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 16 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.
The term “low surface area particles” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low surface area particles” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US20190036180A1, hereinafter Downie).
Regarding claim 15, Downie discloses a method of constructing an electrochemical cell with a lithium nickel manganese oxide cathode (Downie, [0039]) and a negative electrode of lithium metal (Downie, [0033]). Downie discloses an electrolyte in contact with the entirety of the cell (Downie, Fig.1, 112). This cell has a getter added and is then further sealed (Downie, [0055]). The instant claim uses the term “de-gassing” the instant specification does not describe any exact definition of this term, therefore it will be assumed this means removal of any amount of gas from the volume defining the battery. When liquid electrolyte is added it displaces gas in the volume of the battery inherently “de-gassing” the battery. Taken all together the method described in Downie therefore reads on the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
557
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the instant claim uses the term “low surface area particles” there is no definition or comparison for reference for the meaning of this term in the instant specification. The instant specification states “…selecting getters with low surface areas…” [0014] with the compound itself being the getter. Therefore, it is being interpreted as to allow any surface area and any compound as there can always be a compound with a surface are larger than a chosen example. Downie discloses the getter material can include a metal oxide (Downie, [0014]) therefore reading upon the claimed language.
Regarding claim 19, Downie discloses sealing the battery (Downie, [0055]).
Regarding claim 20, Downie discloses mixing the getter with a solvent prior to application (Downie, [0055]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downie et al (US20190036180A1, hereinafter Downie) in view of Lim et al (US20230170564A1, hereinafter Lim).
Regarding claim 1, Downie discloses an electrochemical cell with a first electrode (anode), a second electrode (cathode), a fluid electrolyte in contact with the electrodes, and coatings including getter material (Downie, [0014]). Downie discloses that the anode can comprise negative electrode active material, with non-limiting examples including Li and Li alloys (Downie, [0033]). Downie discloses that the cathode can include non-limiting examples such as LiMn2O4 (Downie, [0039]). Downie discloses that the gas of interest to the getter is for example CO2, CO, H2S, NO2, SO2, H2O, O2, etc. (Downie, [0038]). Inherently the electrochemical cell of Downie must be de-gassed for the getter to be of use, as if not it will react instantaneously with ambient gas and not the undesired gas produced within the cell (Downie, [0005]).
Downie does not disclose this getter material including barium-oxide, however Downie does disclose the getter material can include a metal oxide (Downie, [0014]). Lim discloses a getter unit including at least one moisture-absorbing material such as barium oxide (Lim, [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the getter material of Downie with the barium oxide of Lim because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the result of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
The barium oxide now of Downie is inherently assumed to be configured to react with oxygen and carbon dioxide according to the equation given in the instant specification [0015] as there was no mention of special actions taken to configure the barium oxide to allow this rection.
Regarding claim 2, Downie discloses the battery as a prismatic cell (Downie, [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Downie discloses the battery as a pouch cell (Downie, [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Downie discloses the battery as a cylindrical cell (Downie, [0016]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US20190036180A1, hereinafter Downie) in view of Lim et al (US20230170564A1, hereinafter Lim) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toia et al (US20100173192A1, hereinafter Toia).
Regarding claim 5, Downie and Lim do not disclose the getter material including a polymer sheath. Toia discloses a problem of compatibility between both the getter material and the electrolyte in a lithium battery (Toia, [0013]). Toia discloses a solution to problem of a polymeric housing containing the getter material and being permeable to harmful substances but impermeable to the electrolyte (Toia, [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the polymeric housing of Toia with the getter material of Downie to prevent compatibility issues between the getter material and electrolyte of the battery.
Regarding claim 6, Toia discloses the polymeric housing made of fluorinated polymers such as polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) (Toia, [0034]).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downie et al (US20190036180A1, hereinafter Downie) in view of Toia et al (US20100173192A1, hereinafter Toia).
Regarding claim 7, Downie discloses the battery comprising one or more stacked electrochemical cells (Downie, [0051]). This battery including cathodes that can include non-limiting examples such as LiMn2O4 (Downie, [0039]). Downie also discloses a getter made of materials such as a metal oxide (Downie, [0033]) with one example being calcium oxide (CaO) (Downie, [0037]). The metal oxide of Downie is inherently assumed to be configured to react with oxygen and carbon dioxide according to the equation given in the instant specification [0015] as there was no mention of special actions taken to configure the metal oxide to allow this rection. Downie also discloses the getter material in a layer of the electrochemical cell (Downie, Fig.1, 116 and 114) if as described in Downie these cells were in a stack then the getter material would necessarily be considered on interior surfaces of the stack. Downie does not disclose the getter material including a polymer sheath. Toia discloses a problem of compatibility between both the getter material and the electrolyte in a lithium battery (Toia, [0013]). Toia discloses a solution to problem of a polymeric housing containing the getter material and being permeable to harmful substances but impermeable to the electrolyte (Toia, [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the polymeric housing of Toia with the getter material and battery of Downie to prevent compatibility issues between the getter material and electrolyte of the battery.
Regarding claim 8, Downie discloses a getter comprising calcium oxide, calcium being an alkaline earth metal (Downie, [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Downie discloses a getter comprising magnesium oxide, magnesium being an alkaline earth metal (Downie, [0037]).
Regarding claim 11, Toia discloses the polymeric housing made of fluorinated polymers such as polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) (Toia, [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Downie discloses the battery as a prismatic cell (Downie, [0051]).
Regarding claim 13, Downie discloses the battery as a cylindrical cell (Downie, [0053]).
Regarding claim 14, Downie discloses the battery as a pouch cell (Downie, [0051]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US20190036180A1, hereinafter Downie in view of Toia et al (US20100173192A1, hereinafter Toia) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lim et al (US20230170564A1, hereinafter Lim).
Regarding claim 10, Downie and Toia do not disclose the alkaline earth metal of the getter material comprising barium. Lim discloses a getter unit including at least one moisture-absorbing material such as barium oxide (Lim, [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the getter material of Downie with the barium oxide of Lim because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the result of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downie et al (US20190036180A1, hereinafter Downie) in view of Willmann et al (EP0528473A2, hereinafter Willmann).
Regarding claim 17, Downie does not disclose cooling a lithium-manganese rich battery cell during de-gassing. Downie does not disclose any cooling step of battery cell manufacturing. The instant specification does not give a reason for the cooling steps inclusion. Willmann discloses steps in the formation of a battery in the written order of “…degassing, cooling…” (Willmann, [0012]). This shows that the act of cooling a battery during formation is known in the art. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to move the cooling step of Willmann into the de-gassing step of Willmann.
Willmann now discloses a de-gassing step including a cooling step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the de-gassing step of Downie with the de-gassing step including cooling of Willmann because the substituted component was known, their functions were known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known component for another and that the result of the substitution would have been predictable. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downie et al (US20190036180A1, hereinafter Downie) in view of Toia et al (US20100173192A1, hereinafter Toia).
Regarding claim 18, Downie does not disclose applying a polymer sheath to the binary oxide-based coating. Toia discloses a problem of compatibility between both the getter material and the electrolyte in a lithium battery (Toia, [0013]). Toia discloses a solution to problem of a polymeric housing containing the getter material and being permeable to harmful substances but impermeable to the electrolyte (Toia, [0015]). Inherently this would mean that at one point the polymeric housing was applied to the getter material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to apply the polymeric housing of Toia to the getter material of Downie to prevent compatibility issues between the getter material and electrolyte of the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights