Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 50 is objected to because of the following informalities: The instant claim recites “…repeating the process at for 50 cycles.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 26-50 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.
Regarding claim 26, the instant claim recites “the fluorinated carbonate is in an amount (x) of 0 < x ≤ 15 vol %.” It is unclear from the claim what the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate is with respect to (i.e., what is 100 vol %). It is further unclear if the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate component in the electrolyte is representative of a particular kind of fluorinated carbonate or the volume percent of the total volume sum of all of the fluorinated carbonates present in the electrolyte. For the purposes of examination, the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate is understood to be the total volume percent of all fluorinated carbonate species with respect to the total volume of electrolyte. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 34, the instant claim recites “the fluorinated carbonate is 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC) in an amount (x) of 0 < x ≤ 15 vol %.” It is unclear from the claim what the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate is with respect to (i.e., what is 100 vol %). For the purposes of examination, the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate is understood to be the total volume percent of FEC with respect to the total volume of electrolyte. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 36, the instant claim recites “the fluorinated carbonate is in an amount (x) of 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 10 vol %.” It is unclear from the claim what the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate is with respect to (i.e., what is 100 vol %). It is further unclear if the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate component in the electrolyte is representative of a particular kind of fluorinated carbonate or the volume percent of the total volume sum of all of the fluorinated carbonates present in the electrolyte. For the purposes of examination, the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate is understood to be the total volume percent of all fluorinated carbonate species with respect to the total volume of electrolyte. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 37, the instant claim recites “the fluorinated carbonate is in an amount of 0.5 to 5 vol.%.” It is unclear from the claim what the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate is with respect to (i.e., what is 100 vol %). It is further unclear if the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate component in the electrolyte is representative of a particular kind of fluorinated carbonate or the volume percent of the total volume sum of all of the fluorinated carbonates present in the electrolyte. For the purposes of examination, the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate is understood to be the total volume percent of all fluorinated carbonate species with respect to the total volume of electrolyte. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 38, the instant claim recites “the fluorinated carbonate is in an amount of 1.0 to 2.0 vol.%.” It is unclear from the claim what the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate is with respect to (i.e., what is 100 vol %). It is further unclear if the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate component in the electrolyte is representative of a particular kind of fluorinated carbonate or the volume percent of the total volume sum of all of the fluorinated carbonates present in the electrolyte. For the purposes of examination, the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate is understood to be the total volume percent of all fluorinated carbonate species with respect to the total volume of electrolyte. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 27-33, 35, 39-50, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
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.
Claims 26-36, 39-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210218062 A1) in view of Shen (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20210020986 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Xu teaches an electrochemical cell (rechargeable battery), comprising:
a positive electrode;
negative electrode; and
a liquid electrolyte (LHCE, localized high-concentration electrolytes) (Paragraph 0156) comprising:
a lithium salt selected from group consisting of LiClO4, LiN(SO2F)2 (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, LiFSI), LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI), LiN(SO2C2F5)2 (lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide, LiBETI), LiNSO2FSO2CF3 (lithium (fluorosulfonyl)(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (LiFTFSI)) and a combination thereof (Paragraph 0006);
a fluorinated solvent selected from the group consisting of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl- 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE) (Paragraph 0006), 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether (TFTFE) (Paragraph 0142), tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)orthoformate (TFEO) (Paragraph 0006), methoxynonafluorobutane (MOFB), ethoxynonafluorobutane (EOFB), tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)orthoformate (TFEO), tris(hexafluoroisopropyl)orthoformate (THFiPO), tris(2,2-difluoroethyl)orthoformate (TDFEO), bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) methyl orthoformate (BTFEMO), tris(2,2,3,3,3- pentafluoropropyl)orthoformate (TPFPO), tris(2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl)orthoformate (TTPO) and a combination thereof (Paragraph 0142);
a cyclic sulfone selected from the group consisting of sulfolane (tetramethylene sulfone (TMS), also called sulfolane), Paragraph 0137); and
a fluorinated carbonate selected from the group consisting of 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC), methyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate (MTFEC) (MFEC) (Paragraph 0006), and di-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate (DTFEC) (Paragraph 0146) and a combination thereof;
Xu teaches the lithium-ion battery comprising the disclosed electrolyte composition having a specific coulombic efficiency equal to or greater than the comparable battery with the conventional electrolyte or super concentrated electrolyte. Xu teaches the battery may have a first cycle Coulombic efficiency of at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 75%, or at least 85%, and/or a third cycle CE of at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 97%. In some embodiments, the lithium ion battery comprising the LHCE (or LSE) may have an average CE of at least 98% (Paragraph 0175). Further, Tables 11 of 12 of Xu illustrate that electrolytes comprising lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate obtain average coulombic efficiencies during cycling of the battery which are close to 100 percent.
Therefore, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim (at least 93%), meeting the instant limitations.
Xu teaches in some embodiments; the electrolyte comprises 5 wt% FEC (fluorinated carbonate) (Paragraph 0152).
However, Xu is silent as to the fluorinated carbonate is in an amount (x) of 0 < x ≤ 15 vol.%.
However, Shen discloses an electrolyte for a lithium battery including an electrolyte salt (Paragraph 0017) and an organic carbonate additive, such as fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (Paragraph 0028), which appears on the list of suitable fluorinated carbonates of the instant invention. Shen teaches the interfacial resistance of the anode and the cathode decreases by adding an organic carbonate to the electrolyte. Additionally Shen teaches the organic carbonate additives to enhance the wettability of the electrodes, thereby directly improving battery performance to achieve higher capacities compared to electrolytes without organic carbonate additives. Shen teaches in some embodiments that the additive has a volume percentage between 5% and 15% based on the total volume of the electrolyte. Shen recognizes that a small amount of organic carbonate (e.g. 5%) can significantly improve the battery performance by improving the ionic mobility (Paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluorinated carbonate of the electrolyte of Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Shen in which the fluorinated carbonate is present in the electrolyte at a volume percentage between 5% and 15% based on the total volume of the electrolyte. Doing so would advantageously result in reduced interfacial resistance and improved wettability of the electrodes, as well as higher battery capacity and improved overall performance, as recognized by Shen.
The resulting range of the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate in the electrolyte of Xu in view of Shen overlaps that of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 27, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26, wherein the lithium salt is LiN(SO2C2F5)2 (lithium bis(pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide, LiBETI), LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI), LiN(SO2F)2 (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, LiFSI), as described above (Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 28, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26, wherein the fluorinated solvent is selected from the group consisting of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE), bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether (BTFE), 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether (TFTFE), as described above (Paragraphs 0006, 0142).
Regarding claim 29, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26, wherein the cyclic sulfone is sulfolane (SL), as described above (Paragraph 0137).
Regarding claim 30, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26, wherein the fluorinated carbonate is 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC), as described above (Paragraphs 0006, 0146).
Regarding claim 31, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
Regarding claim 32, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
Regarding claim 33, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, meeting the instant limitations.
Regarding claim 34, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
Xu does not teach a specific embodiment in which
the lithium salt is LiN(SO2CF3)2
the fluorinated solvent is 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE)
the cyclic sulfone is sulfolane (SL)
the fluorinated carbonate is 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC) in an amount (x) of 0 < x ≤ 15 vol.%
However, as described above, Zhu indicates LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI) is a suitable lithium salt comprised in the electrolyte, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) is a suitable diluent comprised in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0006), sulfolane is a suitable sulfone solvent comprised in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0137), and 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC) is a suitable additive comprised in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to have selected and combined
LiN(SO2CF3)2 (lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, LiTFSI) from the finite lists of possible combinations for lithium salt of the electrolyte composition
1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) from the finite lists of possible combinations for diluent of the electrolyte composition
sulfolane from the finite lists of possible combinations for sulfur-containing solvents of the electrolyte composition
4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC) from the finite lists of possible combinations for additives of the electrolyte composition
to arrive at the electrolyte composition of the instant claim since the combination of components would have yielded predictable results as an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Further, as discussed above, the modification of the fluorinated carbonate of the electrolyte of Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Shen resulted in the fluorinated carbonate present in the electrolyte at a volume percentage between 5% and 15% based on the total volume of the electrolyte. Doing so would advantageously result in reduced interfacial resistance and improved wettability of the electrodes, as well as higher battery capacity and improved overall performance, as recognized by Shen.
The resulting range of the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate in the electrolyte of Xu in view of Shen overlaps that of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 35, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
Xu discloses an electrolyte for use in a lithium-ion battery which includes a lithium salt, a nonaqueous solvent, a diluent, and an additive. Xu teaches the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 5, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, and 0.5 ≤ z ≤ 5 (Paragraph 0005). Xu teaches the relative amounts of the salt, solvent, diluent, and additive are selected to reduce the cost of materials for the electrolyte, reduce electrolyte viscosity, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation, improve ionic conductivity and wetting ability of the electrolyte, and facilitate formation of an effective SEI layer (Paragraph 0149).
Xu teaches sulfolane (equated with instant cyclic sulfone) is a suitable sulfone solvent usable in the electrolyte (Paragraph 0137). Therefore, the molar ratio of solvent/lithium salt (x:1) of Xu is equated with the instant molar ratio (y) of cyclic sulfone/lithium salt. Xu teaches the range of x between 0.5 and 5, therefore the upper and lower bounds of the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt molar ratio (y) taught by Xu are 0.5/1 ≤ y ≤ 5/1, or 0.5 ≤ y ≤ 5.
The range of the molar ratio (y) of the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt taught by Zhu overlaps with the molar ratio (y) of the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 36, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
Xu is silent as to the fluorinated carbonate is comprised in an amount (x) of 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 10 vol.%.
However, as discussed above, the modification of the fluorinated carbonate of the electrolyte of Zhu to incorporate the teachings of Shen resulted in the fluorinated carbonate present in the electrolyte at a volume percentage between 5% and 15% based on the total volume of the electrolyte. Doing so would advantageously result in reduced interfacial resistance and improved wettability of the electrodes, as well as higher battery capacity and improved overall performance, as recognized by Shen.
The resulting range of the volume percentage of the fluorinated carbonate in the electrolyte of Xu in view of Shen overlaps that of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 39, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
Xu discloses an electrolyte for use in a lithium-ion battery which includes a lithium salt, a nonaqueous solvent, a diluent, and an additive. Xu teaches the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 5, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, and 0.5 ≤ z ≤ 5 (Paragraph 0005). Xu teaches the relative amounts of the salt, solvent, diluent, and additive are selected to reduce the cost of materials for the electrolyte, reduce electrolyte viscosity, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation, improve ionic conductivity and wetting ability of the electrolyte, and facilitate formation of an effective SEI layer (Paragraph 0149).
Xu teaches the diluent may be a fluorinated solvent (equated with instant fluorinated solvent) (Paragraph 0142). Therefore, the molar ratio of diluent/lithium salt (z:1) of Xu is equated with the instant molar ratio (z) of fluorinated solvent/lithium salt. Xu teaches the range of z between 0.5 and 5, therefore the upper and lower bounds of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt molar ratio (z) taught by Xu are 0.5/1 ≤ z ≤ 5/1, or 0.5 ≤ z ≤ 5.
The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent diluent/lithium salt taught by Zhu overlaps with the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 40, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, Xu teaches the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt molar ratio (y), 0.5 ≤ y ≤ 5. The range of the molar ratio (y) of the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt taught by Zhu overlaps with the molar ratio (y) of the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 41, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, Xu teaches the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt molar ratio (y), 0.5 ≤ y ≤ 5. The range of the molar ratio (y) of the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt taught by Zhu overlaps with the molar ratio (y) of the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 42, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, Xu teaches the diluent may be a fluorinated solvent (equated with instant fluorinated solvent) (Paragraph 0142). Therefore, the molar ratio of diluent/lithium salt (z:1) of Xu is equated with the instant molar ratio (z) of fluorinated solvent/lithium salt. Xu teaches the range of z between 0.5 and 5, therefore the upper and lower bounds of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt molar ratio (z) taught by Xu are 0.5/1 ≤ z ≤ 5/1, or 0.5 ≤ z ≤ 5. Xu teaches the relative amounts of the salt, solvent, diluent, and additive are selected to reduce the cost of materials for the electrolyte, reduce electrolyte viscosity, maintain stability of the electrolyte against oxidation, improve ionic conductivity and wetting ability of the electrolyte, and facilitate formation of an effective SEI layer (Paragraph 0149).
The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu overlaps with the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 43, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, Xu teaches the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt molar ratio (z), 0.5 ≤ z ≤ 5. The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu overlaps with the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 44, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, Xu teaches the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt molar ratio (z), 0.5 ≤ z ≤ 5. The range of the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu overlaps with the molar ratio (z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 45, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As described above, Xu teaches the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 5, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, and 0.5 ≤ z ≤ 5 (Paragraph 0005), where SL is a suitable sulfur-containing solvent and TTE is a suitable diluent.
x in the above ratio is representative of the ratio of solvent while z in the above ratio is representative of the ratio of diluent. Therefore, the molar ratio of cyclic sulfone to fluorinated solvent is represented by Xu’s x/z (equated with instant y/z).
Xu teaches the range of z between 0.5 and 5 and the range of x between 0.5 and 5, therefore the upper and lower bounds of SL/TTE (x/z) taught by Xu is 0.5/5 ≤ x/z ≤ 5/0.5, or 0.1 ≤ x/z ≤ 10.
The range of the molar ratio (x/z) of the fluorinated solvent/lithium salt taught by Zhu overlaps with the molar ratio (y/z) of SL/TTE of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the instant claimed limitation is met. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 46, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
Xu teaches exemplary cathodes such as LiNixMnyCozO2 (lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide), LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 (lithium nickel manganese oxide), LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide), LiCoO2 (lithium cobalt oxide), LiFePO4 (lithium iron phosphate), Li2-xFe1-yMnyP2O7 (lithium iron manganese phosphate), Li(MC1)x(MC2)1-xO2 (lithium iron cobalt phosphate, when MC1=Fe and MC2=Co), Li2S (lithium sulphide), sulfur (carbon/sulfur composite) (Paragraph 0162). As a portion of the aforementioned compounds suitable for the positive electrode of Xu contain aluminum, the positive electrode active material is considered to comprise aluminum, further meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 47, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 46, wherein said positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel- manganese-cobalt oxide (LiNixMnyCozO2) and lithium nickel-cobalt-aluminum oxide (LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2) (Paragraph 0162).
Regarding claim 48, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
Xu teaches the anode of the cell comprising anode material and an anode current collector (Paragraph 0156). Xu teaches the current collectors comprised of a metal such as nickel, copper, stainless steel, titanium (Paragraph 0159). Xu also teaches the anode may be a silicon-based anode (Paragraph 0159) and may also include graphite (Paragraph 0160). Xu teaches the anode may further include one or more binders or conductive additives such as lithium polyacrylate (meeting the instant claimed limitations of the negative electrode comprising lithium).
Therefore, Xu teaches the negative electrode comprising a material selected from the group consisting of lithium, nickel, silicon, titanium, stainless stain, copper, and graphite, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 49, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 48.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 48, Xu teaches the negative electrode comprises lithium or copper, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 50, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
As discussed above, Xu teaches the lithium-ion battery comprising the disclosed electrolyte composition having a specific coulombic efficiency equal to or greater than the comparable battery with the conventional electrolyte or super concentrated electrolyte. Xu teaches the battery may have a first cycle Coulombic efficiency of at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 75%, or at least 85%, and/or a third cycle CE of at least 90%, at least 95%, or at least 97%. In some embodiments, the lithium ion battery comprising the LHCE (or LSE) may have an average CE of at least 98% (Paragraph 0175). Further, Tables 11 of 12 of Xu illustrate that electrolytes comprising lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate obtain average coulombic efficiencies during cycling of the battery which are close to 100 percent.
Therefore, Xu teaches the battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition sharing the components of a lithium salt, fluorinated solvent, and fluorinated carbonate reach average coulombic efficiencies of at least 98%, which lies within the range of coulombic efficiency of the battery cell of the instant claim, meeting the instant limitations.
The limitation “measured by electro-plating 3.36 mAh/cm2 of lithium on a negative electrode and electro-stripping 0.43 mAh/cm2 of lithium from an amount of lithium electro-plated on said negative electrode and repeating the process at for 50 cycles, followed by a final electro-stripping step until the potential reaches +0.5 V” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed invention because Xu discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrolyte composition which meets the instant claimed limitations of identity and quantity of each component, as discussed above.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Shen as applied to claims 26-36, 39-50 above, and further in view of Ramprasand (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120100417 A1) and Ryu (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120107728).
Regarding claim 37, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
Xu is silent as to the fluorinated carbonate being comprised in an amount of 0.5 to 5 vol.%.
However, as discussed above, Shen teaches than a small amount of organic carbonate, such as fluoroethylene carbonate, can significantly improve the battery performance by improving the ionic mobility (Paragraph 0027-0028).
Additionally, it is recognized by Ryu that when selecting the components of non-aqueous solvents for a battery, the selection of solvents and the mixture ratio is controlled to result in the desired battery performance, and this process is widely understood to those skilled in the art (Paragraph 0051). Further, Ryu teaches examples of non-aqueous organic solvent which may suitably be fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (Paragraph 0050).
Further, Ramprasad teaches electrolyte fluids containing a mixture of one or more solvents, including fluorinated carbonate solvents such as methyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate (MTFEC) and proply-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate (PTFEC) (Paragraph 0073), which appear on the list of suitable fluorinated carbonates of the instant application. Ramprasad teaches that when a mixture of solvents are used, each solvent “may be present in an amount ranging from 0 wt% to about 99 wt% based on the total weight of solvents”, with the wt% of all solvents together equaling 100 wt% (Paragraph 0074).
Therefore, the ordinary artisan would recognize the quantity (volume percent) of fluorinated carbonate as a highly tunable variable in the composition of the electrolyte for a battery. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fluorinated carbonate in the electrolyte of Xu between 0.5 to 5 vol%, depending on how many solvents are added and the relative amounts of each solvent. The teachings of Shen, Ryu and Ramprasad recognize that the mixture of solvents, including fluorinated carbonates, may be controlled to achieve the aforementioned benefit of desirable battery performance.
Regarding claim 38, Xu teaches the electrochemical cell according to claim 26.
Xu is silent as to the fluorinated carbonate is comprised in an amount of 1.0 to 2.0 vol.%.
However, as discussed above, Shen teaches than a small amount of organic carbonate, such as fluoroethylene carbonate, can significantly improve the battery performance by improving the ionic mobility (Paragraph 0027-0028).
Additionally, it is recognized by Ryu that when selecting the components of non-aqueous solvents for a battery, the selection of solvents and the mixture ratio is controlled to result in the desired battery performance, and this process is widely understood to those skilled in the art (Paragraph 0051). Further, Ryu teaches examples of non-aqueous organic solvent which may suitably be fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (Paragraph 0050).
Further, Ramprasad teaches electrolyte fluids containing a mixture of one or more solvents, including fluorinated carbonate solvents such as methyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate (MTFEC) and proply-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate (PTFEC) (Paragraph 0073), which appear on the list of suitable fluorinated carbonates of the instant application. Ramprasad teaches that when a mixture of solvents are used, each solvent “may be present in an amount ranging from 0 wt% ro about 99 wt% based on the total weight of solvents”, with the wt% of all solvents together equaling 100 wt% (Paragraph 0074).
Therefore, the ordinary artisan would recognize the quantity (volume percent) of fluorinated carbonate as a highly tunable variable in the composition of the electrolyte for a battery. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fluorinated carbonate in the electrolyte of Xu between 1.0 to 2.0 vol%, depending on how many solvents are added and the relative amounts of each solvent. The teachings of Shen, Ryu and Ramprasad recognize that the mixture of solvents, including fluorinated carbonates, may be controlled to achieve the aforementioned benefit of desirable battery performance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 26, 31-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11322779 (hereafter “Mai”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 26 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claims 1 of Mai. Mai claims an electrochemical cell comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a liquid electrolyte comprising:
lithium bis(trifluoromethansolfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) (lithium salt of the instant application)
1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) (fluorinated solvent of instant application)
sulfolane (SL) (cyclic sulfone of the instant application)
fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (fluorinated carbonate of the instant application) in an amount (x) of 1 < x ≤ 5 vol.% (overlaps with 1 < x ≤ 15 vol.% of the instant application)
Mai claims the coulombic efficiency of the electrochemical cell is at least 93%.
Claim 31 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 2 of Mai. Mai claims the coulombic efficiency is at least 95%.
Claim 32 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Mai. Mai claims the coulombic efficiency is at least 97%.
Claim 33 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 4 of Mai. Mai claims the coulombic efficiency is at least 98%.
Claim 34 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Mai. Mai claims a liquid electrolyte comprising:
lithium bis(trifluoromethansolfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) (LiN(SO2CF3)2 of the instant application)
1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE)
sulfolane (SL)
fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one of the instant application) in an amount (x) of 1 < x ≤ 5 vol.% (overlaps with 1 < x ≤ 15 vol.% of the instant application)
Mai claims the molar ratio of SL/LiTFSI (y) of 1.0 ≤ y ≤ 5.0 and the molar ratio of TTE/LiTFSI (z) of 1.0 ≤ z ≤ 5.0 (corresponding to z of the instant application).
Claim 35 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Mai. Mai claims the molar ratio of SL/LiTFSI (corresponding to instant molar ratio of cyclic sulfone/lithium salt)(y) of 1.0 ≤ y ≤ 5.0 (corresponding to y of the instant application).
Claim 36 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 6 of Mai. Mai claims FEC (fluorinated carbonate of the instant application) is comprised in an amount (x) of 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 10 vol
Claim 37 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 7 of Mai. Mai claims FEC (fluorinated carbonate of the instant application) is comprised in an amount of 0.5 to 5 vol.%.
Claim 38 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Mai. Mai claims FEC (fluorinated carbonate of the instant application) is comprised in an amount of 1.0 to 2.0 vol.%.
Claim 39 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 9 of Mai. Mai claims the molar ratio of TTE/LiTFSI (corresponding to instant molar ratio of fluorinated solvent/lithium salt) (z) of 1.0 ≤ z ≤ 5.0.
Claim 40 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Mai. Mai claims the molar ratio of SL/LiTFSI (corresponding to instant molar ratio of cyclic sulfone/lithium salt)(y) of 1.0 ≤ y ≤ 3.0.
Claim 41 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 11 of Mai. Mai claims the molar ratio of SL/LiTFSI (corresponding to instant molar ratio of cyclic sulfone/lithium salt)(y) of 1.5 ≤ y ≤ 2.
Claim 42 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Mai. Mai claims the molar ratio of TTE/LiTFSI (corresponding to instant molar ratio of fluorinated solvent/lithium salt) (z) of 1.0 < z < 5.0.
Claim 43 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Mai. Mai claims the molar ratio of TTE/LiTFSI (corresponding to instant molar ratio of fluorinated solvent/lithium salt) (z) of 2.0 ≤ z ≤ 3.5.
Claim 44 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 14 of Mai. Mai claims the molar ratio of TTE/LiTFSI (corresponding to instant molar ratio of fluorinated solvent/lithium salt) (z) of 2.5 ≤ z ≤ 3.0.
Claim 45 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Mai. Mai claims the molar ratio of SL/TTE (corresponding to cyclic sulfone/fluorinated solvent of the instant application) (y/z) is 2.0 ≤ y/z ≤ 3.0.
Claim 46 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 16 of Mai. Mai claims the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel- manganese-cobalt oxide, lithium nickel-manganese oxide, lithium nickel-cobalt-aluminium oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium iron phosphate, lithium iron manganese phosphate, lithium iron cobalt phosphate, lithium sulphide, sulphur, and aluminium.
Claim 47 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 17 of Mai. Mai claims the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material selected from the group consisting of lithium nickel- manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel-cobalt-aluminium oxide.
Claim 48 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 18 of Mai. Mai claims the negative electrode comprises a material selected from the group consisting of lithium, nickel, silicon, titanium, silver, bismuth, stainless steel, copper, and alloys thereof, and graphite.
Claim 49 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Mai. Mai claims the negative electrode comprises lithium or copper.
Claim 50 of the instant applicant is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 20 of Mai. Mai claims the coulombic efficiency is measured by electro-plating 3.36 mAh/cm2 of lithium on a negative electrode and electro-stripping 0.43 mAh/cm2 of lithium from an amount of lithium electro-plated on said negative electrode and repeating the process at for 50 cycles, followed by a final electro-stripping step until the potential reaches +0.5 V.
Claims 26-45, 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-29, 31-36, 28, 40 of copending Application No. 18/249,606 (hereafter, “Bund”).
Claim 26 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claims 21, 37, and 38 of Bund. Bund claims an electrolyte composition suitable for lithium secondary batteries comprising:
a lithium salt selected from the group consisting of LiClO4, LiN(SO2F)2, LiN(SO2CF3)2, LiN(S02C2F5)2, LiNSO2FSO2CF3, LiN(SO2)2(CF3)3 and a combination thereof
a fluorinated solvent selected from the group consisting of 1,1,2,2- tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether, bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether, trifluoroethylhexafluoropropyl ether, tris(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl)orthoformate, methoxynonafluorobutane, ethoxynonafluorobutane, tris(2,2,2- trifluoroethyl)orthoformate, tris(hexafluoroisopropyl)orthoformate, tris(2,2- difluoroethyl)orthoformate, bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) methyl orthoformate, tris(2,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropyl)orthoformate, tris(2,2,3,3- tetrafluoropropyl)orthoformate and a combination thereof
a cyclic sulfone selected from the group consisting of sulfolane, methylsulfolanes, 3,4-dimethylsulfolane, 2,4-dimethylsulfolane, trimethylene sulfone, 1-methyl trimethylene sulfone, pentamethylene sulfone, hexamethylene sulfone, ethylene sulfone and a combination thereof
a fluorinated carbonate selected from the group consisting of 4-fluoro-1,3- dioxolan-2-one (fluoroethylene carbonate or FEC), cis or trans 4,5-difluoro-1 3-dioxolan-2-one, 4,4-difluoro-1, 3-di-oxolan-2-one, 4-fluoro-5-methyl-1 3-dioxolan-2-one, methyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate, ethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate, propyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate, methyl- 2,2,2,2',2',2'-hexafluoro-i-propyl carbonate, ethyl-2,2,2,2',2',2'-hexafluoro-i- propyl carbonate, di-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl carbonate and a combination thereof
wherein the fluorinated carbonate is in an amount (x) of 0 < x 15 vol.%.
Bund claims in claim 37, a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrolyte composition according to claim 21. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lithium secondary battery also comprises an anode and a cathode, in addition to the aforementioned electrolyte. Therefore, Bund claims an electrochemical cell (lithium secondary battery) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrolyte, and a liquid electrolyte whose components are described above.
Bund claims in claim 38 that the coulombic efficiency of the battery cell (electrochemical cell) comprising the electrolyte composition is at least 93%.
Claim 27 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 22 of Bund. Bund claims LiN(SO2C2F5)2, LiN(SO2CF3)2 LiN(SO2F)2 or LiN(SO2)2(CF3)3.
Claim 28 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 23 of Bund. Bund claims the fluorinated solvent is selected from the group consisting of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether, bis(2,2,2- trifluoroethyl) ether, 1,1 ,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether and trifluoroethylhexafluoropropyl ether.
Claim 29 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 24 of Bund. Bund claims the cyclic sulfone is sulfolane (SL), 3-methylsulfolane, 3 ,4-dimethylsulfolane or 2,4-dimethylsulfolane.
Claim 30 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 25 of Bund. Bund claims the fluorinated carbonate is 4- fluoro- 1,3-dioxolan-2-one (FEC) or 4-fluoro-5-methyl- 1, 3-dioxolan-2-one.
Claim 31 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 39 of Bund. Bund claims a coulombic efficiency is at least 95%.
Claim 32 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 40 of Bund. Bund claims the coulombic efficiency is at least 98%, which corresponds which the efficiency of the instant claim and therefore meets the instant limitations.
Claim 33 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 40 of Bund. Bund claims a coulombic efficiency is at least 98%.
Claim 34 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 26 of Bund. Bund claims the electrolyte composition wherein:
the lithium salt is LiN(SO2CF3)2
the fluorinated solvent is 1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether
the cyclic sulfone is sulfolane
the fluorinate carbonate is 4-fluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one in an amount (x) of 0 ≤ x ≤ 15 vol.%
Mai claims the molar ratio of SL/LiTFSI (y) of 1.0 ≤ y ≤ 5.0 and the molar ratio of TTE/LiTFSI (z) of 1.0 ≤ z ≤ 5.0 (corresponding to z of the instant application).
Claim 35 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 21 of Bund. Bund claims the cyclic sulfone/lithium salt is comprised in a molar ratio (y) of 1.0 ≤ y ≤ 5.0.
Claim 36 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 27 of Bund. Bund claims the fluorinated carbonate is comprised in an amount (x) of 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 10 vol.%.
Claim 37 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 28 of Bund. Bund claims the fluorinated carbonate is comprised in an amount (x) of 0.5 to 10 vol.%.
Claim 38 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 29 of Bund. Bund claims the fluorinated carbonate is comprised in an amount (x) of 1.0 to 2.0 vol.%.
Claim 39 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 21 of Bund. Bund claims the molar ratio fluorinated solvent/lithium salt (z) 1.0 ≤ z ≤ 5.0.
Claim 30 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 35 of Bund. Bund claims the molar ratio cyclic sulfone/lithium salt (y) of 1.0 ≤ y ≤ 5.0.
Claim 40 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 31 of Bund. Bund claims the molar ratio cyclic sulfone/lithium salt (y) of 1.0 ≤ y ≤ 3.0.
Claim 41 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 32 of Bund. Bund claims the molar ratio cyclic sulfone/lithium salt (y) of 1.5 ≤ y ≤ 2.5.
Claim 42 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 33 of Bund. Bund claims the molar ratio fluorinated solvent/lithium salt (z) of 1.0 < z < 5.0.
Claim 43 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 34 of Bund. Bund claims the molar ratio fluorinated solvent/lithium salt (z) of 2.0 ≤ z ≤ 3.5.
Claim 44 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 35 of Bund. Bund claims the molar ratio fluorinated solvent/lithium salt (z) of 2.5 ≤ z ≤ 3.0.
Claim 45 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claim 36 of Bund. Bund claims a molar ratio cyclic sulfone/fluorinated solvent (y/z) is 2.0 ≤ y/z ≤ 3.0
Claim 50 of the instant application is rejected as being unpatentable over claims 38 of Bund. Bund claims the coulombic efficiency is measured by electro-plating 3.36 mAh/cm2 of lithium on a negative electrode and electro-stripping 0.43 mAh/cm2 of lithium from an amount of lithium electro-plated on said negative electrode and repeating the process at for 50 cycles, followed by a final electro-stripping step until the potential reaches +0.5 V.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789