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.
Claims 1-18 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 1, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 10 is similarly indefinite for its use of “particularly”.
In claim 12, it is redundant to both specify the solvent has a high boiling point and then define what high boiling point apparently means. The claim should be amended to just specify the solvent has a boiling point of at least 160 ⁰C.
Claims 2-11 and 13-18 are indefinite because of their dependance on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al (WO 2022/117953) in view of Fujimoto et al (US 2003/0180617). For the rejection of Schmidt, the examiner is relying on the English language translation of US 2024/0021872.
With respect to claim 1, Schmidt discloses a positive electrode (cathode) comprising an active material that can comprise NMC 622 which would be LiNi0.6Mn0.2Co0.2O2 (par. 0032 and 0133) which reads on applicant’s use of NMC, a conductive additive (par. 0033), and a catholyte (par. 0028). The catholyte is disclosed as containing a lithium salt including one of LiTFSI, LiFSI, LiBOB (LiB(C2O4)2), LiDFOB (LiF2B(C2O4)2, LiBF4, or LiClO4 (par. 0064), a polymer binder that can be a PVdF co-polymer (par. 0029), an ionic liquid which can include conventional cations and anions that would inherently be an ionic liquid at room temperature (par. 0065-0067). Schmidt also disclosed that the catholyte can contain a solvent made of nitrile which includes glutoronitrile and adiponitrile (par. 0055-0062). It is noted that although Schmidt does not consider the polymeric binder to be part of the catholyte, the combination of the catholyte and the binder of Schmidt reads on the defined catholyte of the present invention which did consider the binder as a component of the catholyte.
Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the positive electrode having a density from 2.3 to 3.6 g/cm3. Fujimoto teaches that the density of the positive electrode is a result effective variable that controls the discharge characteristics of the electrode and particularly taught the use of densities overlapping those of the present invention (not less than 3.0 g/cm3) (par. 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of Fujimoto for the positive electrode of Schmidt as density was considered a result effective variable that controlled the discharge characteristics of the electrode.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Schmidt teaches PVdF-HFP in amounts overlapping the claims (par. 0029 and 0072-0078).
With respect to claims 7 and 9, Schmidt teaches the catholyte (mainly solvent (which can be the plastic crystal), lithium salt, and ionic liquid) can comprise 2.5-28% of the positive electrode, which clearly renders obvious overlapping claimed conditions (par. 0072-0078).
With respect to claim 8, the LiB(C2O4)2 (par. 0115) is LiBOB.
With respect to claim 10, see Schmidt par. 0133.
With respect to claim 11, the catholyte plus binder amount (i.e. the claim defined catholyte) overlaps 5-50 wt%, the cathode active material amount overlaps 50-90 wt%, and the conductive additive amount overlaps 1-5% (par. 0072-0078).
With respect to claim 12, Schmidt also suggests the utility of solvents such as propylene carbonate (PC) (par. 0063) which the present invention evidences is a high boiling point solvent.
With respect to claim 13, Schmidt discloses its catholyte, which principally includes the solvent(s) that can be plastic crystals and ionic liquid is 2.5-28 wt% of the electrode (par. 0077). This clearly overlaps the claimed range of 1-20 wt%.
With respect to claims 16 and 18, Schmidt discloses making an article (battery) further comprising an anode and a solid (gelled) electrolyte (par. 0088-0092).
With respect to claim 17, Schmidt explicitly discloses that the electrolyte is an analogous PVdF-HFP based electrolyte similar to the positive electrode composition and Schmidt earlier articulated that it is desired to have a high degree of adhesion between the electrolyte and cathode (par. 0009, 0010, 0092). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the same composition for both the electrolyte and catholyte in order to get the highest adhesion between the two components.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Fujimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al (US 2006/0204845).
With respect to the claim, Schmidt in view of Fujimoto set forth all the limitations of the claim 1 but did not explicitly disclose the active material loadings, although it is noted that Schmidt already rendered obvious the active material wt% in amounts that overlapped the present invention (see the rejection of claim 11 above) which arguably already renders obvious the loadings of claim 2. Nevertheless, Chang discloses an alternate positive electrode and explicitly suggests the use of active material loadings in the claimed range (par. 0126 and 0127). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of Chang for the electrode of Schmidt and Fujimoto as the utility of conventional loadings for the unspecified loadings in the prior art requires only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 (and claims 1, 3, 4, 7-13, and 16-18 in the alternative) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Fujimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al (US 2009/0286163).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Schmidt and Fujimoto set forth all the limitations of the preceding claim and Schmidt explicitly suggested the use of pyrrolidinium (PYR) and bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide (TFSI) (par. 0065 and 0066) but did not explicitly suggest the use of any of the compositions of claims 5 and 6. Shin discloses an alternate use of ionic liquids in batteries and explicitly suggest the utility of PYR14TFSI (par. 0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the teaching of Shin for the ionic liquid of Schmidt in view of Fujimoto because the utility of known components when the parameters for choosing those components were already laid out by Schmidt requires only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 7-13, and 16-18 in the alternative, even if the general conditions set forth by Schmidt in par. 0065 and 0066 are deemed not sufficiently specific to teach a room temperature ionic liquid, then these claims would be further obvious over Shin for the reasons set forth above.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Fujimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al (CN 112002951A). The examiner is relying on the Google Patents translation of Li (attached). The paragraph number of the translation was added by the examiner for ease of referencing and does not correspond to paragraph numbering of the original document.
In the previous rejection of claims Schmidt in view of Fujimoto set forth the use of solvent components that are plastic crystals such as glutoronitrile and adiponitrile as well as materials like propylene or ethylene carbonate that are high boiling point solvents (see above). Even if this was deemed to not be sufficiently specific enough to suggest the precise combination of a plastic crystal and a high boiling point solvent, it is noted that Li teaches an alternative solvent (wetting agent) for a battery and clearly suggests that the wetting component can comprise plastic crystals like adiponitrile with additives like high boiling point carbonates (abstract and par. 0050). Hence, Li provides additional suggestion for combining the various ingredients already suggested by Schmidt and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize known and useful solvent combinations for the positive electrode of Schmidt and Fujimoto to take advantage of its beneficial interfacial properties.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Fujimoto (or Schmidt in view of Fujimoto and Li) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al (US 2017/0162901).
With respect to claim 14, Schmidt in view of Fujimoto already set forth the limitations of claim 1 and Schmidt further suggested manufacturing the positive electrode by mixing cathode active material the polymeric binder component of the catholyte, casting the composition onto a current collector and calendering the electrode to obtain the electrode. See par. 0081-0087. The process of Schmidt and Fujimoto differs from the claims in that the remainder of the catholyte is not mixed with the active material at the binder mixing step (it is impregnated into the electrode in a later step (par. 0087) and they also fail to explicitly disclose the process of hot-pressing the electrode. Chen discloses an alternate electrode synthesis where they explicitly suggested the cathode active material can be mixed directly with the catholyte components to form the slurry that is then casted onto the current collector (par. 0104-0108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the alternate mixing scheme of Chen for the electrode of Schmidt and Fujimoto as it makes sure the catholyte is thoroughly mixed with the cathode active material as opposed to just a separate impregnation step.
With respect to the hot-pressing, Chen further suggests that battery components can be hot-pressed together (par. 0037) render obvious this step of the synthesis.
With respect to claim 15, see either the Schmidt in view of Fujimoto or the Schmidt in view of Fujimoto and Li rejections of claim 12 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights