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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9, drawn to a cell comprising an electrolyte comprising LiFSI and THF, a graphite anode and an NMC cathode / lithium metal counter electrode classified in H01M 10/285.
II. Claims 10-13, drawn to a cell comprising an electrolyte comprising THF, fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), and 1,1,2,2-Tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether, and a lithium metal anode with Niobium tungsten oxide cathode classified in H01M2300/0028.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06). In the instant case, they are not disclosed as capable of use together as they are mutually exclusive electrochemical cells and they have different components, materials and electrochemical properties making them distinct embodiments.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
One prior art reference that may apply to one invention may not apply to the other.
A different field of search would be required including different classifications.
During a telephone conversation with D. SARMA on 01/12/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority in view of provisional application 63/342,580 with an effective filing date of 05/16/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2023 and 11/13/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 it states “composition for use is in” which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 17 it states “The electrode composition of claim 1” a second time which appears to be a separate dependent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1 recites the limitation " larger amounts of FSI anions than found with conventional solid electrolytes " in line 4. Larger is a relative term if not compared to another amount and no definition or ranges are present to describe what constitutes a conventional solid electrolyte.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a cathode comprising one of Li metal, LiNio.6Coo.2Mno.202“ in Line 3. In the current specification the Li metal is in fact a counter electrode in a half cell, not a cathode. It is unclear how the cathode constitutes a Li metal in view of the disclosure.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the anode half shells” in Line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the full cells” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 contains the trademark/trade name Celgard. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a separator material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tiruvannamalai et al (US 20160233549 A1), hereinafter "Tiruvannamalai".
In regard to Claim 1, Tiruvannamalai et al. discloses an electrolyte composition for use is in an electrochemical cell, with a specific example comprising 5 M lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide (LiFSI) dissolved in tetrahydrofuran (THF) (Tiruvannamalai, [0102], Figure 10). Tiruvannamalai et al. also discloses that as salt concentration increases, ion pairing begins to form with increased viscosity and that in high salt concentration systems, solvent scarcity reduces Li+ solvation shell size wherein the solvent forms a solvation complex with high Li+ concentration and makes solvent unavailable for detrimental reactions (Tiruvannamalai, [0076-0079]), i.e. more anion involved coordination and larger amounts of FSI anions than found with conventional solid electrolytes. Tiruvannamalai et al. further discloses the thin, inorganic-rich, interfacial layer between anode and electrolyte has a resistance less than resistance of an interfacial layer between an anode and a conventional solid electrolyte (Tiruvannamalai, [0008, 0015]).
These properties of which are merely functional in nature and are consistent with providing the same salt, in the same concentration dissolved in the same solvent that is provided in the current application, which results in an EC-free high salt concentration electrolyte (HSCE) composed of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide salt and tetrahydrofuran solvent with enhanced Li+ transport, a dominance of intra-aggregate solvation structure in HSCE and a thin anion-derived LiF-rich SEI layer (Original Specification, [0022]) formed with resistance less than resistance of an interfacial layer between an anode and a conventional solid electrolyte (Original Specification, [0022, 0034]).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiruvannamalai et al (US 20160233549 A1), hereinafter "Tiruvannamalai" as applied to claim 1 above in view of Xu et al. (US 20210218062 A1), hereinafter "Xu". Tiruvannamalai and Xu et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrolyte compositions.
In regard to Claim 2 Tiruvannamalai et al. discloses the electrolyte composition of claim 1. While Tiruvannamalai discloses a thin layer formed from the 5 M lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide (LiFSI) dissolved in an ether solvent such as tetrahydrofuran (THF), it is silent as to the thickness of the layer.
Xu et al. discloses an electrolyte with a concentration of LiFSI that can range from 3-5M (Xu, [0132]), which encompasses a 5M concentration and is then dissolved in an ether solvent which is not particularly limited and may reasonably encompass THF (Xu, [0135]), as selected by the skilled artisan and is provided in Tiruvannamalai, wherein the interfacial layer thickness is in the beneficial range of 3-5nm (Xu, [0260]), which overlaps the claimed range and is thinner than an 8-12 nm thick interfacial layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 3, Tiruvannamalai et al. discloses the electrolyte composition of claim 1. While Tiruvannamalai discloses the interfacial layer formed from LiFSI and THF and the current application discloses that the same combination yields a thin anion-derived LiF-rich SEI layer (Original Specification, [0022]), Tiruvannamalai is silent as to the analysis of the interfacial layer.
Xu et al. discloses an interfacial layer formed from LiFSI in a concentration of 3-5M in an ether solvent and wherein the layer comprises LiF (Xu, [0329]). Xu further attributes reduction of energy barriers for Li cations transport through the layer by disclosing the layer prevents continuous decomposition, large difference in interfacial resistance of baseline vs SEI/CEI layer formed by LiFSI and ether solvent and that interphase layers are highly conductive for Li+ ion transportation (Xu, [0254-0255]) as well as Li cations desolvation (Xu, [0321]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an electrolyte comprising 5M LiFSI dissolved in an ether solvent as taught in Xu et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving an interfacial layer comprising LiF which effect Li cation properties as taught in Xu et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 20210218062 A1), hereinafter "Xu" in view of Chang et al. (US 20160344063 A1), hereinafter "Chang". Xu and Chang et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrolyte compositions.
In regard to Claims 4-5, Xu et al. discloses an electrochemical cell comprising an anode comprising graphite and a counter electrode comprising Li metal (Xu, 0251]), a separator (Xu, [0163]) and an electrolyte comprising LiFSI dissolved in an ether solvent (Xu, Table 2, AE001-AE003) wherein the electrolyte has ion- aggregates dominant solvation structures by introducing larger amounts of FSI anions (Xu, [0141]). While Xu et al. discloses that the solvent to dissolve the LiFSI may be any ether solvent (DMC), it fails to explicitly disclose THF.
Chang et al. discloses an electrolyte comprising a lithium salt selected from a preferred list to include LiFSI (Chang, [0065]), at a concentration of 3.5-5M wherein the non-fluorine substituted ether-based solvent in which lithium ions are solvated may be selected form a preferred list and includes DMC and THF (Chang, [0050, 0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an ether based solvent such as THF to dissolve 3.5-5M of LiFSI in a beneficial electrolyte composition as taught in Chang et al. as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 6, Xu et al. in view of Chang et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 4. Xu et al. in view of Chang et al. discloses a high salt concentration electrolyte wherein LiFSI is dissolved in an ether based solvent (THF in Chang) and an anion derived SEI layer is formed with LiF present in the layer wherein the electrolyte does not cause Li cation transport retardation within the anode compared to the conventional electrolyte (Xu, Table 2, [0329]). According to the current specification with the same configuration as disclosed in modified Xu there was no Li+ transport retardation in the HSCE despite its higher viscosity coming from high concentration. Therefore, the HSCE itself and thin anion-derived SEI layer from the HSCE, containing inorganic species with a larger amount of LiF, led to enhanced overall Li+ transport properties without impairing any Li+ diffusion process and resulted in the calculated lithium diffusion coefficients. (Original Specification, [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an HSCE in the configuration taught in modified Xu as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of providing an electrolyte that does not cause Li cation transport retardation within the anode compared to the conventional electrolyte and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 7, Xu et al. in view of Chang et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 4. Xu et al. in view of Chang et al. discloses a half cell with a graphite anode and li metal counter electrode comprising a high salt concentration electrolyte wherein LiFSI is dissolved in an ether based solvent (THF in Chang) and a thin anion derived SEI layer is formed with LiF present in the layer (Xu, Table 2, [0017, 0329]) which are evaluated at low temperature (Xu, [0017-0018]).
The low temperature performance properties according to the current specification are a result of providing the same configuration of half-cell as disclosed in modified Xu, i.e." the combination of THF and LiFSI provide physicochemical properties that are favorable for constituting an HSCE and facilitating the repeated charge-discharge of the LIBs at low temperature", which produces the mAh/g discharge capacities (Original Specification, [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a HSCE half-cell with the configuration taught in modified Xu as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the results of better low temperature performance as disclosed in the full cells of Xu (Xu, Figure 18) and as doing so amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 8, Xu et al. in view of Chang et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 4. Xu et al. in view of Chang et al. discloses a full-cell composed of an anode and cathode which are rechargeable in the temperature range of -40 °C - 25 °C and the discharge capacities range from 188 mAh/g at 25C to 87 mAh/g at -40C for AE003 and 192 to 59 mAh/g for AE001 (Xu, Figure 18, AE001 & AE003, [00258]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In regard to Claim 9, Xu et al. in view of Chang et al. disclose the electrochemical cell of claim 4. Xu et al. et al. discloses wherein the separator is Celgard (polypropylene) (Xu, [0163]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725