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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 16-18, and cancelled claims 7 and 14. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The 112 rejections of claims 16-17 are withdrawn.
The 103 rejections are withdrawn due to various amendments (i.e., rearrangements of limitations); however, the same prior art and motivation is used to reject the amended claims. Applicant’s arguments were not found persuasive for the reasons detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the assumptions related to the electrolyte density are unsupported, provided the assumptions are based on electrolytes that do not contain borate salts. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because applicant has not provided any evidence to suggest borate has any effect on density of the electrolyte. Further, considering the concentration of borate is VERY small (e.g., 0.01M) compared to the concentration lithium hexafluorophosphate salt (1M) in the electrolyte, any effect borate would have on electrolyte density is deem small and would have no meaningful impact on the calculations of record.
Applicant argues the amount of FEC in Zeng’s Example 4 (e.g., 4 wt%) is improperly modified (i.e., decreased to 2 wt%, and 1 wt%) based on conclusion related to comparative examples 1-3; specifically, applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase (not decrease) FEC because comparative examples show as the amount of FEC increases, the capacity retention increased. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The excellent film forming properties of FEC are used to ensure excellent high voltage cycle performance, see e.g., [0037]; further, Zeng explicitly appreciates FEC values in a range of 0.5-7 wt.%, see e.g., [0024]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the apart would appreciate FEC values of 2 wt% and 1 wt% (which is inside Zeng’s disclosed range) with the expectation the excellent film forming properties of FEC lead to high voltage cycle performance.
Applicant argues Kim does not suggest the claimed concentration (i.e., <1%) for carbonic acid methyl 2-propynyl ester since the only example (i.e., Comparative Example 3) demonstrating the use of carbonic acid methyl 2-propynyl ester (Formula 4) is present in an amount of 1%. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."), MPEP 2144.05, I. See also In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.). In this case, <1% and 1% are so mathematically close the difference between the claimed and prior art range is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.
Applicant’s argument that Kim provides no motivation to modify the amount of propynyl compound (i.e., Formula 2c-1 and Formula 4) is not persuasive because generally, “differences in concentration … will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration … is critical”, MPEP 2144.05, II., A. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of Formula 4 at 1 wt% (Comparative Example 3) has been shown to have an effect on short circuit occurrence rate compared to no additive (i.e., 0 wt%, Comparative Example 1); specifically, compared to 0 wt% Formula 4 additive, the addition of Formula 4 additive reduced the short circuit occurrence rate from 67% to 50%, see e.g., Table 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try other values of Formula 4 (i.e., above that of Comparative Example 1, > 0 wt%, and less than Comparative Example 3, < 1wt%) to determine another workable range for short circuit occurrence rate. It is further noted that applicant’s argument appears to be directed to the combination of compounds (i.e., “the total amount of propynyl compounds”); however, the rejection was not made based on this interpretation of the claim, thus, the arguments are moot.
Applicant argues the electrolyte compositions of Comparative Examples 1 and 3 differs such that any conclusion on the short circuit rate due to Formula 4 is unsupported. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because applicant has not even described what, if anything, other than the additive differs between Comparative Example 1 and 3.
Applicant’s arguments that Kim teaches away from Formula 4 are not persuasive. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Formula 4 is nothing more than a nonpreferred embodiment. Formula 4, a known or obvious composition, does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use, see MPEP 2123, II.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (CN106099187, of record, machine translation previously provided), in view of Targray Product Data Sheet (February 20, 2013, https://www.targray.com/content-data/mediafiles/images/documents/DMMP-Electrolyte-Solution.pdf), and Abe (US 2019/0312310), hereinafter Zeng, Targray, and Abe.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, and 13, Zeng suggests an electrochemical apparatus (lithium ion battery) comprising a positive electrode (LiCoO2), a negative electrode (graphite), a separator (polymer), an electrolyte (e.g., 1M LiFP6 salt, solvents (EC:PC:DEC:FB:EP:PP = 25:10:30:5:10:20), and additives (e.g., FEC, ADN, SN, DENE (T2), VC, PS, and 1,3,6-hexanetrinitrile (T4)), see e.g., [0014-0028], and examples). Zeng suggests the electrolyte comprises ethyl propionate (EP), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), and 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile (T4), see e.g., [0020-0022, 0026-0027, 0042] and Example 4.
In Zeng the mass % of the salt with respect to the mass of the solvent can be calculated because the concentration (M) of the salt in the solvent is known (i.e., 1M LiPF6 with respect to the solvents, see e.g., [0042]). That is, the salt concentration in the solvent (i.e., mol/L) can be converted to mass of the salt with respect to mass of the solvent using the molecular weight of the salt (i.e., MW of LiPF6 is 151.905 g/mol, see periodic table), and the density (g/mL) of the solvent (i.e., density of the solvent mixture in the prior art is estimated as ~1.2 g/mL considering different electrolyte compositions are all about 1.2 g/mL, see Targray table provided below):
PNG
media_image1.png
293
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Weight of the salt with respect to the weight of the solvent is calculated as:
Concentration of salt x (MW of the salt) x (1/density of the solvent) x 100 % = mass % of the salt with respect to the mass of the solvent
Weight of the salt with respect to the weight of the solvent in view of Zeng:
1 (mol/L) LiPF6 x 1L/1000mL x 151.905 g /mol LiPF6 x (mL/1.2g) x 100 % = ~12.66 wt % (Note: when density is reported in g/mL and concentration in mol/L, dimensional analysis is necessary to correct the units, i.e., 1L/1000mL).
In view of the foregoing calculations, the salt concentration of Zeng (i.e., 1M LiPF6) suggests the amount of salt is ~ 12.66 wt % salt with respect to the solvents EC:PC:DEC:FB:EP:PP, see e.g., [0042]. In addition to the solvents (e.g., EC:PC:DEC:FB:EP:PP) and salt (e.g., LiPF6), other additive are present in the electrolyte (see e.g., Example 4 which includes 4 wt% FEC + 2 wt% ADN + 1 wt% T4 + 0.5 wt% T2 +0.2 wt% VC + 4 wt% PS = 11.7 wt% total additives, where the weight percents of these additives are reported with respect to the total weight of the electrolyte, [0042]). Thus, in Example 4, when a total weight of the electrolyte (solvent+salt+additve) is taken as 100g, 11.7g of this total is made of the additives (i.e., 4g FEC + 2g ADN +1g T4 + 0.5g T2 + 0.2g VC + 4g PS = 11.7g) and 4g is the amount of FEC (i.e., 4g FEC/100g x 100% = 4 wt% FEC); the remaining weight (100g - 11.7g = 88.3g) is solvent (y) and salt (x). Knowing x + y = 88.3g and x/y is 0.1266, the mass of the salt (x) and solvent (y) can be calculated (i.e., y = 78.38g and x = 9.92g). Further, provided the weight ratio of EP in the solvent is known (i.e., EC:PC:DEC:FB:EP:PP has a mass ratio of 25:10:30:5:10:20), the amount of EP in the solvent x can be calculated (78.38g x 0.1 = 7.84g); based on a total weight of the electrolyte (i.e., 100g), a weight percent of the EP in Example 4 is 7.84 wt% (7.84g/100g) which satisfies the claimed range 0 < a% ≤ 10.
Zeng includes LiPF6 salt in the electrolyte, but does not suggest the electrolyte further comprises a boron containing lithium salt comprising at least one of LiDFOB, LiBOB, LiBF4, or Li2B4O4, such that the weight percent of the boron containing lithium salt g% is g%<1%. However, Abe suggests lithium salts (e.g., LiPF6) in an amount of 0.7M-1.6M (see e.g., [0085-0088], and Tables 1-4); LiPF6 may be combined with a second salt (e.g., LiBF4, LiBOB, LiDFOB, etc). The second salt is present in an amount of 0.001 M to 0.5 M and an improvement in the electrochemical characteristics in a high temperature environment is exhibited, see e.g., [0082-0084, 0088-0090]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the lithium salt of Zeng is composed of two salts comprising LiPF6 (e.g., ~1M) and a boron containing salt (i.e., LiBF4, LiBOB, etc) in an amount between 0.001M to 0.5M with the expectation of improving electrochemical characteristics in a high temperature environment, as suggested by Abe. A boron containing lithium salt concentration of 0.01M (which is between 0.001M to 0.5M, and preferable as suggested by Abe in [0084]), is equivalent to less than 1 wt% (note: the density of the solvent is estimated based on typical solvent density values disclosed in Targray, presented earlier):
0.01 mol/L LiBOB) x (193.79g LiBOB/mol) x (1L/1000mL) x (mL/1.2g) x (100%) = ~0.2 wt% LiBOB with respect to the solvent.
Thus, Abe suggests the mass percent of the borate salt with respect to the total electrolyte is less than 1 % (i.e., <0.2%) considering the electrolyte includes (LiPF6, solvents, and other additives). (See MPEP 2144.05, I., and II., 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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages, see Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.). Please note the calculation of a% (EP) provided earlier does not included the amount of boron containing lithium salt in the total weight of the electrolyte; however, considering the amount of boron containing lithium salt with respect to total weight of the electrolyte is very small (e.g., < 1%, Zeng suggest 0.2wt%), it is expected to have little impact on the resulting a% (EP) value, such that the prior art a% is still expected to either overlap with, or be close to, that claimed.
The weight percent of FEC in Example 4 is 4 wt% such that the b%/a% ratio is 0.5 (i.e., 4 wt%/7.84 wt%), which does not overlap with the claimed b%/a% ratio range (i.e., 0.1 < b%/a% ≤ 0.25); further, the weight percent of PS in example 4 is 4 wt%, which does not overlap with the claimed range (0.5% ≤ c% ≤ 2.5%). However, Zeng suggests modifying the amount of FEC between 0.5 wt% - 7 wt% considering the excellent film forming properties thereof lead to oxidation resistance and high voltage cycling ([0031, 0037]), and limits PS between 1-5 wt% to enable a wide temperature range homogeneous electrolyte that remains stable even when stored for a long time in low temperature environments, see e.g., [abstract 0001, 0002, 0024, 0028-0029]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change the FEC amount (b%) within the clearly defined range (0.5-7 wt%) and PS amount (c%) within the clearly defined range (1-5 wt%) to determine where in the disclosed set of ranges is the optimum or workable range for obtaining a wide temperature range homogeneous non-aqueous electrolyte solution that is stable even when stored for a long period of time in a low temperature enviornment. As a consequence of determining where in the disclosed set of ranges is the optimum combination or a workable product, with respect to FEC and PS, the claimed b%/a% ratio (i.e., FEC/EP ratio) and c% (PS) is obtained as shown in the calculation below.
Calculation C: Example 4 of Zeng is modified such that FEC is 2 wt%, which is inside Zeng’s disclosed range of 0.5-7 wt% (see [0024]), and PS is 2 wt%, which is inside Zeng’s disclosed range of 1-5 wt% (see [0028]), thereby satisfying 0.5% ≤ c% ≤ 2.5%. Further, when a total weight of the electrolyte (solvent+salt+additve) is taken as 100g, there is 7.7 g of additives (2 g FEC + 2 g ADN + 1 g T4 + 0.5 g T2 + 0.2 g VC + 2 g PS = 7.7 g); the remaining weight (100g - 7.7g = 92.3g) is solvent (y) and salt (x). Knowing x + y = 92.3g and x/y is 0.1266 (calculated from the molar concentration of LiPF6), the mass of the salt (x) and solvent (y) can be calculated (i.e., y = 81.93 g and x = 10.37 g). Provided the weight ratio of EP in the solvent is known (i.e., EC:PC:DEC:FB:EP:PP has a mass ratio of 25:10:30:5:10:20), the amount of EP in the solvent can be calculated (e.g., 81.92 g x 0.1 = 8.19 g); wherein based on a total weight of the electrolyte (i.e., 100g), a weight percent of the EP is 8.19 wt% ((8.19g/100g) x 100%) which satisfies the claimed range 0 < a% ≤ 10. Finally, since b% (FEC) is 2 wt%, a% (EP) is 8.19 wt%, b%/a% (i.e., 2 wt%/8.19 wt%) is 0.24, thereby satisfying 0.01 < b%/a% ≤ 0.25, and a% + b% (i.e., 8.19 wt% + 2 wt%) is 10.19 wt%, thereby satisfying 4% ≤ a% + b% ≤ 15 %. Please note the calculation of b%/a% does not included the amount of boron containing lithium salt in the total weight of the electrolyte; however, considering the amount of boron containing lithium salt with respect to the total weight of the electrolyte is very small (e.g., < 1%, Zeng suggest 0.2wt%), it is expected to have very little impact on the resulting ratio b%/a%, such that the prior art b%/a% is still expected to either overlap with, or be close to, that claimed.
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 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). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. See MPEP 2144.05 I., and II.
Regarding Claims 4, and 11, Zeng suggests 0.25≤c/b≤5 in light of the modification FEC and PS; FEC and PS were both modified under the rejection of claim 1 to 2 wt% (see Calculation C); thus, c/b is 2/2 = 1 which is between 0.25 and 5. Zeng also suggests an unsaturated cyclic carbonate (e.g., VC, see rejection of claim 1), wherein a weight percentage b% (FEC, 2 wt%, see Calculation C) and d% (i.e., VC, 0.2 wt.%, Example 4) satisfies 1≤b%+d%≤6 (e.g., 2 wt% + 0.2 wt% = 2.2 which is between 1 and 6 wt%).
Regarding Claim 5, and 12, Zeng suggests the electrolyte further comprises a dinitrile compound comprising at least one of adiponitrile, succinonitrile, or ethylene glycol bis(2-cyanoethyl) ether (e.g., ADN), wherein a weight percent of the dinitrile compound is e% and e≤2 (i.e., ADN 2 wt.%, Example 4) and e/b ≥ 0.3 (i.e., the wt% of FEC was modified under the rejection of claim 1 to 2 wt% (see Calculation C), where e/b is 2/2 = 1, which is greater than 0.3).
Regarding Claim 6, and 13, as set forth under the rejection of claim 1, Zeng suggests a weight percent of the trinitrile compound (i.e., 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile, T4, Example 4) based on the total weight of the electrolyte is f% and f<2.5% (i.e., Example 4 includes T4 at 1 wt.%).
