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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “Catalyst-free electrolyte” in claim 1, whereby the examiner will interpret the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation such that any electrolyte may be allowed as long as it does not specifically say it includes a catalyst, lacking any further chemical distinction as claimed.
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 6-7 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.
Regarding claim 6, “N/P (Negative/Positive) ratio” is recited in Line 2, however it is unclear as to what the ratio specifically refers, thereby failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Therefore, the examiner will refer to the ratio as that provided in the instant specification in Page 2:L10-12, “wherein the N/P ratio is the ratio of the negative electrode capacity to the positive electrode capacity”. It is suggested Applicant amend the claim so that said limitation is consistent with the specification.
Regarding claim 7, “a capacity greater than 20000 mAh/g” is recited in Lines 2-3, however it is unclear what the gram quantity refers, such that no details are provided in the specification nor claims as to whether this gram quantity is one specific material, the entire electrode material, etc., thereby failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
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, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kozinsky et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2014/0045079 A1), hereinafter Kozinksy.
Regarding claim 1, Kozinsky discloses a lithium-oxygen primary battery comprising: a positive electrode (i.e., at least positive electrode ref. 104 as disclosed in [0028] and shown in at least Fig. 6, lacking any further distinction thereof);
a negative electrode (i.e., at least negative electrode ref. 102 as disclosed in [0028] and shown in at least Fig. 6, lacking any further distinction thereof); and
a catalyst-free electrolyte (i.e., at least electrolyte solution ref. 114, separator ref. 106, etc., as disclosed in at [0029]-[0030] and shown in Fig. 6, lacking any further distinction thereof, and since the electrolyte solution does not contain a catalyst, the claim limitation is met),
disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (i.e., at least separator and electrolyte solution ref. 114 present in the separator ref. 106, etc., as disclosed in [0029]-[0030] is at least between the positive electrode ref. 104 and the negative electrode ref. 102 as shown in at least Fig. 6, lacking any further distinction thereof).
Regarding claim 4, Kozinsky discloses the lithium-oxygen primary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Kozinsky further discloses the negative electrode comprises a lithium metal (i.e., at least the negative electrode ref. 102 may be formed from lithium metal, etc., as disclose din [0028], also see [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Kozinsky discloses the lithium-oxygen primary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Kozinsky further discloses the catalyst-free electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and an ether-group solvent (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0030] the electrolyte solution ref. 114 includes a salt, LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate), dissolved in an organic solvent mixture, whereby the organic solvent mixture may be any solvent, such as dimethyl ether (DME), etc., which at least provides a lithium salt and an ether-group solvent, lacking any further chemical distinction thereof).
Regarding claim 6, Kozinsky discloses the lithium-oxygen primary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Although Kozinsky is silent as to an N/P (Negative/Positive) capacity ratio of the lithium-oxygen primary battery is 1-2, , since Kozinsky discloses the lithium-oxygen primary battery which is identical and/or substantially identical product as that claimed, properties and/or functions such as an N/P (Negative/Positive) capacity ratio of the lithium-oxygen primary battery is 1-2 is presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), II., In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 7, Kozinsky discloses the lithium-oxygen primary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Although Kozinsky is silent as to the lithium-oxygen primary battery has a capacity greater than 20000 mAh/g, since Kozinsky discloses the lithium-oxygen primary battery which is identical and/or substantially identical product as that claimed, properties and/or functions such as a capacity greater than 20000 mAh/g is presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), II., In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozinsky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2011/0091777 A1), hereinafter Mizuno.
Regarding claim 2, Kozinsky discloses the lithium-oxygen primary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Kozinsky further discloses the positive electrode comprises a porous electrically-conductive carbon material (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0036] porous electrically conductive material ref. 110 is a porous electronically conductive carbon material, etc., also see [0019]-[0020], [0029]). Kozinsky further discloses in [0007] binders as known materials of battery cells.
However, Kozinsky is silent as to a polymeric adhesive agent.
Mizuno teaches lithium air battery (Title). Mizuno further teaches in [0047] the first cathode layer of the present invention may contain a binder to immobilize the conductive material, etc. (also see [0050], [0053], [0058]), which at least provides a polymeric adhesive agent, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said binder is at least a polymeric adhesive agent such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), etc., so as to bind and immobilize said conductive material, lacking any further chemical distinction thereof.
Mizuno further teaches in [0001] the present invention relates to a lithium air battery which functions as a high-capacity lithium air battery at the time of low-current discharge while functions as a high-power lithium ion battery at the time of large-current discharge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kozinsky with the teachings of Mizuno, whereby the lithium-oxygen primary battery as disclosed by Kozinsky further includes the polymeric adhesive agent (i.e., at least binder) as taught by Mizuno so as to provide a lithium air battery which functions as a high-capacity lithium air battery at the time of low-current discharge while functions as a high-power lithium ion battery at the time of large-current discharge.
Regarding claim 3, Kozinsky discloses the lithium-oxygen primary battery as discussed above in claim 2. Kozinsky further discloses the porous electrically-conductive carbon material comprises a carbon nanotube (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0011] materials that provide the needed porosity include carbon nanotubes, etc.).
In the alternative, Mizuno teaches in [0045] as an example of the conductive material, a carbon material is cited, whereby specific examples of the carbon material, mention can be made of carbon nanotube(s), etc.
Mizuno further teaches in [0001] the present invention relates to a lithium air battery which functions as a high-capacity lithium air battery at the time of low-current discharge while functions as a high-power lithium ion battery at the time of large-current discharge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kozinsky with the teachings of Mizuno, whereby the lithium-oxygen primary battery including the porous electrically-conductive carbon material as disclosed by Kozinsky further includes carbon nanotube(s) as taught by Mizuno so as to provide a lithium air battery which functions as a high-capacity lithium air battery at the time of low-current discharge while functions as a high-power lithium ion battery at the time of large-current discharge.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozinsky as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Ionescu et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2022/0263082 A1), hereinafter Ionescu.
Regarding claim 6, Kozinsky discloses the lithium-oxygen primary battery as discussed above in claim 1. However, Kozinsky is silent as to an N/P (Negative/Positive) capacity ratio of the lithium-oxygen primary battery is 1-2.
Ionescu teaches silicon anode battery (Title). Ionescu further teaches in the resultant battery can have a solid state build, Li metal build (e.g., lithium-ion or lithium polymer batteries), metal-air build (e.g., silicon-air battery), and/or any other suitable construction, etc., which provides a battery system commensurate in scope with that claimed. Ionescu further teaches in the N/P ratio (e.g., a capacity ratio such as a linear capacity, an areal capacity, volumetric capacity, total capacity, etc. of the anode to the cathode) is for example a value of 1.5, which provides a value within the claimed range of an N/P (Negative/Positive) capacity ratio of the lithium-oxygen primary battery is 1-2, 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) ).
Ionescu further teaches in [0027] a larger N/P ratio can be beneficial for increasing the stability of the anode (e.g., because the anode will be less lithiated and undergo less volume expansion compared to a battery with a smaller N/P ratio), etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kozinsky with the teachings of Ionescu, whereby the lithium-oxygen primary battery including the negative/positive electrode materials, etc., as disclosed by Kozinsky further includes an N/P (Negative/Positive) capacity ratio of the lithium-oxygen primary battery is 1-2 as taught by Ionescu, such that a larger N/P ratio can be beneficial for increasing the stability of the anode (e.g., because the anode will be less lithiated and undergo less volume expansion compared to a battery with a smaller N/P ratio), etc.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozinsky as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Kozinsky discloses the lithium-oxygen primary battery as discussed above in claim 1. Kozinsky further discloses in [0010] in order to realize a battery system with a specific energy of 600 Wh/kg or greater, a plate thickness of 100 µm must have a capacity of about 20 mAh/cm2, etc., that is and as example provided by the examiner given 3.7 V this provides 162.16 mAh/g or greater, and therefore since this is a voltage dependent quantity, this at least provides a range that overlaps and/or encompasses the claimed range of the lithium-oxygen primary battery has a capacity greater than 20000 mAh/g, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I., In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Amiruddin et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2022/0255122 A1) discloses lithium batteries with high capacity anode active material and good cycling for consumer electronics (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0087] in general, the negative electrode capacity can be set to be somewhat greater than the sum of the positive electrode capacity and the supplemental lithium capacity to avoid lithium metal plating during battery charging.
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
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights