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 .
This is the initial Office Action based on 18/341,401 filed June 26, 2023. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the fourth line recites the phrase "2.0<Vox<4.5" which is a typo that should read "2.0 V < Vox < 4.5 V". Additionally, the disclosure is objected to because the fifth line recites the phrase “S-N functional” and is unclear if it is supposed to be “S-N functionality”, “S-N functional group”, or “S-N bond”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Paragraphs [0005], [0006], and [0018] recite the phrase "2.0<Vox<4.5" which is a typo that should read "2.0 V < Vox < 4.5 V".
Paragraph [0005] recites the phrase “S-N functional” and is unclear if it is supposed to be “S-N functionality”, “S-N functional group”, or “S-N bond”.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8 recite the phrase "2.0<Vox<4.5" which is a typo that should read "2.0 V < Vox < 4.5 V"
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, 3-5, 8, 13-15 & 18 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 & 5: The term “S-N functional” in claims is unclear if it is supposed to be “S-N functionality”, “S-N functional group”, or “S-N bond”. For the interest of compact prosecution, claim 1 is examined as reciting “S-N bond”.
Regarding claims 1 & 8: The term “a predicted oxidation potential Vox of 2.0<Vox<4.5” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a predicted oxidation potential Vox of 2.0<Vox<4.5” 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. For the interest of compact prosecution, claim 1 and 8 are examined as reciting “oxidation potential”.
Regarding claims 3 & 13: Structure 1 and 4 drawn in claims 1 and 3 are chemically ambiguous and indefinite structures. The chemical identity and properties of Boron or Oxygen-containing functional groups are defined by the identity of the atoms bonded to the Boron or Oxygen centers. The structure 1 depicts a Boron with one bond and no formal charge. Because the additional bonds or formal charge are not drawn, is indeterminable if this Boron is intended to form a borane, alkyl borane, boronic halide, boronic acid, boronic ester, or another Boron-containing species (see Table 1, row 1 for examples). The structure 4 depicts two Oxygens with one bond and no formal charge. Because the additional bonds or formal charge are not drawn, is indeterminable if this Oxygen is intended to form a boronic acid, boronic ester, boronate, or another Boron-Oxygen-containing species (see Table 1, row 2 for examples). Thus, rendering the claims indefinite.
Table 1: Indefinite structure 1 and 4 in claims 1 and 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
810
1775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4 & 14: Structures 5 – 10 in claims 4 and 14 are chemically ambiguous and indefinite structure. The chemical identity Oxygen-containing functional groups are defined by the identity of the atoms bonded to the Oxygen centers. The structures 5 – 9 depict Oxygens bonded to a Phosphorus (O-P) and no additional bond or formal charge. Because the additional bonds or formal charge are not drawn, is indeterminable if this Oxygen is intended to form a phosphoric acid, a phosphate ion, or a phosphate ester (see Table 2 for examples). Structure 10 depicts Oxygens bonded to a Phosphorus atom and no additional bonds or formal charge. Because the additional bonds or formal charge are not drawn, is indeterminable if this Oxygen is intended to form a phosphonus acid or a phosphonite (see Table 3, row 3 for examples). Structures 5 – 7 are chemically ambiguous and indefinite structures. The chemical identity and properties of Nitrogen and Sulfur-containing functional groups are defined by the identity of the atoms bonded to the Nitrogen and Sulfur centers. Structure 5 depicts a Nitrogen atom with two bonds and no formal charge. Because the additional bond or formal charge is not drawn, is indeterminable if this Nitrogen is intended to form a secondary amine, tertiary amine, amide, deprotonated amine, or another Nitrogen-containing species (see Table 3, row 1 for examples). The structures 6 and 7 depict a Sulfur atom with one bond and no formal charge. Because the additional bond or formal charge is not drawn, is indeterminable if this Sulfur is intended to form a thiol, thiolate, thioether, or other Sulfur-containing species (see table 3, row 2 for examples). Thus, rendering the claims indefinite.
Table 2: Indefinite structures with P-O bonds in claims 4 and 14.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
1430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Table 3: Indefinite structures with N, S, and O atoms in claims 4 and 14.
PNG
media_image3.png
1009
1431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Structures 14 and 15 in claims 5 and 15 are chemically ambiguous and indefinite structures. The chemical identity and properties of Nitrogen-containing functional groups are defined by the identity of the atoms bonded to the Nitrogen center. These structures contain Nitrogens with one/two bonds and no formal charge. Because the additional bond/s or formal charge is not drawn, is indeterminable if this Nitrogen is intended to form a primary/secondary amine, an amide, deprotonated amide/anionic nitrogen, or another Nitrogen-containing species (see Table 4). Thus, rendering the claims indefinite.
Table 4: Indefinite structures with N atoms in claims 5 and 15.
PNG
media_image4.png
388
1430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18: Structures 1, 4-10, and 14-15 are chemically ambiguous and indefinite structures as explained for claims 3-5 and 13-15.
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.
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, 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sella et al. (US-20190198912-A1) in view of Li et al (ChemSusChem 2022, 75, e202200543).
Regarding claim 1: Sella et al. discloses a lithium-ion battery (para. 6), comprising: anode active material (para. 6); nickel-based cathode active material (para. 6); and an electrolyte (para. 6) having a formulation as follows: a carbonate-based solvent (para. 6); LiPF6 (para. 0033), vinylene carbonate (para. 0033). However, Sella does not teach and an additive that satisfies the following: less than or equal to nine carbons; at least one unsaturated bond; a predicted oxidation potential Vox of 2.0<Vox<4.5; and a boron atom, a phosphorus atom or an S-N functional.
Additionally, Li et al discloses that the electrolyte additive phenylboronic acid (PBA) constructs a highly-conductive and stable cathode-electrolyte interphase (CEI) and improves the interfacial properties and capacity retention of NMC811, a high nickel content cathode. Li teaches an additive that satisfies the following: less than or equal to nine carbons (Scheme 1); at least one unsaturated bond (Scheme 1); a predicted oxidation potential Vox of 2.0<Vox<4.5 (Fig. 1C); and a boron atom, a phosphorus atom or an S-N functional (Scheme 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling day to modified Sella by incorporating the additive of Li because Li et al. teaches that PBA constructed a highly conductive and steady cathode electrolyte interphase (CEI) film through preferential oxidation decomposition, which greatly improved the interfacial properties of the NCM811 cathode (abstract).
Regarding claim 6: Sella further discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the anode active material is graphite (para. 0085).
Regarding claim 7: Sella further discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the anode active material is a silicon-based material (para. 0085).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sella et al. and Li et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (Chem Asian J. 2020, 15, 2803-2814).
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Sella et al. and Li et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery, with a nickel-based cathode active material as described above in Paragraph 6. However, Sella et al. and Li et al. do not disclose that the nickel-based cathode active material has a nickel content of greater than 80%.
Additionally, Wu et al. teaches that the increase of nickel content is favorable for improving the theoretical specific capacity of the battery (p. 2809, right col., para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel-based cathode active material of Sella et al. and Li et al. by increasing the nickel content because Wu teaches that the increase of nickel content is favorable for improving the theoretical specific capacity of the battery (p. 2809, right col., para. 2).
Claims 8-9, 12 & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sella et al. (US-20190198912-A1) in view of Khodr et al. (2020 J. Electrochem. Soc. 167 120535).
Regarding claim 8: Sella et al. discloses a lithium-ion battery (para. 6), comprising: anode active material (para. 6); nickel-based cathode active material (para. 6); and an electrolyte (para. 6) having a formulation as follows: a solvent (para. 6); a lithium salt (para. 0006); vinylene carbonate (para. 0033); one or more additives (para. 0039). However, Sella does not teach each additive consisting of: less than or equal to nine carbons; at least one unsaturated bond; a predicted oxidation potential Vox of 2.0<Vox<4.5; and atoms selected from the group consisting of: C; H; O; N; S; B; Br; F; and Cl.
Additionally, Khodr et al. discloses an electrochemical study of additives that chemically stabilize and aid in the formation of a stable CEI in lithium-ion batteries utilizing Ni-based cathodes. Khodr further teaches an additive consisting of: less than or equal to nine carbons (Fig. 1, structure VI); at least one unsaturated bond (Fig. 1, structure VI); a predicted oxidation potential Vox of 2.0<Vox<4.5 (Table I, entry IV); and atoms selected from the group consisting of: C; H; O; N; S; B; Br; F; and Cl (Fig. 1 Structure VI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art to modified Sella by incorporating the additive of Khodr because Khodr teaches that these additives chemically stabilize the electrolyte and aid in the formation of a stable cathode electrolyte interphase (abstract).
Regarding claim 9: Sella further discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 8, wherein the solvent is one or more of ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate and the lithium salt is LiPF6 (para. 0086).
Regarding claim 12: Sella further discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 8, wherein the vinylene carbonate is 0.5 wt% to 3.0 wt% of the electrolyte (para. 0033).
Regarding claim 16: Sella further discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 8, wherein the anode active material is graphite (para. 0085).
Regarding claim 17: Sella further discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 8, wherein the anode active material is a silicon-based material (para. 0085).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sella et al. and Khodr et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoon et al (US-20150079466-A1).
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Sella et al. and Khodr et al. discloses the lithium-ion battery as described above in Paragraph 8. However, Sella et al. and Khodr et al. fail to teach wherein the solvent is one or both of dioxolane and dimethoxyethane. Furthermore, the combination of Sella et al. and Li et al. teaches the lithium salt is one or both of LiTFSI (para. 0086) and LiFSI.
Additionally, Yoon et al. discloses a lithium-ion battery (para. 0006), comprising an electrolyte (para. 0006) wherein the solvent is one or both of dioxolane (para 0020) and dimethoxyethane (para, 0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sella et al. and Khodr et al. to replace the solvents with dioxolane and/or dimethoxyethane taught by Yoon because Yoon teaches an electrolyte including multiple passivation later forming additives, with one or more passivation additives, one or more passivation salts, and one or more salts in a solvent that preferably includes or consist of one or more organic solvents (para. 0020) for the formation of a passivation layer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sella et al. and Khodr et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (Chem Asian J. 2020, 15, 2803-2814)
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Sella et al. and Khodr et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery, with a nickel-based cathode active material as described above in Paragraph 8. However, Sella et al. and Li et al. do not disclose that the nickel-based cathode active material has a nickel content of greater than 80%.
Additionally, Wu et al. teaches that the increase of nickel content is favorable for improving the theoretical specific capacity of the battery (p. 2809, right col., para. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the nickel-based cathode active material of Sella et al. and Khodr et al. by increasing the nickel content because Wu teaches that the increase of nickel content is favorable for improving the theoretical specific capacity of the battery (p. 2809, right col., para. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 13-15, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3 & 13: Within the species disclosed in the claim, structures 1 and 4 are chemically ambiguous and/or incorrect due to missing bonds or formal charges that renders indeterminable the identity of the molecules as described in Paragraph 5 above. Nevertheless, the closest prior art of record, Sella et al., Li et al., Wu et al., Khodr et al. and Yoon, et al., does not teach nor suggest the additive having a boron atom with the chemical structures shown below in the structures of 2 and 3, respectively.
PNG
media_image5.png
251
806
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 and 14: Within the species disclosed in the claim, structures 5-10 are chemically ambiguous and/or incorrect due to missing bonds or formal charges that renders indeterminable the identity of the molecules as described in Paragraph 5 above. Nevertheless, the closest prior art of record, Sella et al., Li et al., Wu et al., Khodr et al. and Yoon, et al., does not teach nor suggest the additive having a phosphorus atom with the chemical structure shown below in the structure of 11.
PNG
media_image6.png
330
1086
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
341
1060
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Within the species disclosed in the claim, structures 14 and 15 are chemically ambiguous and/or incorrect due to missing bonds or formal charges that renders indeterminable the identity of the molecules as described in Paragraph 5 above. Nevertheless, the closest prior art of record, Sella et al., Li et al., Wu et al., Khodr et al. and Yoon, et al., does not teach nor suggest the additive having an S-N function with the chemical structures shown below in the structures of 12 and 13, respectively.
PNG
media_image8.png
267
1053
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18: Within the species disclosed in the claim, structures 1, 4-10, 14 and 15 are chemically ambiguous and/or incorrect due to missing bonds or formal charges that renders indeterminable the identity of the molecules as described in Paragraph 5 above. Nevertheless, the closest prior art of record, Sella et al., Li et al., Wu et al., Khodr et al. and Yoon, et al., does not teach nor suggest the additives with the chemical structures shown above in the structures of 2, 3, and 11-13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571)272-1295. 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.
/APCV/
Adriana P Claudio VazquezExaminer, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717