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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “a cathode disposed on a a cathode current collector” should read “a cathode disposed on a cathode current collector”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20220190438 A1, “Jang”) in view of Cain et al. (US 20210175486 A1, “Cain”) and Grant et al. (US 20130327648 A1, “Grant”).
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a method of pre-forming anode particles (see Title “manufacturing method”; see [0096] “method involves dispersion and embedding solid particles in a polymeric matrix during formation of the particles” & “particles are formed by evaporation of the solvent from the matrix material”) bearing a solid electrolyte interphase (see [0097] “solid electrolyte” & see [0043] “solid electrolyte particles on the anode side” & “solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI)”). Jang discloses the anode particles being for use in an anode of a lithium ion battery (see abstract “lithium secondary battery”), where the lithium ion battery includes the anode, an anode current collector, a cathode, a cathode current collector, an optional separator, and a battery electrolyte (see abstract “cathode, an anode” & “separator”; see FIG. 2 describes anode current collector & cathode current collector; see [0013] “working electrolyte”), and this limitation is intended use and does result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.
Jang discloses the method comprising: providing a dispersion in a vessel configured for electrochemical reactions, wherein the dispersion comprises anode precursor particles (see [0090] “solid particles are dispersed into the supporting air stream in an embedding chamber” & “anode particles” & “reactive precursor solution”) and a first liquid electrolyte solution (see abstract “working electrolyte” & see [0021] “liquid electrolyte”), and the dispersion includes an additive not found in the lithium ion battery (see [0028] “lithium ion-conducting additive, which is different from the inorganic solid electrolyte particles”), applying a voltage across the dispersion to form the anode particles bearing the solid electrolyte interphase (see [0029] “during the first battery charge procedure” which describes applying a voltage).
Regarding the limitation and recovering the anode particles bearing the solid electrolyte interphase from the dispersion, Jang does not explicitly disclose.
Cain teaches recovering the particles for reuse (see [0084] “recovering the discharged lithium for reuse” & see [0006] “common lithiation methods” & “cost”).
Grant teaches “the effluent from the distillation unit can be collected and treated to recover used salt for reuse in the lithiation process” & “means for minimizing equipment size and cost” in [0060].
Jang and Cain are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium-ion cells and methods of making (see abstract).
Jang and Grant are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely SEI formation (see [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate recovering the discharge lithium as suggested by Cain (see [0084]) & “recover used salt for reuse in the lithiation process” into the method of Jang because doing so reduces cost as suggested by Grant (see [0060]) and Cain (see [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Jang discloses the method of claim 1. Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the additive is present in the dispersion before applying the voltage.
Cain teaches “electrochemistry may be driven by an applied external voltage” & “the counter electrode 270” (see [0082]) & describes “counter electrode added to the original container so as to electrochemically discharge a fully-lithiated electroactive material in a first state” (see [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “counter electrode added to the original container” as suggested by Cain (see [0082] & [0085]) into the method of Jang because doing so “electrochemically discharge[s] a fully-lithiated electroactive material in a first state” as suggested by Cain (see [0085]).
Regarding claim 3, Jang discloses the method of claim 1. Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the additive is added to the dispersion during the application of the voltage.
Cain teaches “a counter electrode added to the original container so as to electrochemically discharge a fully-lithiated electroactive material in a first state” (see [0085]) & describes “applying a bias voltage to the counter electrode 270” & describes “bias voltage may cause lithium ions (Li+) to move from the fully lithiated electroactive particles 222 to the counter electrode 270” & “so as to form an optimized lithiated electroactive material that defines an optimized lithiated electroactive particle 224” (see [0083]) & see FIG. 2.
Grant teaches “a circulating loop can dose in salt” & “Recirculating loops, refluxing unit and distillation units can be shared across multiple tanks that have different input and output requirements as a means of minimizing equipment size and cost” (see [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Cain to include “applying a bias voltage to the counter electrode 270” (see [0083]) & adding a counter electrode (see [0085]) into the method of Jang because doing so “forms an optimized litigated electroactive material that defines an optimized lithiated electroactive particle” as suggested by Cain (see [0083]). Further, it would have been obvious to add the additive to the dispersion during applying the voltage because Grant teaches “a circulating loop can dose in salt” (see [0060]) and doing so lowers the cost as suggested by Grant (“cost of the battery or cell produced with this method will be lower due to the lower cost of the feedstock lithium salt” (see [0062]) & because Grant teaches “the fluid circulation loop pump rate can be matched to maintain a constant lithium salt concentration in the tank. For a given anode substrate process rate, a matching loop circulation rate will dose the same amount of lithium salt as the lithiation process consumes. As the anode process rate is increased or decreased, the loop circulation rate can be modified to maintain an equilibrium state within the bath” (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Jang teaches the method of claim 2 and further discloses “encapsulated particles” (see [0020]) & “elastomeric shell materials for encapsulating anode active material particles (see [0125]). Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein after applying the voltage and during the application of the voltage, introducing an additional additive to the dispersion to form a solid electrolyte interphase having a first layer of a first composition and a second layer of a second composition.
Cain teaches in [0071] “formation of a solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer” & see [0072] “continuous flow method for making electroactive materials” see [0087] “lithium source 340 may be disposed, for example as a coating or layer” & “method includes recovering the discharge lithium for reuse” & “lithium plated on the counter electrode 270 may be used as a lithium source 240 in subsequent lithiation processes by moving the lithium-plated counter electrode 270 from the second container 250 to a first container 230” (see [0084]). Cain teaches recovering the particles for reuse (see [0084] “recovering the discharged lithium for reuse” & see [0006] “common lithiation methods” & “cost”).
Grant teaches “the effluent from the distillation unit can be collected and treated to recover used salt for reuse in the lithiation process” & “means for minimizing equipment size and cost” in [0060].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reuse of lithium as suggested by Cain (see [0084], [0087]) into the method of Jang because doing so improves the cost as suggested by Grant (see [0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Jang discloses the method of claim 4. Jang does not explicitly disclose further comprising repeating the step of introducing an additional additive and applying the voltage after introducing the additional additive.
Cain teaches [0084] “the optimized lithiated electroactive particle 224 may be coated using an atomic layer deposition (“ALD”) process”; see [0085] “various steps may be discontinuous, including for example a storage step and/or aging step” & “process may be a batch flow process”. Cain teaches “method further includes coating the optimized lithiated electroactive particle 224 so as to enhance mechanical stability” (see [0084]) & see FIG. 2 describes applying a voltage. Cain teaches “the applied voltage may depend, in certain aspects, on the selected electroactive material precursor, as well as the design of the containers 230, 250 and various other production steps” (see [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “coating the optimized lithiated electroactive particle” as suggested by Cain (see [0084]) into the method of Jang because doing so enhances the mechanical stability as suggested by Cain (see [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the anode particles comprise silicon (see [0065] “silicon”).
Regarding claim 7, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the anode particles have an average particle size of from 10 nm to 30 µm (see [0097]).
Jang discloses a range of 10 nm to 30 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 50 nm to 100 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 8, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte interphase has a thickness of 50 nm to 100 µm (see [0043], [0013] “thickness from 50 nm to 100 µm”).
Jang discloses a range of 50 nm to 100 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 100 nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 9, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first liquid electrolyte solution comprises salt in a solvent (see [0021] “lithium salt” & “liquid electrolyte”; see [0092] “slurry containing additive particles dispersed in a solvent”) wherein the salt comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (see [0032] “lithium salt” & “lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide”).
Regarding claim 10, Jang discloses the method of claim 1. Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the additive comprises a fluorinated carbonate.
Cain teaches fluorinated carbonate “FEC” & “the electrolyte may include one or more diluters, such as fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)” & “lithium salts may be dissolved in a variety of organic solvents” (see [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “FEC” as suggested by Cain (see [0053]) into the method of Jang because doing so dissolves the lithium salt, as suggested by Cain (see [0053]).
Regarding claim 12, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses reaction vessel (see [0157]) & electrode comprising lithium metal (see [0012] “lithium metal anode”). Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrochemical reaction vessel comprises a conductive shell as a current collector.
Cain teaches in FIG. 2 & describes “counter electrode 270” & “second container 250” & describes “counter electrode 270, like the containers 230, 250, may comprise a non-reactive metal and electrochemistry may be driven by an applied external voltage” in [0082] & in [0080] second container 250 may be made of copper which reads on conductive shell.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate second container made of copper as suggested by Cain (see FIG. 2, [0080], [0082]) which reads on conductive shell into the method of Jang because a skilled artisan would recognize doing so allows the current to flow when the voltage is applied to the counter electrode & “to form an optimized lithiated electroactive material that defines an optimized lithiated electroactive particle 224”, as suggested by Cain (see [0083]).
Regarding claim 13, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein voltage is applied at a level of 3V (see [0145] “electrochemical measurements were carried out” & “3V” which describes 3000 millivolts).
Jang discloses a range of 3V (equivalent to 3000 millivolts), which lies within the claimed range of +/-10 to +/-7000 millivolts. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 14, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein current is applied at a level of from +/-0.01 to +/-10 milliamps per square centimeter.
Grant teaches current (see [0045] “current control mode” & “current control can alternatively be used if the subsequent operating voltage remains above the lithium halide salt dissociation threshold. This can be done by setting a sufficiently high initial current density (e.g. 2 mA/cm2) that will favor the dissociation rather than secondary side reactions”).
Grant teaches a range of 2 mA/cm2, which lies within the claimed range of +/-0.01 to +/-10 milliamps per square centimeter. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 15, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte interphase is a homogeneous composition (see [0059] “solid electrolyte particles are uniformly dispersed” & see [0075] “uniformly dispersed” reads on homogeneous composition).
Regarding claim 16, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte interphase has a composition which varies along a gradient from a surface of the anode particle to a surface of the solid electrolyte interphase (see [0043] “stable artificial solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI). The high concentration of a flame retardant facing the anode side also acts to suppress any internal thermal run-away or fire. Thus, in some embodiments, the elastic composite separator has a gradient concentration of the flame retardant and/or the inorganic solid electrolyte particles across the thickness of the separator”; see [0060]).
Regarding claim 17, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte interphase is inorganic (see [0043] “stable artificial solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI)” & see [0043] “inorganic solid electrolyte particles”).
Regarding claim 18, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses comprising forming a second dispersion comprising the anode particles bearing the solid electrolyte interphase (see [0091] “the particles in the embedding zone portion may be subjected to re-circulation for repeated imbedding” & “dispersed into slower moving air and sink back to the base of the encapsulating chamber, enabling repeated passes of the particles”), and a second liquid electrolyte solution which is different from the first liquid electrolyte solution (see [0021] “working electrolyte is selected form an organic liquid electrolyte, ionic liquid electrolyte” “or a combination thereof”), and applying a voltage across the dispersion (see [0145] “3V”). Jang does not explicitly disclose to form a second layer of solid electrolyte interphase on the anode particles.
Cain teaches layers (see [0083] “optimized lithiated electroactive material that defines an optimized lithiated electroactive particle” & see [0054] “solid-state electrolyte may be disposed in a plurality of layers so as to defined a three-dimensional structure” & see [0066] “one or more layers so as to define the three-dimensional structure of the negative electrode” & see [0060] “layers” & “to help provide the separator 26 with appropriate structural and porosity characteristics”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate layers as suggested by Cain (see [0054], [0060], [0066]) into the method of Jang because doing so improves the structural and porosity characteristics, as suggested by Cain (see [0060]).
Regarding claim 19, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses comprising forming a slurry comprising the anode particles bearing the solid electrolyte interphase, a binder, a conductive component and a solvent (see Title; see [0096] “method involves dispersion and embedding solid particles in a polymeric matrix during formation of the particles” & “particles are formed by evaporation of the solvent from the matrix material” & see [0097] “solid electrolyte” & see [0043] “solid electrolyte particles on the anode side”; see [0107] & [0108] “solvent”; see [0044] “form a slurry”; [0071] “binder” & “conductive additive”), applying the slurry to a current collector (see [0071] “depositing a layer of the liquid reactive mass onto a solid substrate surface”; see [0045] “solid substrate may be an anode current collector”), drying and optionally curing to form an anode (see [0045] “curing” & see [0044] “curing” & see [0124] “drying and curing”).
Regarding claim 20, Jang discloses a lithium ion battery (see [0140] “lithium-ion battery”) comprising an anode disposed on an anode current collector, a cathode disposed on a cathode current collector, an optional separator, disposed between the anode and the cathode (see [0045] “anode current collector”; see abstract “lithium secondary battery comprising a cathode, an anode” & “separator” & see FIG. 2 describes anode current collector & cathode current collector; see [0013] & abstract “working electrolyte”), wherein the anode comprises anode particles having a pre-formed solid electrolyte interphase (see [0096] “particles” & see [0043] “solid electrolyte particles on the anode side” & “solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI)”). Jang does not explicitly disclose having a pre-formed solid electrolyte interphase of a composition that could not be formed in situ in the lithium ion battery.
Cain teaches “negative electroactive material may be pre-lithiated” (see [0067] & “recovering the discharge lithium for reuse” & “isolating or separating the optimized lithiated electroactive particle 224 in a second state for use in a negative electrode, for example negative electrode” (see [0084]) & describes “cost” in [0006].
Grant teaches “by lithiating the anode prior to battery assembly, a surplus of lithium is present that can support longer cycling life, initial losses due to SEI formation, cathode related alkali metal ion losses, and/or alkali metal free cathode material cycling needs” (see [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “pre-lithiated” & “optimized lithiated electroactive particle” as suggested by Cain (see [0084]) & “lithiating the anode prior to battery assembly” as suggested by Grant (see [0011]) into the lithium ion battery of Jang because doing so improves the cycling life as suggested by Grant (see [0011]) & improves the cost as suggested by Cain (see [0006]).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 20, “having a pre-formed solid electrolyte interphase of a composition that could not be formed in situ in the lithium ion battery”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 20220190438 A1, “Jang”) in view of Cain et al. (US 20210175486 A1, “Cain”) and Grant et al. (US 20130327648 A1, “Grant”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 10193135 B2, “Sharma”).
Regarding claim 11, Jang discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses “0.1% to 50% by weight of a lithium ion-conducting additive” (see [0028]) and describes “degree of dispersion” (see [0088]).
Jang discloses a range of 0.1% to 50%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.001 to 10 weight percent. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Jang does not explicitly disclose wherein the dispersion comprises 1 to 25 weight percent of the anode particles.
Sharma teaches on P38 col 6 par 2 “generally no more than about 25 weight percent coating of multiple metal oxide composition can be effective for providing cycling stability of the composite at high voltages”.
Jang and Sharma are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium ion batteries (see P38 col 5 par 5 “cycling stability for high voltage cycling” & “lithium ion battery”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate about 25 weight percent as suggested by Sharma (see P38 col 6 par 2) into the method of Jang because doing so “can be effective for providing cycling stability of the composite at high voltages” as suggested by Sharma (see P38 col 6 par 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725