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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 2, [0010], the language "The interphase layer may comprise the functional additive and may physically isolates the electroactive material" should read "The interphase layer may comprise the functional additive and may physically isolate the electroactive material”
On page 3, [0014], the language “The functional comprises lithium fluoride” should read “The functional additive comprises lithium fluoride”
On page 5, [0021], the language “The organic solvent may comprises fluoroethylene carbonate” should read “The organic solvent may comprise fluoroethylene carbonate”
On page 8, [0035], the example “(e.g., the electric motor 12)” references the incorrect number for the electric motor; it should read “(e.g., the electric motor 4)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20210091413 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu et al. teach a battery that cycles lithium ions (Abstract, and [0021]), the battery comprising:
a positive electrode (cathode; claim 9) comprising an electroactive material comprising a lithium and manganese-rich oxide (e.g., NMC layered oxides; claim 9); and
an electrolyte (claim 1) infiltrating the positive electrode (claim 3), the electrolyte comprising:
an organic solvent (a cyclic carbonate, a linear carbonate; claim 1);
an inorganic lithium salt (LiNO3; claim 1) in the organic solvent; and
a functional additive (plurality of additives, claim 1) in the organic solvent, the functional additive comprising lithium fluoride (LiF) (claim 1), lithium phosphate (Li3PO4) (claim 1), or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 8, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte further comprises the co-additive lithium carbonate (Li-2CO3) (SEI formation additive, Abstract) or the at least one inorganic salt additive comprises one or more compounds selected from Li2O or Li2CO3 (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 1, wherein the organic solvent comprises a linear carbonate (DMC, claim 3 of Liu) and a cyclic carbonate (FEC, claim 1 of Liu).
Regarding Claim 10, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 1, wherein the inorganic lithium salt is selected from the group consisting of hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6), lithium hexafluoroarsenate (LiAsF6), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiN(FSO2)2) (LiSFI), and combinations thereof (Claim 2 and Abstract).
Regarding Claim 11, Liu et al. teach a battery that cycles lithium ions (Abstract and [0021]), the battery comprising:
a positive electrode (cathode; claim 9) comprising an electroactive material comprising a lithium and manganese-rich oxide (e.g., NMC layered oxides; claim 9);
a negative electrode (electrode; claim 4) (anode; claim 9) comprising an electroactive material comprising silicon oxide (SiO2; claim 4) and graphite (claim 4);
an electrolyte infiltrating the positive electrode and the negative electrode (claim 1), the electrolyte comprising:
an organic solvent comprising a cyclic carbonate (FEC, claim 1) and a linear carbonate (DMC, claim 3);
an inorganic lithium salt in the organic solvent (claim 1); and
a functional additive in the organic solvent, the functional additive comprising lithium fluoride (LiF) and lithium phosphate (Li3PO4) (claim 1).
Note: an electrolyte infiltrating the electrodes is intrinsic to non-solid-state batteries, such as the battery with a non-aqueous electrolyte of Liu et al.
Regarding Claim 17, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 11, wherein the electrolyte further comprises a co-additive selected from the group consisting of lithium carbonate (Li2CO2) and lithium oxide (Li2O) (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 11, wherein the organic solvent comprises fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) (Claim 1 and Claim 3) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) (Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 11, wherein the inorganic lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) (Claim 2).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al. (US 20210091413 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu et al. teach the functional additive depositing on the surfaces of the electroactive material of the negative electrode and forms an interphase layer (SEI; Abstract, Description, and Claims 1 and 4) thereon that isolates the electroactive material of the positive electrode from physical contact with the electrolyte.
It is deemed that the functional additive depositing on the surfaces of the electrode material of the positive electrode of Liu et al. is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed electrolyte. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Liu et al. focus on the formation of an SEI at a lithium metal anode [0022] to improve cycle lifetime (i.e., reduced dendrite growth) while increasing coulombic efficiency. However, Liu et al. teach the use of functional additives (electrolytes often with additives) that promote high quality SEI formation to protect lithium metal by mitigating lithium metal reaction with the electrolyte [0023], which is applicable to the disclosed cathode.
Therefore, the same SEI layer forms on the lithium surface of the cathode materials due to the physical properties of LiF and Li3-PO4 in the inorganic solvent, and SEI formation on the cathode is inherent to Liu et al.’s invention. Additionally, both the electrolyte and the negative electrode of Liu et al. contain inorganic salt additives which function to form the SEI, such as the salts LiF and Li3PO4.
Regarding Claim 7, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 1, further comprising:
an interphase layer [0023] formed in situ on the electroactive material of the positive electrode [0023] after initial assembly of the battery,
wherein the interphase layer comprises the functional additive and physically isolates the electroactive material of the positive electrode from contact with the electrolyte [0023].
Regarding Claim 15, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 11, wherein the functional additive deposits on surfaces of the electroactive material of the positive and negative electrodes and forms a first and second interphase layer thereon respectively, isolating the electroactive material of the positive electrode from physical contact with the electrolyte ([0023] and claim 4). As to the formation of the SEI occurring upon assembly of the battery, the resulting SEI structure of the immediate application is essentially identical to that of Liu et al.’s invention.
It is deemed that the formation of the SEI is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed functional additives to the electrolyte. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The inclusion of additives such as LiF and Li3PO4 determine the formation of the SEI structure; although not a deterministic process due to the laws of quantum mechanics, the addition of these components results in the same equilibrium state where the SEI is formed in essentially the same amount of time. Therefore, the formation of the SEI at the time of assembly is inherent to the battery disclosed by Liu et al.
Regarding Claim 16, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 11, further comprising:
a first interphase layer disposed on the electroactive material of the positive electrode that physically isolates the electroactive material of the positive electrode from contact with the electrolyte [0023]; and
a second interphase layer disposed on the electroactive material of the negative electrode that physically isolates the electroactive material of the negative electrode from contact with the electrolyte (claim 4).
The interphase layers are inherent to Liu et al.’s invention because both the immediate application and Liu et al. disclose LiF and Li3PO4 as SEI formation additives in the electrolyte or electrode to cause the formation of the SEI to occur. Therefore, the resulting structure is equivalent. See MPEP 2112 and 2113 for more information regarding product by process claims.
As to the first interphase layer and the second interphase layer being formed in situ upon assembly of the battery, the electrolyte disclosed by Liu et al. contains SEI forming additives with the purpose of forming the SEI in situ. Applicant is reminded of MPEP 2112 and 2113. No additional features/structure is imparted by the SEI being formed in situ upon assembly of the battery.
As to the first interphase layer and the second interphase layer not comprising decomposition products of lithium difluorophosphate, Liu et al. do not teach lithium difluorophosphate, and they do not teach LiF and Li3PO4 being decomposition products; therefore, it is inferred that LiF and Li3PO4 are supplied independently.
Claim(s) 2-5, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210091413 A1) in view of Xia et al. (CN 105720304 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu et al teach the battery of claim 1. Liu et al. do no teach that the functional additive constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.001% to less than or equal to about 10% of the electrolyte.
However, Xia et al. teach a lithium ion battery comprising a lithium and manganese rich oxide ([106]) active material, and an electrolyte comprising an organic solvent ([48]), inorganic lithium salt ([103]), and functional additives ([30]), wherein “the non-aqueous electrolyte further comprises additive, and used amount of additive in non-aqueous electrolytic solution is 0.005-10 wt.%” ([28])..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the functional additives of Liu et al. in the general range according to Xia et al. to ensure high cycle performance of the battery[43].
Regarding Claim 3, Liu et al. do not teach that LiF constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.001% to less than or equal to about 3% of the electrolyte. However, Xia et al. teach lithium fluoride (first additive, [30]) as an additive to the non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein the amount of additive is 0.005-10 wt. % ([28]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the LiF in Liu et al.’s battery in the amount of 0.001% to 3% of the electrolyte, by weight to ensure high cycle battery performance [43].
Regarding Claim 4, Liu et al. do not teach that Li3PO4 constitutes by weight greater than or equal to about 0.001% to less than or equal to about 3% of the electrolyte. However, Xia et al. teach lithium phosphate (first additive, [30]) as an additive to the non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein lithium phosphate constitutes, by weight, between 0.005-10 wt. % ([28. Therefore, using the Li3PO4 in the range between 0.001% to 3% by weight of the electrolyte was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to insure battery performance and safety [43].
Regarding Claim 5, Liu et al. do not teach that the functional additive is not generated in the electrolyte as a result of the electrochemical decomposition of lithium difluorophosphate. However, Xia et al. teach the additives lithium fluoride (LiF), lithium phosphate (Li3PO4), and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) independently of one another ([30]); thus, the functional additive is not generated in the electrolyte as a result of the electrochemical decomposition of LiPO2F2 because the additives LiF and Li3PO4 are added directly to the electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used LiF and Li3PO4 in Liu et al.’s electrolyte without relying on in-situ decomposition to ensure high performance [43].
Regarding Claim 12, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 11. Liu et al. do not teach the battery wherein the lithium fluoride constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.01% to less than or equal to about 10% of the electrolyte. However, Xia et al. teach a battery that cycles lithium ions, wherein an amount of lithium fluoride additive used is between 0.005-10 wt.% ([28]) of the electrolyte for making the electrolyte have good oxidation resistance, no combustion characteristics, and high security ([43]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used Liu et al.’s lithium fluoride additive in the range of 0.005-10 wt.% to produce an improved electrolyte.
Regarding Claim 13, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 11. Liu et al. do not teach the battery wherein the LiF constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.001% to less than or equal to about 3% of the electrolyte, or wherein the Li3PO4 constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.001% to less than or equal to about 3% of the electrolyte. However, Xia et al. teach a battery that cycles lithium ions, wherein LiF constitutes, by weight, between 0.005-10% of the electrolyte ([28]), and wherein the Li3PO4 constitutes, by weight, between 0.005-10% of the electrolyte ([28]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the LiF and Li3PO4 of Liu et al. in a range of 0.005 to 3% of the electrolyte by weight to impart the beneficial characteristics of Xia et al.’s electrolyte of battery safety [43].
Regarding Claim 14, Liu et al. does not disclose lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), and Xia et al. disclose LiPO2F2 independently from LiF and Li3PO4 ([30]). Therefore, neither Liu et al. nor Xia et al. state that the LiF and the Li3PO4 are generated in the electrolyte as a result of the electrochemical decomposition of lithium difluorophosphate. Thus, both Liu et al. and Xia et al. teach that the LiF and Li3PO4 are not generated in the electrolyte as a result of the electrochemical decomposition of lithium difluorophosphate.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20210091413 A1) in view of Lee et al (US 20180006294 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Liu et al. teach the battery of claim 11, wherein the electroactive material of the positive electrode comprises spinel oxides (LiMn2O4).
Liu et al. do not teach the use of Li2MnO3 as the active material of the positive electrode.
However, Lee et al. teach a rechargeable lithium-ion battery with lithium-manganese-rich (LMR) layered oxides, also known as over-lithiated oxides (OLO), as cathode materials, given their high capacities and energy densities [0008]. They teach Li2MnO3 as a commonly studied over-lithiated oxide material which has high capacities and high energy density [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the electroactive material of the positive electrode of Liu et al. by replacing LiMn2O4 with Li2MnO3 to produce higher battery capacity and energy density.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-5pm.
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 (571)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.
/ANDREW KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights