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 20-24 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 20, the claim recites “the formula F-1 of … wherein x is in the range of 0.1 to 1.0” at the beginning of the claim. There is a lack of antecedent basis for ‘the formula F-1’.
Changes are required.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11, 13-16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220367842 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a rechargeable electrochemical cell (title, [secondary battery])(para. 0089, [lithium-ion secondary battery]), the cell comprising:
a positive electrode comprising (para.0102 [optional second cathode active material])
a current collector (para. 0094, [cathode active material includes at least the LVPF according to the Formula ( I ) on a current collector]) and a pre-lithiated active cathode material (para. 0163 describes pre-lithiation methods of the cathode)(Examiner notes that both the LVPF of Formula I and the second cathode active materials are pre-lithiated. Refer to para. 0173 and para. 0176 of Chen) comprising;
Li(1+x)Mn2O4 (para. 0126)
Li(1+x)CoO2 (para. 0129)
Li(1+x)NiaCobMncAldO2 (para. 0115, para. 0117, para. 0118, para. 0119, and para. 0121)
wherein x is in the range of 0.1 to 1.0; a+b+c+d =1; a ≥ 0.5; 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.3; 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.3; and 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.05; (para. 0126, 0129, 0115, 0117-0119, and 0121)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
a negative electrode (para. 0091, [anode]) comprising a current collector (para. 0143, [the anode material can be applied to a current collector]) and
an active anode material comprising a mixture of at least carbon and a silicon material wherein the silicon material is silicon metal or a mixture (para. 0142, [the active material of the anode can include carbon - based negative electrode active materials , such as graphite and coke , alloy - based negative electrode active materials such as Si and / or Sn , SiOx , … or a blend thereof])
the carbon is graphite (para. 0142, [graphite]);
Chen teaches testing the coulombic efficiency of the first cycle and multiple cycles of the electrochemical cell (Fig. 3) and in the background art teaches the importance of cathode pre-lithiation to achieve a certain coulombic efficiency (para. 0012).
Since Chen teaches the materials of claim 1 which include the pre-lithiated cathode active materials and anode active materials, Chen therefore teaches wherein the positive electrode has a 1st cycle Coulombic efficiency (CEcathode) and the negative electrode has a 1st cycle Coulombic Efficiency (Ceanode), such that Cecathode < Ceanode.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims (pre-lithiated cathode) (silicon/graphite anode), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the cell according to claim 1.
Chen does not teach wherein for the pre-lithiated active cathode material x is in the range of 0.3 to 0.6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the lithium stoichiometric ratio, based on specific needs of the battery cell. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the cell according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the positive electrode further comprises an additional active cathode material (para. 0083, [LVPF … Formula (1)]) (para. 0134, [The following example blended cathode materials of the LVPF according to the Formula ( 1 ) with a blend of the a second active material are mentioned]), such that the mixture has a mass ratio of the pre-lithiated active cathode material to the additional active cathode material that ranges from 99.9:0.1 to about 1:99 (para. 0138, Formula (1) may be blended with Formula B1 [para. 0117 and 0118 as described in claim 1 above] in the weight ratio is r:(1-r) …r is preferably 0.4 ≤ r ≤ 0.6).
Examiner notes that ‘r’ represents the LVPF, which is analogous to the instant’s additional active cathode material
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the cell according to Claim 3, and further teaches wherein the mass ratio of the pre-lithiated active cathode material to the additional active cathode material ranges from 99.9:0.1 to about 51:49 (para. 0138, Formula (1) may be blended with Formula B1 [para. 0117 and 0118 as described in claim 1 above] in the weight ratio is r:(1-r) …r is preferably 0.4 ≤ r ≤ 0.6).
Examiner notes that ‘r’ represents the LVPF, which is analogous to the instant’s additional active cathode material
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches the cell according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the cell further comprises an electrolyte, the electrolyte being a polymeric (para. 0154, polyolefin-based material]) (para. 0156, [polymer based materials]).
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches the cell according to Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the cell has an areal reversible cathode capacity loading > 3.0 mAh/cm2 (para. 0179, [cathode active material was about … 1.1 mAh/cm2]).
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches the cell according to Claim 13, and further teaches wherein the areal reversible cathode capacity loading is > 4.5mAh/cm2 (para. 0179, [cathode active material was about … 1.1 mAh/cm2]).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches the cell according to Claim 1.
Chen does not teach wherein the CEcathode is less than the CEanode by at least 1.0% up to 10%.
Chen, however, teaches:
Pre-lithiation refers to methods for compensating for the irreversible loss of lithium, thereby … improving cycling columbic efficiency (increased reversible capacity) (background of Chen, para. 0008)
determining an expected capacity loss of the battery due to a loss of lithium during a first cycle and/or cycles following the first cycle (para. 0018-0019)
adjusting the degree of pre - lithiation may provide a first cycle reversible capacity close to the designed or theoretical reversible capacity (para. 0026).
Similarly, para. 0031 of the instant teaches “in order to reduce the 1st Coulombic Efficiency of the cathode, a pre-lithiated cathode active material or a blending of a pre-lithiated cathode active material with another cathode active material is utilized in the positive electrode. The amount of lithium in the prelithiated cathode active material is configured by controlling the lithium content introduced during the pre-lithiation step”.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the coulombic efficiency, in order to maximize cell energy density, as taught by Chen (para. 0026). It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a CEcathode less than the CEanode by at least 1.0% up to 10%, without undue experimentation, particularly given that Chen teaches that adjusting the degree of pre-lithiation may provide a first cycle coulombic efficiency [reversible capacity] close to the designed capacity, which is would maximize cell energy density.
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches the cell according to Claim 1.
Chen does not teach wherein the CEcathode is less than the CEanode by 10% or more.
Chen, however, teaches:
Pre-lithiation refers to methods for compensating for the irreversible loss of lithium, thereby … improving cycling columbic efficiency (increased reversible capacity) (background of Chen, para. 0008)
determining an expected capacity loss of the battery due to a loss of lithium during a first cycle and/or cycles following the first cycle (para. 0018-0019)
adjusting the degree of pre - lithiation may provide a first cycle reversible capacity close to the designed or theoretical reversible capacity (para. 0026).
Similarly, para. 0031 of the instant teaches “in order to reduce the 1st Coulombic Efficiency of the cathode, a pre-lithiated cathode active material or a blending of a pre-lithiated cathode active material with another cathode active material is utilized in the positive electrode. The amount of lithium in the prelithiated cathode active material is configured by controlling the lithium content introduced during the pre-lithiation step”.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the coulombic efficiency, in order to maximize cell energy density, as taught by Chen (para. 0026). It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a CEcathode less than the CEanode by 10% or more, without undue experimentation, particularly given that Chen teaches that adjusting the degree of pre-lithiation may provide a first cycle coulombic efficiency [reversible capacity] close to the designed capacity, which is would maximize cell energy density.
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches the cell according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 above), and further teaches wherein the cell is configured to reach its maximum cell voltage in two or more formation cycles with the cell voltage increasing after each formation cycle or after at least one formation cycle.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims (pre-lithiated cathode) (silicon/graphite anode), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 19, Chen teaches a battery pack (para. 0156) for use in an electric vehicle, the battery pack comprising a plurality of cells according to Claim 1 (para. 0158, [secondary cells arranged side by side in a common casing ; a battery pack is a structure containing a plurality of electrically connected battery modules ; and a battery system is a structure containing a plurality of electrically connected cells or battery modules]), wherein the plurality of cells are a placed in series or in a parallel configuration (para. 0159, [it is well known and understood how to electrically connect secondary cells in series and in parallel]) in order to increase overall capacity (Examiner notes that Chen teaches that it is well understood to connect cells in both series and parallel. Examiner notes that connecting in either way would increase the overall capacity.).
Regarding the limitation “for use in an electric vehicle”, in this case the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220367842 A1) and further in view of Hirose (US 20160336592 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches the cell according to Claim 1.
Chen is silent regarding the mass ratio of silicon to carbon and does not teach wherein the active anode material has a mass ratio of silicon material to carbon that is in the range of about 10:90 to about 99.9:0.1.
Hirose, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the active anode material has a mass ratio of silicon material to carbon that is in the range of about 10:90 to about 99.9:0.1 (Hirose, para. 0117 and para. 0123, [the negative electrode is a mixture of the silicon-based active material and the carbon-based active material … the silicon-based active material is included in an amount of 6 mass% or more with respect to the total amount of the negative electrode active materials]).
Examiner notes that Hirose teaches the anode made of silicon and carbon. If silicon makes up 6 mass percent then carbon would make up 94 mass percent.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added silicon in an amount of 6 mass % or more to Chen’s anode, as taught by Hirose, in order to increase the volume energy density of the battery (Hirose, para. 0124, [a battery containing the above amount or more of the silicon-based active material can increase its volume energy density]).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Chen teaches the cell according to Claim 5, wherein the mass ratio of silicon material to carbon is in the range of about 20: 80 to about 40:60 (Hirose, para. 0117 and para. 0123, [the negative electrode is a mixture of the silicon-based active material and the carbon-based active material … the silicon-based active material is included in an amount of 6 mass% or more with respect to the total amount of the negative electrode active materials]).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches the cell according to claim 1.
Chen is silent regarding the particle size of the silicon material and does not teach wherein the silicon material has an average particle size < 1 micrometer (µm) or the silicon material has an average particle size between 1 µm and 4 µm or the silicon material has an average particle size > 4 µm.
Hirose, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the silicon material has an average particle size < 1 micrometer (µm) or the silicon material has an average particle size between 1 µm and 4 µm or the silicon material has an average particle size > 4 µm (Hirose, para. 0126, [a median size of the silicon-based active material preferably ranges from 0.5 µm to 20 µm.)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Chen’s silicon particles to have median size ranging from 0.5 µm to 20 µm, as taught by Hirose, in order to occlude and emit lithium ions and inhibit the breakage of the particles at charging and discharging, as taught by Hirose (Hirose, para. 0126).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220367842 A1) and further in view of Amaratunga (US 20100178531 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches the cell according to claim 11.
Chen teaches the use of usual organic solvents (electrolytes) such as ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate (para. 0148).
Chen does not teach wherein the electrolyte is a non-flammable gel electrolyte.
Amaratunga, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that besides conventional organic electrolytes such as ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate, a room temperature ionic liquid (RTIL) electrolyte, can be preferably used as a gel electrolyte for the fabrication of a fully solid state rechargeable battery. Amaratunga further teaches wherein the electrolyte is a non-flammable gel electrolyte (Amaratunga, para. 0054, [the RTIL gels are non-flammable, flexible, and environmentally safe]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the organic electrolyte solvent of ethylene carbonate or propylene carbonate, taught by Chen, for the room temperature ionic liquid electrolyte, taught by Amaratunga. The simple substitution of a known element (organic solvent) for another (room temperature ionic liquid) would achieve the predictable result of providing an electrolyte that behaves as an electrically conductive medium, as taught by Amaratunga (para. 0054).
Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 20220367842 A1) in view of Hirose (US 20160336592 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Chen teaches a rechargeable electrochemical cell (para. 0089, [lithium-ion secondary battery]), the cell comprising:
a positive electrode (para.0102 [optional second cathode active material]) that includes a current collector (para. 0094, [cathode active material includes at least the LVPF according to the Formula ( I ) on a current collector]), and
a pre-lithiated active cathode material (para. 0163 describes pre-lithiation methods of the cathode)(Examiner notes that both the LVPF of Formula I and the second cathode active materials are pre-lithiated. Refer to para. 0173 and para. 0176 of Chen) according to the formula F-1 of Li(1+x)Mn2O4 (para. 0126)
wherein x is in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 (para. 0126);
a negative electrode (para. 0091, [anode]) comprising a current collector (para. 0143, [the anode material can be applied to a current collector]) and
an active anode material comprising a mixture of at least graphite (para. 0142, [graphite]) and a silicon material; wherein the silicon material is silicon metal, SiOy, or a mixture or composite thereof with y ranging between 0< y < 2; (para. 0142, [the active material of the anode can include carbon - based negative electrode active materials , such as graphite and coke , alloy - based negative electrode active materials such as Si and / or Sn , SiOx , … or a blend thereof])
Chen is silent regarding the mass ratio of silicon to carbon and does not teach wherein the active anode material has a mass ratio of silicon material to carbon that is in the range of about 10:90 to about 99.9:0.1.
Hirose, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the active anode material has a mass ratio of silicon material to carbon that is in the range of about 10:90 to about 99.9:0.1 (Hirose, para. 0117 and para. 0123, [the negative electrode is a mixture of the silicon-based active material and the carbon-based active material … the silicon-based active material is included in an amount of 6 mass% or more with respect to the total amount of the negative electrode active materials]).
Examiner notes that Hirose teaches the anode made of silicon and carbon. If silicon makes up 6 mass percent then carbon makes up 94 mass percent.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added silicon in an amount of 6 mass % or more to Chen’s anode, as taught by Hirose, in order to increase the volume energy density of the battery (Hirose, para. 0124, [a battery containing the above amount or more of the silicon-based active material can increase its volume energy density]).
Chen teaches testing the coulombic efficiency of the first cycle and multiple cycles of the electrochemical cell (Fig. 3) and in the background art teaches the importance of cathode pre-lithiation to achieve a certain coulombic efficiency (para. 0012).
Since Chen teaches the materials of claim 1 which include the pre-lithiated cathode active materials and anode active materials, Chen therefore teaches wherein the positive electrode has a 1st cycle Coulombic efficiency (CEcathode) and the negative electrode has a 1st cycle Coulombic Efficiency (Ceanode), such that Cecathode < Ceanode.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims (pre-lithiated cathode) (silicon/graphite anode), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Chen does not teach wherein the CEcathode is less than the CEanode by an amount that falls in the range of one of the following groups: i) at least 1.0%, ii) up to 10%, or iii) 10% or more.
Chen, however, teaches:
Pre-lithiation refers to methods for compensating for the irreversible loss of lithium, thereby … improving cycling columbic efficiency (increased reversible capacity) (background of Chen, para. 0008)
determining an expected capacity loss of the battery due to a loss of lithium during a first cycle and/or cycles following the first cycle (para. 0018-0019)
adjusting the degree of pre - lithiation may provide a first cycle reversible capacity close to the designed or theoretical reversible capacity (para. 0026).
Similarly, para. 0031 of the instant teaches “in order to reduce the 1st Coulombic Efficiency of the cathode, a pre-lithiated cathode active material or a blending of a pre-lithiated cathode active material with another cathode active material is utilized in the positive electrode. The amount of lithium in the prelithiated cathode active material is configured by controlling the lithium content introduced during the pre-lithiation step”.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the coulombic efficiency, in order to maximize cell energy density, as taught by Chen (para. 0026). It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a CEcathode less than the CEanode by an amount that falls in the range of one of the following groups: i) at least 1.0%, ii) up to 10%, or iii) 10% or more., without undue experimentation, particularly given that Chen teaches that adjusting the degree of pre-lithiation may provide a first cycle coulombic efficiency [reversible capacity] close to the designed capacity, which is would maximize cell energy density.
Regarding claim 21, Chen teaches the cell according to claim 20, and further teaches wherein the positive electrode further comprises an additional active cathode material (Chen, para. 0083, [LVPF … Formula (1)]) (Chen, para. 0134, [The following example blended cathode materials of the LVPF according to the Formula ( 1 ) with a blend of the second active material are mentioned]), such that the mixture has a mass ratio of the pre-lithiated active cathode material to the additional active cathode material that ranges from 99.9:0.1 to about 1:99 (Chen, para. 0138, Formula (1) may be blended with Formula B1 [para. 0117 and 0118 as described in claim 1 above] in the weight ratio is r:(1-r) …r is preferably 0.4 ≤ r ≤ 0.6).
Examiner notes that ‘r’ represents the LVPF, which is analogous to the instant’s additional active cathode material
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 22, Modified Chen teaches the cell according to claim 20.
Chen is silent regarding the particle size of the silicon material and does not teach wherein the silicon material has an average particle size < 1 micrometer (µm) or the silicon material has an average particle size between 1 µm and 4 µm or the silicon material has an average particle size > 4 µm.
Hirose, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the silicon material has an average particle size < 1 micrometer (µm) or the silicon material has an average particle size between 1 µm and 4 µm or the silicon material has an average particle size > 4 µm (Hirose, para. 0126, [a median size of the silicon-based active material preferably ranges from 0.5 µm to 20 µm.)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Chen’s silicon particles to have median size ranging from 0.5 µm to 20 µm, as taught by Hirose, in order to occlude and emit lithium ions and inhibit the breakage of the particles at charging and discharging, as taught by Hirose (Hirose, para. 0126).
Regarding claim 23, Modified Chen teaches the cell according to claim 20, and further teaches wherein the cell further comprises an electrolyte, the electrolyte being a polymeric (Chen, para. 0154, polyolefin-based material]) (Chen, para. 0156, [polymer based materials]).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Chen teaches the cell according to claim 20, wherein one or more of the following are present: the cell has an areal reversible cathode capacity loading > 3.0 mAh/cm2 (Chen, para. 0179, [cathode active material was about … 1.1 mAh/cm2]).
Additional Pertinent Art
(US 20180375157 A1)
Teaches a lithium metal oxide cathode, silicon/graphite anode, and a gel electrolyte for an electrochemical cell. The electrochemical cell was tested for its Coulombic Efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights