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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024, 04/07/2025, and 07/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-49 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,876,170 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim a rechargeable battery cell having active material, a positive electrode, a negative electrode an SO2 based electrolyte having a conductive salt according to the formula 1.
Claims 1-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,901,504 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim a rechargeable battery cell having active material, a positive electrode, a negative electrode an SO2 based electrolyte having a conductive salt according to the formula 1.
Claims 1-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-50 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,942,594 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim a rechargeable battery cell having active material, a positive electrode, a negative electrode an SO2 based electrolyte having a conductive salt according to the formula 1.
Claims 1-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-47 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,407,018 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim a rechargeable battery cell having active material, a positive electrode, a negative electrode an SO2 based electrolyte having a conductive salt according to the formula 1.
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, 23, 24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 comprises a concentration that continuously decreases and is unclear what applicant is intending to claim as the desired range. Applicant lists “at most 20 wt%, at most 15 wt%...at most 0.5 wt%” and thus is unclear what range applicant is trying to claim. Examiner will interpret claim 6 to be less than 20 wt%.
Claim 23 comprises a molar concentration of the first conductive salt and then comprises multiple narrowing ranges. This is indefinite as it is unclear what range applicant is requiring.
Claim 24 comprises a ratio of the composition within the electrolyte and has a variety of ranges and thus is indefinite as it is unclear what range applicant is requiring.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "Z". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the composition claimed within claim 32 comprises Z1 or Z2 and thus Z does not have antecedent basis within the formula. Examiner will interpret Z for claim 32 to be referencing Z1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 19, 23-24, 26-29, 33-35, and 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinck et al. (US 2014/0220428 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0176753 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zinck discloses a rechargeable battery cell, comprising:
An active metal ([0052] electrode contains active metal);
A positive electrode having a planar discharge element ([0051] electrodes have planar current collectors 4/5);
A negative electrode having a planar discharge element ([0051] electrodes have planar current collectors 4/5);
A housing ([0050] Figure 1 housing 1); and
An SO2 based electrolyte containing a first conductive salt ([0050] electrolyte contains an SO2 based electrolyte containing a salt, [0060]).
Zinck discloses wherein the battery comprises the positive and negative electrodes, however, is silent with respect to the specific composition of the electrodes and specifically wherein the positive and/or the negative electrode comprises a first binder consisting of a polymer based on monomeric styrene and butadiene structural units, and a second binder selected from the group consisting of carboxymethyl celluloses.
Lee discloses an electrode for a lithium secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Lee discloses wherein an electrode can comprise a styrene butadiene rubber and carboxymethyl cellulose as binders within the electrode materials as these are known materials for use as a binder ([0098-0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the electrode taught by Zinck for the electrode taught by Lee comprising the styrene butadiene rubber and carboxymethyl cellulose binders as a simple substitution of one electrode for another. The binders taught by Lee are known in the art and thus the modification can be to include the binders within the electrode of Zinck or to substitute the electrodes for each other as this would read on the limitations of the electrodes being made of the binders as claimed. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the electrodes can be made with a third binder that differs from the first and second binders (Lee Claim 8, a third binder can be present and be selected from the list of materials).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Lee further discloses wherein the further binder comprises a fluorinated binder (Lee claim 8, polyvinylidene fluoride binder can be used).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the concentration of all binders in the positive or negative electrode is selected from the group consisting of at most 20 wt% relative to the total weight of the positive or negative electrode ([0099] binders were used in the electrode at a weight ratio of 2 and 1.5 with regards to the whole negative electrode).
Regarding claim 19, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zinck further discloses wherein the electrolyte contains at least one second conductive salt that different from the first conductive salt ([0006,0030] a plurality of salts and can be a mix of salts).
Regarding claim 23, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zinck further discloses wherein the molar concentration of the first conductive salt is in a range of 0.01 mol/l -10 mol/l ([0011] 350 mmol/L). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 24, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zinck further discloses wherein the electrolyte contains SO2 in an amount of at least 0.1 mole SO2 per mole of conductive salt ([0031] at least 1 mole of SO2 per mole of conductive salt).
Regarding claims 26-29, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zinck further discloses wherein the active metal can comprise lithium sodium, calcium or zinc (Zinck claims 9-11).
Regarding claims 33-35, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zinck further discloses wherein the positive electrode contains at least one metal compound selected from the group consisting of a metal oxide, a metal halide and a metal phosphate, such as cobalt , nickel manganese, or iron ([0053] active material for the positive electrode can be cobalt, nickel, manganese or iron).
Regarding claim 37-39, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zinck further discloses wherein the negative electrode is an insertion electrode comprising carbon such as graphite ([0052] negative electrode is an insertion electrode comprising carbon such as graphite [0066]).
Regarding claim 40, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zinck further disclose wherein the negative electrode comprises a plurality of negative electrodes and the positive electrode comprises a plurality of positive electrodes, the negative and positive electrodes being arrange alternately in a stack in the housing (Figure 1; plurality of electrodes 4 and 5 are within the housing 1).
Regarding claim 41, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 40. Zinck further disclose wherein the positive and negative electrodes in the stack are electrically separated from one another by separators (Figure 1; separators 11 separate the electrodes).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinck et al. (US 2014/0220428 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0176753 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pszolla et al. (US 2015/0093632 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 2. Modified Zinck is silent with respect to wherein the further binder comprises a polymer built up from monomeric structural units of a conjugated carboxylic acid.
Pszolla discloses a rechargeable battery having a SO2 electrolyte and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Pszolla discloses wherein a binder for an electrode can be made from monomeric structural units of a conjugated carboxylic acid or alkali salt (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the binder of the electrode of modified Zinck for the conjugated carboxylic acid binder taught by Pszolla as a simple substitution of one known binder for another. The resulting modification would render obvious wherein the further binder comprises a conjugated carboxylic acid used in the electrode. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 7-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinck et al. (US 2014/0220428 A1)and Lee et al. (US 2020/0176753 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garsuch (EP 2827430 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Zinck is silent with respect to the specific formula for the conductive salt.
Garsuch discloses a lithium battery having conductive salts in electrolytes and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Garsuch discloses an electrolyte made of a salt as seen in formula I below ([0008]), wherein M is selected to be Li, R groups can be a plurality of different carbon based groups, and Z can be Al or B ([0008-0019]).
PNG
media_image1.png
170
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the conductive salt of Zinck for the conductive salt shown in Figure I and taught by Garsuch as a simple substitution of one conductive salt for an electrolyte for another. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Garsuch further discloses wherein the lithium compound is select3ed from the group consisting of lithium tetrahalogenoaluminate, a halide, an oxalate, a borate, a phosphate, an arsenate and a gallate ([0032] materials for the lithium containing compound). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 10-17, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Garsuch further discloses a plurality of different R groups and derivatives for the material of formula I and are rendered obvious through the combination as the different R groups are taught and described by Garsuch ([0008-0019]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Garsuch further discloses materials for the salt of formula I that overlaps with the claimed materials such as at least Li[B(OCH2CF3)4] ([0032] materials for the lithium containing compound). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claims 20-21, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Zinck is silent with respect to the electrolyte comprising an additive.
Garsuch discloses a lithium battery having conductive salts in electrolytes and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Garsuch discloses an electrolyte made of a salt as seen in formula I and wherein the electrolyte can comprise an additive such as cyclic alkanes such has cyclohexane at a concentration of 0.001 wt%-10 wt% ([0064-0067]) in order to prevent corrosive decomposition as they do not thermally decompose at usual operating temperatures ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the additive taught by Garsuch into the electrolyte of Zinck to prevent corrosive decomposition at normal operating temperatures as taught by Garsuch. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claims 20-21.
Regarding claims 22, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zinck further discloses wherein the sulfur dioxide is provided at a weight of 20-95 wt % ([0004]),
Wherein the conductive salt is provided at a weight percentage of less than 70% ([0028]).
Modified Zinck is silent with respect to the electrolyte comprising an additive and the specific concentrations of the second conductive salt within the electrolyte.
Garsuch discloses a lithium battery having conductive salts in electrolytes and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Garsuch discloses an electrolyte made of a salt as seen in formula I and wherein the electrolyte can comprise an additive such as cyclic alkanes such has cyclohexane at a concentration of 0.001 wt%-10 wt% ([0064-0067]) in order to prevent corrosive decomposition as they do not thermally decompose at usual operating temperatures ([0010]). Garsuch further discloses an electrolyte concentration in which the electrolyte can also comprise a second conductive salt of 0-25 wt% with respect to the total concentration of the electrolyte ([0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the additive within a range of 0-10 wt% and second conductive salt within a range of 0-25 wt% taught by Garsuch into the electrolyte of Zinck to prevent corrosive decomposition at normal operating temperatures as taught by Garsuch. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 22 as the composition of the electrolyte through the combination contains overlapping ranges for the materials within 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinck et al. (US 2014/0220428 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0176753 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hambitzer et al. (US 2004/0157129 A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zinck is silent with respect to the cell voltage.
Hambitzer discloses a rechargeable battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Hambitzer discloses wherein a battery comprising an SO2 electrolyte can comprise a voltage around 4-5 V to achieve a high voltage cell with high charging potential ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the voltage of the battery to have a battery having a high voltage such as between 4-5 V to obtain a high voltage cell with high charging potential as taught by Hambitzer. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 25.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinck et al. (US 2014/0220428 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0176753 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holme et al. (US 2021/0135292 A1).
Regarding claims 30-32, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1, however, is explicitly silent with respect to the materials of the positive electrode according to claims 30-32.
Holme discloses an electrochemical cell and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Holme discloses wherein active material can include a plurality of materials such as Lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or a material such as lithium iron phosphate ([0023,0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the positive electrode of Zinck for the positive electrode taught by Holme of lithium iron phosphate or lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide as these known materials for a positive electrode as taught by Holme. Examiner notes that these materials would read on the claim limitations of claims 30-32 as lithium iron phosphate or lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide would read on the specific composition as claimed and is consistent with the instant specification. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinck et al. (US 2014/0220428 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0176753 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toyama et al. (US 2010/0247986 A1).
Regarding claim 36, modified Zinck discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zinck is silent with respect to wherein the positive electrode comprises a metal compound having a spinel, layered oxide, a conversion compound or a polyanionic compound.
Toyama discloses a positive electrode for a secondary battery. Toyama discloses wherein the positive electrode material can have a layered structure and a spinel structure in order to have the advantage of higher conductivity ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the positive electrode of Zinck to have a layered and a spinel structure as taught by Toyama in order to increase the conductivity of the electrode and battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garsuch et al. (US 2015/0236380 A1)-discloses additives for electrolytes that is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights