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 .
Claims 1-10 and 13-22 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 13-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20050123835 A1) in view of Bommer et al. (DE102018201548 A1; hereinafter “Bommer”). Machine translation is being used for the foreign references mentioned before.
Regarding Claim 1: Sun discloses a lithium-ion rechargeable battery comprising at least one negative electrode, a separator membrane, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (a metal ion cell) [0003], [0023], [0049]. Sun further discloses a positive electrode made of a lithiated metal oxide selected from LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMn2O4 and LiFePO4 (cathode active material) and a negative electrode made of carbon material such as coke or graphite (anode active material) [0023], [0050]. Sun further discloses an electrolyte salt comprising LiPF6 and/or LiBF4 (one or more metal salts) [0042]-[0043].
Sun discloses 3-methoxypropionitrile (MPN) as a suitable nitrile solvent [0036] and diethyl carbonate (DEC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (at least one linear carbonate solvent) as a suitable first non-aqueous solvent [0045]. Sun discloses Samples E-2 through E-5 prepared with EC/DEC/MPN in a 2:2:1 weight ration (a solvent mixture that includes 3-methoxypropionitrile (MPN) and at least one linear carbonate solvent) [0063], Table 1.
Sun does not disclose an anode active material operating at a potential of not less than 0.6 V versus Li/Li+ nor does Sun disclose a positive and negative current collector.
Bommer discloses a high voltage anode providing more than 1 V versus Li/Li+ and comprising Li4Ti5O12, TiO2 and/or H2Ti12O25 as an anode active material [0025]. Bommer further discloses an electrochemical cell comprising at least one positive electrode and at least one negative electrode, wherein the anode comprises Li4Ti5O12, TiO2 and/or H2Ti12O25 [0028].
Bommer discloses a positive and negative electrode each comprising an electrically conductive current collector having an active material disposed thereon, wherein the current collector may comprise copper or aluminum (a positive electrode comprising a current collector and a negative electrode comprising a current collector) [0029].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sun’s lithium-ion battery using MPN with Bommer’s high voltage anode and current collector configuration because Bommer teaches that a high voltage anode is suitable for lithium-ion cells employing nitrile-containing electrolytes and both references contemplate MPN-containing lithium-ion electrolyte system. The combination would have predictably provided the lithium-ion battery of Sun with a high voltage anode while each element continued to perform its known function. See MPEP §2143 (A) Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding Claim 2: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above.
Bommer further discloses a high voltage anode providing more than 1 V versus Li/Li+ and comprising Li4Ti5O12, TiO2 and/or H2Ti12O25 as anode material [0025]. Accordingly, Boomer teaches an anode operating at more than 1 V versus Li/Li+, the discloses anode satisfies the claimed threshold of not less than 0.8 V versus Li/Li+.
Regarding Claim 3: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun further discloses electrolyte Samples E-2 -E-5 comprising EC/DEC/MPN in a 2:2:1 ratio by weight (the MPN in the electrolyte has a mass ratio of > 0.1 as compared to the at least one linear carbonate solvent.) [0063], Table 1. Because DEC is the linear carbonate and the disclosed MPN:DEC weight ratio is 1:2 or 0.5, Sun satisfies the claim ratio of ≥0.1.
Regarding Claim 4: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun further teaches a MPN at about 20-95 wt.% and a first solvent, including DEC, DMC or EMC at about 5-80 wt.% [0037], [0046]. These ranges encompass a ratio of at least 2.0. For example, 40 wt.% MPN /20 wt.% linear carbonate = 2:1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative amounts of MPN and the linear carbonate within Sun’s discloses ranges because Sun teaches that the nitrile concentration affects ionic conductivity and battery performance [0105]. See MPEP §2144.05 II.A and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 5: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun further teaches a MPN at about 20-95 wt.% and a first solvent, including DEC, DMC or EMC at about 5-80 wt.% [0037], [0046]. These ranges encompass a ratio of at least 2.0. For example, 80 wt.% MPN /20 wt.% linear carbonate = 4:1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative amounts of MPN and the linear carbonate within Sun’s discloses ranges because Sun teaches that the nitrile concentration affects ionic conductivity and battery performance [0105]. See MPEP §2144.05 II.A and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 6: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun further discloses that the first non-aqueous solvent may be diethyl carbonate (DEC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) [0045].
Accordingly, Sun teaches the additional limitation of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun further discloses electrolyte Samples E-2 -E-5 comprising EC/DEC/MPN in a 2:2:1 ratio by weight [0063], Table 1.
Because EC and DEC are the carbonate solvents and DEC is the linear carbonate, DEC represents 50% of the EC/DEC carbonate mixture, which falls within the claimed 10-90% range.
Regarding Claim 8: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun further discloses electrolyte Samples E-2 -E-5 comprising EC/DEC/MPN in a 2:2:1 ratio by weight [0063], Table 1.
In this composition, EC and DEC are the carbonate solvents and MPN is the non-carbonate solvent, and DEC is a linear carbonate. Thus, DEC represents 2/(2+2+1) = 40% of the EC/DEC/MPN solvent mixture, this falls within the claimed 10-90% range.
Regarding Claim 10: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun further discloses LiPF6 as an electrolyte salt [0043]-[0044].
Because claim 1 requires at least one of the listed alternatives to be present, Sun’s express disclosure of LiPF6 is sufficient to satisfy the additional limitation.
Regarding Claim 13: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 10 as set forth above. Sun further discloses an electrolyte comprising LIPF6 at a concentration of 1.2 M in Sample E-5 [0065], Table 1.
Because 1.2 M falls within the claimed range of 0.1 M to 3.0 M, Sun teaches the additional limitation of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun further discloses an electrolyte comprising LIPF6 at a concentration of 1.2 M in Sample E-5 [0065], Table 1.
Because 1.2 M falls within the claimed range of 0.5 M to 1.5 M, Sun teaches the additional limitation of claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 10 as set forth above. Sun further discloses Sample E-5 containing LIPF6 as the sole lithium salt [0064], Table 1.
Because E-5 uses LiPF6 without another lithium salt, LiPF6 constitutes 100% of the lithium salts, thereby satisfying the additional limitation of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 10 as set forth above. Sun further discloses Sample E-4 containing LiBF4 and LiPF6 in a 1:3 ratio [0064], Table 1.
Because the LiBF4 : LiPF6 ratio is 1:3, LiPF6 constitutes 75% of the lithium salts, which is greater than 50 mol% and satisfies the additional limitations of claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 10 as set forth above. Sun further discloses Sample E-4 containing LiBF4 and LiPF6 [0064], Table 1.
Because Sun expressly discloses LiBF4 in addition to LiPF6, this satisfies the additional limitation of claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun further discloses an electrolyte having lithium, sodium, or potassium cation [0042].
Because claim 1 requires at least one of the listed alternatives to be present, Sun’s express disclosure of lithium salts is sufficient to satisfy the additional limitation of claim 18.
Regarding Claim 22: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 10as set forth above. Bommer further discloses an electrochemical cell in the form of a hybrid supercapacitor having a positive and a negative electrode and an active material disposed thereon [0029].
Bommer further discloses an activated carbon as an active material disposed on the negative electrode current collector [0030].
Thus, Bommer teaches the additional limitation of claim 22.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20050123835 A1) and Bommer et al. (DE102018201548 A1; hereinafter “Bommer”). as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Miyoshi et al. (US9230746 B2; hereinafter “Miyoshi”).
Regarding Claim 9: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 8 as set forth above.
Sun and Bommer do not disclose that one or more non-carbonate solvents comprise a sulfone solvent or a fluorocarbon solvent.
Miyoshi discloses sulfones such as sulfolanes as a suitable nonaqueous solvents (col. 10, line 9-25). Miyoshi also teaches linear carbonates including DMC and DEC as suitable nonaqueous solvents, so it is directly in the same electrolyte-solvent context as Sun.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sulfone solvent taught by Miyoshi in the electrolyte of Sun because Miyoshi teaches such nonaqueous solvents for lithium electrochemical devices and seeks to improve electrochemical properties over a broad temperature range. See Miyoshi col. 9, line. 57-59; col. 14, line. 23-25.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20050123835 A1) and Bommer et al. (DE102018201548 A1; hereinafter “Bommer”). as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kaner et al. (US20180182565; hereinafter “Kaner”).
Regarding Claim 19: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above.
Sun and Bommer do not disclose tetraethylammonium tetrafluoroborate (TEABF4) at a concentration of 0.3 to 1.8 M.
Kaner discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising 1.0 M TEABF4 in acetonitrile [0024].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ TEABF4 at the concentration taught by Kaner in the electrolyte of Sun because Kaner teaches TEABF4 in acetonitrile as a suitable electrolyte for an electrochemical energy storage device. Such use would have involved the application of a known electrolyte salt at its known concentration for its known ion conducting function, with a reasonable expectation of achieving a predictable electrochemical performance. See MPEP §2143 (A) Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Claim 20-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20050123835 A1) and Bommer et al. (DE102018201548 A1; hereinafter “Bommer”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burstein et al. (US9018912 B2; hereinafter “Burstein”).
Regarding Claim 20: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 1 as set forth above. Sun and Bommer do not disclose incorporating the cell into a battery or battery pack for use in an electric device, appliance or vehicle.
Burstein discloses a multi-cell rechargeable battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells and explains that multiple cells are used to meet higher capacity and energy requirements (col. 1, line. 21-22).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the lithium-ion cell of sun, as modified by Bommer, into the battery pack configuration taught by Burstein because Burstein teaches that combining rechargeable cells into a muti cell battery pack provides the higher capacity and energy requires by the application. Such combination would have involved the use of known battery cells in a known battery pack arrangement for their known function, with predictable results. See MPEP §2143 (A) Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding Claim 21: Sun in view of Bommer teaches all of the limitation of claim 21 as set forth above.
Burstein discloses multiple battery cells connected in series and multiple sires connected groups connected in parallel. Burstein explains that four 3.6 V cells may be connected in series and that multiple such series stacks may then be connected in parallel to increase battery capacity (col. 3, line. 18-26).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the cells of the battery pack in series and/or parallel as taught by Burstein because Burstein teaches that series connection provides the desired battery voltage while the parallel connection of the series stacks increases the battery capacity to meet the capacity or energy requirements of the application. See Burstein col. 3, line. 18-35.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALY M RESTO OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)895-1575. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/NMRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
