DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 06/25/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 06/25/2025 hasbeen placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
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.
Claims 6, 14-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 6, 14-16 recite limitations z > 0, and x+y+z=1, while claimed chemical composition does not recite atomic index z.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2020/0006801 to CaO (CaO).
Regarding claim 1, Cao discloses a lithium-ion battery, comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a separator and an electrolyte; (Abstract) wherein the negative active material in the negative electrode plate comprises graphite (Abstract, Table 1). Cao does not expressly disclose wherein the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate meet the following requirements:0.4 < (In Ds)2/CD50/(AoI)2< 18.2, wherein Ds is the solid-phase diffusion coefficient of the positive active material in the positive electrode plate, CD50 is the average particle size of the positive active material in the positive electrode plate, and Aoi is the OI value of the negative active material in the negative electrode plate.
However, Cao also teaches OI value in the range for negatives electrode active material from 12 to 30 (claim 16). Cao also discloses that D50 for positive electrode active materials such as NCM622 and NCM811 are substantially similar to that as claimed along with values of OI for graphite (see examples 4-7 from instant Table 1 and examples 17-19 of CaO), a Ds value for positive electrode film of CaO would be inherently in the claim range and claimed expression would be inherently met. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Alternatively, CaO discloses wherein a value of ratio of Ola of the positive electrode film and the value Olc of the negative electrode film satisfy the relational expression of 0.05 ≤OIa/OIc≤ 10. CaO also teaches by reasonably matching the OI value of the positive film represented by OIc and the OI value of the negative film represented by OIa and making OIa /OIc between 0.05 and 10, the dynamics performance of the positive electrode plate and the dynamics performance of the negative electrode plate can achieve an optimal match during the fast charging process of the lithium-ion battery, the lithium-ion battery can have higher charging capability, and also have excellent cycle life and excellent safety performance during the long-term fast charging use (para 15). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize OIa, OIc and OIa/OIc value for positive and negative electrode films of Cao in order to provide a lithium ion battery having higher charging capability, and also have excellent cycle life and excellent safety performance during the long-term fast charging use and inhibit precipitation of lithium (See example 17-20 in the Table 1 of CaO). Based on similarity of D50 for positive electrode active materials such as NCM622 and NCM811 are substantially similar to that as claimed along with values of OI for graphite (see examples 4-7 from instant Table 1 and examples 17-19 of CaO) one skilled of the art would expect that the value of claimed expression 1.5<(lnDs)2/CD50/(AOI)2<18.2 would be either within claimed range from 0.4 to 18.2 or close for the battery of CaO.In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2020/0006801 to CaO (CaO).
Regarding claim 2, Cao discloses the inventing as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Cao does not expressly disclose wherein 1.5<(lnDs)2/CD50/(AOI)2<18.2. However, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize OIa, OIc and OIa/OIc value for positive and negative electrode films of Cao in order to provide a lithium ion battery having higher charging capability, and also excellent cycle life and excellent safety performance during the long-term fast charging use and inhibit precipitation of lithium (See example 17-20 in the Table 1 of CaO). Based on similarity of D50 for positive electrode active materials such as NCM622 and NCM811 are substantially similar to that as claimed along with values of OI for graphite (see examples 4-7 from instant Table 1 and examples 17-19 of CaO) one skilled of the art would expect that the value of claimed expression 1.5<(lnDs)2/CD50/(AOI)2<18.2 would be either within claimed range from 0.4 to 18.2 or close for the battery of CaO.In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 3, Cao discloses the inventing as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Cao does not expressly disclose wherein Ds is in a range from 10-10 cm2/S to 10-13cm2/S. However, Cao discloses the inventing as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Cao does not expressly disclose wherein 1.5<(lnDs)2/CD50/(AOI)2<18.2. However, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize OIa, OIc and OIa/OIc value for positive and negative electrode films of Cao in order to provide a lithium ion battery and inhibit precipitation of lithium (See example 17-20 in the Table 1 of CaO). Based on similarity of D50 for positive electrode active materials such as NCM622 and NCM811 are substantially similar to that as claimed along with values of OI for graphite (see examples 4-7 from instant Table 1 and examples 17-19 of CaO) one skilled of the art would expect that the value of claimed expression 1.5<(lnDs)2/CD50/(AOI)2<18.2 would be either within claimed range from 0.4 to 18.2 and Ds in the range from 10-10 cm2/S to 10-13cm2/S or close for the battery of CaO.In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 4, CaO discloses D50= 12 µm. It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03
Regarding claim 5, CaO discloses wherein AOI (which is OI for negative electrode film according to instant claim 1) value in the range for negatives electrode active material from 12 to 30 (claim 16). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the AO value based on Cao data in order to provide a lithium ion battery having higher charging capability, and also excellent cycle life and excellent safety performance during the long-term fast charging use and inhibiting precipitation of lithium.
Regarding claim 6, CaO discloses LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 (Claim 25).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, CaO discloses wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive active material, a negative electrode plate comprising a negative active material, conductive agents and a binders (para 39, 40).
Regarding claim 9, CaO discloses a separator comprising a multilayer composite (para 41).
Regarding claim 10, CaO discloses that the lithium ion battery suitable for automotive (para 3), therefore the lithium-ion battery nessarely is power battery.
Regarding claim 11, Cao discloses the inventing as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Cao does not expressly disclose wherein Ds is in a range from 10-10 cm2/S to 10-13cm2/S. However, Cao discloses the inventing as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Cao does not expressly disclose wherein 1.5<(lnDs)2/CD50/(AOI)2<18.2. However, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize OIa, OIc and OIa/OIc value for positive and negative electrode films of Cao in order to provide a lithium ion battery and inhibit precipitation of lithium (See example 17-20 in the Table 1 of CaO). Based on similarity of D50 for positive electrode active materials such as NCM622 and NCM811 are substantially similar to that as claimed along with values of OI for graphite (see examples 4-7 from instant Table 1 and examples 17-19 of CaO) one skilled of the art would expect that the value of claimed expression 1.5<(lnDs)2/CD50/(AOI)2<18.2 would be either within claimed range from 0.4 to 18.2 and Ds in the range from 10-10 cm2/S to 10-13cm2/S or close for the battery of CaO.In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claims 12 and 13, CaO discloses D50= 12 µm. It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03
Regarding claims 14, 15, 16 and 17, CaO discloses LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 (Claim 25).
Regarding claims 18, 19 and 20, CaO discloses wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive active material, a conductive agent and a binder (para 39).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure JP 2013058451, CN 104899439, CN 111446488.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751