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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested that “two electrodes (an anode, a cathode) physically” be written in a clearer manner such as “two electrodes, comprising an anode and a cathode, physically” or “an anode and a cathode physically.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Parentheses appear to be missing around the term “PPy/CMC.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested that a “,” or a “;” be placed after the phrases “Prussian white analogs,” and “NASICON compounds,” and sulfide/selenide.” Appropriate correction is required.
It is suggested that “A:” and “M:” and “X:” in section c part vii be written in the manner “A =” and “M =” and “X =” as in section e part ii. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “and carbon (including…” is missing a “)” at the end of the phrase. Appropriate correction is required.
The extra “.” should be deleted at the end of section a part ix and replaced with an appropriate punctuation mark. Appropriate correction is required.
The extra “.” should be deleted at the end of section b part ii and replaced with an appropriate punctuation mark. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “CUP2 – C” should be written as “CuP2-C.” Appropriate correction is required.
It is suggested that a “,” or a “;” be placed after the phrase “shell-yellow doped with nitrogen.” Appropriate correction is required.
It is suggested that a “,” or a “;” be placed after the phrase “Na metal.” Appropriate correction is required.
The extra “.” should be deleted at the end of section c and replaced with an appropriate punctuation mark. Appropriate correction is required.
It is suggested that a “,” or a “;” be placed after the phrase “zinc metal, zinc alloys.” Appropriate correction is required.
It is suggested that a “,” or a “;” be placed after the phrase “graphite and carbonaceous materials.” 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 1-20 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.
The term “high charge” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high charge” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what level(s) of charge per unit mass is/are considered “high charge” per unit mass.
The term “high energy-density” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high energy-density” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what level(s) of energy density render a battery as a “high energy-density” battery.
Claim 1 recites “two electrodes (an anode, a cathode) physically and electrically contacting the two current collectors.” Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if said phrase means that each of the two electrodes physically and electrically contacts each of the two current collectors, or if said phrase means (as generally indicated in Applicant’s Specification) that each of the two electrodes physically and electrically contacts a respective one of the two current collectors. For purposes of examination, either of said interpretations will be considered as meeting the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second current collector. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the steps.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrolyte” (instead of the previously recited “electrolyte composition”). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "step a) or b).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4-5 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 4 recites “salt concentrated in aqueous systems in solution.” Claim 4 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as the specific meaning/structure of such a solvent is unclear given, at least, the absence of type(s) of salt, what constitutes an aqueous “system,” and what constitutes aqueous systems “in solution.”
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites an explicit example of the cation (i.e. alkylimidazolium), but also other examples “based on” explicit types of cations. Claim 5 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear (1) how differentiated a given cation can be from a given explicit cation such that the given cation can be considered “based on” the given explicit cation, and (2) if “based on” requires that a given cation be specifically formed from, or formed out of, a given explicit cation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “styrene butadiene latex copolymer (SBR).” Claim 6 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what latex copolymer is contemplated especially when the initialism “SBR” typically refers to styrene butadiene rubber.
Claim 6 recites “pullulan and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC).” Claim 6 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if said phrase means that the binder is in fact the combination of said two materials, or if the binder may be only one of said materials.
Claim 6 recites “as well as among polymers and their derivatives and/or composites.” Claim 6 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as the clarity of said phrase renders its meaning unclear given that (1) all materials listed appear to already be polymers, (2) it is unclear what constitutes a “derivative” of one of the given polymers, (3) it is unclear how differentiated a given polymer must be such that it can be considered a “derivative” of a given explicit polymer, and (4) it is unclear if “derivative” requires that a given polymer be specifically formed from, or formed out of, a given explicit polymer.
In each of the plurality of locations in Claim 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites “a conducting/carboxyl polymer.” Claim 6 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if such a polymer is required to be both conducting and carboxyl, or if such a polymer may only be one of said characteristics.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the material for the cathode.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In all instances in Claim 7, the lack of a definition/range for given subscript variables (e.g. x, y, z in LiNixMnyCozO2 or x in MxV2O5) renders the Claim particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what explicit material(s) are being recited.
Claim 7 recites “layered NaMOX.” Claim 7 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what the explicit structure of said material is given the lack of a definition for “M” and “X.”
Claim 7 recites “cathodes without critical metal.” Claim 7 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what the explicit structure of such cathodes are given the lack of a definition and/or explanation of what constitutes a “critical metal.”
Claim 7 recites “Prussian white analogs” in a plurality of locations. Claim 7 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as (1) it is unclear what constitutes an “analog” of Prussian white in the claimed context, and (2) how differentiated from Prussian white a given material can be such that it can be interpreted as an “analog” of Prussian white.
In each of the plurality of locations in Claim 7, the phrase "etc." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what specific materials are being recited/claimed.
Claim 7 recites “polyanionic materials analogous to Prussian blue.” Claim 7 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as (1) it is unclear what constitutes being “analogous” to Prussian blue in the claimed context, and (2) how differentiated from Prussian blue a given material can be such that it can be interpreted as an “analogous” of Prussian blue.
Claim 7 recites “AxMM0 (XO4)3” Claim 7 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what the explicit structure of said material is given that “M” is listed twice, and the boundaries of “A” and “M” and “X” are not explicitly clear.
In each of the plurality of locations in Claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites “d. for Mg-ion battery.” Claim 7 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as section c (“for Zn-ion and Mg-ion batteries”) already lists the applicable materials for Mg-ion batteries and it is unclear how sections c and d differ from one another.
Claim 7 is replete with phrases of the form “for” a Li-ion battery, or “for” Na-ion and K-ion batteries. Claim 7 is rendered particularly unclear insofar as the Claim is not drawn to an explicit type of battery, the Claim does not explicitly require the presence of a given battery, and it is unclear if a given material (e.g. fluorophosphates) can only be used specifically in context of the recited battery type (e.g. Na-ion and K-ion).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the material for the anode.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In each of the plurality of locations in Claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites in section a part ii that “Si” is one of the applicable metals. Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar “Si” is also listed in section a part iv, and it is unclear how said two materials are different from one another.
Claim 8 recites “and carbon (including soft carbon, hard carbon, carbon nanofibers and carbon nanotubes.” Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear, based on the term “including,” if the explicit types of carbon listed are the only applicable forms of carbon in the given context.
Claim 8 recites “with other elements.” Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is explicitly unclear what specific elements are contemplated since “other” is not defined in the instant context.
Claim 8 recites “oxides” of certain elements in section a part vi. Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as “oxides” (MeOx) of the metals (Me) is also listed in section a part vii, and it is unclear how elements which appear in each of said parts (e.g. Si, Sn are listed twice) are different from one another.
Claim 8 recites “composites of metals (Me) with carbon.” Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as “Me” is already recited in part a section I and it is unclear if the “metals (Me) with carbon” are the “Me” metals previously listed.
Claim 8 recites “MOF-based materials.” Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what “MOF” means given the lack of a definition and/or explanation thereof.
Claim 8 recites “meso-powerful soft carbon.” It is unclear what “meso-powerful” means in the instant context, especially as it compares to the more common “meso-porous soft carbon.”
Claim 8 recites the terms “CNT” and “CNTs.” Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as a definition for “CNT” is not provided. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that said phrase means “carbon nanotube(s).”
Claim 8 recites the term “RGO.” Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as a definition for “RGO” is not provided. For purposes of examination, it will be assumed that said phrase means “reduced graphene oxide.”
The term “ultrasmall” in Claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultrasmall” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how small nitrogen must be to be considered “ultrasmall” nitrogen.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the multishell Sn4P3 nanostructures.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “CoSe/C structured in shell-yellow doped with nitrogen.” Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what is meant by the given material being structured in “shell-yellow.”
Claim 8 recites “hard carbon/carbon black.” Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if said phrase means the both of said forms of carbon are present, or only one of said forms may be present.
Claim 8 recites “d. for Zn-ion batteries.” Claim 8 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as section c (“for Mg-ion and Zn-ion batteries”) already lists the applicable materials for Zn-ion batteries and it is unclear how sections c and d differ from one another.
Claim 8 is replete with phrases of the form “for” a Li-ion battery, or “for” Na-ion and K-ion batteries. Claim 8 is rendered particularly unclear insofar as the Claim is not drawn to an explicit type of battery, the Claim does not explicitly require the presence of a given battery, and it is unclear if a given material (e.g. graphite) can only be used specifically in context of the recited battery type (e.g. Li-ion battery).
Claims 9, 11 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 9 recites the limitation "step b).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “polyphenylene derivative.” Claim 11 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as the clarity of said phrase renders its meaning unclear given that (1) it is unclear what constitutes a “derivative” of polyphenylene in the given context, (2) it is unclear how differentiated a given polymer must be such that it can be considered a “derivative” of a given explicit polymer, and (4) it is unclear if “derivative” requires that a given polymer be specifically formed from, or formed out of, a given explicit polymer.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "step c).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13, 18-19 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 13 recites that a percentage by mass of electrolyte: active material is “in the range” [15: 85]. Claim 13 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as a range implies a lower and/or upper bound, whereas [15:85] is a single ratio (i.e. a single value). For purposed of examination, it will be assumed that the instantly claimed percentage is a range, and [15: 85] is merely a possible value, but not an explicitly required value.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high charge” in Claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high charge” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 15 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what level(s) of charge per unit mass is/are considered “high charge” per unit mass.
The term “high energy-density” in Claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high energy-density” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 15 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what level(s) of energy density render a battery as a “high energy-density” battery.
Claims 16-17 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.
The term “high energy-density” in Claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high energy-density” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 16 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear what level(s) of energy density render a battery as a “high energy-density” battery.
Claim 16 recites “connected to the electrodes (i.e. cathode, anode).” Claim 16 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear if “i.e. cathode, anode” is or is not referring to the “two electrodes (an anode, a cathode)” recited in Claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the cathode electrolyte.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the canode electrolyte.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-19 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 18 recites that the percentage by mass of electrolyte: active material is “in the range” [30: 75]. Claim 18 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as a range implies a lower and/or upper bound, whereas [30:75] is a single ratio (i.e. a single value). For purposed of examination, it will be assumed that the instantly claimed percentage is a range, and [30: 75] is merely a possible value, but not an explicitly required value.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites that the percentage by mass of electrolyte: active material is “in the range” [40: 60]. Claim 19 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as a range implies a lower and/or upper bound, whereas [40:60] is a single ratio (i.e. a single value). For purposed of examination, it will be assumed that the instantly claimed percentage is a range, and [40: 60] is merely a possible value, but not an explicitly required value.
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.
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 1-3, 7-9, 11-12, 14-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty et al. (US 2013/0337319), and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2019/0067732).
Regarding Claim 1, Doherty teaches a method for preparing an electrolyte-filled cathode (“electrolyte-filled high charge per unit mass electrode”) for a swagelok lithium-ion battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition therein (“high energy-density battery comprising two current collectors separated by an electrolyte composition, a separator”), wherein said cathode and an anode physically and electrically contact a respective current collector (i.e. the positive or negative current collector of the battery cell) (Abstract, Example 1, [0119]). Doherty teaches that the method comprises preparing a mixture comprising the electrolyte composition by mixing LiPF6 with a solvent (i.e. ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, in combination) (“preparing a mixture A comprising the electrolyte by mixing a metal salt with a solvent”), and further mixing said mixture with lithium iron phosphate to obtain a semi-solid slurry formed into the cathode with a thickness of 250 µm (“mixing the mixture A with an active material to obtain a paste” and “forming the electrode with a predetermined thickness”) (Example 1, [0119]).
Doherty does not explicitly teach that a binder is added during the preparing of the mixture or the further mixing of the mixture.
However, Zhamu teaches a process for producing a wet cathode active material mixture onto a surface of a cathode current collector (Abstract, [0086]-[0087]). Zhamu teaches that a polymer binder may be incorporated into the wet cathode active material mixture during the process ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would add a polymer binder (“binder”), as taught by Zhamu, during the preparing of the mixture of the further mixing of the mixture of Doherty, given that the provision of a binder would, to a desired degree, help hold the components of the cathode together thereby enhancing overall stability characteristics.
Regarding Claim 2, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the cathode comprises the metal salt LiPF6.
Regarding Claim 3, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the solvent is ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, in combination (“aprotic organic solvent”).
Regarding Claim 7, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the cathode active material is lithium iron phosphate (“lithium iron phosphate”).
Regarding Claim 8, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the battery comprises an anode. Doherty teaches that the anode active material is Li metal (“metals (Me) such as… Li”) ([0119]).
Regarding Claim 9, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Doherty teaches that carbon black (“conducting material”) is added before the further mixing of the mixture ([0119]).
Regarding Claim 11, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 9), carbon black is added before the further mixing of the mixture.
Regarding Claim 12, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), Doherty teaches that the method comprising forming the slurry into the cathode. Doherty teaches that formation into the cathode includes calendar rolling (“a paste rolling technique”) ([0058]).
Regarding Claim 14, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Doherty teaches that the method is implemented, at least, using a batchmixer with a roller blade fitting in combination with a mechanism used to form the slurry into the cathode ([0058], [0119]) (components, in combination, which constitute an “apparatus for implementing the method according to claim 1”).
Regarding Claim 15, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the method forms the cathode (“electrolyte-filled high charge per unit mass electrode”) which is used in the swagelok lithium-ion battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition therein (“high energy-density battery”).
Regarding Claim 16, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the method forms the cathode (“at least one electrolyte-filled electrode”) which is used in the swagelok lithium-ion battery cell comprising an electrolyte composition, a separator, a positive current collector, and a negative current collector (“high energy-density battery”). As previously described (See Claim 1), the battery includes said cathode formed via the method, and a Li metal anode (i.e. “ii” under “a when the battery comprises two electrodes, the current collectors are respectively connected to the electrodes (i.e. cathode, anode), and the electrodes consist of”).
Regarding Claim 20, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 20, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the solvent is ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, in combination (“aprotic organic solvent”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty et al. (US 2013/0337319), and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2019/0067732) and Choi et al. (US 2015/0318575).
Regarding Claim 4, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 3, as previously described.
Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, does not explicitly teach that the aprotic organic solvent is one of the instantly claimed materials.
However, it is first noted that, as previously described (See Claim 1), the aprotic organic solvent is ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, in combination. Accordingly, said aprotic organic solvent is a carbonate-based solvent.
Furthermore, Choi teaches an electrolyte for lithium secondary batteries (Abstract). Choi teaches that carbonate solvents may exhibit problems such as low ionic conductivity due to high viscosity ([0013]). Choi teaches that glyme based solvents improve migration of lithium ions and dissociation degrees of lithium salts, as well as exhibit superior room- and low-temperature output characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the aprotic organic solvent of Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, glyme (“glyme”), as taught by Choi, given that glyme based solvents improve migration of lithium ions and dissociation degrees of lithium salts, as well as exhibit superior room- and low-temperature output characteristics.
Regarding Claim 5, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu and Choi, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
Claim 5 puts further limitations on the ionic liquid referenced in Claim 4. However, neither Claim 4 nor Claim 5 requires the explicit presence of the ionic liquid, or otherwise requires that the aprotic organic solvent is the ionic liquid.
Therefore, by virtue of meeting the required limitations of Claim 4, as previously described, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu and Choi is considered to meet the required limitations of Claim 5.
Claims 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty et al. (US 2013/0337319), and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2019/0067732) and Cheng et al. (US 2019/0305317).
Regarding Claim 6, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, does not explicitly teach that the binder is one of the instantly claimed materials.
However, Cheng teaches a lithium ion battery (Abstract). Cheng teaches that the battery comprises a cathode, wherein the cathode comprises a binder therein ([0052]). Cheng teaches that the binder is preferably PVDF given its material versatility and low cost ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use, as the polymer binder of Doherty, as modified by Cheng, PVDF (“polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)”), as taught by Cheng, given that the material versatility and low cost of PVDF, as taught by Cheng.
Regarding Claim 10, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, does not explicitly teach that the electrolyte composition comprises an additive.
However, Cheng teaches a lithium ion battery (Abstract). Cheng teaches that the battery comprises an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte comprises LiPO2F2 as an additive therein ([0058]). Cheng teaches that said additive provides for better rate capability and forms a highly conductive film on cathode active materials for enhanced charge/discharge capabilities ([0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would include LiPO2F2 (“additive”), as taught by Cheng, as an additive in the electrolyte of Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, given that said additive would help provide for better rate capability and help form a highly conductive film on the cathode active materials for enhanced charge/discharge capabilities.
Claims 13, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty et al. (US 2013/0337319), and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2019/0067732) and Mikhaylik et al. (US 2011/0006738).
Regarding Claim 13, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed mass percentage ratio of electrolyte to cathode active material.
However, Mikhaylik teaches an electrochemical cell (Abstract). Mikhaylik teaches that the cell comprises a cathode active material and an electrolyte, wherein the ratio of cathode active material to electrolyte by mass percentage is a range of possible values (i.e. at least 0.17) in order to allow for the production of electrochemical cells exhibiting, in whole or in part, decreased thickness characteristics ([0037]-[0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would provide the electrolyte and cathode active material by mass percentage of Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, in a range of possible values, as taught by Mikhaylik, given that such variation would allow for the production of a battery exhibiting, in whole or in part, decreased thickness characteristics.
Regarding Claim 18, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 13, as previously described.
Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed mass percentage ratio of electrolyte to cathode active material.
However, Mikhaylik teaches electrochemical cells (Abstract). Mikhaylik teaches that the cell comprises a cathode active material and an electrolyte, wherein the ratio of cathode active material to electrolyte by mass percentage is a range of possible values (i.e. at least 0.17) in order to allow for the production of electrochemical cells exhibiting, in whole or in part, decreased thickness characteristics ([0037]-[0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would provide the electrolyte and cathode active material by mass percentage of Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, in a range of possible values, as taught by Mikhaylik, given that such variation would allow for the production of a battery exhibiting, in whole or in part, decreased thickness characteristics.
Regarding Claim 19, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 18, as previously described.
Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, does not explicitly teach the instantly claimed mass percentage ratio of electrolyte to cathode active material.
Mikhaylik teaches that the cell comprises a cathode active material and an electrolyte, wherein the ratio of cathode active material to electrolyte by mass percentage is a range of possible values (i.e. at least 0.17) in order to allow for the production of electrochemical cells exhibiting, in whole or in part, decreased thickness characteristics ([0037]-[0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would provide the electrolyte and cathode active material by mass percentage of Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, in a range of possible values, as taught by Mikhaylik, given that such variation would allow for the production of a battery exhibiting, in whole or in part, decreased thickness characteristics.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty et al. (US 2013/0337319), and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2019/0067732) and Zhamu et al. (US 2017/0098856, hereinafter referred to as “Zhamu2”).
Regarding Claim 17, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 16, as previously described.
Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, does not explicitly teach a cathode electrolyte different from an anode electrolyte.
However, Zhamu2 teaches a lithium battery (Abstract). Zhamu2 teaches that as opposed to being identical, the anode and the cathode of the battery can utilize electrolytes which are compositionally different with respect to one another ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would use cathode and anode electrolytes which are compositionally different from one another, as taught by Zhamu2, in the battery of Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, based on a desired and/or required particular chemistry for use in the cathode, and based on a desired and/or required particularly chemistry for use in the anode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728