DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-16 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 3, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 12, 15, and 16 refer to quantity “D” which is defined as “a mass fraction of a total mass of the electrolyte to a mass of the lithium metal battery is D%.” The actual components of the “lithium metal battery” are not defined. Typically batteries, includes housings, and can include things like battery control modules, tabs, terminals, etc. It is not clear why one would want to drive the mass of the electrolyte down to 2%, at least relative to all the inactive components as well as active components, when energy density or power density are typically more important. It is not clear if Applicant intends something stricter, such as electrolyte relative to cathode, anode, (and separator?) mass, only. The claim has been interpreted broadly, wherein the electrolyte mass percentage can be made arbitrarily small just by adding inactive mass, such as mass to the battery housing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-2, 4-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or, alternatively, under § 103 as obvious over, Ren (US 2019/0140322 to Ren et al.).
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Ren teaches:
lithium metal batteries, comprising lithium anode, a cathode, and a separator (abstract, ¶ 0191) for use in or with an electronic apparatus
with an electrolyte embodiment comprising LiFSI salt at 3.88 M (E8 in Table 2) with molarities ranging from 1 to 6 M
claimed embodiments wherein the electrolyte comprises LiFSI, DME, and TTE (tetrafluoroethyl-tetrafluoropropyl ether), wherein the molar ratio of the LiFSI to the DME ranges from 1:0.5 to 1:5, and the molar ratio of the LiFSI to the TTE ranges from 1:0.1 to 1:10 (claims 11-12)
Ren therefore claims embodiments wherein the diluent solvent (TTE, BTFE) is roughly 5-98 wt % of the total solvent mass, including embodiments in which the diluent solvent (TTE, BTFE) is on the order of half the solvent mass (see e.g. Table 2, E8). Ren is therefore interpreted as teaching or rendering obvious an electrolyte with a lithium salt having a concentration of 2-4 M and a first solvent with a mass percentage of 10-50 % as a portion of the total solvent mass. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Ren teaches:
that the lithium salt, such as LiFSI, is at least 10 times less soluble in the diluent solvents (BTFE, TTE, etc.) than it is in the other component, such as DMC or EMC (¶0006-0008), including embodiments in which the solubility is 50 times greater in the carbonate than in the diluent (¶ 0146)
wherein upper bound solubilities of LiFSI are roughly 9 M (¶ 0186), or 168g/100g, such that a diluent solvent that is only 1/40th to 1/50th as soluble would have a solubility of 3.4-4.2 g/100g
The Office additionally points to the structural similarity of the diluent solvents taught in Ren, including BTFE or bis(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl) ether, which reads on instant embodiment I-1 and would therefore be expected to have a solubility within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 4, Ren teaches:
lithium bifluorosulfonimide
Regarding Claims 5-6, Ren teaches:
bis(2,2,20trifluoroethyl) ether (¶ 0006)
Regarding Claims 7-9, Ren teaches:
ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, etc. (¶ 0018-0023)
making up the remainder of the solvent, including in ranges of 10-60% (see examples, claims 11-12)
Regarding Claims 10-11, Ren teaches:
vinyl ethylene carbonate (¶ 0133)
added in amounts of e.g. 2% (¶ 0230) as was conventional in the art to improve SEI formation and cycling
Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren (US 2019/0140322 to Ren et al.) in view of Xiao (US 2020/0274148 to Xiao et al.).
Regarding Claims 3, 12, 15, and 16, Ren teaches:
a battery with a housing, such that the electrolyte mass fraction can be made arbitrarily small
Ren does not explicitly teach:
the porosity of the cathode
Xiao, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a lithium battery, teaches cathodes of conventional lithium transition metal oxide having porosities of about 30% (¶ 0176). Since Ren does not explicitly teach the cathode porosity, it would have been obvious to use a known cathode porosity in the art, including the cathodes of Xiao.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights