DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/361,513, filed 7/28/2023, which is a continuation of PCT/EP2022/051757, filed 1/26/2022, which claims priority to European application EP21 154 308.7, filed 1/29/2021.
Claims 1-50 are pending, and are considered herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0106467 A1: This reference teaches a battery with an SO2-based electrolyte and a conductive salt (paragraph [0003]).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0164086 A1: This reference teaches a battery with an SO2-based electrolyte and a conductive salt (paragraph [0072]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 and 21-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 16-45 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,849 anticipate the limitations of instant claims 1-11 and 21-50.
Claims 26-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-45 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,170. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 3-45 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,170 anticipate the limitations of instant claims 26-50.
Claims 26-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, and 11-41 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 5-8, and 11-41 of U.S. Patent No. 11,901,504 anticipate the limitations of instant claims 26-50.
Claims 26-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 12-50 of U.S. Patent No. 11,942,594. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 and 12-50 of U.S. Patent No. 11,942,594 anticipate the limitations of instant claims 26-50.
Claims 26-50 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-47 of U.S. Patent No. 12,407,018. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-47 of U.S. Patent No. 12,407,018 anticipate the limitations of instant claims 26-50.
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 1-13, 15-16, 18-21, 23-37, 41-45, and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollfarth, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0014011 A1), in view of Xu, et al. (Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 3 (8) 366-368 (2000), provided in the IDS).
In reference to Claim 1, Wollfarth teaches an SO2-based electrolyte for a rechargeable battery cell (paragraphs [0129]-[0142]).
Wollfarth teaches that the electrolyte comprises a conducting salt (paragraph [0142]).
He does not teach that the salt has the structure of Formula 1; however, she (1) does not particularly limit the types of salts suitable for use in the electrolyte of her invention, and (2) teaches that the salt may suitably comprise a borate (paragraph [0142]).
To solve the same problem of providing a conductive salt for a lithium battery cell, Xu teaches a salt, lithium bis[1,2-tetra(trifluoromethyl)ethylenediolato (2-)-O,O´] borate (Experimental section, paragraph 2, column 2, page 366).
This salt has the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
166
86
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Xu teaches that the salt of his invention provides high conductivity in solution, good electrochemical stability, and excellent solubility (Discussion section, pages 367-368).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have added the salt of Xu in the electrolyte of Wollfarth because (1) Wollfarth does not particularly limit the types of salts suitable for use in the electrolyte of her invention, (2) she teaches that the salt may suitably comprise a borate (paragraph [0142]), and (3) Xu teaches a lithium borate salt suitable for use in lithium secondary batteries that provides the benefits of high conductivity in solution, good electrochemical stability, and excellent solubility (Discussion section, pages 367-368).
Adding the salt of Xu in the electrolyte of Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the salt has the structure of Formula 1, wherein M is Li, Z is boron, x is 1, R1, R2, R3, and R4 are all chelating ligands, each of which is collectively formed by at least two of the substituents R1, R2, R3 and R4 and is coordinated to Z.
Adding the salt of Xu in the electrolyte of Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the substituent R4 is a bidentate chelating ligand or is a polydentate chelating ligand.
Adding the salt of Xu in the electrolyte of Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the substituent R4 is a bidentate chelating ligand according to the formula -O-R5-O- .
Adding the salt of Xu in the electrolyte of Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the salt has the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
166
86
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In reference to Claims 2-11, these claims all further limit optional limitations of Claim 1 (i.e. the structure of R5). Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that modified Wollfarth as applied to Claim 1 also teaches the limitations of Claims 2-11.
In reference to Claim 16, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, modified Wollfarth includes a first conductive salt having the structure of Formula 1, as taught by Xu.
Wollfarth further teaches that the cell of his invention preferably includes a LiAlCl4 as a conductive salt (paragraph [0142]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included LiAlCl4 in the electrolyte of the invention of modified Wollfarth, because she teaches that this is a suitable conductive salt to include in the electrolytes of her invention.
Including LiAlCl4 in the electrolyte of the invention of modified Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein the electrolyte further comprises a second conducting salt (i.e. LiAlCl4) that differs from the first conducting salt of formula (I).
Including LiAlCl4 in the electrolyte of the invention of modified Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 18, wherein the second conductive salt of the electrolyte is an alkali metal compound.
Including LiAlCl4 in the electrolyte of the invention of modified Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein the alkali metal compound is a lithium compound.
Including LiAlCl4 in the electrolyte of the invention of modified Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 20, wherein the lithium compound is a lithium tetrahaloaluminate.
In reference to Claim 21, Wollfarth does not teach that the electrolyte necessarily comprises an additive.
However, she teaches that the electrolytes of her invention may suitably comprise a small amount of organic solvent (paragraph [0136]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated a small amount of organic solvent into the electrolyte of modified Wollfarth, because she teaches that the electrolytes of her invention may suitably comprise a small amount of organic solvent.
Incorporating a small amount of organic solvent into the electrolyte of modified Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 21, wherein the electrolyte comprises an additive.
In reference to Claim 23, Wollfarth teaches that the electrolyte comprises 20 wt%-95 wt% SO2 (paragraph [0130]), less than 70 wt% of the conductive salt (paragraph [0132]), and does not necessarily comprise any of a second conducting salt or an additive.
Therefore, Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein the electrolyte comprises (i) 5 to 99.4 wt.% sulfur dioxide (i.e. 20-95%); (ii) 0.6 to 95 wt.% of the first conducting salt (i.e. less than 70 wt%); (iii) 0 to 25 wt.% of a second conducting salt (i.e. 0%); and (iv) 0 to 10 wt.% of an additive (i.e. 0%); based on the overall weight of the electrolyte composition.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “0.6 to 95 wt.% of the first conducting salt” overlaps with the taught range of less than 70 wt% conductive salt.
In reference to Claim 24, Wollfarth teaches that the electrolyte comprises 20 wt%-95 wt% SO2 (paragraph [0130]), less than 70 wt% of the conductive salt (paragraph [0132]), and does not necessarily comprise any of a second conducting salt or an additive.
Therefore, Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 24, wherein the molar concentration of the first conducting salt is in a range selected from the group consisting of from 0.05 mol/l to 10 mol/l, from 0.1 mol/l to 6 mol/l, and from 0.2 mol/l to 3.5 mol/l, based on the overall volume of the electrolyte.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed ranges of “from 0.05 mol/l to 10 mol/l, from 0.1 mol/l to 6 mol/l, and from 0.2 mol/l to 3.5 mol/l, based on the overall volume of the electrolyte” overlap with the taught ranges of less than 70 wt% conductive salt and 20 wt%-95 wt% SO2.
In reference to Claim 25, Wollfarth teaches that the electrolyte contains at least 1.5 mol SO2 per mole of conductive salt (paragraph [0131]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 25, wherein the electrolyte contains SO2 in an amount selected from the group consisting of at least 0.1 mol of SO2, or at least 1 mol of SO2.
This disclosure also teaches the limitations of Claim 25, wherein the electrolyte contains SO2 in an amount selected from at least 5 mol of SO2, at least 10 mol of SO2 and at least 20 mol of SO2 per mol of conducting salt.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed ranges of at least 5 mol of SO2, at least 10 mol of SO2 and at least 20 mol of SO2 per mol of conducting salt lie within the taught range of at least 1.5 mol SO2 per mole of conductive salt (Wollfarth, paragraph [0131]).
In reference to Claim 26, Wollfarth teaches a rechargeable battery cell (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0153]-[0159]) comprising: the electrolyte according to claim 1 (described in the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Wollfarth teaches that the battery comprises an active metal (paragraph [0156]), a positive electrode (Fig. 1, paragraph [0156]); a negative electrode (Fig. 1, paragraph [0156]); and a housing 1 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0154]).
In reference to Claim 27, Wollfarth teaches that the active metal is an alkali metal (i.e. Li, paragraph [0142]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 28, wherein the active metal comprises lithium.
In reference to Claim 29, modified Wollfarth does not teach that the active metal necessarily comprises calcium.
However, she teaches that the active metal may be chosen to be calcium (paragraph [0090]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used calcium as the active metal in the battery of modified Wollfarth, because she teaches that the active metal may suitably comprise calcium.
Using calcium as the active metal of the battery of Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 29, wherein the active metal comprises calcium.
In reference to Claim 30, modified Wollfarth does not teach that the active metal necessarily comprises zinc.
However, she teaches that the active metal may be chosen to be zinc (paragraph [0090]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used zinc as the active metal in the battery of modified Wollfarth, because she teaches that the active metal may suitably comprise zinc.
Using zinc as the active metal of the battery of Wollfarth teaches the limitations of Claim 30, wherein the active metal comprises zinc.
In reference to Claim 31, Wollfarth teaches that the negative electrode is an insertion electrode (paragraph [0092]).
In reference to Claim 32, Wollfarth teaches that the insertion electrode comprises carbon as the active material (paragraph [0092]).
In reference to Claim 33, Wollfarth teaches that the carbon comprises graphite (paragraph [0092]).
In reference to Claim 34, Wollfarth teaches that the positive electrode comprises at least one intercalation compound as the active material (paragraph [0067]).
In reference to Claim 35, Wollfarth teaches that the intercalation compound is LiFePO4 (paragraph [0082]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 35, wherein the intercalation compound has the composition LixM'yM"zOa, wherein: M' is Fe; M" is P; x is 1, y is 1, z is 1; and a is 4.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 36, wherein the intercalation compound comprises the composition LixM'yM"zOa, wherein M' is iron and M" is phosphorous.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 37, wherein x, y and z are equal to 1 and a is equal to 4.
In reference to Claim 41, Wollfarth teaches that the positive electrode comprises LiFePO4 (paragraph [0082]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 41, wherein the positive electrode contains a metal phosphate.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 42, wherein the metal compound comprises a transition metal of atomic numbers 22 to 28 of the periodic table of the elements (i.e. Fe, which has an atomic number of 26).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 43, wherein the metal compound comprises iron.
In reference to Claim 44, Wollfarth teaches that the positive electrode and/or the negative electrode comprise a discharge element, which is three-dimensional in the form of a porous metal structure (i.e. a metal foam, paragraph [0093]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 45, wherein the discharge element is three-dimensional in the form of a porous metal structure and comprises a metal foam.
In reference to Claim 49, Wollfarth teaches that the negative electrode comprises a plurality of negative electrodes and the positive electrode comprises a plurality of positive electrodes, the negative and the positive electrodes being arranged alternately in a stack in the housing (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0154]-[0156]).
In reference to Claim 50, Wollfarth teaches that the positive and negative electrodes in the stack are electrically separated from one another by separators 11 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0154]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollfarth, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0014011 A1), in view of Xu, et al. (Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 3 (8) 366-368 (2000)), and further in view of Nagata, et al. (U.S. Patent 7,947,092).
In reference to Claim 14, modified Wollfarth does not teach that the substituent R4 is a polydentate chelating ligand.
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium ion battery comprising a lithium borate salt in the electrolyte, Nagata teaches that suitable borate ligands include bis-chelato borates (as in modified Wollfarth), and tri- or tetradentate borates (column 10, lines 10-36).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the ligands of the borate salt of modified Wollfarth to have the configuration of a tri- or tetra-dentate borate, based on the teachings of Nagata.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the substituent R4 is a polydentate chelating ligand.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollfarth, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0014011 A1), in view of Xu, et al. (Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 3 (8) 366-368 (2000)), and further in view of Ihara, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0138714 A1).
In reference to Claim 17, modified Wollfarth does not teach that the second conducting salt has the structure in Claim 17.
To solve the same problem of providing a lithium borate salt for an electrolyte for a lithium ion battery, Ihara teaches that multiple lithium borate salts may be used in combination in such electrolytes, with some lithium borate salts being fluorinated (as in modified Wollfarth), and some lithium borate salts being non-fluorinated (e.g. lithium bis(oxalato) borate, as shown in paragraph [0052] as compound 11(6)).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included lithium bis(oxalato) borate into the electrolyte of modified Wollfarth, based on the disclosure of Ihara.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 17, wherein the second conducting salt comprises the structure of Formula II, wherein, m is Li; x is 1; the substituents R6, R7, R8 and R9 are selected, independently of one another, from the group consisting of C1-C10 alkyl (i.e. substituted alkyl); and Z is boron.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollfarth, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0014011 A1), in view of Xu, et al. (Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 3 (8) 366-368 (2000)), and further in view of Hambitzer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0062341 A1).
In reference to Claim 22, modified Wollfarth does not teach that the additive is any of the materials recited in Claim 22.
To solve the same problem of providing a rechargeable lithium battery with an SO2-based electrolyte, Hambitzer teaches that incorporating an organic solvent (i.e. an ester) into such an electrolyte provides the benefit of providing ion mobility within the solvent (paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated an ester into the solvent of modified Wollfarth, based on Hambitzer’s disclosure that incorporating an ester into such an electrolyte provides the benefit of providing ion mobility within the solvent (paragraph [0004]).
Incorporating an ester into the solvent of modified Wollfarth, based on Hambitzer’s disclosure, teaches the limitations of Claim 22, wherein the additive comprises an organic ester.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollfarth, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0014011 A1), in view of Xu, et al. (Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 3 (8) 366-368 (2000)), and further in view of Homma, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0331390 A1).
In reference to Claim 38, modified Wollfarth does not teach that the intercalation compound has the composition recited in Claim 38.
Instead, as described above, she teaches that the intercalation compound is LiFePO4 (paragraph [0082]).
To solve the same problem of providing a positive electrode comprising a lithium compound for a rechargeable lithium battery, Homma teaches that LiFePO4 and Li(Co)xMn2-xO4 are both lithium compounds suitable for use as positive electrode active materials for a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraph [0082]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the positive electrode material of the device of modified Wollfarth to comprise Li(Co)xMn2-xO4, instead of LiFePO4, based on Homma’s disclosure that LiFePO4 and Li(Co)xMn2-xO4 are both lithium compounds suitable for use as positive electrode active materials for a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraph [0082]).
Forming the positive electrode of Wollfarth to comprise Li(Co)xMn2-xO4, instead of LiFePO4, teaches the limitations of Claim 38, wherein the intercalation compound comprises the composition LixM'yM"zOa, wherein M' is manganese and M" is cobalt.
Forming the positive electrode of Wollfarth to comprise Li(Co)xMn2-xO4, instead of LiFePO4, teaches the limitations of Claim 39, wherein x, y and z are equal to 1 and a is equal to 4.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed value of y = 1 and z = 1 lies within the taught range of 0-2.
In reference to Claim 40, modified Wollfarth does not teach that the intercalation compound has the composition recited in Claim 40.
Instead, as described above, she teaches that the intercalation compound is LiFePO4 (paragraph [0082]).
To solve the same problem of providing a positive electrode comprising a lithium compound for a rechargeable lithium battery, Homma teaches that LiFePO4 and Li(Co, Ni)xMn2-xO4 are both lithium compounds suitable for use as positive electrode active materials for a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraph [0082]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the positive electrode material of the device of modified Wollferth to comprise Li(Co, Ni)xMn2-xO4, instead of LiFePO4, based on Homma’s disclosure that LiFePO4 and Li(Co, Ni)xMn2-xO4 are both lithium compounds suitable for use as positive electrode active materials for a rechargeable lithium battery (paragraph [0082]).
Forming the positive electrode of Wollfarth to comprise Li(Co, Ni)xMn2-xO4, instead of LiFePO4, teaches the limitations of Claim 40, wherein the intercalation compound comprises the composition LixM'yM"zOa, wherein M' comprises nickel and manganese and M" is cobalt.
Claims 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollfarth, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0014011 A1), in view of Xu, et al. (Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, 3 (8) 366-368 (2000)), and further in view of Hambitzer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0411903 A1).
In reference to Claim 46, modified Wollfarth does not teach that the positive electrode and/or the negative electrode comprises a binder.
To solve the same problem of providing a rechargeable lithium ion battery with an SO2-based electrolyte (Abstract) and a LiFePO4 positive electrode (paragraph [0093]), Hambitzer teaches that a suitable composition for such a LiFePO4 positive electrode includes 94 wt% LiFePO4, 4 wt% THV binder (which is a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride/tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene), and 2% conductivity improver (paragraph [0093]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the positive electrode of modified Wollfarth to have the form of that in Hambitzer, because Hambitzer teaches that this is a suitable configuration for a LiFePO4 positive electrode in a rechargeable lithium battery comprising an SO2-based electrolyte.
Forming the positive electrode of modified Wollfarth to have the form of that in Hambitzer, in which the positive electrode comprises 94 wt% LiFePO4, 4 wt% THV binder (which is a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride/tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene), and 2% conductivity improver (paragraph [0093]), teaches the limitations of Claim 46, wherein the positive electrode comprises: a fluorinated binder.
Forming the positive electrode of modified Wollfarth to have the form of that in Hambitzer, in which the positive electrode comprises 94 wt% LiFePO4, 4 wt% THV binder (which is a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride/tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene), and 2% conductivity improver (paragraph [0093]), teaches the limitations of Claim 47, wherein the positive electrode comprises the fluorinated binder, the fluorinated binder a terpolymer consisting of tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene and vinylidene fluoride.
Forming the positive electrode of modified Wollfarth to have the form of that in Hambitzer, in which the positive electrode comprises 94 wt% LiFePO4, 4 wt% THV binder (which is a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride/tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene), and 2% conductivity improver (paragraph [0093]), teaches the limitations of Claim 48, wherein the binder is present in a concentration selected from the group consisting of no more than 20 wt.%, no more than 15 wt.%, no more than 10 wt.%, no more than 7 wt.%, or no more than 5 wt.% (i.e. 4 wt%), based on the overall weight of the positive electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721