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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on April 1, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to for the following informalities: the claim language “containing 80 mol% or more of nickel of all elements excluding lithium and oxygen” is improper. It is clear the claim means “80 mol% or more of nickel among all elements except lithium and oxygen” as provided in the Detailed Description, paragraph [0058]. Appropriate correction is required. for improved clarity is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 9-11 are 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 9 recites the limitation “a lithium salt further includes lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6)”. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this claim. Claim 9 is dependent upon the Claim 1, which recites the limitation “the lithium salt including lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI)”. It is unclear if claim 9 intends to reference the lithium salt introduced in claim 1 or introduce another/second/etc lithium salt. Clarification is required.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected as being dependent upon the disclosure of Claim 9.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0109373 A1, hereinafter Koh.
Regarding Claim 1, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100, “lithium secondary battery”) comprising a cathode (114, “positive electrode) including a cathode active material that includes a lithium metal oxide (para. [0058]) and an anode (112, “negative electrode”) that faces the cathode (fig, 1, para. [0088]). The anode (112) includes an anode electrode active material that includes a graphite-based active material (para. [0069]) and a silicon-carbon composite (para. [0073], “The anode active material according to one embodiment may include a Si—C composite including a Si-based active material and a carbon-based active material.”). Koh further teaches a mixture of graphite and a silicon-carbon composite at a defined ratio used as the anode active material in a specific example (Example 1, para. [0110]).
Koh also teaches an electrolyte solution including a lithium salt and an organic solvent (para. [0025]) where the lithium salt includes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) (para. [0055]). Koh further teaches that the organic solvent includes an acetate-based solvent (para. [0049]).
In a specific example (Example 1), Koh teaches that the anode active material may include both a graphite-based active material and a silicon-carbon composite, and that the content of the silicon-carbon composite in the anode (112) active material is in a range from 5 wt% to 12 wt% based on a total weight of the anode (112) active material (para. [110], “A mixture of graphite and a Si—C composite at an 89:11 weight ratio as an anode active material (i.e. 89wt% graphite to 11wt% Si-C composite), styrene-butadiene rubber as a binder and carboxylmethyl cellulose were mixed at a weight ratio of 98:1:1 and dispersed in distilled water to prepare an anode active material slurry.”). Koh’s optimum mass fraction lies within the instant application’s optimum mass fraction range of 5 wt% to 12 wt% based on the total weight of the anode active material. It has been held that in the case where the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range” a prima facie case of anticipation exists. See MPEP 2131.03.
Koh’s Example 1, used for the above limitations, does not specifically teach that the lithium salt includes lithium (bisfluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI). While, Example 1 does teach the use of LiPF6 as a lithium salt in the nonaqueous electrolyte mixture; Koh generally teaches that LiPF6 and LiFSI are art recognized equivalents that serve identical purposes of providing lithium ions and facilitating ionic transportation ([0055]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use LiFSI as the lithium salt in the electrolyte mixture described in Koh’s Example 1 with reasonable expectation for success of performing an identical function MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 2, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) wherein a specific example (Example 1) teaches that the anode active material includes both a graphite-based active material and a silicon-carbon composite, and that the content of the silicon-carbon composite in the anode (112) active material is in a range from 7 wt% to 11 wt% based on a total weight of the anode (112) active material (para. [110]). Koh’s optimum mass fraction lies within the instant application's optimum mass fraction range of 7 wt% to 11 wt% based on the total weight of the anode active material. It has been held that when the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range” and reads on the claim. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 4, Koh teaches Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) wherein a specific example (Example 1) teaches that the anode active material may include both a graphite-based active material and a silicon-carbon composite, wherein a weight ratio of the graphite-based active material and the silicon-carbon composite is in a range from 88:12 to 95:5 (para. [110], “A mixture of graphite and a Si—C composite at an 89:11 weight ratio as an anode active material, styrene-butadiene rubber as a binder and carboxylmethyl cellulose were mixed at a weight ratio of 98:1:1 and dispersed in distilled water to prepare an anode active material slurry.”). Koh’s optimum weight ratio lies within the instant application's optimum weight ratio range of 88:12 to 95:5. It has been held that when the prior art “discloses a point within the claimed range” and reads on the claim. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 5, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) wherein the graphite-based active material includes natural graphite or artificial graphite (para. [0069]).
Regarding Claim 6, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) with an electrolyte solution including a lithium salt, wherein the lithium salt includes LiFSI in a concentration range from 0.1M to 1.0 M (para. [0055], “A concentration of the lithium salt may range from 0.1 M to 2.0 M.”). The instant application’s optimum concentration range of 0.1 M to 1.0 M lies inside Koh’s optimum concentration range of 0.1 M to 2.0 M. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) with an electrolyte solution including a lithium salt, wherein the lithium salt includes LiFSI in a concentration range from 0.6 M to 0.9 M (para. [0055], “A concentration of the lithium salt may range from 0.1 M to 2.0 M”). The instant application’s optimum concentration range of 0.1 M to 1.0 M lies inside Koh’s optimum concentration range of 0.1 M to 2.0 M. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) with an electrolyte solution including a lithium salt, wherein the lithium salt includes LiFSI and lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) (para. [0055], “Exemplary of the lithium salt include one or two or more of LiPF6, LiSbF6, LiAsF6, LiPO2F2, LiN(SO2C2F5)2, Li(CF3SO2)2N, LiN(SO3C2F5)2, Li(FSO2)2N (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide: LiFSI), LiC4F9SO3, LiClO4, LiAlO2, LiAlCl4, LiN(CxF2y+1SO2)(CyF2y+1SO2) (wherein x and y are natural numbers, for example an integer of 1 to 20), lithium difluoro(bisoxolato) phosphate), LiCl, LiI, LiB(C2O4)2 (lithium bis(oxalato) borate: LiBOB), lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (LiDFOB), as a supporting electrolyte salt.).
Koh’s example embodiments (Examples 1-4, Comparative Examples 1-10) teach the use of LiPF6, but do not explicitly teach the use of LiPF6 with LiFSI in the electrolyte solution. However, LiPF6 and LiFSI are taught as art recognized equivalents of lithium salts that serve identical functions of supplying lithium ions and improving ionic transportation in the battery cell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine embodiments and compositions known for the same purpose by using LiPF6 in combination with LiFSI in Koh’s claimed electrolyte solution with a reasonable expectation for success of performing the targeted function of providing lithium ions and facilitating ionic transportation MPEP 2144.06-7.
Regarding Claim 10, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) with an electrolyte solution including a lithium salt, wherein the lithium salt includes LiPF6 in a concentration range from 0.1 M to 1.0 M (para. [0055], “A concentration of the lithium salt may range from 0.1 M to 2.0 M. When the lithium salt is included at the above concentration range, an electrolyte may have excellent performance and effective lithium ion mobility due to optimal electrolyte conductivity and viscosity.”). The instant application’s optimum concentration range of 0.1 M to 1.0 M lies inside Koh’s optimum concentration range of 0.1 M to 2.0 M. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 12, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) with an electrolyte solution including a lithium salt and an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent is an acetate-based solvent including at least one selected from the group consisting of methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, and propyl acetate (para. [0049], “As the ester-based solvent, methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, n-propyl acetate, t-butyl acetate, methylpropionate, γ-butyrolactone, decanolide, valerolactone, mevalonolactone, caprolactone, and the like, may be used.”).
Koh’s example embodiments (Examples 1-4, Comparative Examples 1-10) do not explicitly teach the use of an acetate-based solvent from among the group of methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, and n-propyl acetate as a component of the nonaqueous electrolyte solution. However, the provided acetate-based solvents are taught as art-recognized equivalents of non-aqueous organic solvents that perform the function of facilitating ion transmission. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an ester-based solvent selected from the group of methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, and propyl acetate in Koh’s electrolyte solution as a non-aqueous organic solvent with reasonable expectation for success of performing the targeted function of facilitating ion transmission MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding Claim 13, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) with an electrolyte consisting of a lithium salt and an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent further includes at least one carbonate-based solvent selected from the group consisting of propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethylmethyl carbonate, methylpropyl carbonate, dipropyl carbonate, and vinylene carbonate (Example 1, para. [0108], “1.15M LiPF6 was added to a mixed solvent of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate and ethyl propionate (1:2:5:2 volume ratio), 2 wt % of an additive of Chemical Formula 1a and 6 wt % of fluoroethylene carbonate were added to 100 wt % of the resulting mixture to prepare an electrolyte for a lithium secondary cell.”)
Regarding Claim 14, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) with an electrolyte solution including at least one additive selected from the group consisting of a carbonate-based compound substituted with a halogen group, a sulfone-based compound, a sulfite-based compound, a sulfonate-based compound, a sultone-based compound, and a sulfate-based compound. In a specific example, Koh teaches the addition of a carbonate-based compound substituted with a halogen group (fluoroethylene carbonate) to the electrolyte mixture for a lithium secondary cell (Example 1, para. [0108], “1.15M LiPF6 was added to a mixed solvent of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, diethyl carbonate and ethyl propionate (1:2:5:2 volume ratio), 2 wt % of an additive of Chemical Formula 1a and 6 wt % of fluoroethylene carbonate were added to 100 wt % of the resulting mixture to prepare an electrolyte for a lithium secondary cell.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100, “lithium secondary battery”) comprising a cathode (114, “positive electrode), where the cathode active material includes a lithium metal oxide (para. [0058]), and an anode (112, “negative electrode”) including an anode electrode active material that includes a graphite-based active material and a silicon-carbon composite (para. [0073]) that faces the cathode. Koh further teaches that the lithium metal oxide of the active material may include a lithium nickel metal oxide (para. [0058], “In the cathode active material layer, as the cathode active material, a compound being capable of reversibly intercalating and deintercalating lithium (a lithiated intercalation compound) may be used, and as a specific example, one or more composite oxides of a metal selected from cobalt, manganese, nickel, or a combination thereof, and lithium, may be used.). Koh further teaches that the lithium-nickel metal oxide contains 80 mol% or more of nickel among all elements excluding lithium and oxygen (Example 1, para. [0109], “96 wt % of a LiNi0.88Co0.105Al0.015O2 positive active material”).
Regarding Claim 16, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100) with a separator (113, “separator”) interposed between the cathode (114) and the anode (112) (para. [0088], “a separator 113 disposed between the positive electrode 114 and the negative electrode 112”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh as applied to Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12-16 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0260237 A1, hereinafter Chang.
Regarding Claim 3, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100, “lithium secondary battery”) comprising a cathode (114, “positive electrode), where the cathode active material includes a lithium metal oxide (para. [0058]), and an anode (112, “negative electrode”) that faces the cathode and includes an anode electrode active material that includes a graphite-based active material and a silicon-carbon composite (para. [0073]).
Koh fails to teach that the silicon-carbon composite includes SiC, silicon carbide.
Chang teaches a similar lithium secondary battery (para. [0046]). Chang’s lithium secondary battery also comprises a cathode using lithium metal oxide as the active material (para. [0050], “The cathode active material is a lithium transition metal oxide comprising two or more transition metals”) and an anode using a combination of graphite (para. [0024]) and a silicon-carbon composite, particularly silicon carbide (SiC) (para. [0028]), as the anode active material because it doesn’t react with lithium (para. [0025], “Preferably, the hydrophilic material is an oxide that does not react with lithium, a nitride that does not react with lithium or a carbide that does not react with lithium.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon carbide (SiC) of Chang as the silicon-carbon composite in Koh’s lithium secondary battery because it is unreactive with lithium as taught by Chang ([0025]).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Koh as applied to Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12-16 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0393226 A1, hereinafter Dong.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Koh does not teach the content of the acetate-based solvent to be in a range from 5 vol% to 20 vol% based on a total volume of the organic solvent.
Dong teaches a similar lithium secondary battery (100, “pouch battery”) comprising a cathode (180, 182, 184, 186, “positive electrode”) with an active material including a lithium metal oxide (para. [0067]), and an anode (160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, “negative electrode”) with an active material including graphite (para. [0130], graphitic carbon) and a silicon-carbon composite (para. [0132], silicon based active materials can comprise a composite with a carbon component). Dong’s disclosure also teaches an electrolyte solution consisting of a lithium salt and an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent includes an acetate-based solvent is in a content range from 5 vol% to 20 vol% based on a total volume of the organic solvent (para. [0062], “0 about 35 vol % optional cosolvent selected from the group consisting of propylene carbonate, ethyl acetate, methyl acetate, propyl acetate, and mixtures thereof”), to improve the flame retardancy of the cell. Dong's optimum range of 0-35 vol% overlaps the instant application’s range of 5-20 vol%. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Koh’s acetate-based solvent in the electrolyte solution in Dong’s range from 5 vol% to 20 vol% based on a total volume of the organic solvent to improve the flame retardancy of the cell as taught by Dong ([0062]).
Regarding Claim 11, Koh teaches a lithium secondary battery (100, “lithium secondary battery”) comprising a cathode (114, “positive electrode), where the cathode active material includes a lithium metal oxide (para. [0058]), and an anode (112, “negative electrode”) including an anode electrode active material that includes a graphite-based active material and a silicon-carbon composite (para. [0073]) that faces the cathode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte solution containing a lithium salt and an organic solvent (para. [0008]), wherein the lithium salt includes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LIFSI) (para. [0055]) and lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) (para. [0055]) and the concentration of either salt is in a range from 0.1 M to 1.0 M (para. [0055]).
Koh is silent on the molar concentration ratio of LiFSI to LiPF6.
Dong teaches a similar lithium secondary battery (100) and electrolyte solution consisting of a mixed lithium salt and an organic solvent. It is further disclosed that Dong’s mixed lithium salt electrolytes are known to “provide lower gas production while also providing good gas cycling at high charge rates” (para. [0088]). Dong’s disclosure further specifies that the lithium salts in the electrolyte, consisting essentially of LiFSI and LiPF6, are in a molar concentration ratio range, from about 3:1 to 1.25:1 (para. [0104]), that overlaps the instant application’s disclosed range of 1:0.5 to 1:3. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixed lithium salt containing LiFSI and LiPF6 in Dong’s molar concentration ratio from 1:05 to 1:3 in Koh’s claimed electrolyte solution to lower the cell’s gas production and improve gas cycling at high charge rates as taught by Dong ([0088]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA GRACE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0457. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tr 7:30AM-5PM, F 7:30-11:30AM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/BARBARA GRACE SAUNDERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights