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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/21/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification received on 05/21/2024. The specification is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho Eun-Kyung et al. (CN113039670A; “Cho” hereinafter; EP3863089B1 is used as a translation) in view of Ishikawa et al. (WO2021090666A1; “Ishikawa” hereinafter; US 20220416302A1 is used a translation).
Regarding claim 1, Eun-Kyung discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device (a lithium secondary battery, Cho: abstract) comprising: a positive electrode containing a composite of porous carbon and sulfur (a positive electrode active material layer including a sulfur-carbon composite, Cho: abstract); and a nonaqueous electrolyte (Cho:[0121]) containing a nonaqueous solvent containing an unsaturated cyclic carbonate (Vinylene Carbonate (VC), Cho:[0102] ) and a lithium salt (Cho: LiTFSI; [0121]). Cho discloses an organic solvent mixture and discloses the use of vinylene carbonate (Cho:[0121]) but fails to disclose that content of the unsaturated cyclic carbonate in the nonaqueous solvent is 10 vol% or more and is silent on a cumulative 70% pore size of the porous carbon being 2.0 nm or more and 7.0 nm or less and a positive electrode potential at an end-of-discharge voltage in normal use is 1.0 V vs. Li/Li+ or less.
Ishikawa discloses a nonaqueous solvent of more than 10 vol% vinylene Carbonate (example 1, table 1).
Cho and Ishikawa are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium sulfur secondary batteries.
In seeking a solvent that can enhance the lifetime of a battery before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the solvent disclosed by Cho with the solvent disclosed by Ishikawa as doing so would amount to nothing more than to substitute one known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, substantially claimed amounts, and a substantially similar process of making.
According to the original specification, a cumulative 70% pore size of the porous carbon is 2.0 nm or more and 7.0 nm or less and a positive electrode potential at an end-of-discharge voltage in normal use is 1.0 V vs. Li/Li+ or less. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a cumulative 70% pore size of the porous carbon is 2.0 nm or more and 7.0 nm or less and a positive electrode potential at an end-of-discharge voltage would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1 but is silent on the content of an oxygen element with respect to a carbon element, a sulfur element, the oxygen element and a fluorine element in the composite as measured by SEM-EDX analysis is 20% by mass or more.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, substantially claimed amounts, and a substantially similar process of making.
According to the original specification, an oxygen content obtained by SEM-EDX analysis is 20% by mass or more. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the oxygen contend would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 4, Cho discloses a device comprising the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1 by disclosing its usage in a medium to large-sized devices that may include power tools or electric vehicles (Cho: [0106]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho Eun-Kyung et al. (CN113039670A; “Cho” hereinafter; EP3863089B1 is used as a translation) in view of Ishikawa et al. (WO2021090666A1; “Ishikawa” hereinafter; US 20220416302A1 is used a translation) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Kei Sugawara et al. (US20210043972; “Sugawara” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cho discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1. Modified Eun-Kyung is silent on the electrostatics capacity at a content of 1.0 mol/dm3.
wherein an electrostatic capacity of the positive electrode prepared using two of the positive electrodes and measured by a symmetric capacitor using a nonaqueous electrolyte solution containing lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide at a content of 1.0 mol/dm3 and containing vinylene carbonate as a nonaqueous solvent is 2 F/g or more. Modified Cho is silent on the electrostatics capacity and fails to disclose the content of containing lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide. Sugawara discloses a nonaqueous electrolytic solution for a battery including 0.1 to 2.0 mol/l of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (Sugawara: abstract) and discloses vinylene carbonate (Sugawara [0006]).
Cho and Sugawara are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nonaqueous electrolytic solutions for lithium-ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a solution with a lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide content of 1.0 mol/dm3 and vinylene carbonate as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result. Sugawara fails to disclose the electrostatic capacity measured by a symmetric capacitor of 2 F/g.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, substantially claimed amounts, and a substantially similar process of making.
According to the original specification, an electrostatic capacity measured by a symmetric capacitor is 2 F/g or more. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties e.g. the electrostatic capacity would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho Eun-Kyung et al. (CN113039670A, “Cho hereinafter”; EP3863089B1 is used as a translation) in view of Ishikawa et al. (WO2021090666A1; “Ishikawa” hereinafter; US20220416302A1 is used as a translation).
Regarding claim 5, Cho discloses a method for manufacturing a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device (Manufacture of Lithium-Sulfur Secondary Battery (Cho: [0134] and [0135]), the method comprising performing discharge on an energy storage device (Cho: [0146]) including a positive electrode containing a composite of porous carbon and sulfur and a nonaqueous electrolyte sulfur (a positive electrode active material layer including a sulfur-carbon composite, Cho: abstract) containing a nonaqueous solvent containing an unsaturated cyclic carbonate (vinylene carbonate (VC), Cho:[0102] ) and a lithium salt (Cho: LiTFSI; [0121]). Cho discloses an organic solvent mixture and discloses the use of vinylene carbonate (Cho: [0121]) but fails to disclose that content of the unsaturated cyclic carbonate in the nonaqueous solvent is 10 vol% or more and is silent on a cumulative 70% pore size of the porous carbon being 2.0 nm or more and 7.0 nm or less and a positive electrode potential at an end-of-discharge voltage in normal use is 1.0 V vs. Li/Li+ or less , and discloses discharging the lithium sulfur batteries but is silent on the discharge being performed until a positive electrode potential reaches 1.0 V vs. Li/Li* or less.
Ishikawa discloses a nonaqueous solvent of more than 10 vol% vinylene carbonate (Ishikawa: example 1, table 1) and discloses discharging the batteries.
Cho and Ishikawa are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely lithium sulfur secondary batteries.
In seeking a solvent that can enhance the lifetime of a battery it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the solvent disclosed by Cho with the solvent disclosed by Ishikawa as doing so would amount to nothing more than to substitute one known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, the reference(s) teaches all of the claimed ingredients, substantially claimed amounts, and a substantially similar process of making.
According to the original specification, a cumulative 70% pore size of the porous carbon is 2.0 nm or more and 7.0 nm or less and a positive electrode potential at an end-of-discharge voltage in normal use is 1.0 V vs. Li/Li+ or less. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the cumulative 70% pore size of the porous carbon and a positive electrode potential at an end-of-discharge voltage in normal use would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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.
/S.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 09/28/2026
