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 .
The amendment filed 6/27/23 has been considered and entered. Claims 11-16 have been added. Claims 1-16 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
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 1,3 and 14 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 claims 1 and 3, the term “Gr” is unclear as to what this is? Should this be Cr? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 14, the term ‘LiTSI” is unclear as to what this is? Clarification is requested. In addition, it is recited twice.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishie et al. (2015/0280282).
Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches a lithium-ion battery including a positive and negative electrode with an electrolyte therebetween whereby the positive electrode material includes a lithium metal oxide including nickel and the electrolyte includes a cyclic sulfate compound (abstract). Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) tecahes forming a protective film on the surface of the positive active material [0020].
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches a positive electrode including nickel containing lithium transition metal oxide an contains cobalt and manganese [0006]-[0010]. Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches the cyclic sulfate to be represented by the general formulas [0006]-[0019].
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the ratio of molar content of metal (A) and transition metal (M) would meet the claimed F=B/C as F=19 based upon structural formula 1 and 3.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches the additional metal M to include Al, Ti, Mg, Cr, Zn, W, Zr, Nb etc. and the amount would meet the claim of 1-10% [0026]-[0028].
Regarding claim 5, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches the metal M and this would be envisioned as being an oxide as it is coating on the positive electrode which is an oxide as well.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches the cyclic sulfate t be included in an amount of 1% and thus would meet the claimed C of 0.01-0.2 as 1% would be 0.01.
Regarding claim 8, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches the positive electrode material to include a binder such as PVDF [0024],[0032].
Regarding claim 9, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches the solvent to include cyclic carbonates [0022].
Regarding claim 10, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches cyclic carbonates as well as sultones [0022].
Regarding claim 12, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) is silent with respect to the lattice energy of the oxide containing element A, however, this is the same element A as taught by Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) [0026] and hence the Examiner takes the position that the lattice energy would be similar absent a showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 14, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches the electrolyte salt to include LiBF4, LiPF6 and LiN(SO2CF3)2 [0023].
Regarding claim 15, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches the mass% of the supplemental additive (cyclic sulfate) to be from 0.1 to 1% (see Table 1 and [0021])
Regarding claim 16, Nishie et al. (2015/0280282) teaches the claimed cyclic sulfate (see formulas) and the use of a fluorinated cyclic carbonate would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (2019/0355983).
Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches a lithium-ion battery including a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate and a electrolyte therebetween. The positive electrode material is coated with a first and second coating while the electrolyte incudes a cyclic sulfate (abstract).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 11, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches LiNiCoMnO as the positive electrode material where the coating layer thereon includes a metal of Al, Z, Mg, Ti, Ba, Cd, etc. ([0007],[0014]) and the additive cyclic sulfate compound includes one of the formula [0007],[0045],[0058]. Using the formulas, the formula F=B/C meets the claimed relationships of 0.25-<F-<500, 1<F<200 and 5<F<80.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches the coating weight of the metal added in the coating layer to be 0.05-1% which would make the total coating weight including the oxide between the claimed 1-10 wt% [0022]-[0023].
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches the coating is an oxide coating including Al, Zr, Mg, Ti [0024].
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches the cyclic sulfate has the claimed formulas [0007],[0045],[0058].
Regarding claims 7,13 and 15, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches the amount of additive A of cyclic sulfate is 0.01-3% [0062].
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches the positive electrode to include a binder and this binder includes a PVDF [0042],[0076].
Regarding claim 9, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches the solvent to include carbonates that are cyclical and linear [0064].
Regarding claim 10, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches the electrolyte can include a cyclic sulfate (abstract and [0061])
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) is silent with respect to the lattice energy of the oxide containing element A, however, this is the same element A as taught by Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) [0007] and hence the Examiner takes the position that the lattice energy would be similar absent a showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches the electrolyte salt to include LiPF, LIBF, LiAsF, LiFSI, LiTFSi, LiBOB, etc. [0065].
Regarding claim 16, Zhang et al. (2019/0355983) teaches fluoroethylene carbonate [0064],[0067].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715