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 Interpretation
The Examiner notes that an electrode comprising an electrolyte is being interpreted as an electrochemical cell comprising an electrode and an electrolyte, wherein the electrolyte is inside pores of the electrode, as evidenced by [0050] of the instant specification.
The Examiner notes that an electrode comprising a lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material fabricated using a conventional slurry method is being interpreted as necessarily and inherently comprising pores, as evidenced by [0021]-[0022], [0025], [0027] of Nishimura et al. (EP 3531492 A1) and [0048]-[0050] of the instant specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: L6-7 of the claim should recite “…selected from .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 9, and 17-20 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the electrode comprises greater than or equal to about 0.001 wt% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of each of the two or more electrolyte additives”.
However, it is unclear what the weight percent is in terms of. For example, is it based on a total composition of the electrode or is it based on a total composition of the electrolyte?
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “wherein the electrode comprises greater than or equal to about 0.001 wt% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of each of the two or more electrolyte additives based on 100 wt.% of the electrolyte” in light of [0053]-[0054], [0064] of the instant specification.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the first electrode comprises greater than or equal to about 0.001 wt% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of each of the two or more electrolyte additives”.
However, it is unclear what the weight percent is in terms of. For example, is it based on a total composition of the electrode or is it based on a total composition of the electrolyte?
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “wherein the first electrode comprises greater than or equal to about 0.001 wt% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of each of the two or more electrolyte additives based on 100 wt.% of the electrolyte” in light of [0053]-[0054], [0064] of the instant specification.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the electrolyte comprises greater than or equal to about 0.001 wt% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of each of the two or more electrolyte additives”.
However, it is unclear what the weight percent is in terms of. For example, is it based on a total composition of the electrolyte?
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “wherein the electrolyte comprises greater than or equal to about 0.001 wt% to less than or equal to about 10 wt.% of each of the two or more electrolyte additives based on 100 wt.% of the electrolyte” in light of [0053]-[0054], [0064] of the instant specification.
Claims 18-20 are dependent on Claim 17 and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
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 1-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. (US PGPub 2022/0109146 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Nie discloses in Fig. 1 an electrochemical cell (300) that cycles lithium ions ([0096], [0061]), the electrochemical cell (300) comprising:
a first electrode (304, 310) having a first polarity ([0096]) and comprising:
a positive electroactive material ([0096], [0050]); and
an electrolyte ([0096]);
a second electrode (308, 316) having a second polarity opposite from the first polarity and comprising a negative electroactive material (316) ([0096], [0052]); and
a separating layer (306) disposed between the first electrode (304, 310) and the second electrode (308, 316) ([0096]-[0097]).
Nie further discloses wherein the positive electroactive material is not particularly limited, and for example may be a lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material xLi2MnO3·(1-x)LiNiaCobMncO2 ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material xLi2MnO3·(1-x)LiNiaCobMncO2 as the positive electroactive material, as disclosed by Nie, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the first electrode desired by modified Nie.
Modified Nie further discloses the electrolyte including two or more electrolyte additives that may be selected from the group consisting of a lithium salt additive, a fluorinated ester-based additive, a silicon-based additive, and combinations thereof ([0079]-[0080], [0090], [0024], wherein the first electrode is a lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electrode active material fabricated from a conventional slurry method and therefore comprises the electrolyte within its pores).
Specifically, modified Nie discloses wherein the presence of the two or more electrolyte additives in the electrolyte can result in a SEI and/or CEI layer on the surface of the electrodes with improved performance, thereby improving performance (e.g. improved chemical stability, increased density, improved cycling stability, and rate capability) of the electrochemical cell ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a lithium salt additive, a fluorinated ester-based additive, a silicon-based additive, or combinations thereof as the two or more electrolyte additives, as disclosed by modified Nie, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully result in a SEI and/or CEI layer on surfaces of the first and second electrodes with improved performance, thereby improving performance of the electrochemical cell, as desired by modified Nie.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, modified Nie discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first electrode (304, 310) comprises less than 10 wt.% of the two or more electrolyte additives based on 100 wt.% of the electrolyte ([0078]), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of about 0.001 wt.% to about 10 wt% of each of the two or more electrolyte additives based on 100 wt.% of the electrolyte.
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, modified Nie discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the electrolyte may include two or more co-solvents, such as diethyl carbonate (DEC) as a linear carbonate solvent and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) as a cyclic carbonate solvent ([0060], [0062], [0065]-[0066]).
Specifically, modified Nie discloses wherein the electrolyte serves to facilitate ionic transport between the first electrode (304, 310) and the second electrode (308, 316) ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize diethyl carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate as co-solvents in the electrolyte, as disclosed by modified Nie, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form an electrolyte that serves to facilitate ionic transport between the first electrode and the second electrode, as desired by modified Nie.
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 11-12, modified Nie discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the two or more electrolyte additives may be chosen to include tris(trimethysilyl) phosphite (TTMSPi) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2), wherein such, in combination, include phosphorous, silicon, and fluorine ([0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize tris(trimethysilyl) phosphite (TTMSPi) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) as electrolyte additives in the electrolyte, as disclosed by modified Nie, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully result in a SEI and/or CEI layer on surfaces of the first and second electrodes with improved performance, thereby improving performance of the electrochemical cell, as desired by modified Nie.
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. (US PGPub 2022/0109146 A1), as applied to Claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Hallac et al. (US PGPub 2014/0186723 A1) and Burkhardt et al. (US PGPub 2019/0296398 A1).
Regarding Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 16, modified Nie discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the two or more electrolyte additives may be chosen to include tris(trimethysilyl) phosphite (TTMSPi) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) in an amount of less than 10 wt.% ([0078], [0080]), which encompasses the instantly claimed ranges of 0.1 to 5.0 wt.% and 0.1 to 5.0 wt.%, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize tris(trimethysilyl) phosphite (TTMSPi) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) in the encompassing portions of the range disclosed by modified Nie as electrolyte additives in the electrolyte, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully result in a SEI and/or CEI layer on surfaces of the first and second electrodes with improved performance, thereby improving performance of the electrochemical cell, as desired by modified Nie.
Furthermore, modified Nie discloses wherein the electrolyte may be chosen to comprise a lithium-containing salt, such as lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) ([0090]).
However, modified Nie does not disclose wherein the two or more electrolyte additives include 0.1 to 5.0 wt.% lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI).
Hallac teaches an electrolyte comprising one or more electrolyte additives for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions that enables improved cycle and calendar life throughout higher temperature operation ([0036]).
For example, Hallac teaches wherein the electrolyte additive may include approximately 0.5 to 2.0 wt.% of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) ([0036]-[0037]), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 0.1 to 5.0 wt.%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) in the range taught by Hallac as an electrolyte additive in the electrolyte of modified Nie, in order to enable improved cycle and calendar life of the electrochemical cell of modified Nie throughout higher temperature operation.
Moreover, modified Nie discloses wherein the electrolyte may include two or more co-solvents, such as diethyl carbonate (DEC) as a linear carbonate solvent and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) as a cyclic carbonate solvent ([0060], [0062], [0065]-[0066] of Nie).
Specifically, modified Nie discloses wherein the electrolyte serves to facilitate ionic transport between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0061] of Nie).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize diethyl carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate as co-solvents in the electrolyte, as disclosed by modified Nie, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form an electrolyte that serves to facilitate ionic transport between the first electrode and the second electrode, as desired by modified Nie.
However, modified Nie does not disclose wherein the two of more electrolyte additives include 0.1 to 5.0 wt.% 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate (TFEA).
Burkhardt teaches an electrolyte with improved performance when used in an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, particularly such that operates with a high cathode potential ([0005], [0055]).
Specifically, Burkhardt teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises diethyl carbonate (DEC) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) as co-solvents and 5 wt.% or less of 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate (TFEA), wherein TFEA is a fluorinated ester-based additive, ([0116]), which substantially overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.1 to 5.0 wt.%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate (TFEA) in the overlapping portion of the range taught by Burkhardt as an electrolyte additive in the electrolyte of modified Nie, in order to improve performance of the electrochemical cell of modified Nie.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. (US PGPub 2022/0109146 A1) in view of Hallac et al. (US PGPub 2014/0186723 A1) and Burkhardt et al. (US PGPub 2019/0296398 A1), as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US PGPub 2022/0393153 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Nie discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and discloses wherein the electrolyte includes diethyl carbonate (DEC) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) ([0065]-[0066] of Nie).
Specifically, modified Nie discloses wherein the positive, lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material is represented by xLi2MnO3·(1-x)LiNiaCobMncO2 ([0050] of Nie), which reads on xLi2MnO3·(1-x)LiNiaCobMncO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), and combinations thereof.
However, modified Nie remains silent regarding the values of subscripts x, a, b, and c and consequently does not disclose where 0.01<x<0.99 and a+b+c=1.
Choi teaches a positive, lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material having increased charge/discharge capacity ([0016], [0004]).
Specifically, Choi teaches wherein the positive, lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material is represented by rLi2MnO3·(1-r)LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)O2, where r, a, x, y, and z satisfy 0<r-<0.6, 0<a<1, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, 0<z<1, and 0<x+y+z<1, and M1 includes from aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof ([0009]-[0010]), which reads on xLi2MnO3·(1-x)LiNiaCobMncO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof, where 0.01<x<0.99.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize rLi2MnO3·(1-r)LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)O2, where r, a, x, y, and z satisfy 0<r-<0.6, 0<a<1, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, 0<z<1, and 0<x+y+z<1, and M1 includes from aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof as the positive, lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material of modified Nie, as taught by Choi, in order to form a positive, lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material having increased charge/discharge capacity.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. (US PGPub 2022/0109146 A1) and further in view of Choi et al. (US PGPub 2022/0393153 A1) and Hallac et al. (US PGPub 2014/0186723 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Nie discloses in Fig. 1 an electrochemical cell (300) that cycles lithium ions ([0096], [0061]), the electrochemical cell (300) comprising:
a first electrode (304, 310) having a first polarity ([0096]) and comprising:
a positive electroactive material ([0096], [0050]); and
an electrolyte ([0096]);
a second electrode (308, 316) having a second polarity opposite from the first polarity and comprising a negative electroactive material (316) ([0096], [0052]); and
a separating layer (306) disposed between the first electrode (304, 310) and the second electrode (308, 316) ([0096]-[0097]).
Nie further discloses wherein the positive electroactive material is not particularly limited, and for example may be a lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material xLi2MnO3·(1-x)LiNiaCobMncO2 ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material as the positive electroactive material, as disclosed by Nie, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the first electrode desired by modified Nie.
However, modified Nie remains silent regarding the values of subscripts x, a, b, and c and consequently does not disclose where 0.01<x<0.99 and a+b+c=1.
Choi teaches a positive, lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material having increased charge/discharge capacity ([0016], [0004]).
Specifically, Choi teaches wherein the positive, lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material is represented by rLi2MnO3·(1-r)LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)O2, where r, a, x, y, and z satisfy 0<r-<0.6, 0<a<1, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, 0<z<1, and 0<x+y+z<1, and M1 includes from aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof ([0009]-[0010]), which reads on xLi2MnO3·(1-x)LiNiaCobMncO2 where M is a transition metal selected from the group consisting of: nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof, where 0.01<x<0.99.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize rLi2MnO3·(1-r)LiaNixCoyMnzM11-(x+y+z)O2, where r, a, x, y, and z satisfy 0<r-<0.6, 0<a<1, 0<x<1, 0<y<1, 0<z<1, and 0<x+y+z<1, and M1 includes from aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and combinations thereof as the positive, lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material of modified Nie, as taught by Choi, in order to form a positive, lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electroactive material having increased charge/discharge capacity.
Modified Nie further discloses the electrolyte including two or more electrolyte additives that may be selected from the group consisting of a lithium salt additive, a fluorinated ester-based additive, a silicon-based additive, and combinations thereof ([0079]-[0080], [0090], [0024], wherein the first electrode is a lithium-rich, manganese-rich layered oxide electrode active material fabricated from a conventional slurry method and therefore comprises the electrolyte within its pores), wherein the electrolyte comprises less than 10 wt.% of the two or more electrolyte additives based on 100 wt.% of the electrolyte ([0078]), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of about 0.001 wt.% to about 10 wt% of each of the two or more electrolyte additives based on 100 wt.% of the electrolyte.
Specifically, modified Nie discloses wherein the presence of the two or more electrolyte additives in the electrolyte can result in a SEI and/or CEI layer on the surface of the electrodes with improved performance, thereby improving performance (e.g. improved chemical stability, increased density, improved cycling stability, and rate capability) of the electrochemical cell ([0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a lithium salt additive, a fluorinated ester-based additive, a silicon-based additive, or combinations thereof as the two or more electrolyte additives, as disclosed by modified Nie, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully result in a SEI and/or CEI layer on surfaces of the first and second electrodes with improved performance, thereby improving performance of the electrochemical cell, as desired by modified Nie.
Moreover, modified Nie discloses wherein the electrochemical cell (300 of Nie) may be configured to provide electrical power to an external device ([0100] of Nie) and further discloses wherein an electrochemical cell may be utilized in an electric vehicle ([0016] of Nie).
However, modified Nie remains silent regarding an explicit intended use of the electrochemical cell and consequently does not disclose a vehicle, comprising a propulsion system that includes an electric motor; wherein the electrochemical cell is configured to provide electrical power to the electric motor.
Hallac teaches in Fig. 1 a vehicle (10), comprising a propulsion system that includes an electric motor (16); wherein an electrochemical cell is configured to provide electrical power to the electric motor (16) ([0027]-[0028], e.g. an electrochemical cell of battery system 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the electrochemical cell of modified Nie in a vehicle comprising a propulsion system that includes an electric motor, wherein the electrochemical cell is configured to provide electrical power to the electric motor, as taught by Hallac, as such is a known intended use in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such could successfully be done.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Nie discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the two or more electrolyte additives may be chosen to include tris(trimethysilyl) phosphite (TTMSPi) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) ([0080] of Nie).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize tris(trimethysilyl) phosphite (TTMSPi) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) as electrolyte additives in the electrolyte, as disclosed by modified Nie, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully result in a SEI and/or CEI layer on surfaces of the first and second electrodes with improved performance, thereby improving performance of the electrochemical cell, as desired by modified Nie.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. (US PGPub 2022/0109146 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US PGPub 2022/0393153 A1) and Hallac et al. (US PGPub 2014/0186723 A1), as applied to Claim 17 above, and further in view of Burkhardt et al. (US PGPub 2019/0296398 A1).
Regarding Claims 19-20, modified Nie discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the two or more electrolyte additives may be chosen to include tris(trimethysilyl) phosphite (TTMSPi) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) in an amount of less than 10 wt.% ([0078], [0080] of Nie), which encompasses the instantly claimed ranges of 0.1 to 5.0 wt.% and 0.1 to 5.0 wt.%, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize tris(trimethysilyl) phosphite (TTMSPi) and lithium difluorophosphate (LiPO2F2) in the encompassing portions of the range disclosed by modified Nie as electrolyte additives in the electrolyte, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully result in a SEI and/or CEI layer on surfaces of the first and second electrodes with improved performance, thereby improving performance of the electrochemical cell, as desired by modified Nie.
Furthermore, modified Nie discloses wherein the electrolyte may be chosen to comprise a lithium-containing salt, such as lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) ([0090] of Nie).
However, modified Nie does not disclose wherein the two or more electrolyte additives include 0.1 to 5.0 wt.% lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI).
Hallac teaches an electrolyte comprising one or more electrolyte additives for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions that enables improved cycle and calendar life throughout higher temperature operation ([0036]).
For example, Hallac teaches wherein the electrolyte additive may include approximately 0.5 to 2.0 wt.% of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) ([0036]-[0037]), which falls within and therefore reads on the instantly claimed range of 0.1 to 5.0 wt.%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) in the range taught by Hallac as an electrolyte additive in the electrolyte of modified Nie, in order to enable improved cycle and calendar life of the electrochemical cell of modified Nie throughout higher temperature operation.
Moreover, modified Nie discloses wherein the electrolyte may include two or more co-solvents, such as diethyl carbonate (DEC) as a linear carbonate solvent and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) as a cyclic carbonate solvent ([0060], [0062], [0065]-[0066] of Nie).
Specifically, modified Nie discloses wherein the electrolyte serves to facilitate ionic transport between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0061] of Nie).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize diethyl carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate as co-solvents in the electrolyte, as disclosed by modified Nie, wherein the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form an electrolyte that serves to facilitate ionic transport between the first electrode and the second electrode, as desired by modified Nie.
However, modified Nie does not disclose wherein the two of more electrolyte additives include 0.1 to 5.0 wt.% 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate (TFEA).
Burkhardt teaches an electrolyte with improved performance when used in an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions, particularly such that operates with a high cathode potential ([0005], [0055]).
Specifically, Burkhardt teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises diethyl carbonate (DEC) and fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) as co-solvents and 5 wt.% or less of 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate (TFEA) ([0116], wherein TFEA is a fluorinated ester-based additive), which substantially overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.1 to 5.0 wt.%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl acetate (TFEA) in the overlapping portion of the range taught by Burkhardt as an electrolyte additive in the electrolyte of modified Nie, in order to improve performance of the electrochemical cell of modified Nie.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights