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 .
Response to Amendment
Currently, the pending Claims are 1-13, 18-20.
The examined Claims are 1-13, 18-20, with Claims 1-2, 4-13, 18-19 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Per the aforementioned amendments to the Claims, all previous objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn (it is noted, however, that new rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are described below).
Furthermore, Applicant presents arguments versus the prior art rejections of record (Pages 13-18 of Remarks).
In particular, Applicant argues that Doherty’s focus is on a method of creating a slurry as opposed to a method for preparing an electrolyte filled electrode battery and shaping it into a formable paste as allegedly recited in Claim 1 (Page 15 of Remarks). Furthermore, Applicant argues that neither Zhamu, nor Choi, nor Cheng, nor Mikhaylik, nor Zhamu2 cure the deficiencies of Doherty or Doherty, as modified by Zhamu (Pages 15-18 of Remarks).
Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Claim 1, among other limitations, recites a method for preparing an electrolyte-filled electrode for a battery as instantly claimed. Claim 1 explicitly states that the method comprises steps of (i) “preparing a mixture comprising the electrolyte of the electrolyte-filled electrode by mixing a metal salt with a solvent,” (ii) “mixing the mixture with an active material to obtain a paste,” and (iii) “forming the electrode with a predetermined thickness.”
In the disclosed method, Doherty teaches preparing a mixture comprising the electrolyte composition by mixing LiPF6 with a solvent (i.e. ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, in combination) (i.e. “preparing a mixture comprising the electrolyte of the electrolyte-filled electrode 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 (i.e. “mixing the mixture with an active material to obtain a paste” and “forming the electrode with a predetermined thickness”) (See Example 1, [0119] of Doherty).
Given especially because Doherty explicitly forms a semi-solid slurry (i.e. a “paste”) which is formed with a specifically defined thickness (i.e. a “predetermined thickness”), Doherty is interpreted to, in fact, disclose the instantly claimed method steps (i.e. steps “i” and “ii” and “iii”).
Nevertheless, new grounds of rejection are presented below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
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 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 (as well as Claims 18-19) recites the limitation "the dry electrode material." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-9, 11-12, 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 (“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 comprising the electrolyte of the electrolyte-filled electrode 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 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 4, 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 aprotic organic solvent is one of the instantly claimed materials.
However, Zhamu further teaches that the process includes the use of a liquid electrolyte, wherein the liquid electrolyte comprises an aprotic organic solvent which is an ionic liquid ([0043], [0142]-[0143]). In particular, Zhamu teaches that the ionic liquid comprises an alkylimidazolium cation (i.e. 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium) and a TFSI anion, given not only because such an ionic liquid is typical and well-known, but also because such an ionic liquid is a safer battery material because it exhibits low volatility and non-flammability ([0142]-[0143]).
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, an ionic liquid comprising an alkylimidazolium cation (i.e. 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium) and a TFSI anion, as taught by Zhamu, given not only because such an ionic liquid is typical and well-known, but also because such an ionic liquid is a safer battery material because it exhibits low volatility and non-flammability.
Regarding Claim 5, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 4), the the ionic liquid comprises an alkylimidazolium cation (i.e. 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium) and a TFSI anion.
Regarding Claim 6, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the binder is a polymer binder (“polymer”).
Regarding Claim 7, 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 cathode active material comprises lithium mixed metal oxide or nickel manganese cobalt.
However, Doherty teaches that lithium mixed metal oxides and lithium-NMC oxides are ordered rocksalt based compounds useable as cathode active materials ([0047]). Doherty teaches that said materials are alternatives to olivine based compounds such as lithium iron phosphate ([0047]).
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 a lithium mixed metal oxide or a lithium-NMC oxide, as taught by Doherty, as the cathode active material (i.e. instead of lithium iron phosphate) in Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, given that such active materials are ordered rocksalt based compounds useable as cathode active materials which function as alternatives to olivine based compounds such as 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 (“lithium metal”) ([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 (“carbon based material”) 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 20, Doherty, as modified by Zhamu, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 2, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the solvent is ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate, in combination (“aprotic organic solvent”).
Claim 4 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 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.
Claim 10 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 Cheng et al. (US 2019/0305317).
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 (i.e. at least 0.17), 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 (i.e. at least 0.17), 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 (i.e. at least 0.17), 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights