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
The amendments filed 06/08/2026 have been entered, the grounds for the 103 rejection has been changed due to amendments
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8-10 are allowable as the ratio of concentrations between lithium fluoride and lithium carbonate as claimed in claim 3 and claim 8 is not taught by prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 8-10 are objected to as they are dependent on rejected Claim 1 and/or 2.
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, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20190140267-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nair’, in view of (US-20190252689-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Xu’, in further view of (US-20190273258-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Thomas-Alyea’
Regarding Claim 1,
Nair teaches an electrochemical device comprising: a positive electrode (Nair, cathode film, 120, Fig. 1) a negative electrode (Nair, anode film, 150, Fig. 1); and an electrolyte having lithium ion conductivity (Nair, “A standard electrolyte which contained 1M LiPF6 in EC/DEC solvent (volume ratio=1:1) was used.”, see [0099]), wherein: the negative electrode includes a negative current collector and a negative electrode material layer supported on the negative current collector (Nair, current collector, 160, Fig. 1) , the negative electrode material layer contains a negative electrode active material capable of being reversibly doped with lithium ions (Nair, anode film, 150, Fig. 1) the negative electrode active material contains a carbon material (Nair, “The anode film 150 may be constructed from lithium metal, lithium metal foil or a lithium alloy foil (e.g. lithium aluminum alloys), or a mixture of a lithium metal and/or lithium alloy and materials such as carbon (e.g. coke, graphite), nickel, copper, tin, indium, silicon, oxides thereof, or combinations thereof.”, see [0042]), the negative electrode material layer includes a coating region on a surface layer portion of the negative electrode material layer, the coating region being formed on the surface of the negative electrode active material (Nair, SEI film stack, Fig. 1) (Nair, “Examples of materials that may be included in the SEI film stack 140 include, but are not limited to a chalcogenide film (e.g., CuS, Cu2Se, Cu2S, Cu2Te, CuTe, Bi2Te3, or Bi2Se3 film) or composite chalcogenide film optionally in combination with at least one of a lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) film, a lithium oxide (Li2O) film, a lithium nitride film (Li3N), and a lithium halide film (e.g. LiF, LiCl, LiBr, or LiI)”, see [0045]),
Nair teaches a coating SEI of lithium carbonate (Li2Co3-) (Nair, “Examples of materials that may be included in the SEI film stack 140 include, but are not limited to a chalcogenide film (e.g., CuS, Cu2Se, Cu2S, Cu2Te, CuTe, Bi2Te3, or Bi2Se3 film) or composite chalcogenide film optionally in combination with at least one of a lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) film, a lithium oxide (Li2O) film, a lithium nitride film (Li3N), and a lithium halide film (e.g. LiF, LiCl, LiBr, or LiI)”, see [0045]).
Nair does not teach when-an Ols spectrum for the coating region has a peak in a range from 530eV to 534eV of a binding energy the O1s spectrum being measures by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy.
Xu teaches that a O 1s spectrum of carbon-oxygen single and double bond are indicated by a signal between 530 eV and 534 eV (Xu, “significant and broad peak in oxygen 1s spectrum (FIG. 5(b)) indicates the existence of C═O (531.4 eV) and C—O (532.9 eV), and S—O/S═O (533.6 eV), which are from the oxidative decomposition”, see [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the O1s signal is indicative of a lithium carbonate bond on the surface of the negative electrode.
Nair does not teach an intensity of the peak in the O1s spectrum (Lithium Carbonate) increases as a measuring position changes from a surface layer of the coating region toward the surface of the negative electrode active material.
Thomas-Alyea teaches a coating of lithium carbonate and that it is beneficial to have gradient of lithium carbonate (Thomas Alyea, “ A metal carbonate can have a low conductivity and a high surface energy with the metal. Therefore, it can be desirable to have a coating of, for example, Li.sub.2CO.sub.3 on the first surface and have no Li.sub.2CO.sub.3 on the second surface. However, it can be difficult to avoid all exposure of the second surface to air during fabrication of the second electrolyte and during assembly of the second electrolyte into a battery. Therefore, the second surface can contain trace amounts of metal carbonate”, see [0045]).
Nair and Thomas Alyea are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery coatings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the SEI layer as taught in Nair to have less lithium.
carbonate towards the surface as taught in Thomas-Alyea, in order to minimize the negative effects of lithium carbonate on electronegativity.
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Nair teaches the electrochemical device according to Claim 1,wherein the electrolyte contains an imide-based electrolyte (Nair, “electrolytes infused in cell components 120, 130, 140 and 150 can be comprised of a liquid/gel or a solid polymer and may be different in each. In some implementations, the electrolyte primarily includes a salt and a medium (e.g., in a liquid electrolyte, the medium may be referred to as a solvent; in a gel electrolyte, the medium may be a polymer matrix). The salt may be a lithium salt. The lithium salt may include, for example, LiPF6, LiAsF6, LiCF3SO3, LiN(CF3SO3)3, LiBF6, and LiClO4, lithium bistrifluoromethanesulfonimidate (e.g., LiTFSI),”, see [0049]).
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Nair teaches the electrochemical device according to Claim 4, wherein the imide-based electrolyte contains an anion containing fluorine and sulfur (Nair, “electrolytes infused in cell components 120, 130, 140 and 150 can be comprised of a liquid/gel or a solid polymer and may be different in each. In some implementations, the electrolyte primarily includes a salt and a medium (e.g., in a liquid electrolyte, the medium may be referred to as a solvent; in a gel electrolyte, the medium may be a polymer matrix). The salt may be a lithium salt. The lithium salt may include, for example, LiPF6, LiAsF6, LiCF3SO3, LiN(CF3SO3)3, LiBF6, and LiClO4, lithium bistrifluoromethanesulfonimidate (e.g., LiTFSI),”, see [0049]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20190140267-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nair’ , in view of (US-20190252689-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Xu’, in further view of (US-20190273258-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Thomas-Alyea’, further view of (US-20180019464-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Xia’
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Nair teaches the electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein: an F1s spectrum for the coating region has a peak in a range from 684.8 eV to 685.3 eV of a binding energy the F1s spectrum being measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, (Nair, “Examples of materials that may be included in the SEI film stack 140 include… in combination with at least one of a lithium carbonate (Li2CO3) film, a lithium oxide (Li2O) film, a lithium nitride film (Li3N), and a lithium halide film (e.g. LiF, LiCl, LiBr, or LiI)”, see [0045])(Xu, “the LiF peak at 684.4 eV, both of which are likely due to decomposition of CF3SO3Li salt on the Li anode surface”, see [0078])
Modified Nair does not teach an intensity of the peak in the F1s spectrum (LiF) decreases as a measuring positions changes from the surface layer of the coating region towards the suface of the negative electrode active material.
Xia teaches an intensity of the peak in the F1s spectrum (LiF) decreases as a measuring positions changes from the surface layer of the coating region towards the inside of the coating region (Xia, “wherein the surface layer comprises an intimate mixture of Ni, Co, Mn, LiF and Al.sub.2O.sub.3; and wherein the surface layer has an Al content that increases from the Al content of the core at the inner interface to at least 10 mol % at the outer interface, and a F content that increases from less than 0.05 mol % at the inner interface to at least 3 mol % at the outer interface”., see [0010]).
Xia teaches that LiF protects the lithium in the particle (Xia, “It can be speculated that the LiF film protects the Li in the particle, thus preventing it from reacting with carbon to form Li2CO3. The obtained surface layer has the following function: the thin layer comprising LiF replaces the reactive surface base layer, thus reducing the base content practically to zero at the core's surface, and improves the overall safety.”, see [0053]).
Modified Nair and Xia are analogous as they are both of the same field of protective layers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied LiF primarily to the surface in order to protect the particle and reduce the lithium carbonate content at the surface layer and improve the overall safety of the cell.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20190140267-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nair’ , in view of (US-20190252689-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Xu’, in further view of (US-20190273258-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Thomas-Alyea’, further view of (US-20190027319-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Umetsu’
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Nair teaches the electrochemical device according to Claim 1, wherein: the positive electrode includes a positive current collector and a positive electrode material layer supported on the positive current collector (Nair, cathode film and current collector, 120 and 110, see Fig. 1)
Modified Nair does not teach the positive electrode material layer contains a carbon material as a positive electrode active material and constitutes a polarizable electrode layer.
Umestu teaches the positive electrode material layer contains a carbon material as a positive electrode active material and constitutes a polarizable electrode layer (Umetsu, “When activated carbon is used as the positive electrode active material, there are no particular restrictions on the type of activated carbon or its starting material. However, preferably the pores of the activated carbon are optimally controlled to obtain both a high input/output characteristic and high energy density.”, see [0114]).
Umetsu teaches that using this material allows for the suppressing of gas generation due to the decomposition of lithium compounds (Umetsu, “According to the invention there is provided a nonaqueous lithium power storage element wherein thermal runaway during internal short circuiting is suppressed, gas generation due to decomposition of lithium compound under high-temperature environmental conditions is reduced”, see [0091])
Modified Nair and Umetsu are analogous as they are both of the same field of batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention as taught in Nair to have activated carbon as the positive electrode material to suppress gas generation due to the breakdown of lithium compounds.
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Nair teaches the electrochemical device according to Claim 6, wherein a specific surface area of the carbon material contained in the positive electrode material ranges from 1500 m2/g to 2500 m2/g (Umetsu, “in order to obtain a high input/output characteristic, activated carbon satisfying 0.3<V1≤0.8 and 0.5≤V2≤1.0 and exhibiting a specific surface area of 1,500 m2/g to 3,000 m2/g”, see [0115]),
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1,500 to 3,000 m^2/g broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1500 m2/g to 2500 m2/g. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
inclusive, an average particle diameter of the carbon material contained in the positive electrode material is less than or equal to 10 µm (Umetsu, “The mean particle diameter of activated carbon 1 is…even more preferably 3 to 10 μm”, see [0130]),
a total pore volume of the carbon material contained in the positive electrode material ranges from 0.5 cm3/g to 1.5 cm3/g inclusive (Umetsu, “On the other hand, the mesopore volume is …V1 for activated carbon 2 is even more preferably 1.2 cc/g to 1.8 cc/g.”, see [0131]), and an average pore size of the carbon material contained in the positive electrode material ranges from 1 nm to 3 nm, inclusive (Umetsu, “The mean pore size of the activated carbon 1 is preferably 17 Å or greater, more preferably 18 Å or greater and even more preferably 20 Å or greater, from the viewpoint of increasing the output of the obtained power storage element. From the viewpoint of increasing capacitance, the mean pore size of activated carbon 1 is preferably no greater than 25 Å.”, see [0121]) (The examiner notes that 25 angstrom is 2.5 nm).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“That is, Thomas-Alyea fails to disclose a gradient of lithium carbonate content in the coating itself (the first coating on first surface 14 or the second coating on second surface 15) in a thickness direction of the coating. In other words, Thomas-Alyea does not disclose a coating region formed on a negative electrode active material having an Ols peak intensity that increases from a surface layer of the coating region toward the negative electrode active material.”
However, this is not convincing. The applicant first notes that Thomas-Alyea only teaches the feature of the lithium carbonate concentration changing as the measurement is closer to the surface. The applicant notes that the Thomas-Alyea does not teach the coating on the negative electrode active material or teach a gradient in the layer itself. However, the primary reference Nair teaches a negative electrode material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Thomas-Alyea to the surface of the electrode as taught in Nair, due to the benefits of the coating layer. Secondly, the applicant claims that Thomas-Alyea does not teach a gradient in the coating itself. However, the language of the claim only states that the O1s spectrum, analogous to the Li-2CO3 content, increases as the position changes from outer to inner parts of the coatings. Therefore, it is not needed that Thomas-Alyea teaches the coating to that extent. Finally, the examiner has added to the record Honoki in the rejection to Claim 10, which teaches the features of carbonate concentration as described in the applicant’s arguments.
On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“As shown in FIG. 2, the first region L1 is adjacent the separator 11 and contains a greater amount of carbonate coating, whereas the second region L2 is adjacent to the current collector 9 and contains a lesser amount of carbonate coating. Thus, moving from the separator side toward the current collector side corresponds to moving from a region having a greater carbonate content toward a region having a lesser carbonate content.”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner argues that the teachings of Thomas-Alyea would be applied to Nair while substituting the electrolyte as taught in Thomas-Alyea with the electrode as taught in Nair. This is due to the protective description of the layering structure as taught in Thomas-Alyea, which one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply to the structure as taught in Nair as one of ordinary skill in the art would know that contact with unwanted chemicals can similarly affect the positive electrode (Nair, “ SEI growth can also occur by gas evolution at the cathode and particle migration towards the anode. This, in turn, increases impedance and decreases capacity.”, see [0037]) . Therefore, the limitations as claimed would be taught by the combination.
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights