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 Status
All Claim Objections set forth in the previous action have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
All 112(b) Rejections set forth in the previous action have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. However, Applicant’s amendments present new 112(a) and 112(b) issues, see rejection for additional details.
Claims 41 and 46 have been canceled by Applicant.
Claims 36-40, 42-45, and 47-50 are under examination.
Specification
Applicant’s substitute abstract was received on 4/17/2025: “The present invention is directed to processes for preparing anode compositions comprising coating an anode with a gel electrolyte comprising a polymer and at least one fluoride additive”.
The substitute abstract is objected to, as the instant disclosure lacks support for “coating an anode with a gel electrolyte” and also lacks support for “a polymer”. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) for additional details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/17/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent Claim 36 to include coating the anode with a gel electrolyte comprising a polymer. Applicant argues the primary reference (Zhang, US 20180254524 A1) does not disclose a gel electrolyte comprising a polymer. Applicant acknowledges a secondary reference (Takami, US 20180277885 A1) discloses polyethylene oxide (PEO), but argues “Takami does not disclose or suggest preparing a gel electrolyte comprising both a polymer and a fluoride additive, coating an anode, and charging the anode to form a fluoride-rich electrolyte interphase layer while minimizing competitive water decomposition”.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "a fluoride-rich electrolyte interphase layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the limitations currently claimed, Takami was relied upon to teach polymeric materials such as PEO establish a gel or solid form when added to an anode coating composition ([0042-0052]). Takami discloses the gel is effective at suppressing the diffusion of water molecules to the negative electrode, and also suppresses hydrogen generation in the negative electrode ([0047]). Takami also discloses the gel coating is phase-separated from the aqueous electrolyte, which greatly improves the cycle life and storage performance of a secondary battery ([0050]). Takami’s teachings remain relevant and supply appropriate motivation to modify the anode composition of Zhang.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 36-40, 42-45, and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended Claim 36 to recite “coating the anode with a gel electrolyte” on line 4 of the claim. Applicant’s disclosure does not teach an anode is coated with a gel electrolyte. Instead, Applicant teaches an anode is coated with a gel and then immersed into a gel electrolyte (the graphite electrode was pre-coated with a LiN(SO2CF3)2-HFE gel layer and then immersed into the LiN(SO2CF3)2—LiOSO2CF3 aqueous gel electrolyte [0163]). Applicant discloses the anode gel coating is a different composition than the gel electrolyte ([0064, 0163]).
To maintain the distinction set forth by Applicant’s disclosure, Applicant is encouraged to amend the “coating the anode with a gel electrolyte” limitation by removing the word “electrolyte”.
Claims 37-40, 42-45, and 47-50 are also rejected, as they rely upon Claim 36.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant has amended Claim 36 to recite “a gel electrolyte comprising a polymer” on line 4 of the claim. Applicant’s disclosure does not support the broad term “a polymer”. Applicant’s disclosure supports coating the anode with a gel comprising 10 wt% polyethylene oxide (PEO [0081, 0163, 0169]). Although Examiner acknowledges PEO is a polymer, Applicant’s disclosure does not connect the PEO used in the examples to “a polymer” required in Claim 36.
Applicant’s use of the broad term “a polymer” communicates to the public that the claimed invention could be practiced with any polymer. In order to practice the claimed invention, does the gel coating require any certain properties present in PEO that are not necessarily present in all polymers? For example, PEO is water soluble. Was PEO selected due to this property? If so, would this mean the invention cannot be practiced with non-water soluble polymers such as polyolefins (PP, PE, PET, etc.)? Applicant’s specification does not provide any guidance on the appropriate selection of “a polymer” to practice the claimed invention.
Applicant is encouraged to remove “a polymer” from Claim 36, or replace “a polymer” with a limitation that is supported by the instant specification. For example, dependent Claim 49 recites polyethylene oxide, which is supported by the disclosure. After amending Claim 36, please ensure dependent claims are reviewed.
Claims 37-40, 42-45, and 47-50 are also rejected, as they rely upon Claim 36.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant has amended Claim 36 to recite “wherein the gel electrolyte and the aqueous electrolyte are phase-separated” on lines 8-9 of the claim. Applicant’s disclosure only supports “phase-separated” in reference to a fluoride additive being phase-separated from an aqueous electrolyte or aqueous gel electrolyte ([0116]), or an anode gel coating being phase-separated from an aqueous electrolyte or an aqueous gel electrolyte ([0169]).
Claims 37-40, 42-45, and 47-50 are also rejected, as they rely upon Claim 36.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 45 recites “the electrolyte interphase layer comprises between about 0.05% and about 20% mass percentage of a decomposition product of the at least one fluoride additive, wherein the mass percentage is measured by the total mass of the electrolyte interphase layer”.
Applicant’s disclosure teaches a mass percentage of the fluoride additive in the electrolyte interphase layer is 0.05% to 20% mass percentage (see [0033, 0058, and 0120] of the instant disclosure). However, Applicant has claimed a decomposition product of the fluoride additive is 0.05% to 20% mass percentage, which is not disclosed by the instant specification. Applicant does not appear to disclose or show examples citing the interphase layer composition by mass percent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 49 recites “the composition comprising at least one fluoride additive further comprises polyethylene oxide”. This claim structure communicates the PEO recited in Claim 49 is in addition to a polymer required by Claim 36. Applicant’s disclosure does not support coating an anode with a gel comprising “a polymer” and PEO.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 45 and 49 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 45 comprises the limitation “a decomposition product” on line 2 of the claim. However, “a decomposition product” is already claimed in independent Claim 36. As the instant disclosure does not appear to disclose a plurality of decomposition products, Examiner assumes the decomposition product of Claim 45 is in reference to the same decomposition product recited in Claim 36.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 49 comprises the limitation “the composition” on line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes “the composition” is in reference to “an anode composition” and “the anode composition” of Claim 36.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 36-39, 42-45, and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20180254524 A1 as evidenced by by Suo et al., “’Water-in-salt’ electrolyte enables high-voltage aqueous lithium-ion chemistries," Science 350.6263, 2015: pg 938-943, and further in view of Takami et al., US 20180277885 A1.
Regarding Claims 36 and 49, Zhang discloses a process for preparing an anode composition for an electrochemical device (battery cell [0013, 0077]), comprising:
providing an anode (anode [0116-0121, 0138]);
(b) coating the anode with at least one fluoride additive (localized superconcentrated electrolytes “LSEs” made of salts comprising fluoride [0009, 0012], LiFSI interaction with lithium anode surface [0197]); and
(c) charging the anode to form an electrolyte interphase layer upon the anode (a FSI-derived surface film on Li anode [0197]), wherein the electrolyte interphase layer comprises a decomposition product of the at least one fluoride additive (FSI− anions will be decomposed as the dominant reduction reaction, forming a FSI-derived surface film [0159, 0197]) that separates the anode from an aqueous electrolyte to obtain an anode composition (FSI-derived surface film is formed on anode surface [0197] and would separate the anode surface and any other intervening layer; aqueous electrolytes disclosed as water based electrolytes with superconcentrated lithium salt LiTFSI [0184-0187], Example 9, Tables 7 and 8).
Regarding the limitation charging the anode to form an electrolyte interphase layer, the claimed electrolyte interphase layer is equivalent to the solid electrolyte interphase (“SEI”) described by Suo. Suo discloses that SEIs form as a result of electrolyte decomposition during the initial charging process (pg. 1, col. 2). Suo also discloses a “water-in-salt” electrolyte obtained by dissolving lithium bis(trifluoromethane sulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI, pg. 1, col. 2-3). Zhang similarly discloses that the active salt in the electrolyte is LiTFSI or a closely related sulfonyl imide ([0009]). Zhang describes that, “[i]n any or all of the above embodiments, at least 90% of molecules of the solvent may be associated with cations of the active salt” ([0008]), which is consistent with the “water-in-salt” description of Suo.
It is the Examiner’s opinion that the claimed electrolyte interphase layer of Zhang would inherently be formed upon Zhang’s anode during charging, based on the understanding of the state of the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as evidenced by Suo.
Zhang does not disclose the coating is a gel and comprises a polymer, and does not disclose the gel and the aqueous electrolyte are phase separated (Claim 36). Zhang also does not disclose the gel comprises polyethylene oxide (PEO, Claim 49). However, Takami discusses the benefit of having a gel anode coating comprise a polymer such as PEO, and also discloses the gel coating is phase- separated from an aqueous electrolyte.
Takami teaches polymer materials such as PEO establish a gel or solid form when added to an anode coating composition ([0042-0052]; Takami’s anode-contacting second electrolyte meets limitation of anode coating). Takami discloses the gel is effective at suppressing the diffusion of water molecules to the negative electrode, and also suppresses hydrogen generation in the negative electrode ([0047]). Takami also discloses the gel is phase-separated from an aqueous electrolyte, which greatly improves the cycle life and storage performance of a secondary battery ([0050]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add a polymer such as PEO, as disclosed by Takami, to the anode coating of Zhang, in order to create a gel, thereby ensuring phase separation from an aqueous electrolyte and improving battery performance.
Regarding Claims 37-39, modified Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang discloses the anode may comprise lithium metal (Zhang, [0014]) or graphite (Zhang, [0062]).
Regarding Claim 42, modified Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang discloses the at least one fluoride additive comprises an organic fluorinated hydrocarbon (Zhang, fluoroalkyl ether or hydrofluoroether [0010, 0124]) or an inorganic fluoride (Zhang, sulfonylimide salts such as LiTFSI [0009]).
Regarding Claim 43, modified Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang discloses the at least one fluoride additive comprises a fluorinated ether (Zhang, fluoroalkyl ether or hydrofluoroether [0010]).
Regarding Claim 44, modified Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang discloses the at least one fluoride additive comprises 1,1,2,2,-tetrafluoroethyl-2',2',2'-trifluoroethyl ether (Zhang, TFTFE, [0014, 0143, 0124]).
Regarding Claim 45, modified Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang discloses the layer comprising a fluoride additive (Zhang, LSE comprises fluoroalkyl ethers or hydrofluoroethers such as TTE [0010]), comprises a mass percentage of 24 wt % (Zhang, Electrolyte E33 composition, Table 8).
Applicant’s instant disclosure states “The term “about” is used herein to mean the given number plus or minus 1 to 10%” at [0091] of the published application. Thus, Zhang’s 24 wt % is within the claimed “about 20%” range.
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding Claim 47, modified Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang discloses the anode comprises graphite (Zhang, [0062]) and the at least one fluoride additive comprises 1,1,2,2,-tetrafluoroethyl- 2',2',2'-trifluoroethyl ether (Zhang, TFTFE, [0014, 0143, 0124]).
Regarding Claim 48, Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Zhang discloses the anode comprises lithium metal (Zhang, [0014]) and the at least one fluoride additive comprises 1,1,2,2,- tetrafluoroethyl-2',2',2'-trifluoroethyl ether (Zhang, TFTFE, [0014, 0143, 0124]).
Regarding Claim 50, Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Zhang discloses the anode composition may be used in an electrochemical device (Zhang, cell [0077, 0148], see Electrochemical Measurements in Examples [0152-0154], Example 9 [0185]).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhang as applied to Claim 36 above, and further in view of Ota et al., US 20160126543 A1.
Regarding Claim 40, modified Zhang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang does not disclose the anode comprises silicon. However, an anode comprising silicon is disclosed by Ota et al.
Ota discloses silicon is a high capacity anode active material, which allows the formation of lithium ion cells with much higher charge capacity per unit area relative to conventional cells ([0013, 0030]). Ota discloses silicon may be added to a battery anode comprising lithium metal and graphite ([0014, 0030-0031]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to add silicon to modified Zhang’s anode, as disclosed by Ota, in order to increase the capacity of the anode to store lithium ions.
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 BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights