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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the anticipation rejection of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is based on obviousness which is not specifically challenged in the argument. The prior art of record has general teachings which obviate the claimed combination of electrode (i.e. primarily silicon) and electrolyte materials (including only solvents required), and the claims have not been given any secondary consideration which would give a criticality the claimed combination of materials.
Applicant argues that Liang includes saturated cyclic sulfates. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed electrolyte is free from saturated cyclic sulfates) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim requires the electrolyte to be free of saturated cyclic carbonates, such as EC and PC, but does not preclude saturated cyclic sulfates.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US Pub 2021/0202998 of record).
In regard to claim 1, 15 and 16, Liang et al. teach an electrochemical cell comprising: a silicon (i.e. ~100% silicon) or silicon based (i.e. at least 50 weight percent silicon, in a manner which overlaps the claimed range including about 60 wt. %) anode (paragraph [0084]); a layered cathode such as LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (paragraph [0082]) and an electrolyte comprising:
a solvent such as 70 weight percent of a heterocylic compound compounds represented by Formula 2 (paragraph [0044]), including cyclic sultones which anticipate the claimed structures (paragraphs [0044-0069]);
a lithium salt such as LiPF6 (paragraph [0062]);
which may further include additional heterocyclic compounds such as vinylene carbonate (VC) and propene/propane sultones (paragraph [0059-69]) and the electrolyte is free of saturated cyclic carbonates (none are disclosed, all cyclic carbonates have double bonds – see Example Compositions in Table 1).
In regard to the amendment, while fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) is present in some examples of the prior art, such is not a necessary component of the electrolyte (see examples in Table 1). The claim requires the electrolyte to be free of saturated cyclic carbonates, such as EC and PC, but does not preclude saturated cyclic sulfates.
While the prior art does not teach an electrochemical Example which anticipates the claimed ranges, the materials of the prior art overlap the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claims 2-5, a combination of vinylene carbonate and the cyclic sultones described by the prior art anticipate the heterocyclic compounds of these claims.
In regard to claims 6 and 7, the electrolyte is free of fluoroethylene carbonate, difluoroethylene carbonate, fluorinated propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate (see Examples 1-25 in Table 1).
In regard to claim 12, the solvent may include a sulfone (see Formula 1, paragraph [0055]).
In regard to claim 14, the compounds of the prior art form a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) comprising a hydroxylated polymer (paragraphs [0013-14, 0049]).
Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drach et al. (US Pub 2018/0108937of record).
In regard to claim 1, 9, 10 ,11, 15, 16 and 17, Drach et al. teach an electrochemical cell comprising: a silicon based (i.e. 50 weight percent silicon is specifically disclosed, in a manner which overlaps the claimed range including about 60 wt. %, “silicon active material” as more generally described by the prior art is taken to include higher silicon contents) anode 100 (paragraph [0050]); a phosphate, layered or spinel cathode 87 such as LiFePO4 (paragraph [0062]) and an electrolyte comprising:
a solvent (electrolyte 105) such as (3:7 VC:EMC) 30:70 weight percent mix of a heterocylic compound such as VC and a linear carbonate such as ethyl methyl carbonate i.e. EMC (paragraph [0219-223]; Example Fig20G, paragraph [0246]), a lithium salt such as 1M LiPF6 (paragraph [0227]);
and the electrolyte is free of saturated cyclic carbonates (none are disclosed, all cyclic carbonates have double bonds – see Example Composition 20G in paragraph [0246]).
In regard to the amendment, while fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) is present in some examples of the prior art, such is not a necessary component of the electrolyte (see example cited above).
While the prior art does not teach an electrochemical Example which anticipates the claimed ranges, the materials of the prior art overlap the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claims 2-5, a combination of VC and EMC described by the prior art anticipate the heterocyclic compounds of these claims.
In regard to claims 6 and 7, the electrolyte is free of fluoroethylene carbonate, difluoroethylene carbonate, fluorinated propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate (see Example noted above).
In regard to claim 12, the solvent may include a 1,3-dioxolane (end of paragraph [0224]).
In regard to claim 14, the compounds of the prior art form a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) comprising a hydroxylated polymer (paragraphs [0159-0162, 0228-0229]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Abe et al. (US Pub 2017/0162915) teaches forming high purity VC for electrochemical devices (abstract) and Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub 2008/0076031 newly cited) teaches similar cyclic electrolyte additives.
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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights