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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/22/25. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are pending. This Action is Non-Final.
Claims Analysis
Claims 10-17 recite “a charging plateau voltage of the sodium-ion positive electrode active material” and “a charging plateau voltage of the lithium-ion positive electrode active material”, which have not been given patentable weight because the limitations are considered use limitations as they require charging of the claimed secondary battery. Furthermore, the “sodium metal layer” and the “lithium metal plating layer” of claim 16 are not given patentable weight because the layers only result during charging of the battery (“when the secondary battery is charged”).
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 1-7 and 9-19 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 1 recites “a deposition overpotential of lithium metal in the electrolyte solution is higher than a deposition overpotential of sodium metal”, which is indefinite. At least claim 1 is directed toward an electrolyte solution wherein the electrolyte solution contains sodium salt and lithium salt as well as an ether-based solvent. [0007] of the present specification describes deposition overpotential regarding storage performance of the secondary battery. Claim 1 is not directed toward a battery. Furthermore, at least claim 1 does not recite the specific components of the electrolyte, thus, “deposition overpotential” is indefinite. See [0027-0028] and [0060;066] of the present specification. The present specification teaches “the electrolyte solution is obtained through experimental exploration” and “suitable electrolyte salts are obtained through exploration”. See also at least claims 2 and 3.
Examiner notes [0067] teaches “in the present specification, due to a low electrochemical potential of lithium, in the same electrolyte solution, the lithium is more likely to react with the electrolyte solution than sodium to form an SEI”. Thus, the specification appears to disclose, in the same electrolyte, a deposition overpotential of lithium metal is greater than a deposition overpotential of sodium metal.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi et al., US 2021/0057795 A1.
Bi teaches an electrochemical device including an air cathode; a lithium-containing anode metal; a porous separator; and a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt, a sodium salt, and a solvent; wherein the electrochemical device is a lithium-air battery [abstract]. In an embodiment, the lithium salt may be LiSO3CF3 and the sodium salt may be NaSO3CF3 [0021-0022]. The solvent may be an ether such as dimethoxyethane [0023]. The electrochemical cells include electrolytes that have sodium ions included therein. The addition of sodium ions enhances the electrochemical performance of the cell, and causes a remarkable decrease in charge overpotential from over 4 V to 3.3 V. The discharge product shifts from the typical Li2O2 to LiOH, which can be reversibly charged during cycling. Without being bound by theory, it is believed that the incorporation of sodium ions in the electrolyte of a lithium air battery enables the reversible reduction and oxidation of the LiOH, and it enables the application of LiOH-based lithium oxygen batteries [0017].
Bi does not explicitly teach the deposition overpotential of lithium metal in the electrolyte solution is higher than a deposition overpotential of sodium metal. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because when depositing a mixture of sodium and lithium salts, the deposition overpotential is influenced by the competitive co-deposition of Li+ and Na+ ions. Adding lithium salts to a sodium-based electrolyte can significantly reduce the deposition overpotential of sodium metal, leading to enhanced battery performance (as evidenced by the attached AI overview). Furthermore, Li+ has a higher charge density than Na+ due to its smaller size. This results in a stronger solvation shell, meaning more energy is required to strip the solvent molecules for deposition.
Adding Li+ to the electrolyte has been shown to reduce the overall voltage hysteresis, which is the sum of the deposition and stripping overpotentials. This occurs because Li+ preferentially deposits on the electrode surface, creating a more uniform and stable electrode-electrolyte interface. It has been demonstrated that the electrochemical performance can be tuned by changing the concentrations of Li+ and Na+ in the mixed electrolyte. This is because the concentration ratio affects the competitive ion insertion and the final composition of the deposited material. Thus, one of skill in the art would have reasonably expected the electrolyte of Bi to have a deposition overpotential of lithium metal greater than a deposition overpotential of sodium metal. See also the 35 USC 112 rejection above.
Bi teaches the concentration of the lithium ions and sodium ions (from the respective salts) in the electrolyte is from about 0.001 mol/L (“molar,” or “M”) to about 7 mol/L. In some embodiments, the concentration of the lithium ions and sodium ions (from the respective salts) in the electrolyte is from about 0.1 M to about 4 M. The anions of the lithium and sodium salts (counterion to the lithium and sodium ions) in the electrolyte may be the same or different. The electrolyte may include both conducting salts, which, upon discharge of the battery, favor formation of lithium hydroxide with both low discharge/charge overpotentials. As defined herein, a low discharge overpotential is 0.6 V or less [0020].
Regarding claim 3-5, see at least Figure 4 that depicts various concentration combinations for the lithium salt and the sodium salt. Regarding claim 6, the lithium salt may be LiB(C2O4)2 or LiN(SO2CF3)2 [0023]. Regarding claim 7, the sodium salt may be NaBF4, NaAsF6 or NaPF6 [0021]. The air cathode includes a current collector. The current collector may take the form of a foil, mesh, or screen. In some embodiments, the electroactive material and one or more of a conductive carbon material and a binder are contacted with the current collector [0029-0030]. The anode may be lithium metal [0025].
*
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al., CN 113871697 A in view of Wang et al., CN 114899495 A.
Wu teaches a sodium-lithium battery having a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator and an electrolyte (page 1). The electrolyte may include a sodium salt, a lithium salt, a solvent, and an additive. The sodium salt may include at least one selected from the group consisting of NaPF6, NaFSI, NaBOB, NaTFSI, NaODFB, NaPO2F2 and NaBF4. The lithium salt may include at least one selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiFSI, LiBOB, LiTFSI, LiODFB, LiPO2F2 and LiBF4. See page 2 of the translation.
The mass ratio of the sodium salt to the lithium salt can be 1:99 to 99:1. In some embodiments, the mass ratio of the sodium salt and lithium salt is 90:10-10:90. In some embodiments, the mass ratio of the sodium salt and lithium salt is 80:20-20:80. In some embodiments, the mass ratio of the sodium salt and lithium salt is 75:25-25:75. In some embodiments, the mass ratio of the sodium salt and lithium salt is 65:35-35:65. In some embodiments, the mass ratio of the sodium salt and lithium salt is 60:40-40:60. In some embodiments, the mass ratio of the sodium salt and lithium salt is 55:45-45:55. The total content of the sodium salt and lithium salt is 5wt %-20wt% based on total mass of the electrolyte (page 3). Examples 1-3 of Wu teach specific electrolyte compositions wherein the sodium salt weight percent is greater than the lithium salt weight percent.
Wu does not explicitly teach the electrolyte solution contains an ether-based solvent. However, Wang teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising an anode, a cathode and an electrolyte wherein the electrolyte mostly adopts an organic solvent system. Currently widely used organic solvents include carbonates (such as ethylene carbonate), ethers (such as dimethoxyethane, tetrahydrofuran), lactones (such as γ- butyrolactone), amides (N,N-dimethylformamide) and nitriles (acetonitrile), etc. Among them, ether solvents are commonly used solvents in lithium-ion batteries, which have the advantages of stability to the negative electrode, strong anti-reduction ability, and low viscosity [0003]. Therefore, the invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because one of skill would have been motivated to use the ether solvents of Wang, disclosed as commonly used solvents in lithium ion batteries, for the lithium ion battery of Wu due to stability to the negative electrode, strong anti-reduction ability, and low viscosity of the ether solvent, as taught by Wang.
Wu does not explicitly teach the deposition overpotential of lithium metal in the electrolyte solution is higher than a deposition overpotential of sodium metal. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because when depositing a mixture of sodium and lithium salts, the deposition overpotential is influenced by the competitive co-deposition of Li+ and Na+ ions. Adding lithium salts to a sodium-based electrolyte can significantly reduce the deposition overpotential of sodium metal, leading to enhanced battery performance (as evidenced by the attached AI overview). Furthermore, Li+ has a higher charge density than Na+ due to its smaller size. This results in a stronger solvation shell, meaning more energy is required to strip the solvent molecules for deposition.
Adding Li+ to the electrolyte has been shown to reduce the overall voltage hysteresis, which is the sum of the deposition and stripping overpotentials. This occurs because Li+ preferentially deposits on the electrode surface, creating a more uniform and stable electrode-electrolyte interface. It has been demonstrated that the electrochemical performance can be tuned by changing the concentrations of Li+ and Na+ in the mixed electrolyte. This is because the concentration ratio affects the competitive ion insertion and the final composition of the deposited material. Thus, one of skill in the art would have reasonably expected the electrolyte of Wu in view of Wang to have a deposition overpotential of lithium metal greater than a deposition overpotential of sodium metal. See also the 35 USC 112 rejection above.
Regarding claims 9-17, the positive electrode includes a sodium containing active material compound and a lithium containing active material compound. The sodium-containing compound may include at least one selected from the group consisting of sodium nickel cobalt manganate, nickel cobalt manganese sodium aluminate, nickel cobalt manganese molybdate, nickel cobalt manganese iron sodium, nickel cobalt manganese magnesium sodium, nickel cobalt sodium, nickel manganese acid sodium, cobalt manganese acid sodium, sodium nickel, sodium manganate, sodium cobaltate, prussian blue (sodium iron cyanide) and sodium aluminate. The lithium-containing compound may include at least one selected from the group consisting of nickel cobalt lithium manganate, nickel cobalt manganese lithium aluminate, nickel cobalt manganese lithium molybdate, nickel cobalt manganese ferric oxide lithium, nickel cobalt manganese oxide lithium, nickel lithium cobaltate, nickel lithium manganate, cobalt lithium manganate, lithium nickelate, lithium cobaltate, lithium iron cyanide and lithium aluminate. The negative electrode includes hard carbon or graphite. See also at least Figure 1. Note the claims analysis section above regarding “charging plateau voltage” limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-19 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.
Applicant argues Wu fails to disclose, teach or suggest an electrolyte solution comprising an ether-based solvent. However, Wang has been applied to teach an electrolyte solution for a lithium battery is known to comprise an ether based solvent. Applicant points to [0091] of the present specification that teaches “during cycling”. Examiner notes the claims are not directed to a battery and “during cycling, the sodium metal is deposited on the surface of the negative electrolyte current collector” requires use in the battery. The argument is not commensurate in scope with at least claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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.
/TRACY M DOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725