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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 3/18/2024 and 5/19/2026 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
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 11 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said active substance is selected from the group consisting of" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, Claim 11 will be interpreted as depending from Claim 10, which does disclose an active substance, instead of depending 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 (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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. US-20160372743-A1 (“Cho”).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho discloses an anode coating (see abstract and paragraphs [0012]-[0022] and [0104]-[0105]) consisting of:
a. at least one poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) (component A) (experimental example (b) discloses using a PVDF homopolymer) in Figs. 1 and 3 (see paragraphs [0012], [0018], [0079]-[0080], [0086]-[0089] and [0104] and Claim 1),
b. at least one lithium salt (component B) (lithium may be included in first outer layer or second inner layer, and specifically LiFSI is used in experimental example (b)) in Figs. 1 and 3 (see paragraphs [0032], [0047], [0065], [0079]-[0080], [0086]-[0089], and [0104]), and
c. at least one conductivity additive (component C) (ionic liquid included in experimental example (b)) in Figs. 1 and 3 (see paragraphs [0022], [0032], [0047], [0071], [0079]-[0080], [0086]-[0089], and [0104]). The instant application discloses an ionic liquid functions as a conductivity additive (see paragraph [0057] of published instant application).
Regarding Claim 2, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Cho further discloses in which said component A is chosen from poly(vinylidene fluoride) homopolymers and copolymers of vinylidene difluoride with at least one comonomer is selected from the group consisting of chosen from the list: vinyl fluoride, tetrafluoroethylene, chlorotrifluoroethylene, and their mixtures (see paragraphs [0018], [0029], [0042], and [0079]).
Regarding Claim 4, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Cho further discloses in which said component B is selected from the group consisting of chosen from LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate), LiFSI (lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide), LiBF4, LiClO4 and the mixtures thereof (see paragraphs [0065], [0079]-[0080], [0086]-[0089], and [0104]).
Regarding Claim 5, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Cho further discloses in which the component C is selected from the group consisting of ionic liquids (see paragraphs [0033], [0071], and [0104]).
Regarding Claim 6, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Cho further discloses the thickness of the second inner layer is in the range of 0.2-2 μm and the thickness of the first outer layer is in the range of 1-2 μm (see paragraphs [0024]-[0025], [0035], [0104]-[0105], and [0110]), which would result in a total coating thickness in the range of 1.2-4 μm. The total thickness and individual thicknesses and fall within and therefore anticipate the claimed range of the anode coating having a thickness ranging from 0.1 to 100 µm.
Regarding Claim 7, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Cho further discloses the anode coating having the following composition by weight:
- Component A with a ratio of between 20% and 80% (polymer may be included in an amount of 25-30 weight % in a polymer layer, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the composition by weight of Component A being between 20% and 80%)) (see paragraphs [0098] and [0104]-[0107]),
- Component B with a ratio of between 1% and 40% (lithium salt may be included in an amount of 3-20 weight % in a polymer layer, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the composition by weight of Component B being between 1% and 40%)) (see paragraphs [0087] and [0104]-[0107])),
- Component C with a ratio of between 2% and 50%, the sum of these ratios being 100% (ionic liquid may be included in an amount of 10-50 weight % in a polymer layer, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the composition by weight of Component C being between 2% and 50%) (see paragraphs [0072], [0074], [0083], and [0104]-[0107]).
Regarding Claim 9, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above). Cho further discloses in which said solvent is N,N- dimethylformamide (DMF) (see paragraph [0107]).
Regarding Claim 13, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above). Cho further discloses a process for the manufacture of a Li-ion battery negative electrode (see paragraphs [0003], [0039], and [0059]), said process comprising the following operations:
- providing an anode (see paragraphs [0039] and [0059]),
- depositing, on said anode, the coating layer of the aforementioned claim 1 (via dip coating method) (see paragraphs [0059] and [0104]-[0107]).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho.
Regarding Claim 3, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Cho further discloses a first outer polymer layer and second inner polymer layer may be the same polymer and both have a PVDF component, an ionic liquid, and a lithium salt (see paragraphs [0012]-[0022], [0029], and [0104]), and a skilled artisan would recognize an obvious embodiment where the polymer layers consist only of a PVDF component, an ionic liquid, and a lithium salt. Cho also discloses in which the second polymer comprises monomer units carrying at least one of the following functions: carboxylic acid, sulfonic, or phosphonic (see paragraphs [0029], [0031], [0042]-[0044], and [0102] and Claims 1 and 6-7). A skilled artisan would recognize these as appropriate functional groups to include in an anode polymer coating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the anode coating wherein the coating includes a second polymer comprising monomer units carrying at least one of the following functions: carboxylic acid, sulfonic, or phosphonic, as an obvious embodiment of the polymer coating of Cho.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Lee et al. US-20180166682-A1 (“Lee”).
Regarding Claim 8, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Cho further discloses a process for the manufacture of the anode coating of the aforementioned claim 1 comprising the steps of:
a) combining component A, component B and Component C in a solvent to provide an ink (PVDF solution in DMF (dimethylformide) was prepared and plasticizer (which may be the ionic liquid i.e., Component C) with LiFSI was added) (see paragraph [0107])
b) applying said ink on to an anode (anode was coated using a dip coating method) (see paragraphs [0067] and [0104]-[0107]),
Cho is silent on drying the ink on the anode.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electrodes with polymer layers (see abstract), Lee discloses forming polymer layers on an electrode via dip coating and drying (see paragraphs [0020]-[0022]). A skilled artisan would recognize this an appropriate way to form layers on an electrode with a dip coating method.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the process for the manufacture of the anode coating disclosed by Cho wherein the ink is dried on the anode, as disclosed by Lee, as an appropriate way to form layers on an electrode with a dip coating method.
Regarding Claim 15, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Cho is silent on an all solid Li-ion storage battery in which the cathode is covered with the coating layer of claim 1.
However, Lee discloses a cathode (positive electrode) with a binder polymer layer coating (which may be PVDF) (see paragraphs [0009], [0018], [0047], and [0077]).
Lee additionally discloses a polymer layer being included as a coating for a cathode material helps adhere the cathode layer to other layers (see paragraphs [0009], [0020]-[0026], and [0047]). As such, a skilled artisan would recognize a polymer coating as an appropriate coating to use on a cathode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the coating of Cho on the cathode of an all solid Li-ion storage battery, as disclosed by Lee, in order to adhere the positive electrode layer to other layers.
Claims 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Zhamu et al. US-20180233736-A1 (hereinafter “Zhamu”).
Regarding Claim 10, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Cho further discloses an anode for an all-solid lithium-ion battery, said anode consisting of an active substance (lithium metal, which can develop high energy density batteries) covered with the coating of claim 1 (see paragraphs [0004] and [0009]-[0022]).
However, if Cho is found insufficient, in the same field of endeavor of anode coatings (see abstract), Zhamu discloses a coating for an anode active material comprising an elastomeric material (which may be a PVDF polymer) with an ionic liquid-based lithium salt in Fig. 4 (see paragraphs [0015], [0018], [0028], [0030], [0033], and [0054]). A skilled artisan would recognize the coating of Cho (comprising an elastomeric material, a lithium salt, and ionic liquid) can appropriately be used as a coating for anode active substances such as those disclosed by Zhamu.
Zhamu additionally discloses these active substances result in a high-capacity anode (see paragraphs [0017]-[0018], [0031], [0033], [0044], and [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the coating of Cho on an active substance, as disclosed by Zhamu, in order to achieve a high-capacity anode
Regarding Claim 11, Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Cho is silent on wherein the active substance is selected from the group consisting of graphite, lithium titanate of Li4Ti5O12 type, titanium oxide TiO2, silicon, a lithium/silicon alloy, a tin oxide, a lithium intermetallic compound, or their mixtures.
However, Zhamu discloses a coating for an anode active substance comprising an elastomeric material (which may be a PVDF polymer) with an ionic liquid-based lithium salt (see paragraphs [0015], [0028], [0030], and [0033]). A skilled artisan would recognize the coating of Cho (comprising an elastomeric material, a lithium salt, and ionic liquid) can appropriately be used as a coating for active substances as disclosed by Zhamu (see paragraphs [0017]-[0018] and [0033]). Zhamu further discloses the active substance may be lithium titanate, titanium oxide TiO2 (oxide of titanium), silicon, a lithium/silicon alloy, a tin oxide (oxide of tin), a lithium intermetallic compound, or their mixtures (see Table 1 and paragraphs [0044] and [0057]-[0058]). Zhamu additionally discloses these active substances result in a high-capacity anode (see paragraphs [0017], [0031], [0033], [0044], and [0057]).
A skilled artisan would recognize that these are appropriate materials to use as active substances in the anode of a lithium ion battery and that they may be used with a polymer coating (such as the coating of Cho). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include the coating of Cho on an active substance such as lithium titanate, titanium oxide TiO2, silicon, a lithium/silicon alloy, a tin oxide, a lithium intermetallic compound, or their mixtures, as disclosed by Zhamu, as these are appropriate materials to use as an active substances in the anode of a lithium ion battery to achieve a high capacity and can suitably be used with a polymer coating.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above). Cho further discloses a Li-ion storage battery comprising a cathode (positive electrode), the anode of the aforementioned Claim 10, and an electrolyte in Figs. 1 and 3 (see paragraphs [0027]-[0028] and [0041]).
Cho is silent on an all-solid Li-ion storage battery comprising an all-solid electrolyte.
However, Zhamu discloses all-solid electrolytes may be used to achieve a functional Li-ion battery without use of a separator (see paragraphs [0002] and [0044]). A skilled artisan would recognize an all-solid Li-ion battery would function as an appropriate Li-ion battery, and an all-solid electrolyte would function as an appropriate electrolyte.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the Li-ion storage battery of Cho where the battery is an all-solid Li-ion storage battery, as disclosed by Zhamu, in order to form a functional Li-ion battery.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Zhamu, as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US-20190081351-A1 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Cho discloses the anode coating of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Cho and Zhamu are silent on the anode having a porosity of less than 10%.
However, in the same field of endeavor of anode with pores (see abstract), Kim discloses an anode portion with a pore structure having a porosity of 2 to 15 %, and specifically discloses an example with a porosity of 5 % (see Table 1 Example 2 and paragraphs [0010], [0038], and [0061]-[0062]). The value 5 % porosity falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the anode having a porosity of less than 10%.
Kim additionally discloses when the porosity of the anode portion is less than 2%, a space to generate lithium moving from the cathode during charging may be insufficient, and when the porosity is more than 15%, output performance according to the insufficiency of lithium-ion conduction may be insufficient (see paragraph [0038]). Kim also discloses a porosity of 5 % results in an excellent charge/discharge efficiency (see Table 1 Example 2 and paragraphs [0061]-[0062] and [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the anode of Cho and Zhamu wherein the anode has a porosity of less than 10%, as disclosed by Kim, in order to achieve an excellent charge/discharge efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Du et al. US-20200006767-A1 (hereinafter “Du”) discloses coating a positive electrode with a conductive polymer layer and that a polymer layer being included as a coating for a positive electrode material can reduce the side reactions between the electrolyte and the positive electrode active material and reduce the collapse of the crystalline structure of the positive electrode active material during the repeated charging and discharging process (see paragraph [0019]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights