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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 8/4/26. Claims 1, 7, 15, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughey et al. (US 2020/0321655).
Regarding claim 1, Vaughey teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-ion secondary battery, the electrolyte comprising:
a non-aqueous organic solvent ([0014]);
a lithium salt ([0015]), and
a calcium salt ([0015], [0017]),
wherein a concentration of the calcium salt is about 0.001 to about 5 M([0015]).
Further regarding claim 1 and with regard to claims 2-3, Vaughey further teaches that the concentration of a soluble salt additive comprising Ca stabilizes silicon-containing anodes during electrochemical cycling ([0013]). Vaughey fails to teach specifically the wt% of the calcium salt. However, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to optimize the wt%, i.e. concentration, of the calcium salt of Vaughey in order to optimize the stabilization property of the electrolyte. It has been held that it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II A
As for claims 4-5, Vaughey teaches Ca[TFSI]2 ([0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Vaughey teaches that the solvent comprises a carbonate-based solvent such as linear and/or cyclic carbonate ([0018].
Regarding claims 9-10, Vaughey teaches that the lithium salt may be, for example, LiPF6 or LiBF4 ([0022]) at a concentration of about 0.1M to 5M ([0015], [0022]). The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art concentration range overlaps the claimed range. Absent any more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I
With regard to claims 11-13, Vaughey teaches a rechargeable, or secondary, lithium battery comprising:
a positive electrode comprising a lithium transition metal oxide active material comprising Mn, Ni, and Co ([0011]);
a negative electrode comprising a negative active material comprising a silicon composited with carbon ([0027]);
and the electrolyte above.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughey as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Umeyama et al. (US 2017/0077478).
The teachings of Vaughey as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Vaughey teaches the electrolyte of claim 6 but fails to teach specifically the claimed blend.
Umeyama teaches that an electrolyte solution may comprise a blend of cyclic carbonate, e.g. EC, and chain carbonates, e.g. DMC and EMC, in a blend of cyclic to chain of 1:9 to 5:5 for balance between electric conductivity and electrochemical stability ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to substitute the known solvent of Umeyama in the electrolyte of Vaughey and the results, i.e. balanced electric conductivity and electrochemical stability, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughey as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2017/0352883).
The teachings of Vaughey as discussed above are incorporated herein.
As discussed above, Vaughey teaches the negative active material comprises a silicon-carbon composite, but is silent on the specific structure.
Regarding claims 14-15, Cho teaches a negative active material for a lithium rechargeable battery ([0002]), wherein the active material is a composite having a core comprising Si-containing particles, or silicon oxide (20B) dispersed in a silicon matrix (10), and amorphous carbon, or a carbon-based conductive layer (30) comprising amorphous carbon (Figure 1B, [0028]-[0029]).
Cho further teaches that the active material is desirable for improving service life and providing high capacity and high charging/discharging efficiency ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use the active material of Cho in the battery of Vaughey in order to improve service life and provide high capacity and high charging/discharging efficiency.
As for claims 16-17, Cho teaches an embodiment wherein the core comprises Si particles (10) and amorphous carbon, i.e. the Si-C composite of claims 15-16, which may be doped with B, whereby pores for holding the B atoms are formed (Figure 1C, [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Cho teaches that the particles may be 10nm to 10µm ([0031]). The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art particle size range overlaps the claimed range. Absent any more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I
Further regarding claim 18, Cho teaches that the amount of carbon in the composite particle is related to the amount of boron in the active material ([0007]), and that the amount of boron is result effective for balancing charging/discharging efficiency with initial efficiency ([0031]). Thus, the amount of carbon is result effective for being tied to the amount of boron. It therefore would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to discover the optimum amount of carbon, which would determine the relative dimensions of the composite particle. It has been held that it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II A
As for claims 19-20, Cho teaches that the shell, i.e. only the surface portion, may contain both amorphous and crystalline carbon, or partially crystalline carbon-based conductive layer (30) ([0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, with regard to the arguments on pages 6-8, that Vaughey does not obviate the claimed calcium salt concentration because the references does not disclose any particular weight percentage of the calcium salt, the examiner strongly disagrees. As is stated above and in the Non-Final Rejection, Vaughey clearly teaches a correlation between salt concentration and stabilization of the anode.
Applicant is reminded that 2144.05 II A states that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (emphasis added by the examiner). The examiner finds that the requirements of the routine optimization rationale are met since the general conditions, i.e. a teaching of optimizing salt concentration provided in molarity units, of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. The routine optimization rationale does not require the exact conditions, i.e. a teaching of the claimed concentration in the claimed units, to be met.
As to the argument in the paragraph bridging pages 7-8, the examiner maintains that the particular parameter, i.e. salt concentration, is clearly recognized by the prior art as a result effective variable.
Next, on pages 8-11, Applicant argues that the claimed range of salt concentration is critical. The examiner finds that the arguments presented are not sufficient to show criticality of the claimed range and therefore fail to show unexpected results.
Applicant is reminded that, in order to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range, per MPEP 716.02(d) II. The data presented include only two data points above of the claimed range, at 5wt% and 7wt%, and further the next closest data point to the upper end of the claimed range is 3 wt%. It is impossible, based on the data, to determine whether the salt concentration at amounts greater than 3 wt% to less than 5 wt% would support a finding of unexpected results. For any of the many parameters alleged to be unexpected, the actual data between greater than 3 wt% to less than 5 wt% could follow a clear trend and therefore prove expected results.
Applicant is invited to review MPEP 716 for more information on supporting an argument of unexpected results, particularly the heading paragraph of 716.02, 716.02(b) I-II, and 716.01(d).
With regard to claims 15-16, the examiner maintains that Cho teaches the Si-C composite as defined in claim 16 (see above, and [0029] of Cho).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights