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 .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are pending.
Claims 1 and 5 are being treated on their merits.
Claim 3 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 2 and 4 are canceled.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2023/0317934 A1.
Specification
Applicants' amendments have overcome the objections to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicants' amendments have overcome the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitations "a highly reduction-resistant electrolytic solution" and "the highly reduction-resistant electrolytic solution also having a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more," which are properties of the electrolytic solution dependent on its chemical composition. The instant application discloses an electrolytic solution that is highly reduction-resistant and has a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more is composed of combination of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and a hydrofluoroether (e.g., [0035]) and further discloses a suitable mixing ratio is DME : HFE at 2 : 1 (e.g., [0057]). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, an electrolytic solution that is highly reduction-resistant and has a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more will be interpretated as an electrolytic solution composed of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and a hydrofluoroether at a mixing ratio of 2 : 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2016/0344063 A1, hereinafter Chang) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 109980180 A, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a lithium-metal secondary battery (11, [0141]), comprising:
a positive electrode (13, [0141]),
a negative electrode having a lithium metal layer (12, [0141]),
a separator (14) positioned between the positive electrode (13) and the negative electrode (12, [0141]), and
a reduction-resistant electrolytic solution, comprising 2 to 6 mol of electrolyte per L of solvent (see 5 molar electrolyte, [0129]).
Chang does not explicitly disclose:
the reduction-resistant electrolytic solution also having a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more, the lithium deposition dissolution efficiency being a proportion of an amount of redissolution of lithium with respect to an amount thereof deposited on a copper surface.
However, Chang discloses an electrolytic solution composed of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and a hydrofluoroether at a mixing ratio of 2 : 1 (see electrolyte, [0129]). The instant application discloses an electrolytic solution that is highly reduction-resistant and has a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more is composed of combining 1,2-dimethoxyethane and a hydrofluoroether (e.g., [0035]) and further discloses a suitable mixing ratio is DME : HFE at 2 : 1 (e.g., [0057]). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, Chang inherently discloses a highly reduction-resistant electrolytic solution having a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more.
Chang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a relative density of the lithium metal layer is 40 to 85%.
Zhang discloses a negative electrode (see composite negative electrode sheet, [0057]) having a lithium metal layer having a relative density of 40 to 85% (see porosity, [0056]) to improve the cycle performance of the lithium-metal secondary battery (see porous lithium foil, [0060]). The relative density is defined as (real density/true density) × 100 (see relative density, [0039]). The relative density can also be determined from the porosity because the porosity is the ratio of the volume of pores to the total volume (i.e., relative density% = 1 – porosity). Chang and Zhang are analogous because they are directed to lithium-metal secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the lithium metal layer of Chang with the relative density of Zhang in order to improve the cycle performance of the lithium-metal secondary battery
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakari et al. (US 2020/0328475 A1, hereinafter Hakari) in view of Zhang (CN 109980180 A).
Regarding claim 5, Hakari discloses a lithium-metal secondary battery (400, [0035]), comprising:
a positive electrode (404, [0035]),
a negative electrode having a lithium metal layer (408, [0035]),
a separator (412) positioned between the positive electrode (404) and the negative electrode (408, [0035]), and
a reduction-resistant electrolytic solution (416), comprising 2 to 6 mol of electrolyte per L of solvent ([0032]; TABLE, [0035]);
wherein the reduction-resistant electrolytic solution comprises 2 to 4 mol of electrolyte per L of solvent ([0032]; TABLE, [0035]).
Hakari does not explicitly disclose:
the highly reduction-resistant electrolytic solution also having a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more, the lithium deposition dissolution efficiency being a proportion of an amount of redissolution of lithium with respect to an amount thereof deposited on a copper surface.
However, Hakari discloses an electrolytic solution composed of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and a hydrofluoroether at a mixing ratio of 2 : 1 ([0032]; TABLE, [0035]). The instant application discloses an electrolytic solution that is highly reduction-resistant and has a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more is composed of combining 1,2-dimethoxyethane and a hydrofluoroether (e.g., [0035]) and further discloses a suitable mixing ratio is DME : HFE at 2 : 1 (e.g., [0057]). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, Hakari inherently discloses a highly reduction-resistant electrolytic solution having a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more.
Chang does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a relative density of the lithium metal layer is 40 to 85%.
Zhang discloses a negative electrode (see composite negative electrode sheet, [0057]) having a lithium metal layer having a relative density of 40 to 85% (see porosity, [0056]) to improve the cycle performance of the lithium-metal secondary battery (see porous lithium foil, [0060]). The relative density is defined as (real density/true density) × 100 (see relative density, [0039]). The relative density can also be determined from the porosity because the porosity is the ratio of the volume of pores to the total volume (i.e., relative density% = 1 – porosity). Hakari and Zhang are analogous because they are directed to lithium-metal secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the lithium metal layer of Hakari with the relative density of Zhang in order to improve the cycle performance of the lithium-metal secondary battery
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Chang and Zhang do not disclose or suggest "a lithium-metal secondary battery" comprises "a positive electrode", "a negative electrode having a lithium metal layer", "a separator positioned between the positive electrode and the negative electrode", and "a reduction-resistant electrolytic solution, comprising 2 to 6 mol of electrolyte per L of solvent and also having a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more, the lithium deposition dissolution efficiency being a proportion of an amount of redissolution of lithium with respect to an amount thereof deposited on a copper surface", and in which "a relative density of the lithium metal layer is 40 to 85%" (P9/¶2). Chang discloses a lithium-metal secondary battery (11, [0141]), comprising a positive electrode (13, [0141]), a negative electrode having a lithium metal layer (12, [0141]), a separator (14) positioned between the positive electrode (13) and the negative electrode (12, [0141]), and a reduction-resistant electrolytic solution, comprising 2 to 6 mol of electrolyte per L of solvent (see 5 molar electrolyte, [0129]). Chang does not explicitly disclose a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of the reduction-resistant electrolytic solution. However, Chang discloses an electrolytic solution composed of 1,2-dimethoxyethane and a hydrofluoroether at a mixing ratio of 2 : 1 (see electrolyte, [0129]). The instant application discloses an electrolytic solution that is highly reduction-resistant and has a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more is composed of combining 1,2-dimethoxyethane and a hydrofluoroether (e.g., [0035]) and further discloses a suitable mixing ratio is DME : HFE at 2 : 1 (e.g., [0057]). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, Chang inherently discloses a highly reduction-resistant electrolytic solution having a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more. Zhang discloses a negative electrode (see composite negative electrode sheet, [0057]) having a lithium metal layer having a relative density of 40 to 85% (see porosity, [0056]) to improve the cycle performance of the lithium-metal secondary battery (see porous lithium foil, [0060]). The relative density is defined as (real density/true density) × 100 (see relative density, [0039]). The relative density can also be determined from the porosity because the porosity is the ratio of the volume of pores to the total volume (i.e., relative density% = 1 – porosity). Therefore, Chang and Zhang suggest "a lithium-metal secondary battery" comprises "a positive electrode", "a negative electrode having a lithium metal layer", "a separator positioned between the positive electrode and the negative electrode", and "a reduction-resistant electrolytic solution, comprising 2 to 6 mol of electrolyte per L of solvent and also having a lithium deposition dissolution efficiency of 98.5% or more, the lithium deposition dissolution efficiency being a proportion of an amount of redissolution of lithium with respect to an amount thereof deposited on a copper surface", and in which "a relative density of the lithium metal layer is 40 to 85%."
Applicants argue the claimed invention achieves unexpected results (P9/¶2). It is noted that "the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record", In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding unexpected results must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), "the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001." As set forth in § MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of positive electrode, negative electrodes, and electrolytes. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Applicants have presented two examples of the two Li relative density (i.e., 40% and 85%), which are the claimed end points. No examples within the claimed range exclusive the endpoints have been presented. Applicants have presented two examples of the salt concentration (i.e., 2 mol/L and 4 mol/L). No examples of the outside the claimed range have been presented. Applicants have presented one lithium salt with no other lithium salts presented. A single solvent combination (i.e., DME/HFE) with no other solvent combination presented. Applicants have not compared a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Applicants may compare the claimed invention with prior art that is more closely related to the invention than the prior art relied upon by the examiner. In re Holladay, 584 F.2d 384, 199 USPQ 516 (CCPA 1978); Ex parte Humber, 217 USPQ 265 (Bd. App. 1961). In other words, the evidence of unexpected results must be compared with prior art. Emphasis added. See MPEP § 716.02(e). Chang is the closet prior art relied upon by the examiner. Applicants have not compared the alleged evidence of unexpected results with Chang. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP § 716.02(b). No statistical analysis has been provided to indicate that results are of both statistical and practical significance. Therefore, the applicants have not demonstrated that the claimed invention achieves unexpected results.
Applicants argue Chang only teaches that 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3- tetrafluoropropyl ether and 1,2-dimethoxyethane having a volume ratio of about 20:80 are mixed (P9/¶4). The mixing ratio described in the instant application is based on mass (TABLE 1, [0057]). A mass is the product of the density and volume (i.e., m = ρ × V). Based on the density of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3- tetrafluoropropyl ether (e.g., ρ = 1.54 g/mL) and 1,2-dimethoxyethane (e.g., ρ = 0.87 g/mL), a volume ratio of about 20:80 is a mass ratio of 30 parts of TTE :70 parts of DME, which is a mixing ratio of about 2 : 1, which identical to the mixing ratio of the instant examples (TABLE 1, [0057]). Therefore, Chang teaches 1,2-dimethoxyethane and 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3- tetrafluoropropyl ether having a mixing ratio of about 2:1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ren (US 2019/0140322 A1) discloses a reduction-resistant electrolytic solution, comprising 2 to 6 mol of electrolyte per L of solvent (TABLE 4, [0201]).
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 Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights