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 .
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites “R1 and R2, R3 and R4, R5 and R6, and R7 and R8 are able to be connected to form rings respectively”. However, R8 does not appear in the claimed formulae of claim 2, and the limitation is therefore unclear.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (US 20210328268 A1) in view of Lebedeva et al. (“Amount of Free Liquid Electrolyte in Commercial Large Format Prismatic Li-Ion Battery Cells”, Natalia P. Lebedeva et al 2019 J. Electrochem. Soc. Vol. 166 no. 4, 9 March, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Wen discloses an electrochemical device, comprising: a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, an electrolyte solution, and a separator (paragraph 0006, 0104); the electrolyte solution comprises a sulfur-containing substance (paragraph 0006); and, based on a total mass of the electrolyte solution, a mass percent B of the sulfur-containing substance is 10% to 20% (paragraphs 0006-0016, 0140-0141, Table 1, Examples 6-7, 12 wt% and 10 wt%, within the claimed range). Wen is silent regarding wherein a mass percent A of the electrolyte solution in a total mass of a battery cell is 2% to 8%.
Lebedeva discloses commercial lithium-ion batteries comprising free electrolyte (Lebedeva abstract). Lebedeva further discloses that Li-ion battery cells typically contain up to 16 wt% electrolyte, with the amount depending on the cell chemistry (Lebedeva A779, overlapping the claimed range). Lebedeva and Wen are analogous because they both disclose electrolytes for lithium 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 battery disclosed by Wen to optimize the amount of electrolyte within the claimed range for the specific cell chemistry, as Lebedeva teaches that the amount is common in the art. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wen further discloses that the sulfur-containing substance is at least one selected from compounds represented by the following formulas (I-A)-(I-D) (paragraphs 0140-0141, Table 1, Examples 6-7, Compound A, satisfying formula (I-A)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wen further discloses wherein the sulfur-containing substance comprises at least one ethylene sulfite and propylene sulfite (paragraph 0098).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wen further discloses wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a fluorine-containing additive; and, based on the total mass of the electrolyte solution, a mass percent C of the fluorine-containing additive is 15% to 30% (paragraphs 0140-0143, Examples 6-7, Compound F).
Regarding claim 9, modified Wen discloses an electronic device (paragraph 0026), comprising: an electrochemical device, comprising: a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, an electrolyte solution, and a separator (paragraph 0006, 0104); the electrolyte solution comprises a sulfur-containing substance (paragraph 0006); and, based on a total mass of the electrolyte solution, a mass percent B of the sulfur-containing substance is 10% to 20% (paragraphs 0006-0016, 0140-0141, Table 1, Examples 6-7, 12 wt% and 10 wt%, within the claimed range). Wen is silent regarding wherein a mass percent A of the electrolyte solution in a total mass of a battery cell is 2% to 8%.
Lebedeva discloses commercial lithium-ion batteries comprising free electrolyte (Lebedeva abstract). Lebedeva further discloses that Li-ion battery cells typically contain up to 16 wt% electrolyte, with the amount depending on the cell chemistry (Lebedeva A779, overlapping the claimed range). Lebedeva and Wen are analogous because they both disclose electrolytes for lithium 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 battery disclosed by Wen to optimize the amount of electrolyte within the claimed range for the specific cell chemistry, as Lebedeva teaches that the amount is common in the art. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (US 20210328268 A1) in view of Lebedeva et al. (“Amount of Free Liquid Electrolyte in Commercial Large Format Prismatic Li-Ion Battery Cells”, Natalia P. Lebedeva et al 2019 J. Electrochem. Soc. Vol. 166 no. 4, 9 March, 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 20200136183 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wen discloses the limitations of claim 4. Wen is silent regarding wherein the fluorine-containing additive is at least one selected from compounds represented by the following formulas (II-A)-(II-E).
Ma discloses an electrolyte comprising a cyclic borate ester and a fluorocarbonate compound which is included in an amount of 5 to 40 wt% (Ma paragraph 0005, 0012). Ma further discloses that the fluorocarbonate compound is selected from compounds which fit the claimed formulas (Ma paragraph 0027, for example, compound 14 satisfies formula II-A). The reference teaches that the fluorocarbonate compound provides thermal stability without limiting capacity (Ma paragraph 0029). Ma and Wen are analogous because they both disclose additives for battery electrolytes.
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 electrolyte disclosed by Wen to include the fluorocarbonate compound disclosed by Ma for the purpose of improving thermal stability.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wen discloses the limitations of claim 4. Wen is silent regarding wherein the fluorine-containing additive comprises at least one of fluoroethylene carbonate, fluoroethyl methyl carbonate, fluorodimethyl carbonate, fluorodiethyl carbonate, ethyl fluoropropionate, propyl fluoropropionate, ethyl fluoroacetate, lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate, or lithium difluorophosphate.
Ma discloses an electrolyte comprising a cyclic borate ester and a fluorocarbonate compound which is included in an amount of 5 to 40 wt% (Ma paragraph 0005, 0012). Ma further discloses that the fluorocarbonate compound may be fluoroethylene carbonate (Ma paragraph 0027, compound 14). The reference teaches that the fluorocarbonate compound provides thermal stability without limiting capacity (Ma paragraph 0029). Ma and Wen are analogous because they both disclose additives for battery electrolytes.
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 electrolyte disclosed by Wen to include the fluorocarbonate compound disclosed by Ma for the purpose of improving thermal stability.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (US 20210328268 A1) in view of Lebedeva et al. (“Amount of Free Liquid Electrolyte in Commercial Large Format Prismatic Li-Ion Battery Cells”, Natalia P. Lebedeva et al 2019 J. Electrochem. Soc. Vol. 166 no. 4, 9 March, 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 20140255796 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wen is silent regarding wherein a porosity of the positive electrode plate is D %, a value range of D is 5≤D≤35, and 0.5≤D %/A %≤15.
Matsuoka discloses a non-aqueous secondary battery comprising an electrolyte solution that contains a lithium salt and a non-aqueous solvent, a positive electrode, and a negative electrode (Matsuoka paragraph 0019). Matsuoka further discloses that the positive electrode has a porosity of, for example 27% (Matsuoka paragraph 0233, Table 11, Example 11). The reference teaches that the porosity improves energy density and secures performance (Matsuoka paragraph 0120). Matsuoka and Wen are analogous because they both disclose electrolytes for secondary 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 electrode disclosed by Wen to include the porosity disclosed by Matsuoka, resulting in a D%/A% of 27%/8%=3.375 (within the claimed range when for example, the weight % of electrolyte is 8%, within the range taught by Lebedeva). Doing so would improve energy density and secure performance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (US 20210328268 A1) in view of Lebedeva et al. (“Amount of Free Liquid Electrolyte in Commercial Large Format Prismatic Li-Ion Battery Cells”, Natalia P. Lebedeva et al 2019 J. Electrochem. Soc. Vol. 166 no. 4, 9 March, 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lawton et al. (US 20230021479 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wen discloses the limitations of claim 1. Wen is silent regarding wherein a sum of a mass percent of sulfur and a mass percent of fluorine in an SEI layer on a surface of the negative electrode plate is E %, and 10≤E≤50.
Lawton discloses an electrode covered by a solid electrolyte interphase having specific atomic ratios of carbon, fluorine, and sulfur (Lawton paragraph 0038). Lawton further discloses an SEI with a ratio of 1C:0.21F:0.06S (Lawton paragraph 0175, considering the atomic masses of C:12.01, F: 18.998, S: 32.07, results in 12.01:3.989:1.924 mass ratio, and therefore the sum of sulfur and fluorine is 5.913/17.923
≈
32.99 mass%, within the claimed range). The reference teaches that the proportion of elements makes it possible to improve and extend the structural integrity of the electrode used in a battery, without impairing the coulombic efficiency and the cycle life of the battery (Lawton paragraphs 0043-0044). Lawton and Wen are analogous because they both disclose batteries comprising an SEI.
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 battery disclosed by Wen to include the SEI composition disclosed by Lawton. Doing so would improve and extend the structural integrity of the electrode used in a battery, without impairing the coulombic efficiency and the cycle life of the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN T LUSTGRAAF whose telephone number is (571)272-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00 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, 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.
/B.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights