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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a cylindrical lithium-ion cell, classified in H01M 10/052.
II. Claims 15-19, drawn to a method for fabricating a densified anode electrode, classified in H01M 4/0435.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product could be made by another materially different process for example electrospray coating of a dry anode precursor mixture.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Group I is a product classified in CPC H01M 10/052 and Group II is a process classified in CPC H01M 4/0435. Additionally, the search strategies required to find products vs. processes are distinct and require different search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Hopeton Walker on 30 July 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 14-19 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0006], “contraction cause mechanical stress” should read --contraction causes mechanical stress--; in paragraph [00030], “Pursuant to various embodiment” should read --Pursuant to various embodiments--; in paragraphs [00036], [00055], and [00078], “SixCy” should read --SixCy--; in paragraph [00044], “together know as electrode stack” should read --together known as electrode stack”; in paragraph [0058]), “gas generation and yield right balance” should read --gas generation and yields the right balance--; in paragraph [00064], “densification for silicon-dominant composition” should read --densification for the silicon-dominant composition-- or --densification for a silicon-dominant composition--; in paragraph [00078], “In another exemplary embodiments” should read --In another exemplary embodiment--; the paragraph numbering format is four digits for paragraphs [0001] - [0009] then changes to five digits for paragraphs [00010] - [00082], the paragraph numbering format should remain four digits or five digits throughout the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, “SixCy” should read --SixCy--; in claims 5 and 10, “discharge rate when discharge” should read --discharge rate when discharged--; in claims 6 and 11 “when discharge from” should read --when discharged from--; in claims 8 and 13, “lower and upper voltage” should read --lower and upper voltages--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “composed of”. The transitional phrase "composed of" has been interpreted in the same manner as either "consisting of" or "consisting essentially of," depending on the facts of the particular case. In this case, the examiner interprets “composed of” as synonymous with consisting essentially of and since there are no “basic and novel” characteristics defined in the specification, “consisting essentially of” is further interpreted as “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03(III)-(IV)..
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 and 4 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 1 recites a silicon-carbon composite SixCy wherein x + y = 1 and x ranges between 0.45-0.55. it is unclear whether claim 1 is claiming a distinct crystalline material with the claimed mol ratio or merely representing a silicon carbon composition comprising distinct silicon phases and carbon phases. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets the silicon-carbon composite to simply require a material including silicon and carbon at the claimed mol ratio which may include distinct phases of silicon and carbon and may include a crystalline lattice including silicon and carbon.
Claim 1 recites a predefined ratio of 52.6-100 % silicon-carbon composite and 0-47.4 % graphite. It is unclear whether the percentage range of the silicon-carbon composite and graphite are mol percentages, weight percentages based on the whole mass of the composite anode electrode active material, or weight percentages based on the whole mass of the anode electrode formulation. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets 52.6-100 % silicon-carbon composite and 0-47.4% graphite to be weight percentages based on the whole mass of the anode electrode active material.
Claim 1 recites the binder mixture is composed of 0-25 % polyacrylic acid, 2.5-25 % styrene-butadiene rubber, 2.5-25 % carboxymethyl cellulose, and 0-25 % alginate. The recited percentage ranges are interpreted as % by weight; however, it is unclear whether the percentage ranges are based on a whole of the binder mixture or a whole of the anode electrode formulation. As the instant specification provides one exemplary embodiment wherein the anode electrode formulation includes 2.5 % alginate and 2.5 % CMC (corresponding to a binder mixture consisting of 50% each individually of alginate and CMC in the binder mixture) ([00063]) and one exemplary embodiment wherein the anode electrode formulation includes 2.5 % PAA and 2.5 % CMC (corresponding to a binder mixture consisting of 50 % each individually of PAA and CMC) ([00078]), the examiner interprets the percentage ranges recited for the binder mixture composition in claim 1 to be % by weight of the anode electrode formulation whole. Therefore, in light of the instant specification, the binder mixture recited by claim 1 is interpreted to require both CMC and SBR at 2.5-25 weight % each individually based on the whole mass of the anode electrode formulation and may also include 0-25 weight % each individually of PAA and/or alginate based on the whole mass of the anode electrode formulation.
Claim 1 recites the conductive additive mixture encompasses of 0-25 % graphene acid, 0-25 % single-wall carbon nanotubes, and 0-50 % carbon black. The recited percentage ranges are interpreted as % by weight; however, it is unclear whether the percentage ranges are based on a whole of the conductive additive mixture or a whole of the anode electrode formulation. As the instant specification provides one exemplary embodiment wherein the anode electrode formulation includes 4 % carbon black and 1 % single-wall carbon nanotubes (corresponding to a conductive carbon mixture of 80 % carbon black and 20 % single-wall carbon nanotubes) ([00063]) and one exemplary embodiment wherein the anode electrode formulation includes 3 % carbon black and 2 % single-wall carbon nanotubes (corresponding to a conductive additive mixture of 60 % carbon black and 40 % single-wall carbon nanotubes) ([00078]), the examiner interprets the percentage ranges recited for the conductive additive mixture composition in claim 1 to be % by weight of the anode electrode formulation whole. Therefore, in light of the instant specification, claim 1 is interpreted to require the anode electrode formulation including a conductive additive which may optionally include 0-25 weight % graphene by weight of the anode electrode formulation whole, 0-25 weight % single-wall carbon nanotubes by weight of the anode electrode formulation whole, and 0-50 weight % carbon black by weight of the anode electrode formulation whole.
The term “substantial” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” 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. While the instant specification discloses a significant volume expansion of silicon is > 300%, it is unclear whether this is the substantial volume change referenced by claim 4 as claim 1 also specifies a stack level expansion of ≥ 3%. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets the phrase “substantial volume change during cycling” to mean “a volume change during cycling”.
Claim 4 recites the term “salt-type additive”. The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(III)(E). For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets salt-type additive to mean that the additive is a salt.
The term “stable ” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stable” 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. While the instant specification does describe a continuous breakdown and reformation of the solid-electrolyte interface (SEI) in the context of “silicon swelling”, it does not provide a definite metric for what constitutes a “stable SEI” especially since one skilled in the art would recognize that any lithium-ion battery SEI would undergo some degree of breakdown and reformation during cycling. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets claim 4 to require a salt additive to generate an SEI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2023/0109254 A1), hereinafter “Kim”, in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0304785 A1), hereinafter “Liu”.
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kim teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (corresponding to the claimed lithium-ion cell), a negative electrode (corresponding to the claimed anode electrode) which is formed by pressing (corresponding to the claimed densified anode electrode) (Kim, [0047], a positive electrode (corresponding to the claimed cathode) (Kim, [0065]) which Kim does not broadly teach is pressed, but does provide five example batteries and five comparative example batteries each of which has a pressed positive electrode as described in the preparation of Example 1 (corresponding to the claimed densified cathode) (Kim, [0097]), a separator disposed between the positive and negative electrodes (corresponding to the claimed separator sandwiched between the densified anode and the cathode) which may utilize multi-layers of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinylidene fluoride (corresponding to the claimed two separator layers) (Kim, [0089]), an electrolyte including a non-aqueous organic solvent (Kim, [0074]) and a lithium salt which improves transportation of the lithium ions between the positive and negative electrodes (corresponding to the claimed electrolyte facilitates movement of ions between cathode and anode) (Kim, [0088]), a case (which one skilled in the art would recognize houses the electrodes, electrolyte, and separator) (Kim, [0091]) and wherein the battery may be a cylindrical battery (corresponding to the claimed cylindrical lithium-ion cell and cylindrical housing and which one skilled in the art would understand to be metal as metal casings for cylindrical batteries are well known and conventional in the battery art) (Kim, [0090]);
the negative electrode includes a negative active material (corresponding to the claimed composite anode electrode active material) (Kim, [0030]) which may be a silicon-carbon composite (Kim, [0044]) including an agglomeration of crystalline carbon and silicon with an amorphous carbon positioned between or on the surface of the agglomerated product (wherein the agglomerated crystalline carbon and silicon correspond to the claimed silicon-carbon composite), wherein the silicon may be ~1-~60 weight %, the crystalline carbon may be ~20-~60 weight %, and the amorphous carbon may be ~20-~60 weight % of the whole, allowing for a composition of 55 % Si, 25 weight % crystalline carbon, and 20 % amorphous carbon which corresponds to a mol ratio of 0.48 (rounded) Silicon to 0.52 (rounded) crystalline carbon (corresponding to the claimed SixCy, x + y = 1, with 0.45 < x < 0.55) as calculated by the examiner for a 100 g whole in equations (1) and (2) below,
0.48
m
o
l
%
S
i
=
55
g
S
i
28.085
g
m
o
l
S
i
55
g
S
i
28.085
g
m
o
l
S
i
+
25
g
c
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
C
12.011
g
m
o
l
C
(1)
0.52
m
o
l
%
c
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
C
=
25
g
c
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
C
12.011
g
m
o
l
C
25
g
c
r
y
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
e
C
12.011
g
m
o
l
C
+
55
g
S
i
28.085
g
m
o
l
S
i
(2)
wherein the agglomerate accounts for 80 weight % of the solid (corresponding to the claimed 56.6 - 100 % silicon carbon-composite) and the crystalline carbon may be graphite and the amorphous carbon may be hard carbon;
the conductive material may be multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Kim, [0053]) wherein the combination of conductive material and amorphous carbon are interpreted to correspond to the conductive additive mixture (corresponding to the claimed conductive additive mixture composition of 0% graphene, 0% single-wall carbon nanotubes, and 0% carbon black);
the binder may be an aqueous binder (Kim, [0060]) which may be a combination of styrene-butadiene, an acrylic rubber, a butyl rubber, a fluorine rubber, an ethylene oxide-containing polymer, a polyvinyl pyrrolidone, a polypropylene, a polyepichlorohydrin, a polyphosphazene, and other polymers; and when an aqueous binder is utilized as a negative electrode binder, a cellulose based compound may be utilized as a thickener wherein the cellulose based compound includes carboxymethyl cellulose.
Kim further teaches the binder content in a range of about 1 weight % to about 5 weight % based on the total, 100 weight %, of the negative active material (Kim, [0059]), and a thickener content of about 0.1 to about 3 parts by weight thickener based on 100 parts by weight of the negative active material (Kim, [0063]) both of which overlap with the claimed ranges of 2.5-25 % styrene-butadiene rubber and carboxymethyl cellulose respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. See MPEP §2144.05.
Kim does not explicitly teach the claimed energy density metrics or the claimed stack level expansion at fully charged state. However, the instant specification discloses achieving the above features by providing a densified anode with a density of 1.6-1.75 g/cm3 and 30 % porosity which leads to the claimed stack level expansion range, and that a density of > 3.5 mg/cm3 for the densified cathode provides a high specific capacity; in turn, the high densification of both electrodes coupled with minimal stack level expansion leads to the claimed gravimetric and volumetric energy densities (instant specification, [0041]-[0042]).
Accordingly, Kim does not specifically disclose the density or porosity of the negative electrode or the density of the positive electrode. Liu teaches an electrochemical device (Liu, [0004]), a negative electrode which may include a silicon-based material (Liu, [0007]), and a positive electrode (Liu, [0011]). The negative electrode active material has a compaction density greater than 0.6 g/cm3 improving the energy that can be stored per unit volume in the electrochemical device and a porosity between 25 - 35 % (inclusive) ensuring a high energy density in addition to good infiltration of the electrolyte solution and high electrical conductivity. The positive electrode active material has a compaction density between 4.25-2.3 g/cm3 which prevents the positive electrode active material layer from falling off and prevents the particles from fragmenting while improving the energy density (Liu, [0027]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add the negative and positive electrode active material compaction density ranges, as well as the negative electrode active material porosity to the negative and positive electrodes suggested by Kim in order to maintain a high energy density, allow for good electrolyte infiltration, allow for high electrical conductivity and prevent the positive electrode particles from falling off (Liu, [0011], [0027]). Kim modified by Liu suggests a rechargeable lithium battery substantially the same as the claimed lithium-ion cell, having ranges of negative electrode active material density, negative electrode active material porosity, and positive electrode active material density overlapping with the ranges disclosed by the instant specification. Thus, an overlapping energy density greater than 300 Wh/kg and greater than 850 Wh/L as well the claimed electrode stack’s stack-level expansion of ≤3 % at the fully charged state would have been the natural result of the combination of elements disclosed by Kim. Where said overlap is obvious. See MPEP 2112(IV).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dey et al. (US 3,736,190), hereinafter “Dey”.
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Kim modified by Liu suggests the cylindrical lithium-ion cell of claim 1 as described above but while one skilled in the art would expect a cylindrical lithium ion battery case to be made of metal, Kim does not explicitly disclose the case material.
However, Dey discloses a metallic casing which is hermetically sealed for protecting batteries and cells based upon active metal organic electrolyte systems (Dey, col. 4 ln. 5-15). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute Kim’s undisclosed case material with the metallic case material taught by Dey in order to protect the battery suggested by Kim (Dey, col. 4 ln. 5-15).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Liu or in view of Liu and Dey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du et al. (US 2021/0126242 A1), hereinafter “Du".
Regarding claim 2, Kim does not teach the specific densified cathode material ranges recited by claim 2.
However, Du teaches a high-compacted positive electrode material (corresponding to the claimed densified cathode electrode) also referred to as the positive electrode material (Du, [0005]), including a large particle lithium-nickel transition metal oxide A (hereinafter oxide A) and a small particle lithium-nickel transition metal oxide B (hereinafter oxide B) both high in nickel content thereby allowing for the energy density of the battery to be increased (Du, [0006] - [0009], [0013]) and a mass ratio of oxide A to oxide B of 10:1 to 1:1. Furthermore, the degree of crystallinity and particle size distribution of the mixed positive electrode material can be controlled improving the powder compacted density of the high-nickel active material thereby ensuring lower gassing and good cycle performance (Du, [0013]). Du further teaches the compacted density of the positive electrode (corresponding to the claimed coat density) is 3.3 to 3.7 g/cm3; when the compacted density is less than 3.3 g/cm3, the energy density is excessively low but a compacted density greater than 3.7 g/cm3 results in sever particle crushing and gassing (Du, [0032]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the positive electrode material of Du, including oxides A and B with a compacted density between 3.3 - 3.7 g/cm3, for the positive electrode of Kim. Wherein the positive electrode material of Du would provide the rechargeable lithium battery of Kim with lower gassing and a better cycle performance, and the compacted density range of Du’s positive electrode material would further maintain a high energy density while preventing particle crushing and further preventing gassing (Du, [0032]). The general formula taught by Du is the same for oxide A and oxide B and is Lia(NibCocMnd)xM1-xO2-eXe where 0.95 ≤ a ≤ 1.05, 0.7 ≤ b ≤ 0.98, 0.01 ≤ c ≤ 0.15, 0.01 ≤ d ≤ 0.3, 0.95 ≤ x ≤ 1, and 0 ≤ e ≤ 0.1 (Du, [0006] - [0009], equations (I) and (II)) where M and X are irrelevant to the formula when x = 1 and e = 0. The examiner notes that the general formula of oxides A and B taught by Du overlaps with the claimed material composition ranges (for example, oxide A with a = 1, b = 0.92, c = 0.04, d = 0.04, x = 1, and e = 0, and oxide B with a = 1, b = 0.82, c = 0.09, d = 0.09, x = 1, and e = 0) the compacted density range taught by Du overlaps with the claimed coat density range, and the mass ratio taught by Du overlaps with the claimed percentage ranges (for example, a 1:1 mass ratio of oxide A to oxide B corresponds to a positive electrode material 50 % by weight in oxide A and 50 % by weight in oxide B). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Liu or in view of Liu and Dey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (US 2021/0367308 A1), hereinafter “Shi”.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches a separator which may utilize multiple layers (Kim, [0089]), but does not teach inorganic coatings on any of the layers.
However, Shi teaches a ceramic layer (corresponding to the claimed ceramic coating) applied to a polymeric microporous membrane (corresponding to the claimed separator) for a lithium battery (Shi, [0009]), wherein said ceramic provides at least one of improved safety, cycle life, or high temperature performance. Shi further teaches aluminum oxide (hereinafter referred to as alumina and corresponding to the claimed ceramic coating) as an oxidation resistant material which may be applied to both sides of a battery separator membrane to protect the membrane from undergoing oxidation of the membrane wherein said oxidation may limit the safety and/or lifetime of the battery (Shi, [0098]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add the alumina to both sides of Kim’s separator stack in order to protect the separator layers taught by Kim from oxidation enhancing the safety and lifetime of the battery (Shi, [0098]). Doing so would place Shi’s alumina coating on the outer surface of the separator layer facing the positive electrode and would also place the alumina coating on the separator layer facing the negative electrode (corresponding to the claimed two separator layers including inorganic coatings consisting of ceramic).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Liu or in view of Liu and Dey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yi et al. (US 2019/0326633 A1), hereinafter “Yi”.
Regarding claim 4, as interpreted in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, claim 4 includes the recitation “to generate a stable solid electrolyte interface (SEI) designed for silicon anode material that undergoes substantial volume changes during cycling”. The examiner notes that these limitations are instances of functional language which merely impart a structure that is capable of forming an SEI layer in a lithium-ion battery with an anode comprising silicon. "A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim." See MPEP 2114(I). Kim teaches the silicon based negative electrode (satisfying the functional language implication of a silicon anode that undergoes volume expansion) described with regard to claim 1 and an electrolyte having a salt mixture, an organic solvent, and salt type additive but does not disclose a specific conductivity of the electrolyte.
However, Yi teaches an electrolyte which can participate in the formation of an SEI film on the negative electrode for an electrochemical device (Yi, [0006], [0055]) which may be a lithium-ion secondary battery (corresponding to the claimed lithium-ion cell) (Yi, [0099]) having a negative active material that may be a silicon-based material (satisfying the functional language implication of a silicon anode that undergoes volume expansion), wherein the electrolyte can improve the cycle performance and storage performance of the electrochemical device (Yi, [0006]). Yi further teaches various lithium salts as the electrolytic salt (Yi, [0076] - [0082]) which may be used in combination (corresponding to the claimed salt mixture), an organic solvent (Yi, [0069]), a lithium sulfonimide salt (corresponding to the claimed salt-type additives) (Yi, [0051]) which can participate in the formation of an SEI film on the negative electrode (corresponding to the claimed salt-type additives generating a stable solid electrolyte interface) (Yi, [0055]), and a conductivity range of 4 - 12 mS/cm at 25 °C in order to maintain good kinetic performance and good thermal stability of the electrolyte and which overlaps with the claimed conductivity range of > 10.5 mS/cm at 25 °C. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the Kim’s electrolyte with the electrolyte taught by Yi, in order to provide the rechargeable lithium battery suggested by Kim cycle performance and storage performance (Yi, [0006]).
Claims 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Liu or in view of Liu and Dey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yi, and Hwangbo et al. (US 2022/0231345 A1), hereinafter “Hwangbo”.
Regarding claims 5-9, Kim does not teach an 18650-form factor, or the performance metrics recited by claims 5-9.
However, Hwangbo teaches that for small cylindrical batteries with a form factor of 18650, resistance and heat are not a major issue (Hwangbo, [0008]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the undisclosed form factor of Kim with the 18650 form factor of Hwangbo in order to provide a battery where resistance and heat are not an issue (Hwangbo, [0008]). The instant specification discloses that high power performance and cell operation across a broad temperature range can be achieved for high energy cylindrical cells enabling fast charge capabilities taking advantage of silicon’s ability to absorb lithium quickly. Further, the low viscosity and high ionic conductivity electrolyte formulation, and low resistance SEI help overcome the poor intrinsic conductivity issues of silicon-dominant anode formulations (instant specification, [00048]). Kim teaches the silicon-dominant anode formulation as explained with regard to claim 1 and Yi teaches the electrolyte composition as explained with regard to claim 4; thus, Kim modified by Liu, Yi, and Hwangbo or by Liu, Dey, Yi, and Hwangbo suggests a substantially similar cylindrical lithium-ion cell such that an overlapping discharge capacity as claimed by claim 5, an overlapping discharge capacity yield as claimed by claim 6, an overlapping charge rate from 20 - 80 % as claimed by claim 7, an overlapping discharge capacity yield retention over >500 cycles as claimed by claim 8, and an overlapping capacity yield at -40 °C as claimed by claim 9 would have naturally flowed from the suggestion of modified Kim. See MPEP 2112(IV).
Regarding claims 10-14, Kim does not teach a 21700-form factor, or the performance metrics recited by claims 10-14.
However, Hwangbo teaches that for small cylindrical batteries with a form factor of 21700, resistance and heat are not a major issue (Hwangbo, [0008]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute the undisclosed form factor of Kim with the 21700 form factor of Hwangbo in order to provide a battery where resistance and heat are not an issue (Hwangbo, [0008]). The instant specification discloses that high power performance and cell operation across a broad temperature range can be achieved for high energy cylindrical cells enabling fast charge capabilities taking advantage of silicon’s ability to absorb lithium quickly. Further, the low viscosity and high ionic conductivity electrolyte formulation, and low resistance SEI help overcome the poor intrinsic conductivity issues of silicon-dominant anode formulations (instant specification, [00048]). Kim teaches the silicon-dominant anode formulation and Yi teaches the electrolyte composition as explained with regard to claim 4 above; thus, Kim modified by Liu, Yi, and Hwangbo or by Liu, Dey, Yi, and Hwangbo suggests a substantially similar cylindrical lithium-ion cell such that an overlapping discharge capacity as claimed by claim 10, an overlapping discharge capacity yield as claimed by claim 11, an overlapping charge rate from 20 - 80 % as claimed by claim 12, an overlapping discharge capacity yield retention over >500 cycles as claimed by claim 13, and an overlapping capacity yield at -40 °C as claimed by claim 14 would have naturally flowed from the suggestion of modified Kim. See MPEP 2112(IV).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi et al. (2018/0219216 A1), Mason et al. (US 2023/0352656 A1), and You et al. (US 2022/0123305 A1) all teach the densified anode of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMRAN S SAUND whose telephone number is (571)270-0845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/SIMRAN S. SAUND/Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights