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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 06/05/223 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 13 - negative electrode current collectors and 15 - positive electrode current collectors. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
The term “about” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. The content ranges of the fluoroalkoxysilane additive present in the electrolyte is rendered indefinite due to the use of the term. For purposes of examination, so long as a taught range approaches the claimed about 0.2 to 1.8 wt %, it will read on claim 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageura (U.S. 20150303517) in view of Mao et al. (U.S. 20020192546).
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 10, Kageura discloses a battery that cycles sodium ions (sodium secondary battery) ([abstract]), the battery comprising:
a positive electrode ([abstract]);
a negative electrode comprising a silicon-containing electroactive active material ([0072]); and
an electrolyte infiltrating the positive electrode and the negative electrode (by definition of a sodium ion battery, the electrolyte acts as a carrier for sodium ions between the positive and negative electrodes) ([abstract]), the electrolyte comprising:
an organic solvent (ethylene carbonate ([0030]) and dimethyl carbonate ([0038]), thus reading on claim 9);
an inorganic sodium salt in the organic solvent ([abstract]); and
a fluoroalkoxysilane additive (silane compound) in the organic solvent ([0010], [0020]).
Instead of using the above electrodes and electrolyte composition in a lithium battery as claimed, Kageura utilizes them in a sodium secondary battery. It is noted that while the material used in sodium batteries are different (i.e., the use of a sodium salt in the solvent rather than a lithium salt as claimed), the mechanisms of lithium secondary batteries and sodium secondary batteries are the same (i.e. rocking chair batteries), and have been known to work within the same battery.
Mao discloses the use of sodium salts as solutes within an electrolyte ([abstract]) and teaches the electrolyte can also contain lithium salts (specifically lithium hexafluorophosphate ([0027]), thus reading on claim 10) to function as a lithium ion battery ([abstract]). Mao further teaches that the use of both lithium and sodium salts provides a lower cost alternative, while enhancing the electrochemical properties of stander lithium ion batteries ([abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to include lithium salt (LiPF6) as taught by Mao in the sodium battery disclosed by Kageura in order to produce enhanced electrochemical properties in a lithium battery while reducing costs.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageura in view of Mao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luyi et al. (A jigsaw-structured artificial solid electrolyte interphase for high-voltage lithium metal batteries).
With respect to claims 2-4, modified Kageura discloses the presence of a fluoroalkoxysilane additive in an electrolyte ([0010], [0020]), but does not disclose he fluoroalkoxysilane additive comprises a chemical compound having the following formula: X–Si(–OR1)3-a(R2)a, where X is a fluoroalkyl group or a fluoroaryl group, R1 and R2 are each individually an alkyl group, and a is 1 or 2 (claim 2), that the fluoroalkoxy silane additive comprises a polyfluoroaryl alkoxysilane, a polyfluoroalkyl alkoxysilane, or a combination thereof (claim 3), or that the fluoroalkoxysilane additive comprises triethoxy(perfluorophenyl)silane, trimethoxy(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)silane, 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane, 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyltriethoxysilane, 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyltrimethoxysilane, dimethoxy(methyl)(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)silane, or a combination thereof (claim 4).
Luyi discloses lithium batteries with an electrolyte containing a lithium, a solvent, and a functional additive (Introduction) (Electrolyte Design Principle and Solvation Structure) and teaches that the additive is (triethoxy(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)silane (F-Si) (Introduction), thus reading on claims 2-4. Luyi further teaches that F-Si helps to improve oxidation stability while blocking the electrolyte (Jigsaw-like SEI stabilized LMAs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to use the F-SI as taught by Luyi as the fluoroalkoxysilane additive in the battery disclosed by modified Kageura in order to improve oxidation stability and block the electrolyte.
With respect to claim 5, modified Kageura discloses an electrolyte including F-SI as an additive (see above rejection of claims 2-4), but does not disclose the LUMO or HOMO for the F-SI.
However, applicant is reminded that when the structure recited in the reference is identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). In this instance, the F-SI referenced in Luyi is identical to that of the application, therefore its LUMO and HOMO energy levels, which are inherent properties present in chemical compounds, are presumed to be inherent in Luyi and would thus read on the claimed ranges.
With respect to claims 7-8, modified Kageura discloses F-SI as the fluoroalkoxysilane additive in an electrolyte (see above rejection of claims 2-4), but does no disclose an interphase layer is formed on the active material of the negative electrode, wherein the interphase layer comprises a hybrid organic-inorganic material.
Luyi discloses F-SI as the fluroalkoxysilane additive in the electrolyte (see above rejection of claims 2-4) and teaches an interphase layer (solid electrolyte interphase – SEI) is formed on the active material of the negative electrode (formed on both electrodes to protect and block electrolyte) (Fig. 1 – description; Introduction), wherein the interphase layer (SEI) comprises a hybrid organic (blue)-inorganic (gold) material and physically isolates the silicon active material from the electrolyte (Fig. 1 – description ). Luyi further teaches that this SEI layer has excellent mechanical strength and stable plating/stripping behavior (Fig. 1 – description).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to include an interphase layer on the surface of the anode including hybrid organic-inorganic material as taught by Luyi to the battery disclosed by modified Luyi in order to maintain more uniformity and stability during cycling within the SEI layer.
The limitations “during cycling of the battery, the fluoroalkoxysilane additive decomposes and forms an interphase layer on surfaces of the silicon-containing electroactive active material of the negative electrode that isolates the silicon-containing electroactive active material from physical contact with the electrolyte,” is an example of a product by process limitation. Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance, the interphase layer and its components are shown to be present in the battery according to the prior art, therefore the process of the fluroalkoxysilane additive decomposing to form said layer is not patentable, even though the decomposition is shown in the Figs. 2a and 2b, as well as in the section SEI Properties and Lithium Plating/Stripping Reversibility.
With respect to claims 11-13, Kageura discloses a battery that cycles sodium ions (sodium secondary battery) ([abstract]), the battery comprising:
a positive electrode comprising a nickel-based electroactive material ([0042]);
a negative electrode comprising a silicon-containing electroactive active material ([0072]); and
an electrolyte infiltrating the positive electrode and the negative electrode (by definition of a sodium ion battery, the electrolyte acts as a carrier for sodium ions between the positive and negative electrodes) ([abstract]), the electrolyte comprising:
an organic solvent (ethylene carbonate ([0030]) and dimethyl carbonate ([0038]), thus reading on claim 9);
an inorganic sodium salt in the organic solvent ([abstract]); and
a fluoroalkoxysilane additive (silane compound) in the organic solvent ([0010], [0020]).
Instead of using the above electrodes and electrolyte composition in a lithium battery as claimed, Kageura utilizes them in a sodium secondary battery. It is noted that while the material used in sodium batteries are different (i.e., the use of a sodium salt in the solvent rather than a lithium salt as claimed), the mechanisms of lithium secondary batteries and sodium secondary batteries are the same (i.e. rocking chair batteries), and have been known to work within the same battery.
Mao discloses the use of sodium salts as solutes within an electrolyte ([abstract]) and teaches the electrolyte can also contain lithium salts (specifically lithium hexafluorophosphate ([0027]), thus reading on claim 10) to function as a lithium ion battery ([abstract]). Mao further teaches that the use of both lithium and sodium salts provides a lower cost alternative, while enhancing the electrochemical properties of stander lithium ion batteries ([abstract]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to include lithium salt (LiPF6) as taught by Mao in the sodium battery disclosed by Kageura in order to produce enhanced electrochemical properties in a lithium battery while reducing costs.
Modified Kageura discloses the presence of a fluoroalkoxysilane additive in an electrolyte ([0010], [0020]), but does not disclose he fluoroalkoxysilane additive comprises a chemical compound having the following formula: X–Si(–OR1)3-a(R2)a, where X is a fluoroalkyl group or a fluoroaryl group, R1 and R2 are each individually an alkyl group, and a is 1 or 2 (claim 11), that the fluoroalkoxy silane additive comprises a polyfluoroaryl alkoxysilane, a polyfluoroalkyl alkoxysilane, or a combination thereof (claim 12), or that the fluoroalkoxysilane additive comprises triethoxy(perfluorophenyl)silane, trimethoxy(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)silane, 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane, 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyltriethoxysilane, 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorodecyltrimethoxysilane, dimethoxy(methyl)(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)silane, or a combination thereof (claim 13).
Luyi discloses lithium batteries with an electrolyte containing a lithium, a solvent, and a functional additive (Introduction) (Electrolyte Design Principle and Solvation Structure) and teaches that the additive is (triethoxy(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)silane (F-Si) (Introduction), thus reading on claims 11-13. Luyi further teaches that F-Si helps to improve oxidation stability while blocking the electrolyte (Jigsaw-like SEI stabilized LMAs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to use the F-SI as taught by Luyi as the fluoroalkoxysilane additive in the battery disclosed by modified Kageura in order to improve oxidation stability and block the electrolyte.
With respect to claims 14 and 17, modified Kageura discloses an interphase layer (solid electrolyte interphase – SEI) is formed on the active material of the negative electrode (see rejection of claims 7-8), wherein the interphase layer (SEI) comprises a hybrid organic (blue) -inorganic (gold) material from the F-SI and physically isolates the silicon active material from the electrolyte (Fig. 1 – description), but does not disclose a second interphase layer.
However, Luyi does not disclose that the formation of the interphase (SEI) layer is strictly used on the surface of the anode. Luyi appears to disclose that the interphase (SEI) layer is formed readily wherever lithium reacts with lithium ions (Fig. 1- description), which would occur on the surface of both the positive and negative electrode active materials. Therefore, it is inherent as part of Luyi that a second interphase (SEI) layer would form on the surface of the nickel-based electroactive material of the positive electrode that would function in the same way as the first, (i.e. isolating the active material from the electrolyte), and comprise decomposition hybrid organic-inorganic products of the F-SI.
With respect to claims 15-16, modified Kageura has already established an interphase layer between the positive electrode active material and electrolyte and a second interphase layer between the negative electrode active material and the electrolyte, each which contains the decomposition byproducts of the F-SI (see above rejection of claim 14). The limitations that state “wherein electrochemical oxidation of the fluoroalkoxysilane additive occurs at the positive electrode during charge of the battery” and “electrochemical reduction of the fluoroalkoxysilane additive occurs at the negative electrode during charge of the battery, and wherein the second interphase layer comprises byproducts of the electrochemical reduction of the fluoroalkoxysilane additive,” are examples of product by process limitations. Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance, it has already been shown that the interphase layers have the same structure in the prior art of that of the instant application, so their formation during electrochemical oxidation or reduction during charging is not patentable.
With respect to claim 18, modified Kageura discloses two interphase (SEI) layers including hybrid organic (blue) -inorganic (gold) products from decomposition of the F-SI (see above rejections of claims 14-17, Fig. 1 - description), but does not disclose the presence of compounds silicon-oxygen bonds, silicon-carbon bonds, carbon-carbon bonds, carbon-hydrogen bonds, or a combination thereof.
Luyi discloses two interphase (SEI) layers including hybrid organic (blue)-inorganic (gold) products from decomposition of the F-SI (Fig. 1 - description) and teaches the presence of silicon-oxygen bonds (gold) (Fig. 1). Luyi further teaches that this SEI layer has excellent mechanical strength and stable plating/stripper behavior (Fig. 1 – description).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to ensure the presence of silicon-oxygen bonds in the SEI layer as taught by Luyi in the SEI layer of modified Kageura so that the SEI layer remains uniform and stable during cycling.
With respect to claim 19, modified Kageura has already disclosed the organic solvent comprises ethylene carbonate and dimethyl carbonate (see above rejection of claim 9), and wherein the inorganic lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (see the above rejection of claim 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageura in view of Mao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Lim et al. (U.S. 20150221976).
With respect to claim 6, modified Kageura discloses a fluoroalkoxysilane additive in an electrolyte (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose the weight content of the additive in the electrolyte.
Lim discloses an additive for an electrolyte in a lithium battery ([abstract]) and that the additive can contain a alkoxysilane group ([0024]) and teaches the content of the additive present in the electrolyte is 0.05 wt% to 3 wt % ([abstract]), thus encompassing the claimed range of 0.2 wt% to 1.8 wt %. Lim further teaches that this content amount ensures an interphase layer is properly formed without affecting charge and discharge efficiency ([0037-0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to ensure the fluoroalkoxysilane additive disclosed by modified Kageura was present in the electrolyte in the range taught by Lim in order to ensure an interphase layer is properly formed without affecting charge and discharge efficiency.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageura in view of Mao and Luyi as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view Choi et al. (U.S. 20150243970)
With respect to claim 20, modified Kageura discloses a nickel-based electroactive material and silicon-based electroactive material comprising silicon (see above rejection of claim 11), but does not disclose that nickel-based electroactive material comprises lithium nickel cobalt manganese aluminum oxide, lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide, or a combination thereof.
Choi discloses a lithium battery ([abstract]) comprising a lithium nickel an electrolyte with a silane additive ([0120]) and teaches the positive electroactive material is a lithium nickel cobalt magnesium oxide ([0069]). Choi further teaches the lithium nickel magnesium cobalt oxide improves the structural stability of the positive active material ([0064]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to ensure the nickel-based electroactive material disclosed by modified Kageura was a lithium nickel magnesium cobalt oxide as taught by Choi in order to improve the structural stability of the positive active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727