Regarding Claim 18, Zeng suggests the use of the electrochemical apparatus in digital, energy storage, power and military aerospace fields ([0004]), thereby suggesting an electronic apparatus comprising the electrochemical apparatus. The other features of claim 18 have already been covered in the rejection of claims 1, and 9, hence not repeated here for brevity.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng, Targray and Abe in view of Kim (US 2020/0044287, of record), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Zeng does not suggest a propynyl compound. However, Kim suggests an electrolyte for a battery ([0099-0103]) comprising organic solvents ([0107-0112]) and additives ([0115-0116]), where one of the additives has a Formula 2c-1 and included in an amount of 0.05 wt% to 5 wt% ([0105]), e.g., 0.8 weight %, [0156], thereby satisfying h<1. Kim suggests the inclusion of the additive of Formula 2c-1 stabilizes the SEI, suppress metal dissolution, controls film resistance increases, and reduces the short circuit occurrence rate, see e.g., [0105] and Table 2. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the electrolyte of Zeng includes an additional additive of prop-2-ynyl imidazole-1-caroxylate (Formula 2c-1) with the expectation of stabilizing the SEI, suppressing metal dissolution, controlling film resistance increases, and reducing short circuit occurrence rate.
It is further noted that Kim suggests the use of carbonic acid methyl 2-propynyl ester (Formula 4); it too reduces the number of short circuits that occurred (i.e., Comparative Example 3, 3/6) compared to no additive (i.e., Comparative Example 1, 4/6), see Table 1. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the additive is carbonic acid methyl 2-propynyl ester with the expectation of reducing short circuit occurrence rate. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."), MPEP 2144.05, I. See also In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.). In this case, the prior art range (i.e., 1%) and claimed range (i.e., <1%) are so mathematically close the difference between the claimed and prior art range is virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of Formula 4 at 1 wt% (Comparative Example 3) has been shown to have an effect on short circuit occurrence rate compared to no additive (i.e., 0 wt%, Comparative Example 1); specifically, compared to 0 wt% Formula 4 additive, the addition of Formula 4 additive reduced the short circuit occurrence rate from 67% to 50%, see e.g., Table 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try other values of Formula 4 (i.e., above that of Comparative Example 1, > 0 wt%, and less than Comparative Example 3, < 1wt%) to determine another workable range for short circuit occurrence rate.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng, Targray, and Abe in view of Yamamoto (US 2009/0081556, of record), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Regarding Claims 16-17, Zeng suggests the positive electrode includes an active material ([0039), but does not suggest the active material is formed into a layer and applied on a current collector, a compacted density of the layer, or the particle size of the active material. However, Yamamoto suggests the positive active material has an average particle diameter of 13 microns, and is formed as a layer on a current collector; a positive electrode active material layer having a compact density of 3.7 g/cm3 ([0042-0045]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the particle diameter and active material layer on a current collector as disclosed by Yamamoto because such sizes and feature are well known in the art. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Further, the aforementioned density allows sufficiently high capacity and electrolyte infiltration, [0032, 0037], hence would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The x value (i.e., 3.7) suggested by Yamamoto suggest a%/x is between 0.5 and 3; in the rejection of claim 1 a% was calculated as 8.19 w% (see Calculation C), hence a%/x is ~ 2.2 (i.e., 8.19/3.7). Further, the prior art suggests “y/b%” is between 0.1 and 100 since Zeng suggests a b% value (FEC) of 2 wt% (as detailed under the rejection of claim 1 in Calculation C) and Yamamoto suggests y is 13; thus, y/b% is 6.5 (i.e., 13/2wt%), which is between 0.1 to 100.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng, Targray, and Abe in view of Ohashi (JP 2009158464), hereinafter Ohashi.
Regarding Claims 19-20, Zeng suggests the use of dinitrile and trinitrile compounds (i.e., succinonitrile, adiponitrile, HTCN) for the purpose of stabilizing the positive electrode to compensate for the high temperature gas production problem, see e.g., [0037, 0042, 0054] and examples; Zeng does not suggest the trinitrile compound comprises 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy) propane. However, Ohashi suggests the use of one or more nitriles compounds having 2-4 cyano groups (e.g., dinitriles: succinonitrile, adiponitrile, etc.; and trinitrile: 1,3,5-pentanetricarbonitrile, 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy) propane, etc.) to stabilize the positive electrode, thereby suppressing reactions during charging during high temperature situations and suppressing gas generation and deterioration of battery characteristics, see e.g., [0013, 0021]. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Provided both 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy) propane) and HTCN are both trinitrile compounds used for the same purpose (i.e., stabilize the positive electrode), it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane) with HTCN, with the expectation of stabilizing the positive electrode, as suggested by Ohashi and Zeng.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729