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 .
Election/Restriction and Claim Status
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 of Invention I, Claims 6–19, 26–28, 31, 32, and 43–46 in the reply filed on 17 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1–5, 20–25, 29, 30, and 33–42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 7–18, 28, and 46 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 7 recites the limitation “wherein the polyvinylidene difluoride is a PVDF(534K)”, PVDF is understood to be the acronym for polyvinylidene difluoride, but neither the claim nor the instant specification explain the meaning of the “(534K)” suffix, thus rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. For the purposes of this office action, “PVDF(534K)” is interpreted as referring to polyvinylidene difluoride with an average molecular weight of 534 kDa.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the polyvinylidene difluoride is a PVDF(700K)”, PVDF is understood to be the acronym for polyvinylidene difluoride, but neither the claim nor the instant specification explain the meaning of the “(700K)” suffix, thus rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. For the purposes of this office action, “PVDF(700K)” is interpreted as referring to polyvinylidene difluoride with an average molecular weight of 700 kDa.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the polyvinylidene difluoride is a PVDF(HSV900)”. PVDF is understood to be the acronym for polyvinylidene difluoride, but neither the claim nor the instant specification explain the meaning of the “(HSV900)” suffix, thus rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. For the purposes of this office action, “PVDF(HSV900)” is interpreted as referring to polyvinylidene difluoride with an average molecular weight of 900 kDa.
Claims 8–10, 12–14, and 16–18 are rejected as they depend upon Claims 7, 11, or 15 above and do not satisfy the indefinite language described above.
Furthermore, Claims 8–10, 12–14, and 16–18 recite “a ratio of polyvinylidene difluoride to lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide” but does not specify whether this is e.g. a weight, molar, or volume ratio, thus rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. For the purposes of this office action, the recited “ratio” is interpreted as referring to a weight ratio.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “wherein the cathode active material is a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) and more than 50% of the nickel manganese cobalt oxide is nickel”. This limitation is unclear and indefinite for two reasons. Firstly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the nickel manganese cobalt oxide” in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, “the nickel manganese cobalt oxide” has been interpreted as “the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide”. Secondly, the meaning of “more than 50% of the nickel manganese cobalt oxide is nickel” lacks clarity, as it is not clear what type of measure this percentage is referring to (e.g. a percentage by weight, mol%, or volume) and it is not clear if this percentage is referring to all of the elements in the cathode active material, i.e. if nickel is “more than 50%” of all of lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, and oxygen, or for instance, as appears to have support in the instant specification in e.g. [0052] (PGPub), more than 50 (mol)% of the transition metals specifically. For the purposes of this Office Action, this part of the limitation has been interpreted as “more than 50 mol% of the transition metals in the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide is nickel”.
Claim 46 recites “the cathode active material in the composite cathode is a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide with a nickel content greater than 50% of the cathode active material” which is unclear and indefinite. It is not clear what type of measure this content/percentage is referring to (e.g. by weight, mol%, or volume) and it is not clear if this percentage is referring to all of the elements in the cathode active material, i.e. if nickel is ”more than 50%” of all of lithium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, and oxygen, or for instance, as appears to have support in the instant specification in e.g. [0052] (PGPub), more than 50 (mol)% of the transition metals specifically. For the purpose of this Office Action, this limitation has been interpreted as “the composite cathode is a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide with a nickel content amongst the transition metals of greater than 50 mol%”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 6 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatera et al. (US 6159638 A1) in view of Walkowiak et al. (New lithium ion conducting polymer electrolytes based on polysiloxane grafted with Si-tripodand centers) as evidenced by PubChem (“Compound summary of Poly(vinylidene fluoride)”).
Regarding Claim 6, Takatera discloses a polymer electrolyte (see solid polymer electrolyte, C3L54–58), comprising:
a polysiloxane polymer (see polyether, C3L54–58, which can be a graft copolymer having a backbone of polysiloxane, C3L59–C4L8);
a polyvinylidene difluoride (see fluoropolymer, C3L54–58, which can be polyvinylidene fluoride, C4L45–62; note that polyvinylidene difluoride and polyvinylidene fluoride are synonyms for the same polymer, as evidenced by PubChem, p. 2);
a lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (see metal salt, C3L54–58, which can be lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Li(CF3SO2)2N), C5L4–15); and
the polysiloxane polymer, the lithium polyvinylidene difluoride, and the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide formed into a free-standing membrane (C3L54–58 discloses that the polymer electrolyte is a solid, while C8L32–44 discloses that the polymer electrolyte can function as a separator; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that such a description amounts to the polymer electrolyte being a free-standing membrane).
Takatera does not explicitly disclose wherein the polysiloxane polymer is a polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer.
Walkowiak teaches a polymer electrolyte (see polymer electrolytes, p. 1558–1559 ¶ “Lithium ion conducting…”), comprising: a polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer (see macromolecule… regarded as polysiloxane backbone grafted with tripodand “cages”, p. 1558–1559 ¶ “Lithium ion conducting…”; see also product of reaction scheme shown on p. 1559). Walkowiak teaches (p. 1558–1559 ¶ “Lithium ion conducting…”) that polymer electrolytes utilizing the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer can exhibit exceptionally high room temperature conductivities while maintaining satisfactory mechanical and electrochemical stability.
Takatera and Walkowiak are analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of polymer electrolytes for rechargeable battery cells. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer electrolyte of Takatera such that the polysiloxane polymer is the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer taught by Walkowiak, for the purpose of achieving exceptionally high room temperature conductivities while maintaining satisfactory mechanical and electrochemical stability.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Takatera discloses the polymer electrolyte of Claim 6. Modified Takatera further discloses a composite cathode (see positive electrode, Takatera C7L16–21) for a rechargeable battery cell (see totally solid secondary battery, Takatera C7L9–15), comprising:
a cathode active material (see positive electrode active material, Takatera C7L16–21);
a carbon-containing material (see conductor, Takatera C7L16–21, which can contain carbon, Takatera C7L31–35);
the polymer electrolyte of Claim 6 (see ion conductive solid polymer electrolyte containing a metal salt, Takatera C7L16–21 and C7L43–45); and
a polyvinylidene difluoride binder binding the cathode active material, the carbon-containing material, and the polymer electrolyte (see binder, Takatera C7L16–21, which can be polyvinylidene difluoride, Takatera C7L36–41),
wherein the cathode active material, the carbon-containing material, the polyvinylidene difluoride binder, and the polymer electrolyte are formed as a cathode film (see compositive positive electrode material, Takatera C7L16–21); and
wherein the cathode film is formed on a current collector (see positive electrode collector, Takatera C7L16–21).
Claims 7–18, 31, 32, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatera et al. (US 6159638 A1) in view of Walkowiak et al. (New lithium ion conducting polymer electrolytes based on polysiloxane grafted with Si-tripodand centers) as evidenced by PubChem (“Compound summary of Poly(vinylidene fluoride)”) as applied to Claim 6 above, as further evidenced by Song et al. (WO 2003/012909A1).
Regarding Claims 7, 11, and 15, modified Takatera discloses the polymer electrolyte of Claim 6. Takatera further discloses wherein the polyvinylidene difluoride has an average molecular weight of 10,000 to 1,000,000 (C4L45–62; note that while Takatera does not explicitly disclose the units for this range, one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably assume that the units are g/mol, i.e. Da; as such, the above range can be expressed as 10 to 1,000 kDa), which encompasses the claimed polyvinylidene difluoride average molecular weights 534 kDa (Claim 7), 700 kDa (Claim 11), or 900 kDa (Claim 15). Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Furthermore, it is well-known in the field of polymer electrolytes that increasing the average molecular weight of polyvinylidene difluoride increases the mechanical strength of the polymer electrolyte, but also increases the viscosity of the electrolyte slurry, as evidenced by Song (P9L6–10).
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the average molecular weight of the polyvinylidene difluoride is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the mechanical strength of the polymer electrolyte and the viscosity of the electrolyte slurry, as evidenced by Song, thus making the average molecular weight of the polyvinylidene difluoride a result-effective variable. Therefore, in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness established above, it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer electrolyte of modified Takatera such that the average molecular weight of the polyvinylidene difluoride is 534 kDa, 700 kDa, or 900 kDa via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving desired levels of polymer electrolyte mechanical strength and slurry viscosity.
Regarding Claims 8–10, 12–14, and 16–18, modified Takatera discloses the polymer electrolytes of Claims 7, 11, and 15, respectively, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises 5 wt% to 30 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 534 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 50:50 (Claim 8),
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises 5 wt% to 20 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 534 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 40:60 (Claim 9),
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises 5 wt% to 10 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 534 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 35:65 (Claim 10),
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises 5 wt% to 30 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 700 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 50:50 (Claim 12),
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises 5 wt% to 30 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 700 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 40:60 (Claim 13),
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises 5 wt% to 20 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 700 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 35:65 (Claim 14),
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises 5 wt% to 30 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 900 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 50:50 (Claim 16),
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises 5 wt% to 25 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 900 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 40:60 (Claim 17), nor
wherein the polymer electrolyte comprises 5 wt% to 20 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 900 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 35:65 (Claim 18).
Takatera does disclose (C4L63–C5L3) that increasing the proportion of polysiloxane polymer decreases the mechanical strength and increases the ionic conductivity of the polymer electrolyte, while increasing the proportion of the polyvinylidene difluoride increases the mechanical strength and decreases the ionic conductivity of the polymer electrolyte. Furthermore, Takatera discloses (C5L16–27) that increasing the proportion of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide increases the ionic conductivity and crystallinity of the polymer electrolyte, and decreases dissociation of the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide salt in the polymer electrolyte.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the proportions of polysiloxane polymer, polyvinylidene difluoride, and lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide are variables that achieve the recognized results of affecting the mechanical strength, ionic conductivity, crystallinity, and degree of dissociation of the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide for the polymer electrolyte, as disclosed by Takatera, thus making the proportions of polysiloxane polymer, polyvinylidene difluoride, and lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer electrolyte of modified Takatera such that the polymer electrolyte comprises:
5 wt% to 30 wt%, 5 wt% to 20 wt%, and 5 wt% to 10 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 534 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 50:50, 40:60, and 35:65, respectively,
5 wt% to 30 wt%, 5 wt% to 30 wt%, and 5 wt% to 20 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 700 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 50:50, 40:60, and 35:65, respectively, and
5 wt% to 30 wt%, 5 wt% to 25 wt%, and 5 wt% to 20 wt% of the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer when a weight ratio of the polyvinylidene difluoride (average molecular weight 900 kDa) to the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide is 50:50, 40:60, and 35:65, respectively,
via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of mechanical strength, ionic conductivity, crystallinity, and degree of dissociation of the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide for the polymer electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 31, modified Takatera discloses the polymer electrolyte of Claim 6. Modified Takatera further discloses a polymer electrolyte separator (see separator, Takatera C8L32–44) for a rechargeable battery cell (see totally solid secondary battery, Takatera C7L9–15), comprising the polymer electrolyte of Claim 6 (Takatera C8L32–44) wherein the polymer electrolyte is formed as a solid layer (one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that a polymer electrolyte which functions as a separator is necessarily formed as a layer; Takatera C3L54–58 discloses the polymer electrolyte is solid). Takatera does not explicitly disclose the solid layer immediately adjacent a cathode layer and an anode layer of the rechargeable battery cell, however, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that this will necessarily be the case in order to produce a functional rechargeable battery, as evidenced by Song (P14L12–21 and FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 32, modified Takatera discloses the polymer electrolyte separator of Claim 31. Takatera further discloses wherein the solid layer is formed by dry placing the solid layer between the cathode layer and the anode layer (C6L54–65 discloses that solidification of the polymer electrolyte can be carried out on a substrate or template, or in a sealed vessel, followed by drying to remove the solvent; one of ordinary skill in the art will therefore necessarily understand the above process will necessitate a final step of placing the solid layer, thus formed, between the cathode layer and the anode layer).
However, it is noted that these limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations, and even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966).
Regarding Claim 43, modified Takatera discloses the composite cathode of Claim 26. Modified Takatera discloses a rechargeable battery cell (see totally solid secondary battery, Takatera C7L9–15) comprising:
the composite cathode of Claim 26 (see positive electrode, Takatera C7L16–21) formed as a cathode layer (see composite positive electrode material, Takatera C7L16–21) on a first current collector (see positive electrode collector, Takatera C7L16–21) to form a positive electrode (see positive electrode, Takatera C7L16–21);
an anode layer (see composite negative electrode material, Takatera C7L16–21) formed on a second current collector (see negative electrode collector, C7L50–55) to form a negative electrode (see negative electrode, Takatera C7L50–55), wherein the anode layer is a lithium metal (see metal lithium, Takatera C7L56–C8L9).
As set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above, modified Takatera discloses:
a polymer electrolyte comprising:
a polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer;
a polyvinylidene difluoride;
a lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide; and
the polysiloxane Si-tripodand polymer, the lithium polyvinylidene difluoride, and the lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide formed into a free-standing membrane.
Takatera further discloses wherein the polymer electrolyte is comprised in a polymer electrolyte separator (see separator, C8L32–44); and
wherein the cathode layer, the anode layer, and the polymer electrolyte separator are solid (C7L9–15 discloses that the secondary battery is “totally solid”, i.e. all components including the cathode layer, the anode layer, and the polymer electrolyte separator are solid).
Takatera does not explicitly disclose wherein the polymer electrolyte separator is immediately adjacent the cathode layer and the anode layer, however, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that this will necessarily be the case in order to produce a functional rechargeable battery, as evidenced by Song (P14L12–21 and FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 44, modified Takatera discloses the rechargeable battery cell of Claim 43. Takatera further discloses wherein the rechargeable battery cell does not contain any liquid electrolyte (C7L9–15 discloses the rechargeable battery cell can be totally solid, i.e. does not contain any liquids).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatera et al. (US 6159638 A1) in view of Walkowiak et al. (New lithium ion conducting polymer electrolytes based on polysiloxane grafted with Si-tripodand centers) as evidenced by PubChem (“Compound summary of Poly(vinylidene fluoride)”) as applied to Claim 6 above, as further evidenced by Zhou et al. (Polymer Electrolytes for Lithium-Based Batteries: Advances and Prospects).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Takatera discloses the polymer electrolyte of Claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the polymer electrolyte has an ionic conductivity greater than 1 × 10−5 S/cm at a temperature greater than or equal to 25 °C.
However, it is well-known in the field of polymer electrolytes that an ideal polymer electrolyte for Li-based batteries should have an ionic conductivity close that of liquid electrolytes of 10−4 to 10−3 S/cm at room temperature to reduce concentration polarization and enhance rate performance, as evidenced by Zhou (p. 2326–2327 ¶ “Replacing conventional liquid…”). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer electrolyte of modified Takatera such that it has an ionic conductivity of 10−4 to 10−3 S/cm at a temperature of greater than or equal to 25 °C, as Zhou evidences that the ideal polymer electrolyte for Li-based batteries should have an ionic conductivity in this range to reduce concentration polarization and enhance rate performance.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatera et al. (US 6159638 A1) in view of Walkowiak et al. (New lithium ion conducting polymer electrolytes based on polysiloxane grafted with Si-tripodand centers) as evidenced by PubChem (“Compound summary of Poly(vinylidene fluoride)”) as applied to Claim 26 above, in further view of Zimmerman et al. (US 2018/0151914 A1).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Takatera discloses the composite cathode of Claim 26, but does not disclose wherein the cathode active material is a lithium iron phosphate. Instead, Takatera discloses (C7L22–30) that the cathode active material is not particularly limited, but may be composed of e.g. LiCoO2, LiNiO2, or LiMn2O4.
Zimmerman teaches a composite cathode (see cathode 20, [0162], FIG. 1) for a rechargeable battery cell (see battery 10, [0156], FIG. 1), comprising a cathode active material (see electrochemically active cathode compounds, [0163]). Zimmerman teaches ([0163]) that typical cathode active materials can be selected from a group containing LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, and LiFePO4.
Zimmerman is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of polymer electrolyte-based rechargeable batteries. KSR Rationale B (see MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. As Zimmerman teaches that LiFePO4, as well as LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiNiO2, are suitable and typical choices of cathode active material for a composite cathode in a comparable rechargeable battery, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in LiFePO4 as the cathode active material in the composite cathode of modified Takatera, and achieve the predictable result of a functional composite cathode comprising a suitable cathode active material.
Regarding Claim 28, modified Takatera discloses the composite cathode of Claim 26, but does not disclose wherein the cathode active material is a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC) and more than 50 mol% of the transition metals in the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide is nickel. Instead, Takatera discloses (C7L22–30) that the cathode active material is not particularly limited, but may be composed of e.g. LiCoO2, LiNiO2, or LiMn2O4.
Zimmerman teaches a composite cathode (see cathode 20, [0162], FIG. 1) for a rechargeable battery cell (see battery 10, [0156], FIG. 1), comprising a cathode active material (see electrochemically active cathode compounds, [0163]). Zimmerman teaches ([0163]) that typical cathode active materials can be selected from a group containing LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiNiO2, and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides such as NCM811, NCM712, and NCM721.
Zimmerman is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of polymer electrolyte-based rechargeable batteries. KSR Rationale B (see MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. As Zimmerman teaches that lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides such as NCM811, NCM712, and NCM721, as well as LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiNiO2, are suitable and typical choices of cathode active material for a composite cathode in a comparable rechargeable battery, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in NCM811, NCM712, or NCM721, which have nickel contents amongst the transition metals of 80, 70, and 70 mol%, respectively, as the cathode active material in the composite cathode of modified Takatera, and achieve the predictable result of a functional composite cathode comprising a suitable cathode active material.
Claims 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatera et al. (US 6159638 A1) in view of Walkowiak et al. (New lithium ion conducting polymer electrolytes based on polysiloxane grafted with Si-tripodand centers) as evidenced by PubChem (“Compound summary of Poly(vinylidene fluoride)”), as further evidenced by Song et al. (WO 2003/012909A1), as applied to Claim 43 above, in further view of Zimmerman et al. (US 2018/0151914 A1).
Regarding Claim 45, modified Takatera discloses the rechargeable battery cell of Claim 43, but does not disclose wherein the cathode active material in the composite cathode is a lithium iron phosphate. Instead, Takatera discloses (C7L22–30) that the cathode active material is not particularly limited, but may be composed of e.g. LiCoO2, LiNiO2, or LiMn2O4.
Zimmerman teaches a composite cathode (see cathode 20, [0162], FIG. 1) for a rechargeable battery cell (see battery 10, [0156], FIG. 1), comprising a cathode active material (see electrochemically active cathode compounds, [0163]). Zimmerman teaches ([0163]) that typical cathode active materials can be selected from a group containing LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, and LiFePO4.
Zimmerman is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of polymer electrolyte-based rechargeable batteries. KSR Rationale B (see MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. As Zimmerman teaches that LiFePO4, as well as LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiNiO2, are suitable and typical choices of cathode active material for a composite cathode in a comparable rechargeable battery, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in LiFePO4 as the cathode active material in the rechargeable battery cell of modified Takatera, and achieve the predictable result of a functional rechargeable battery cell comprising a suitable cathode active material.
Regarding Claim 46, modified Takatera discloses the rechargeable battery cell of Claim 43, but does not disclose wherein the cathode active material in the composite cathode is a lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide with a nickel content amongst the transition metals of greater than 50 mol%. Instead, Takatera discloses (C7L22–30) that the cathode active material is not particularly limited, but may be composed of e.g. LiCoO2, LiNiO2, or LiMn2O4.
Zimmerman teaches a composite cathode (see cathode 20, [0162], FIG. 1) for a rechargeable battery cell (see battery 10, [0156], FIG. 1), comprising a cathode active material (see electrochemically active cathode compounds, [0163]). Zimmerman teaches ([0163]) that typical cathode active materials can be selected from a group containing LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiNiO2, and lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides such as NCM811, NCM712, and NCM721.
Zimmerman is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of polymer electrolyte-based rechargeable batteries. KSR Rationale B (see MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. As Zimmerman teaches that lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxides such as NCM811, NCM712, and NCM721, as well as LiMn2O4, LiCoO2, and LiNiO2, are suitable and typical choices of cathode active material for a composite cathode in a comparable rechargeable battery, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in NCM811, NCM712, or NCM721, which have nickel contents amongst the transition metals of 80, 70, and 70 mol%, respectively, as the cathode active material in the rechargeable battery cell of modified Takatera, and achieve the predictable result of a functional rechargeable battery cell comprising a suitable cathode active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725