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 .
Status of the Claims
The claims submitted 03/18/2024 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-22 are pending and examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-17, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0218062 A1 (“Xu”) in view of US 2015/0162603 A1 (“Yushin”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a rechargeable lithium-ion battery 100 comprising a cathode current collector 110, a cathode 120, a separator 130 which is infused with an electrolyte, an anode 140, and an anode current collector 150 (Abstract; Fig. 2A; [0155]-[0156]).
Xu further discloses the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt:solvent:additive:diluent in a molar ratio of 1:x:y:z where 0.5≤x≤5, 0≤y≤1, and 0.5≤z≤5 ([0149]). An example of the lithium salt is lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) ([0177]). Examples of the solvent include dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and ethyl propionate ([0136]). An example of the diluent is 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,2,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (TTE) ([0179]).
Xu further discloses the anode is a carbon/silicon composite-based anode ([0003], [0159]-[0160]).
Xu does not expressly disclose the composite particles comprising pores, at least some of the silicon being nanosized silicon in the pores.
Yushin discloses a porous nanocomposite anode (Abstract). The anode comprises a nanocomposite 102 including dendritic particle 104 and silicon nanoparticles 106 disposed within pores of the composite (Figs. 1(a), 1(b); [0054]-[0056]). The dendritic particle 104 comprises carbon ([0055]). The Si-C nanocomposite granules provide improved handling, reduced dustiness which minimizes losses, increased bulk density, and other positive attributes ([0160]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the nanocomposite of Yushin in the anode of Xu.
Regarding claim 2, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu discloses several embodiments of electrolyte composition. Among the embodiments is one where the electrolyte comprises LiFSI, DMC, TTE, and an additive comprising EC, FEC, or a combination thereof. In one instance, the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent (i.e. TTE) molar ratio of 1:2:0.2:3 ([0171]). The additive of Xu corresponds to a component of the claimed co-solvent. The LiFSI is provided in a mole fraction of about 16 mol%.
Regarding claim 3, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu discloses several embodiments of electrolyte composition. Among the embodiments is one where the electrolyte comprises LiFSI, DMC, TTE, and an additive comprising EC, FEC, or a combination thereof. The lithium salt:solvent:additive:diluent molar ratio is 1:x:y:z where x is 1.5-2.5, y is 0.2-0.5, and z is 2.5-3.5 ([0171]). The molar ratio of the co-solvent composition (x+y) to the TTE (z) is therefore 1.7-3.0:2.5-3. This leads to a maximum range of 0.57-1.2:1 which overlaps the claimed range. The molar ratio of the co-solvent composition to the TTE would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the molar ratio disclosed by Xu overlaps the molar ratio as claimed. 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). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu discloses several embodiments of electrolyte composition. Among the embodiments is one where the electrolyte comprises LiFSI, DMC, TTE, and an additive comprising EC, FEC, or a combination thereof. In one instance, the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent (i.e. TTE) molar ratio of 1:2:0.2:3 ([0171]). The additive of Xu corresponds to a component of the claimed co-solvent. The TTE is provided in a mole fraction of about 48 mol%. This is interpreted to fall within the claimed range of about 15 mol. % to about 40 mol. %. Alternatively, the lithium salt:solvent:additive:diluent molar ratio is 1:x:y:z where x is 1.5-2.5, y is 0.2-0.5, and z is 2.5-3.5 ([0171]). The mole fraction of the TTE would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the mole fraction disclosed by Xu overlaps the mole fraction as claimed. 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). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu discloses several embodiments of electrolyte composition. Among the embodiments is one where the electrolyte comprises LiFSI, DMC, TTE, and an additive comprising EC, FEC, or a combination thereof. In one instance, the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent (i.e. TTE) molar ratio of 1:2:0.2:3 ([0171]). The additive of Xu corresponds to a component of the claimed co-solvent. The molar ratio of the co-solvent composition (i.e. DMC plus additive) to the LiFSI is 2.2.
Regarding claim 6, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu discloses several embodiments of electrolyte composition. Among the embodiments is one where the electrolyte comprises LiFSI, DMC, TTE, and an additive comprising EC, FEC, or a combination thereof. In one instance, the electrolyte has a lithium salt-solvent-additive-diluent (i.e. TTE) molar ratio of 1:2:0.2:3 ([0171]). The additive of Xu corresponds to a component of the claimed co-solvent. The co-solvent (i.e. DMC plus additive) is provided in a mole fraction of about 35 mol%.
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu discloses several embodiments of electrolyte composition. Among the embodiments is one where the electrolyte comprises LiFSI, DMC, TTE, and an additive comprising EC, FEC, or a combination thereof (i.e. cyclic carbonates) ([0171]).
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu discloses the co-solvent further comprises several esters having no more than 5 carbons, among them are ethyl acetate, methyl butyrate, and ethyl propionate ([0136]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu discloses the co-solvent further comprises dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and/or ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) ([0136]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. It is deemed that the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed electrolyte. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Alternatively, it is noted that Xu discloses the relative amounts of the salt, solvent, diluent, and additive are selected to improve ionic conductivity of the electrolyte. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte by modifying the relative amounts of the components of the electrolyte through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 13, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Yushin discloses the silicon nanoparticles 106 comprise about 15 wt. % to about 90 wt. % of the nanocomposite 102, based on the total weight of the nanocomposite 102 ([0058]). In an example, Yushin discloses 20 wt. % of a binder is included in the anode ([0154]). Therefore, the amount of silicon anticipates the claimed range.
Regarding claims 14-15, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu discloses the cathode comprises LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC811) ([0276]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. It is deemed that the capacity of the lithium-ion battery is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed battery. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claim 17, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. As discussed above, modified Xu discloses the anode comprises a Si-C composite. Xu discloses an alternative embodiment wherein the anode active material is a graphite-based material ([0106]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate graphite in the anode because it is shown by Xu to be an equivalent anode active material known in the art for the same purpose.
Regarding claim 19, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu further discloses the anode comprises a conductive additive such as carbon black, acetylene black, or Ketjen black ([0161]).
Regarding claims 21-22, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu further discloses the current collectors are made of a metal and exemplifies Cu and Al ([0158], [0134]).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0218062 A1 (“Xu”) in view of US 2015/0162603 A1 (“Yushin”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0159131 A1 (“Seol”).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, modified Xu discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Xu further discloses the anode comprises a conductive additive, but is silent regarding the anode additionally comprising carbon nanotubes [claim 18] or artificial graphite flakes as a conductive additive [claim 20].
Seol discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a negative electrode, the negative electrode comprising a conductive agent ([0113], [0115]). The conductive agent includes a particulate conductive agent, a fibrous conductive agent, and a plate-shaped conductive agent ([0036]). The fibrous conductive agent provides elasticity to a space between the particles and may easily form the conductive network in the electrode material mixture ([0042]). The fibrous conductive agent includes carbon nanotubes ([0044]). The plate-shaped conductive agent is a graphite-based material and may include artificial graphite ([0060]). This forms a conductive network in the electrode material mixture and results in an excellent electrical conductivity improvement effect ([0060]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the carbon nanotubes and artificial graphite flakes taught by Seol.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0122641 A1 discloses an electrolyte comprising LiFSI, DMC, and TTE (Table 1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights