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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “lithium-sulfer” and should read --lithium-sulfur--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recites “(vs. Li/Li+)”, however it is unclear if the reference is positively required. Therefore, the examiner will read the limitation as optional.
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are rejected as they depend from claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “((C2Sx)n, where, x=2.5 to 50, n≥2), however it is unclear if the bracketed limitation is positively required, therefore the examiner will interpret the bracketed limitation as optional.
Claim 5 recites “(0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1)”, however it is unclear if the bracketed limitation is positively required, therefore the examiner will interpret the limitation as optional.
Claim 9 recites “a solubility of a lithium polysulfide in the electrolyte” is recited, however this is an intended use and it is unclear if said lithium polysulfide is positively required. Therefore, the examiner will interpret the claim as an intended use that does not positively require said lithium polysulfide.
Claim 10 is rejected as it depends from claim 9.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2021/0175494 A1), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a positive electrode for lithium-sulfur battery (i.e., at least positive electrode, etc., as disclosed in [0024], also see Title, [0001], [0008], [0025], etc.),
including a positive electrode current collector (i.e., at least positive electrode further includes a current collector as disclosed in [0035]) and a positive electrode mixture layer (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0037] whereby the components of the composition are prepared into a slurry (i.e., at least mixture) and coating or printing the slurry onto a current collector, etc., also see [0023], Examples 1-9),
wherein the positive electrode mixture layer contains: sulfur and/or a sulfur compound (i.e., at least sulfur-based positive electrode active material includes 70 wt% of Li2S, etc., as disclosed in [0011], lacking any further distinction thereof as to said sulfur and/or sulfur compound, (also see [0016], [0025]));
a ceramic material (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0029]-[0030] positive electrode provided according to present invention wherein a solid electrolyte may be added to the composition, whereby examples of suitable solid electrolytes include Li1.5Al0.5Ti1.5(PO4)3, etc., lacking any further distinction thereof as to said ceramic material, also see [0040], ); and
a binder (i.e., at least binder may be used in the composition as disclosed in [0032]-[0033], lacking any further distinction thereof), and
a proportion of the sulfur and/or the sulfur compound in the positive electrode mixture layer is 40% by mass to 80% by mass (i.e., at least sulfur-based positive electrode active material includes 70 wt% of Li2S, etc., as disclosed in [0011], (also see [0016], [0025]) which provides a value within the claimed range of a proportion of the sulfur and/or the sulfur compound in the positive electrode mixture layer is 40% by mass to 80% by mass, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).
Although Huang is silent as to a ceramic material that is oxidized and reduced in a potential range of 1.0V (vs. Li/Li+) to 3.0V (vs. Li/Li+), said limitation is an intended use, whereby since Huang discloses the ceramic as discussed above as claimed, the skilled artisan would expect said ceramic material to be capable of being oxidized and reduced in a potential range of 1.0V (vs. Li/Li+) to 3.0V (vs. Li/Li+).
Applicant is referred to MPEP 2112.01:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses the positive electrode for lithium-sulfur battery as discussed above in claim 1. Huang further discloses in [0031] the positive electrode provided according to the present invention wherein the solid electrolyte has a content preferably 10-20 wt% in the composition, which as range that is within the claimed range a content of the ceramic material in the positive electrode mixture layer is 1% by mass or more and 20% by mass or less, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses the positive electrode for lithium-sulfur battery as discussed above in claim 1. Although Huang is silent as to the ceramic material is ceramic that adsorbs a lithium polysulfide, and the lithium polysulfide is generated during charging and discharging of the lithium-sulfur battery, since Huang discloses the ceramic material which is an identical and/or substantially identical structure to that claimed, properties and/or functions such as ceramic that adsorbs a lithium polysulfide, and the lithium polysulfide is generated during charging and discharging of the lithium-sulfur battery are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II.), such that the skilled artisan would expect said ceramic material to be capable of adsorbing a lithium polysulfide, and generating a lithium polysulfide during charging and discharging of the lithium-sulfur battery.
Applicant is referred to MPEP 2112.01:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses the positive electrode for lithium-sulfur battery as discussed above in claim 1. Huang further discloses in [0011] at least sulfur-based positive electrode active material includes 70 wt% of Li2S, etc., which at least provides the sulfur compound is at least one or more of compounds selected from Li2Sn (n≥1), an organic sulfur compound, etc., from the group such that values are within the claimed range, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses the positive electrode for lithium-sulfur battery as discussed above in claim 1. Huang further discloses in [0029]-[0030] positive electrode provided according to present invention wherein a solid electrolyte may be added to the composition, whereby examples of suitable solid electrolytes include Li1.5Al0.5Ti1.5(PO4)3, etc., which at least provides the ceramic material is at least one or more of materials selected from Li1+x+yAlxTi2-xSiyP3-yO12 (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1) (i.e., when y =0, x=0.5), such that values are within the claimed ranges, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nogami et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2016/0204466 A1), hereinafter Nogami.
Regarding claim 6, Huang discloses the positive electrode for lithium-sulfur battery as discussed above in claim 1. However, Huang is silent as to the positive electrode mixture layer further contains sulfur-modified polyacrylonitrile.
Nogami teaches solid-state battery and method for manufacturing electrode active material (Title). Nogami further teaches in [0077] the positive-electrode layer ref. 1 contains a sulfur-based electrode active material as a positive-electrode active material and a complex hydride solid electrolyte, etc., whereby as disclosed in [0079] examples of the organic sulfur compound include a sulfur-polyacrylonitrile, etc., which at least provides the positive electrode mixture layer further contains sulfur-modified polyacrylonitrile (also see [0080]).
Nogami further teaches in [0053] the first aspect of the present invention can provide a solid-state battery having high ion conductivity and excellent stability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Huang with the teachings of Nogami, whereby the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the positive electrode, electrolyte, etc., as disclosed by Huang further includes the positive electrode mixture layer further contains sulfur-modified polyacrylonitrile as taught by Nogami so as to provide a solid-state battery having high ion conductivity and excellent stability.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2018/0175442 A1), hereinafter He.
Regarding claim 7, Huang discloses the positive electrode for lithium-sulfur battery as discussed above in claim 1. Huang further discloses a lithium-sulfur battery comprising: the positive electrode of claim 1 (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0042], also see [0041]);
a negative electrode containing an active material containing lithium (i.e., at least negative electrode is a metal lithium sheet as disclosed in [0040], and lacking any further distinction thereof, also see [0039]);
an electrolyte (i.e., at least solid electrolyte sheet as disclosed in [0039]);
However, Huang is silent as to a separator.
He teaches lithium-sulfur secondary battery containing gradient electrolyte (Title). He further teaches in [0057] the electrolyte may be selected from the group consisting of polymer electrolyte, gel electrolyte, solid-state electrolyte composite electrolyte, combinations thereof, etc., and further teaches a separator is used to support electrolyte and the separator is used to support electrolyte and the separator is disposed between an anode and a cathode, etc.
He further teaches in [0082] a gradient electrolyte system provides a highly surprising, synergistic effect and has essentially solved most of the critical issues in rechargeable Li-S batteries, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Huang with the teachings of He, whereby the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the positive electrode, electrolyte, etc., as disclosed by Huang further includes a separator as taught by He so as to provide a gradient electrolyte system provides a highly surprising, synergistic effect and has essentially solved most of the critical issues in rechargeable Li-S batteries, etc.
Regarding claim 8, Huang and He disclose the positive electrode for lithium-sulfur battery as discussed above in claim 7. Since Huang and He disclose the positive electrode for lithium-sulfur battery as discussed above in claim 7, which is an identical and/or substantially identical lithium-sulfur battery as that claimed, properties and/or functions such as a lower limit of a discharge potential range is 1.0 (vs. Li/Li+) to 1.5V (vs. Li/Li+) are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II.), such that the skilled artisan would expect said lithium-sulfur battery to be capable of a providing a lower limit of a discharge potential range is 1.0 (vs. Li/Li+) to 1.5V (vs. Li/Li+).
Applicant is referred to MPEP 2112.01:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."
Regarding claim 9, Huang and He discloses the lithium-sulfur battery as discussed above in claim 8. Since Huang and He disclose the electrolyte, separator, etc., as discussed above in claim 7, the skilled artisan would appreciate that said lithium-sulfur battery including the electrolyte as discussed above is at least capable of providing a solubility of a lithium polysulfide in the electrolyte is a range of 0.0 mol/L or more and 1.0 mol/L or less.
Applicant is referred to MPEP 2112.01:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."
In the alternative, He further teaches in [0089] the presence of a high-concentration electrolyte at the cathode side reduces the dissolution of lithium polysulfide and/or forces most of the dissolved lithium polysulfide (if any) to stay at the cathode side, whereby the large concentration gradient at the interface between the high salt concentration electrolyte and the low concentration electrolyte appears to work against the diffusion of lithium polysulfides from the lower to the higher concentration zone, etc., which at least provides, for example, a range of values that is within the claimed range of a solubility of a lithium polysulfide in the electrolyte is a range of 0.0 mol/L or more and 1.0 mol/L or less (e.g., 0.0 mol/L so as to prevent said dissolved species to migrate out of the cathode zone, etc., as disclosed in [0126]), thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.), (also see [0109], [0126]).
He further teaches in [0060]-[0061] the lithium-sulfur cell featuring a gradient
electrolyte system exhibits a stable and safe anode (no dendrite-like feature), high lithium utilization rate, high cathode active material utilization rate, high specific capacity, high specific energy, high power density, little or no shuttling effect, and long cycle life.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Huang with the teachings of He, whereby the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the positive electrode, electrolyte, etc., as disclosed by Huang further includes the solubility of a lithium polysulfide in the electrolyte (e.g., zero solubility) as taught by He so as to provide a gradient electrolyte system exhibits a stable and safe anode (no dendrite-like feature), high lithium utilization rate, high cathode active material utilization rate, high specific capacity, high specific energy, high power density, little or no shuttling effect, and long cycle life.
Regarding claim 10, Huang and He discloses the positive electrode for lithium-sulfur battery as discussed above in claim 9. However, Huang is silent as to the electrolyte contains lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide and sulfolane are mixed at a molar ratio of 1:1 to 1:8.
He further teaches in [0031]-[0033] a first electrolyte in contact with the cathode, etc., and a second electrolyte in contact with anode, wherein the first electrolyte contains a first concentration, C1, of a first lithium salt dissolved in a first solvent, and the second electrolyte contains a second concentration, C2, of a second lithium salt dissolved in a second solvent, etc., whereby as disclosed in [0036] the first solvent or the second solvent may be selected from sulfolane, etc. He further teaches in [0035] the first lithium salt or the second lithium salt may be selected from bis-trifluoromethylsulfonylimide lithium [LiN(CF3SO2)2], whereby as taught in [0033] preferably C2 is no less than 3 M (mole/L), etc., which at least provides a value of LiTFSi (i.e., bis-trifluoromethylsulfonylimide lithium) to sulfolane is 1:2, etc., which at least provides a value within the claimed range of the electrolyte contains lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide and sulfolane are mixed at a molar ratio of 1:1 to 1:8, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Huang with the teachings of He, whereby the lithium-sulfur battery comprising the positive electrode, electrolyte, etc., as disclosed by Huang further includes the electrolyte contains lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide and sulfolane are mixed at a molar ratio of 1:1 to 1:8 as taught by He so as to provide a gradient electrolyte system exhibits a stable and safe anode (no dendrite-like feature), high lithium utilization rate, high cathode active material utilization rate, high specific capacity, high specific energy, high power density, little or no shuttling effect, and long cycle life.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2016/0293960 A1) discloses a cathode of all-solid state lithium-sulfur secondary battery using graphene oxide and method for manufacturing the same (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0060] as the cathode active material, the solid electrolyte, and the binder, typically used materials for the cathode in the related arts may be used without limitation, and for instance, preferably, sulfur or lithium sulfide (Li2S) may be used as the cathode active material, a sulfide-based or oxide-based solid electrolyte may be used as the solid electrolyte, and a fluorine-based, rubber-based, or acrylate-based binder may be used as the binder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 on (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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights