discloses a separator [0016]. Solis illustrates in Figure 15 that the separator is located between the first electrode (cathode Item 4 Figure 15) and the second electrode (anode Item 8 Figure 15) [0154-0155].
Regarding Claim 18, Solis discloses that the separator is made of a polymer such as polyethylene and polypropylene [0111], which are known to be polyolefins.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solis et al. US 2020/0227733 A1 and Lanning et al. US 2019/0386314 A1 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang et al US 2009/0136808 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, modified Solis discloses a third porous material (Lanning’s particulate carbon) that has a pore size of 100nm-1µm [Lanning 0035], which overlaps with the claimed range “100nm-3µm”. However, Solis and Lanning are both silent as to the specific wt% of the third porous material in the porous composition.
Kang discloses a porous carbon structure comprising mesopores and at least two kinds of macropores having different pore sizes [0029]. Kang discloses that the porous carbon structure can be used for an electrode such as a cathode [0072, 0080]. Kang discloses that the mesopore material has a pore size of 5-60nm [0032] similar to Lanning’s first and second porous materials, and the macropore material has a pore size of 100nm to 2 µm [0031] similar to Lanning’s third porous material. Kang discloses that the macropore material and the mesopore material is contained in a weight ratio of 2:1 [0047].
Kang discloses that this weight ratio of macropore material to mesopore material enables the formation of a porous carbon structure with a variety of pore sizes [0047]. Kang additionally discloses that a porous carbon structure with this configuration has improved electronic conductivity due to the interconnected pores [0020]. Examiner notes that Solis similarly discloses an objective to improve electrical conductivity [0003, 0094]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to include the third porous material in an amount as suggested by Kang (weight ratio of 2:1) to provide a porous composition with a weight ratio of third porous material to combined first and second porous material of 2:1, to achieve a porous carbon structure with a variety of pore sizes and improved electronic conductivity.
Modified Solis, as mentioned with regards to claim 1 above, discloses that the porous composition, comprising the third porous material in addition to the first and second porous materials as modified by Lanning, is included in an amount of 5wt% based on the overall electrode composition. Thus, modified Solis, with the further modification of Kang, discloses that within the 5wt% of the porous composition, the third porous material having a pore size of 100nm-1 µm is included in a weight ratio of 2:1 to the first and second porous materials (combined). Thus, modified Solis discloses that the third porous material is included in an amount of 3.33wt%, which falls within the claimed range.
Claims 3 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solis et al. US 2020/0227733 A1, Lanning et al. US 2019/0386314 A1, and Kang et al US 2009/0136808 A1 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Saimen et al US 2021/0288319 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, modified Solis discloses a fourth porous material (Lanning’s particulate carbon) that has a pore size of larger than 1µm [Lanning 0035], which overlaps with the claimed range “greater than 3µm”. However, Solis, Lanning, and Kang are silent as to the specific wt% of the fourth porous material in the porous composition.
Saimen discloses an electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery [0140] comprising an electrode mixture that contains an active material and a porous material (porous dielectric particle) [0142]. Saimen discloses that the porous material (porous dielectric particle) has a pore size of 1-50µm [0062] and more specifically in one embodiment that the pore size is 4µm [0220]. Saimen discloses that the porous material is added in an amount of 1.0wt% (Table 1 “Example 5”) [0249] based on the overall composition of the electrode.
Saimen discloses that a battery comprising this porous material (porous dielectric particle) in the electrode mixture has improved output and durability, and therefore increased volumetric energy density [0041], as well as uniform distribution of the particles within the electrode mixture and the electrolyte [0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the porous material of Saimen in the electrode of modified Solis to provide an electrode with a fourth porous material, having a pore size of 4µm and included in an amount of 1.0wt%, to achieve a battery with improved volumetric energy density. Thus modified Solis discloses an electrode that meets the limitations of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Solis discloses that, as mentioned with regards to claim 3 with the modification of Lanning, the particulate carbon of Lanning comprises carbon nanotubes or graphene [Lanning 0050]. Thus, modified Solis discloses that one of the first, second, third, or fourth porous materials (particulate carbon) comprises graphene or carbon nanotubes.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Solis discloses that, as mentioned with regards to claim 3 with the modification of Lanning, the particulate carbon (carbon meta particles [Lanning Abstract]) of Lanning can further comprise oxide materials [Lanning 0108], more specifically silicon oxide [Lanning 0122], and can also comprise polymeric binders [Lanning 0122]. Thus, modified Solis discloses that one of the first, second, third, or fourth porous materials (particulate carbon) comprises silicon oxide and optionally a polymeric binder.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solis et al. US 2020/0227733 A1 & Lanning et al. US 2019/0386314 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. US 2022/0263136 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood by the examiner, Solis is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however is silent as to S loading.
Han discloses a lithium sulfur battery comprising an electrolyte [0048], a positive electrode [0051], and a negative electrode [0048-0050]. Han discloses that the negative electrode is lithium metal [0048], similar to Solis, and that the electrolyte comprises a carbonate compound, a lithium salt, and/or an ether compound [0049], also similar to Solis. Han further discloses that the positive electrode comprises sulfur [0051, 0087] and a porous carbon material [0089], similar to Solis. Han discloses that the positive electrode has an S loading amount of 2.5-5 mg/cm2 [0116], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Han discloses a similar configuration to that of Solis, and in the absence of a specific mention of the S loading amount within the disclosure Solis, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to analogous art for a suggestion of a specific S loading. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the suggested S loading of Han in the cathode of Solis with reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solis and Lanning as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugano et al. JP 2010095390 A.
Regarding Claim 16, Solis and Lanning are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however are both silent as to the electrochemical device having a discharge current density greater than 0.4 mA/cm2.
Sugano discloses a porous carbon composite comprising sulfur used in a positive electrode of a battery [Page 2 Lines 9-13], wherein sulfur is within the pores of the porous carbon (“CMK-3”) [Page 2 Lines 12-13], similar to that of Solis and Lanning. Sugano additionally discloses a negative electrode and an electrolyte [Page 2 Lines 10-11], wherein the negative electrode comprises lithium [Page 6 Lines 6-7], similar to that of Solis and Lanning. Sugano discloses that the negative electrode, electrolyte, and positive electrode comprising the sulfur carbon composite are used in a secondary battery [Page 4 Lines 56-60]. Sugano discloses that the battery was subjected to current during testing, which resulted in a discharge current density of 1.3 mA/cm2 [Page 3 Lines 6-10], more specifically that when the sulfur carbon composite (“CMK-3/S”) was charged/discharged, the current density was 1.3 mA/cm2 and discloses that sulfur, as an insulator, was successfully charged and discharged at a current density exceeding 1 mA/cm2 [Page 10 Lines 31-35].
Thus, Sugano evidences that a battery comprising a sulfur carbon composite is capable of a discharge current capacity of more than 1 mA/cm2, more specifically 1.3 mA/cm2, due to sulfur’s properties as an insulator.
Thus, the electrochemical device of Solis, comprising the sulfur carbon composite as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, would be expected to have a similar discharge current density as that of Sugano, thus meeting the claim limitations of Claim 16.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-12, 14-15, & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2020/0220169 A1, and further in view of Lanning et al. US 2019/0386314 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses an electrochemical device (lithium secondary battery) comprising a first electrode (cathode), a second electrode opposing the first electrode (anode), and an electrolyte between the first and second electrodes [0035]. Kim discloses that the first electrode (cathode) comprises a sulfur carbon composite wherein sulfur is within the pores of the carbon [0052-0053], thus Kim discloses “immobilized sulfur”. Kim discloses that the first electrode comprises a binder [0089]. Kim additionally discloses that the first electrode comprises a conductive material [0089] which Kim discloses is carbon based such as graphene, graphite, carbon black, nanotubes, or fullerene [0087], which are considered porous materials. Thus, Kim discloses a porous composition (conductive material). Further, in the examples, Kim discloses that the first electrode (cathode) contains the immobilized sulfur (sulfur carbon composite), binder, and porous composition (conductive material) in a ratio of 88:7:5, respectively [0126], thus Kim discloses 88wt% immobilized sulfur, 7wt% binder, and 5wt% porous composition, which fall within the claimed ranges of the respective components.
Kim fails to specifically disclose that the porous composition (conductive material) has a first porous material having an average pore size less than 2nm and a second porous material having an average pore size of 2-100nm, contained in the claimed weight percentages.
Lanning discloses a lithium ion battery with a cathode on a first substrate, and anode on a second substrate, and an electrolyte [Abstract]. Lanning discloses that the cathode comprises sulfur [0031] deposited in pores of structured composite material (“particulate carbon”) [0030]. Lanning further discloses that the particulate carbon has a multimodal pore size distribution [0035], and has pore sizes from 0.1-10nm, 10-100nm, 100-1µm, and larger than 1µm [0035]. Thus, Lanning discloses a porous composition (particulate carbon) for use in a sulfur containing cathode that has a first porous material with a pore size of less than 2nm (particulate carbon with pore size of 0.1-10nm) and a second porous material with a pore size of 2-100nm (particulate carbon with pore size of 10-100nm).
Lanning discloses that a cathode comprising carbon additives such as this has high compositional purity of the carbon additive, high electrical conductivity, and high surface area, which contributes to efficiently conducting ions [0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the particulate carbon of Lanning in place of the conductive material in the cathode of Kim to achieve a cathode that meets the claim limitations of Claim 1, and provides a cathode that has high compositional purity, high electrical conductivity, and high surface area for efficiently conducting ions, while enabling trapping of the sulfur ions within the cathode.
Additionally, Lanning discloses that a porous material with a multimodal distribution is beneficial for sulfur containing cathodes because the smaller pore sizes confine the sulfur and control the crystallinity, and the larger pore sizes enable rapid diffusion of lithium ions [0035].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the amount of small pores versus large pores as a result effective variable and would seek to optimize this parameter, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range of weight percentages of the first porous material (smaller pores) versus the second porous material (larger pores). See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a weight percent of the first porous material (smaller pores sized 1-4nm) for the benefit of confining the sulfur and a weight percent of the second porous material (larger pores sized 30-50nm) for the benefit of enabling rapid ion diffusion, as suggested by Lanning.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses that the first electrode comprises a conductive material such as carbon based materials [0086] and discloses that these can be selected from the group of artificial or natural graphite, graphene, active carbon based materials, carbon black, (ketjen black, acetylene black), carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes, or fullerene [0087] which are known to be supercapacitor materials.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses that the second electrode (anode) comprises lithium [000099], which is known to be an alkali metal.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses that the second electrode comprises lithium [0099].
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses that the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt [0106], and further discloses that the lithium salt is more specifically LiPF6, LiBF4, LiN(FSO2)2 (otherwise written LiNS2O4F2), LiN(CF3SO2)2 (otherwise written LiC2F6NO4S2) [0107]. Kim also discloses that the electrolyte comprises an electrolyte solution in addition to the lithium salt [0106], wherein the electrolyte solution can comprise a carbonate [0109] or an ether [0112].
Regarding Claim 11, Kim discloses that the S loading amount (sulfur loading level) is 1-20mg/cm2 [0060], which overlaps the claimed range. Kim further discloses that the battery has a high capacity when the loading level is controlled [0060], thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the sulfur loading level as a result effective variable and seek to optimize this parameter, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range to ensure high capacity of the battery. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to select a sulfur loading amount within the claimed range to provide a battery with high capacity as suggested by Kim.
Regarding Claim 12, Kim discloses that the binder comprises one or a mixture of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), and styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), PTFE, or PVDF [0090].
Regarding Claim 14, Kim discloses that the sulfur is contained in a sulfur to carbon ratio of 7.5:2.5 to 6:4 [0061], thus Kim discloses that the sulfur is contained in an amount of 60-75wt%, which falls within the claimed range of 20-95wt%. Additionally, in the examples, Kim discloses that sulfur is added in an amount of 78g to 30g of carbon [0116], thus Kim discloses that in a mixture of 108g of sulfur and carbon combined, sulfur comprises 78g, thus 72.2wt% of sulfur, which also falls within the claimed range. In regards to the sulfur amount, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2131.03 I. In the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim”. UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Accordingly, the sulfur amount disclosed in Kim anticipates the claimed range set forth in Claim 1. See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Regarding Claim 15, Kim discloses that the batteries were charged at 0.1 C rate, 0.2 C rate, and 0.3 C rate [0130], thus Kim discloses that the electrochemical device (battery) is capable of a cycle rate of 0.1-0.3 C rate, thus meeting the claim limitations of Claim 15, as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding Claim 17, Kim discloses a separator between the first electrode (cathode) and the second electrode (anode) [0099].
Regarding Claim 18, Kim discloses that the separator is made of a polymer [0103-0104] made of olefin-based polymers such as polyethylene and polypropylene [0104], which are known to be polyolefins.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2020/0220169 A1 and Lanning et al. US 2019/0386314 A1 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang et al US 2009/0136808 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, modified Kim discloses a third porous material (Lanning’s particulate carbon) that has a pore size of 100nm-1µm [Lanning 0035], which overlaps with the claimed range “100nm-3µm”. However, Kim and Lanning are both silent as to the specific wt% of the third porous material in the porous composition.
Kang discloses a porous carbon structure comprising mesopores and at least two kinds of macropores having different pore sizes [0029]. Kang discloses that the porous carbon structure can be used for an electrode such as a cathode [0072, 0080]. Kang discloses that the mesopore material has a pore size of 5-60nm [0032] similar to Lanning’s first and second porous materials, and the macropore material has a pore size of 100nm to 2 µm [0031] similar to Lanning’s third porous material. Kang discloses that the macropore material and the mesopore material is contained in a weight ratio of 2:1 [0047].
Kang discloses that this weight ratio of macropore material to mesopore material enables the formation of a porous carbon structure with a variety of pore sizes [0047]. Kang additionally discloses that a porous carbon structure with this configuration has improved electronic conductivity due to the interconnected pores [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to include the third porous material in an amount as suggested by Kang (weight ratio of 2:1) to provide a porous composition with a weight ratio of third porous material to combined first and second porous material of 2:1, to achieve a porous carbon structure with a variety of pore sizes and improved electronic conductivity.
Modified Kim, as mentioned with regards to claim 1 above, discloses that the porous composition, comprising the third porous material in addition to the first and second porous materials as modified by Lanning, is included in an amount of 5wt% based on the overall electrode composition. Thus, modified Kim, with the further modification of Kang, discloses that within the 5wt% of the porous composition, the third porous material having a pore size of 100nm-1 µm is included in a weight ratio of 2:1 to the first and second porous materials (combined). Thus, modified Kim discloses that the third porous material is included in an amount of 3.33wt%, which falls within the claimed range.
Claims 3 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2020/0220169 A1, Lanning et al. US 2019/0386314 A1, and Kang et al US 2009/0136808 A1 as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Saimen et al US 2021/0288319 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, modified Kim discloses a fourth porous material (Lanning’s particulate carbon) that has a pore size of larger than 1µm [Lanning 0035], which overlaps with the claimed range “greater than 3µm”. However, Kim and Lanning are both silent as to the specific wt% of the fourth porous material in the porous composition.
Saimen discloses an electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery [0140] comprising an electrode mixture that contains an active material and a porous material (porous dielectric particle) [0142]. Saimen discloses that the porous material (porous dielectric particle) has a pore size of 1-50µm [0062] and more specifically in one embodiment that the pore size is 4µm [0220]. Saimen discloses that the porous material is added in an amount of 1.0wt% (Table 1 “Example 5”) [0249] based on the overall composition of the electrode.
Saimen discloses that a battery comprising this porous material (porous dielectric particle) in the electrode mixture has improved output and durability, and therefore increased volumetric energy density [0041], as well as uniform distribution of the particles within the electrode mixture and the electrolyte [0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the porous material of Saimen in the electrode of modified Kim to provide an electrode with a fourth porous material, having a pore size of 4µm and included in an amount of 1.0wt%, to achieve a battery with improved volumetric energy density. Thus modified Kim discloses an electrode that meets the limitations of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kim discloses that, as mentioned with regards to claim 3 with the modification of Lanning, the particulate carbon of Lanning comprises carbon nanotubes or graphene [Lanning 0050]. Thus, modified Kim discloses that one of the first, second, third, or fourth porous materials (particulate carbon) comprises graphene or carbon nanotubes.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kim discloses that, as mentioned with regards to claim 3 with the modification of Lanning, the particulate carbon (carbon meta particles [Lanning Abstract]) of Lanning can further comprise oxide materials [Lanning 0108], more specifically silicon oxide [Lanning 0122], and can also comprise polymeric binders [Lanning 0122]. Thus, modified Kim discloses that one of the first, second, third, or fourth porous materials (particulate carbon) comprises silicon oxide and optionally a polymeric binder.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2020/0220169 A1 and Lanning et al. US 2019/0386314 A1 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Harada et al. US 2021/0328267 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however is silent as to the thickness of the second electrode (anode).
Lanning discloses that the thickness of the electrodes (cathodes and anodes) are adjusted to optimize capacity to match lithium utilization to each electrode [0112].
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the thickness of the second electrode as a result effective variable, and would seek to optimize this parameter, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range to provide a battery with optimized capacity. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to select a thickness of the second electrode within the claimed range to provide a battery with optimized capacity as suggested by Lanning.
Further, in view of Harada, Harada discloses a negative electrode [0085] comprising lithium as an active material [0089], wherein the thickness is between 5 µm and 30µm [0087], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Harada discloses that a negative electrode with a thickness at or above the suggested lower limit (5 µm) can increase the strength of the electrode [0087], and a thickness at or below the suggested upper limit (30 µm) can increase the energy density per volume of a battery [0087].
Thus, similarly to above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the thickness of the second electrode as a result effective variable, and would seek to optimize this parameter, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range to provide a battery with increased strength and increased energy density. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to select a thickness of the second electrode within the claimed range to provide a battery with increased strength and increased energy density as suggested by Harada.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2020/0220169 A1 (herein referred to as “Kim ‘169”) and Lanning et al. US 2019/0386314 A1, and further in view of Kim et al. US 2023/0299259 A1 (herein referred to as “Kim ‘259”).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses in the examples that the binder is contained in an a ratio of 7wt% based on the overall slurry comprising the immobilized sulfur (sulfur carbon composite), binder, and porous composition (conductive material). Kim further discloses that the binder in this example comprises a 6.5:0.5 mixture of LiPAA and PVA, respectively [0126]. Thus, Kim discloses that LiPAA is contained is in amount of 6.5wt% and the PVA is contained in an amount of 0.5wt%. As mentioned with regards to claim 12 above, Kim discloses that CMC and SBR are suitable alternatives as binder materials for use in a cathode [0090].
Additionally, Kim ‘259 discloses a battery with a sulfur carbon composite cathode [0084-0085] with a lithium anode [0079] and an electrolyte [0115], similar to Kim ‘169. Kim ‘259 discloses that the cathode further comprises a binder [0100] that is made up of one or a mixture of CMC and SBR [0101], similar to Kim ‘169. Kim ‘259 further discloses in Example 2 that the cathode slurry comprises 5wt% of the binder composition, which comprises a mixture of SBR and CMC [0143].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute known binder materials, i.e. CMC and SBR of Kim ‘169 further supported by Kim ‘259, for other binder materials, i.e. LiPAA and PVA, with reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one binder material for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B.
In addition, by teaching the two alternative binder materials, Kim ‘169 further supported by Kim ‘259 demonstrates that these are known equivalents in the art, and the selection of either binder would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use CMC in place of LiPAA and SBR in place of PVA in the example of Kim ‘169, as supported by Kim ‘259, resulting in a binder comprising 6.5wt% of CMC and 0.5wt% of SBR, which falls within the claimed range.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Lanning as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugano et al. JP 2010095390 A.
Regarding Claim 16, Kim and Lanning are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however are both silent as to the electrochemical device having a discharge current density greater than 0.4 mA/cm2.
Sugano discloses a porous carbon composite comprising sulfur used in a positive electrode of a battery [Page 2 Lines 9-13], wherein sulfur is within the pores of the porous carbon (“CMK-3”) [Page 2 Lines 12-13], similar to that of Kim and Lanning. Sugano additionally discloses a negative electrode and an electrolyte [Page 2 Lines 10-11], wherein the negative electrode comprises lithium [Page 6 Lines 6-7], similar to that of Kim and Lanning. Sugano discloses that the negative electrode, electrolyte, and positive electrode comprising the sulfur carbon composite are used in a secondary battery [Page 4 Lines 56-60]. Sugano discloses that the battery was subjected to current during testing, which resulted in a discharge current density of 1.3 mA/cm2 [Page 3 Lines 6-10], more specifically that when the sulfur carbon composite (“CMK-3/S”) was charged/discharged, the current density was 1.3 mA/cm2 and discloses that sulfur, as an insulator, was successfully charged and discharged at a current density exceeding 1 mA/cm2 [Page 10 Lines 31-35].
Thus, Sugano evidences that a battery comprising a sulfur carbon composite is capable of a discharge current capacity of more than 1 mA/cm2, more specifically 1.3 mA/cm2, due to sulfur’s properties as an insulator.
Thus, the electrochemical device of Kim, comprising the sulfur carbon composite as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, would be expected to have a similar discharge current density as that of Sugano, thus meeting the claim limitations of Claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 8 October 2025