DETAILED ACTION
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amiruddin et al. (US 2015/0050535) in view of Yang et al. (US 2018/0309169).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 9, Amiruddin teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising:
a negative electrode having about 75-88% negative active material (para 0067); a silicon-based active material with graphitic carbon active material (para 0064) where the silicon-based active material may be silicon oxide active material (para 0060); the combined negative active material generally comprises about 15-45 wt.% graphitic carbon relative to the total active material with the remain portion of the active material being the silicon-based active material (para 0066); a (nanoscale) conductive additive from about 2-10 wt.%, wherein the conductive additive can comprise nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, and combinations thereof (para 0070); and a binder in an amount of 8-20% (para 0068); binder polyimide has a tensile strength of 150-300 MPa (para 0039);
a positive electrode (para 0028);
supplemental lithium from about 90-170% (para 0033);
a separator between a negative electrode and positive electrode (para 0037);
an electrolyte (para 0077); and
pouch enclosure 162 (container) (Fig. 1A).
Amiruddin does not teach (1) a positive active material with the recited stoichiometry and (2) the recited electrolyte.
Yang, directed to an electrolyte system for silicon-containing electrodes, teaches (1) LiNixMnyCozO2, 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, and x + y + z = 1 (para 0057), and an electrolyte system consisting of LiPF6 and cosolvents FEC:EMC:DMC in a volumetric ratio of 1:2:2 (para 0087), alternatively with co-solvents DMC:FEC (para 0087) and with a salt concentration of 10-20% by mass (para 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited positive active material described as a common class of known materials that may be used for the positive electrode 24 (para 0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited electrolyte composition that can accommodate the volumetric expansion and contraction of the silicon-containing electroactive material to promote long term cycling stability (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited negative active material, positive active material stoichiometry, the nanoscale conductive carbon amount, and salt concentration because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. 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). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, given each of the claimed limitations is met above, the battery will have the recited capacity retention. Alternatively, given each of the claimed limitations is met above, the system would be capable of achieving the recited capacity retention.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Amiruddin teaches about 15-45 wt.% graphitic carbon relative to the total active material with the remain portion of the active material being the silicon-based active material (para 0066) and BET surface area of the graphitic carbon about 0.75-8 m²/g (para 0065). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Amiruddin teaches SiOx-Si-C composites (para 0062).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Amiruddin teaches PVdF, polyimide, SBR, and mixtures thereof (para 0038).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Amiruddin teaches supplemental lithium is provided in an amount to compensate for about 100% to about 170% of the negative electrode first cycle irreversible capacity loss (para 0004) and capacity from 0.8 to 1.7. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 11, 12, 16, and 18, Amiruddin teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising:
a negative electrode having about 75-88% negative active material (para 0067); a silicon-based active material with graphitic carbon active material (para 0064) where the silicon-based active material may be silicon oxide active material (para 0060); the combined negative active material generally comprises about 15-45 wt.% graphitic carbon relative to the total active material with the remain portion of the active material being the silicon-based active material (para 0066); a (nanoscale) conductive additive from about 2-10 wt.%, wherein the conductive additive can comprise nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, and combinations thereof (para 0070); and a binder in an amount of 8-20% (para 0068); binder polyimide has a tensile strength of 150-300 MPa (para 0039);
a positive electrode (para 0028);
supplemental lithium from about 90-170% (para 0033);
a separator between a negative electrode and positive electrode (para 0037);
an electrolyte (para 0077); and
pouch enclosure 162 (container) (Fig. 1A).
Amiruddin does not teach (1) a positive active material with the recited stoichiometry and (2) the recited electrolyte.
Yang, directed to an electrolyte system for silicon-containing electrodes, teaches (1) LiNixMnyCozO2, 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1, 0 ≤ z ≤ 1, and x + y + z = 1 (para 0057), and an electrolyte system consisting of LiPF6 and cosolvents FEC:EMC:DMC in a volumetric ratio of 1:2:2 (para 0087), and with a salt concentration of 10-20% by mass (para 0074).
Given each of the claimed limitations for the negative electrode, positive electrode, and electrolyte are met above, the recited specific capacity and cycle rate would be expected to be present and/or be capable of achieving the same.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited positive active material described as a common class of known materials that may be used for the positive electrode 24 (para 0057). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited electrolyte composition that can accommodate the volumetric expansion and contraction of the silicon-containing electroactive material to promote long term cycling stability (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited negative active material, positive active material stoichiometry, the nanoscale conductive carbon amount, and salt concentration because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. 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). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amiruddin et al. (US 2015/0050535) in view of Yang et al. (US 2018/0309169), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bhardwaj et al. (US 10,218,033).
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches the electrolyte system may further include propylene carbonate.
Amiruddin and Yang does not teach propylene carbonate and fluorobenzene.
Bhardwaj, directed to batteries and electrolytes with fluoroethylene carbonate, teaches an electrolyte with 6-9 wt.% PC and 3-5 wt.% FB (col. 2, lines 44-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further comprise addition additives which may reduce battery cell swelling and improve cycle life (col. 1, lines 37-39).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973,178. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same subject matter is claimed. Both claim sets recite the negative electrode with values than lie within or overlap for negative electrode including active material, conductive carbon, and binder, wherein a comparable negative electrode would be expected to have the recited specific capacity; positive electrode; and supplemental lithium. With respect to the electrolyte, the concentration is same for both claim sets; 5-20 vol.% FEC, at least 25 vol.% DMC and EMC, and 20-50 vol.% DEC reads on instant recitation of at least about 5 vol.% FEC, at least 25 vol.% DMC, EMC, and DEC, and not more than 50 vol.% DEC. Conflicting claim 2 recites the same cycle capacity after 700 cycles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723