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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration, the previous rejection of record was withdrawn in light of new amendments. However new rejection is applied to the amended claims. All changes made in the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0309169 hereinafter Yang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0330610 hereinafter Shigematsu and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0087311 hereinafter Doelle and U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0181607 hereinafter Belmont.
Regarding Claim 1 and 21-27, Yang teaches an electrochemical cell (lithium-ion battery) [20] comprising: a negative electrode [22]; a positive electrode [24]; a separator [26] disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode; and an electrolyte (paragraph 46), wherein the negative electrode [22] comprises a negative electrode active material layer formed on a current collector [32] (paragraphs 62-64, 68) and the positive electrode [24] comprises a positive electrode active material layer formed on a current collector [34] (paragraphs 56-57, 61).
Yang teaches that the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and specifically lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) as the lithium salt in an amount of greater than or equal to about 10% to less than or equal to about 20% by mass of the electrolyte (paragraph 74) but does not specifically disclose that the electrolyte salt further includes fluorine-containing inorganic phosphate or fluorine- containing inorganic borate in the amount as claimed.
However, Shigematsu teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (paragraph 25), the electrolyte solution comprises lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate [LiDFOB] in an amount of preferably 0.1 to 5 mass % (paragraphs 132-133). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such lithium salt in the amount of 0.1 to 5 mass % of the electrolyte solution before the effective filing date of the claimed because Shigematsu discloses that such configuration can improve the battery life, e.g., the cycle characteristics and high-temperature storage characteristics, raise the charge/discharge efficiency of the battery, and improve the low-temperature characteristics (paragraph 133).
Yang teaches that the negative electrode comprises an active material including graphite-containing electroactive material [i.e., silicon-graphite compositive material] (paragraphs 62-63) and a carbon-based material (paragraph 65), wherein the electroactive material is included in an amount of greater than or equal to about 0% to less than or equal to about 95% by mass with respect to the total mass of the negative electrode (paragraph 67).
Yang does not specifically disclose the mass percentage of element silicon in the silicon-carbon composite with respect to a total mass of the negative electrode active material being greater than or equal to 0.3% and less than or equal to 10.0%.
However, Doelle teaches a lithium-ion battery that comprises an anode (negative electrode), a cathode (positive electrode), and an electrolyte (paragraph 11), wherein the anode (negative electrode) comprises a silicon/carbon composite active material (paragraph 43) having 5 to 50 percent by weight silicon nanoparticles (paragraph 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such amount of silicon nanoparticles in the silicon-carbon composite of the negative electrode active material before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Doelle discloses that such configuration can form a high-energy and high theoretical capacity anode for the lithium-ion battery (paragraphs 43-45, see Examples with silicon/carbon composite active 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
The combination teaches that the carbon-based material is a graphite-containing electroactive material (paragraphs 62, 65 of Yang).
The combination does not specifically disclose a battery cell, wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises a porous carbon framework with silicon located within pores of the porous framework or on a surface of the porous framework.
However, Belmont teaches a battery cell comprising an anode (negative electrode) that includes a carbon foam matrix having a plurality of pores and silicon particles disposed within the pores of the carbon foam (paragraphs 135, 167). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such silicon-carbon composite as the anode (negative electrode) of the battery cell before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Belmont discloses that such configuration can retain electrode performance over repeated cycling (paragraph 176).
The combination teaches that the electrolyte solution comprises lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate [LiDFOB] or lithium difluorobis(oxalato)phosphate in an amount of preferably 0.1 to 5 mass % (paragraphs 132-133).
The combination teaches that the electrolyte comprises a fluorinated cyclic carbonate (i.e., fluoroethylene carbonate [FEC]) and lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) as the lithium salt in an amount of greater than or equal to about 10% to less than or equal to about 20% by mass of the electrolyte (paragraph 74 of Yang).
The combination further teaches that the fluorinated cyclic carbonate is included in an amount of 1 to 50 percent by weight (relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition) (paragraphs 16-17 of Doelle) and the silicon/carbon composite active material includes silicon in any combinations/ratios (paragraphs 150-152 of Shigematsu).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (see MPEP § 2143, E).
In addition, wherein 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Yang teaches an electrochemical cell (lithium-ion battery) [20] comprising: a negative electrode [22]; a positive electrode [24]; a separator [26] disposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode; and an electrolyte (paragraph 46), wherein the negative electrode [22] comprises a negative electrode active material layer formed on a current collector [32] (paragraphs 62-64, 68) and the positive electrode [24] comprises a positive electrode active material layer formed on a current collector [34] (paragraphs 56-57, 61).
Yang teaches that the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and specifically lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) as the lithium salt in an amount of greater than or equal to about 10% to less than or equal to about 20% by mass of the electrolyte (paragraph 74) but does not specifically disclose that the electrolyte salt further includes lithium fluorosulfonate in the amount as claimed.
However, Shigematsu teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (paragraph 25), the electrolyte solution comprises lithium fluorosulfonate [LiSO3F] in an amount of preferably 0.1 to 5 mass % (paragraphs 132-133). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such lithium salt in the amount of 0.1 to 5 mass % of the electrolyte solution before the effective filing date of the claimed because Shigematsu discloses that such configuration can improve the battery life, e.g., the cycle characteristics and high-temperature storage characteristics, raise the charge/discharge efficiency of the battery, and improve the low-temperature characteristics (paragraph 133).
Yang teaches that the negative electrode comprises an active material including graphite-containing electroactive material [i.e., silicon-graphite compositive material] (paragraphs 62-63) and a carbon-based material (paragraph 65), wherein the electroactive material is included in an amount of greater than or equal to about 0% to less than or equal to about 95% by mass with respect to the total mass of the negative electrode (paragraph 67).
Yang does not specifically disclose the mass percentage of element silicon in the silicon-carbon composite with respect to a total mass of the negative electrode active material being greater than or equal to 0.3% and less than or equal to 10.0%.
However, Doelle teaches a lithium-ion battery that comprises an anode (negative electrode), a cathode (positive electrode), and an electrolyte (paragraph 11), wherein the anode (negative electrode) comprises a silicon/carbon composite active material (paragraph 43) having 5 to 50 percent by weight silicon nanoparticles (paragraph 45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include such amount of silicon nanoparticles in the silicon-carbon composite of the negative electrode active material before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Doelle discloses that such configuration can form a high-energy and high theoretical capacity anode for the lithium-ion battery (paragraphs 43-45, see Examples with silicon/carbon composite active 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding Claims 2-3, the combination teaches that the anode (negative electrode) comprises a silicon/carbon composite active material having 5 to 50 percent by weight silicon nanoparticles (paragraphs 43 and 45 of Doelle) and the composite active material is included in an amount of greater than or equal to about 0% to less than or equal to about 90% by mass with respect to the total mass of the negative electrode (paragraph 67 of Yang [see MPEP § 2144.05]).
Regarding Claims 7-9, 11, 13-16, and 18, the combination teaches that the electrolyte comprises a fluorinated cyclic carbonate (i.e., fluoroethylene carbonate [FEC]); a linear carbonate (i.e., dimethyl carbonate or diethyl carbonate); and lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) as the lithium salt in an amount of greater than or equal to about 10% to less than or equal to about 20% by mass of the electrolyte (paragraph 74 of Yang).
The combination further teaches that the fluorinated cyclic carbonate is included in an amount of 1 to 50 percent by weight (relative to the total weight of the electrolyte composition) (paragraphs 16-17 of Doelle); the silicon/carbon composite active material includes 5 to 50 percent by weight silicon nanoparticles (paragraph 45 of Doelle); and a ratio of linear carbonate to the cyclic carbonate is 1:1 (paragraphs 75-80 of Yang).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 (see MPEP § 2143, E).
In addition, wherein 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination teaches an electrochemical cell comprising the lithium-ion battery described above (paragraph 46 of Yang).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights