DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/517882 by Yersak et al., which is a continuation of US Patent Application Nos. 17/672655, 16/698066, 15/391442 and 14/371500.
Claims 2-30 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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 5, 6, 14, 21, 26 and 27 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.
Claims 5, 6, 26 and 27 recite “FeSy”. However, subscript y is not defined and therefore renders claims 5, 6, 26 and 7 as being indefinite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the composition of the reversible Li-Fe-S phase comprises one or more of the compounds described in equations (1)-(9)”. The limitation is considered to be indefinite because it is unclear which specific compounds Applicant is claiming.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the composition of the reversible Li-Fe-S phase". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the iron sulfide compound and the compound’s charge and discharge products". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the iron containing material comprises LixFeS2, wherein 0≤x≤2”. Claim 15 depends from claim 11 which recites the iron containing material comprising lithium. Claim 15 fails to further limit the limitations of claim 11 because if x is selected to be zero, the chemical formula in claim 15 would become FeS2 which contains no lithium.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 17, 21, 22 and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Takeshi et al (US 2011/0318614 A1), herein referred to as Takeshi.
Regarding claims 2, 17 and 22, Takeshi teaches [0136] a secondary battery comprising a cathode layer, an electrolyte layer and an anode layer. The cathode layer is comprised of a cathode material that includes an iron containing material, such as iron disulfide (FeS2) [0109], and a sulfur containing material, such as sulfur (elemental sulfur) [0113].
Regarding claim 3, the iron containing cathode material taught by Takeshi, iron disulfide (FeS2) also referred to as pyrite, is known to have a cubic crystal structure (PubChem, source: pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Pyrite).
Regarding claims 7 and 28, the iron containing cathode material taught by Takeshi, iron disulfide (FeS2), is considered to be iron deficient with respect to the sulfur atoms present because there is one atom of iron for every two atoms of sulfur.
Regarding claim 21, the sulfur (elemental sulfur) present in the cathode is electrochemically active when combined with iron disulfide (FeS2) to constitute the active material of the cathode.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 9-14, 19, 20, 23-25 and 29-31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al (US 2011/0318614 A1), herein referred to as Takeshi, in view of Ota et al. (US 2013/0059209 A1), herein referred to as Ota.
Takeshi teaches the electrochemical cell limitations of claims 2 and 22. Takeshi though does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 9-11, 19, 20, 23, 29 and 30. However, from the same field of technology, Ota discloses a positive electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte battery and a non-aqueous electrolyte battery.
In view of claims 9-11, 29 and 30, Ota teaches [0030-0031] a positive electrode active material that may include an iron containing material, such as iron sulfide (FeS) or iron disulfide (FeS2), and a cover layer (coating the encases the positive electrode active material) comprising an amorphous oxide material. The amorphous oxide can include a lithium containing compound and therefore, the positive electrode active material with the cover layer (effectively a composite positive electrode active material) would contain a lithium, iron and sulfur.
In view of claims 12-14, the iron containing material taught by Ota having the amorphous oxide cover layer containing lithium would be expected to have a reversible phase based on cycling of the battery.
In view of claims 4, 18, 25 and 31, Ota teaches [0030] the positive electrode active materials can have an average particle size of 1 micron. This value is close to the recitation of less than 1 micron and therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP Chapter 2144.05, Section I, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985))
In view of claims 19, 20, 23 and 24, Ota teaches [0033] solid electrolyte particles can be mixed with the positive electrode active material in order to form the positive electrode for the battery. The solid electrolyte particles [0032] can comprise Li2S.
At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell teachings of Takeshi by including the teachings of Ota in order to form electrochemical cells with improved electron conductivity properties so that the electrochemical cell is able to have enhanced charging and discharging capability.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al (US 2011/0318614 A1), herein referred to as Takeshi, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Shembel et al. (US 2005/0102824 A1), herein referred to as Shembel.
Takeshi teaches the electrochemical cell limitations of claims 2 and 7. Takeshi though does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 8. However, from the same field of technology, Shembel discloses the production of cathode material films for the production of lithium batteries.
In view of claim 8, Shembel teaches [0054] forming a cathode material that comprises Fe7S8.
At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell teachings of Takeshi by including the cathode material taught by Shembel in order to form electrochemical cells with improved electron conductivity properties so that the electrochemical cell is able to have enhanced charging and discharging capability.
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al (US 2011/0318614 A1), herein referred to as Takeshi, in view of Ota et al. (US 2013/0059209 A1), herein referred to as Ota, as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Marple et al. (US 2011/0008660 A1), herein referred to as Marple.
The combination of Takeshi and Ota teaches the electrochemical cell limitations of claims 2 and 11. The combination of Takeshi and Ota though does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 15. However, from the same field of technology, Marple discloses the production lithium iron disulfide electrochemical cells.
In view of claim 15, Marple teaches [0043] forming a battery cell that comprises LiFeS2 as a cathode active material.
At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell teachings of Takeshi and Ota, to further include the cathode active material taught by Marple in order to form electrochemical cells with improved electron conductivity properties so that the electrochemical cell is able to have enhanced charging and discharging capability.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al (US 2011/0318614 A1), herein referred to as Takeshi, in view of Ota et al. (US 2013/0059209 A1), herein referred to as Ota, as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of Guidotti et al. (US 2003/0138695 A1), herein referred to as Guidotti.
The combination of Takeshi and Ota teaches the electrochemical cell limitations of claims 2 and 11. The combination of Takeshi and Ota though does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 16. However, from the same field of technology, Guidotti discloses the production of cathodes comprising pyrite for energy storage applications.
In view of claim 16, Guidotti teaches [0022] a cathode comprising Li3Fe2S4 as a cathode active material.
At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical cell teachings of Takeshi and Ota, to further include the cathode active material taught by Guidotti in order to form electrochemical cells with improved electron conductivity properties so that the electrochemical cell is able to have enhanced charging and discharging capability.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724