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 Arguments
Regarding the applicant’s argument challenging the designation of the Li2CO3 of Wen as an artificial SEI “film”, this argument is not persuasive. This is because claim 1 is a product claim not a method claim, so the manner of creating the layer of Wen need not match the method of making the claimed layer of the instant claim 1. The layer of Wen sits between the active material particles and the electrolyte layer (it coats the particles so it must come between the active material and the electrolyte) and enables the formation of a separate SEI layer (Abstract), so the layer of Wen meets the requirements of an artificial SEI layer.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 regarding the mass percentage of lithium carbonate 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
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et. al., 2021 in view of US-20170141428-A1 (P).
Regarding claim 1, Wen teaches a negative electrode plate (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 6, “the electrodes”), comprising a negative electrode current collector (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 4, “copper foils”) and a negative electrode film layer (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 4, “electrode slurry”), wherein the negative electrode film layer is provided on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (pg. 3, Col. 1 “Electrochemical measurements”, line 4, “electrode slurry was then coated onto copper foils”) and comprises a negative electrode active material (pg. 2, Col. 2, “Material preparation”, line 1, “SnO2”); wherein at least part of surface of the negative electrode active material is provided with an artificial solid electrolyte interface film (pg. 10, Fig. 6 f), wherein the artificial solid electrolyte interface film comprises a first inorganic lithium salt, and the first inorganic lithium salt is Li2CO3- (pg. 10, Fig. 6 f).
Regarding the claim limitation “and the first inorganic lithium salt is selected from one or two of Li2CO3 and Li2SO3” The examiner has provided prior art teaching Li2CO3, which meets the requirements of the claimed subject matter of claim 1 because Li2SO3 is an optional requirement due to the word “or”.
Wen does not teach the mass percentage of the lithium salt is between 20 and 90% based on the total mass of the artificial SEI.
P teaches a coating film for a negative electrode which comprises Li2CO3 and Li2O [0369], Table 2. P teaches the compositions of the coating films in Secondary battery 1-3 have the improved characteristic of decreasing the deterioration of charge capacity (see Table 1). The coating films of P all have a lithium carbonate composition between 52 and 75.8% (Table 2). P further teaches that SnO2 may be used as the negative active material [0105].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to modify the artificial SEI of Wen to have a lithium carbonate composition between 52 and 75.8% like that of P in order to achieve a battery with a decreased deterioration of charge capacity. It would have been obvious to do because P teaches a motivation to change the composition of the artificial SEI layer of Wen. Wen uses SnO2 as an anode material (Abstract) and P teaches SnO2 may be used as the anode in its invention, so the modification of the layer of Wen to have the composition of the layer of P would amount to no more than the use of a similar technique to improve similar devices in the same way with a reasonable chance of success.
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Wen and P.
Regarding claim 2, Wen teaches the artificial solid electrolyte interface film further comprises Li2O (pg. 10, Fig. 6 f).
Regarding claim 3, Wen teaches the SEI layer is uniform and ~10 nm thick (pg. 11, Col. 1, Paragraph 2, line 7). This falls within the range of the claimed range of instant claim 3 (5 nm to 10 nm), which means claim 3 is unpatentable over Wen and P.
Regarding the following claim limitation: “calculated based on the total mass of the artificial solid electrolyte interface film, a mass percentage of the Li20 is 10% to 80%.”, because the limitation is stated as optional, the examiner will not provide art teaching this.
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Wen are explained in the above rejections. Additionally, Wen provides Figure 1 (c), which shows high angle annular dark field-scanning TEM (HAADF-STEM) image and corresponding EDS elemental mapping of C, Sn and O (pg. 4). The distributions of these elements have little to no deviation in concentration, and the distribution of lithium carbonate and SnO2 are described as uniform (pg. 3, Col. 2, Paragraph 2, line 15).
Wen does not explicitly teach mass concentration deviations of elements C, O, S, and Li at any point of the artificial solid electrolyte interface film are all below 2%.
However, in absence of evidence to the contrary, a composition which is described as being “uniform” must have a mass deviation that lies within this range. Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over Wen and P.
Regarding claim 5, as explained in the rejection of claim 4, Wen teaches a uniform distribution of lithium carbonate and SnO2. Furthermore, Wen teaches an inorganic layer on the surface of the anode particles (pg. 11, Col. 1, Paragraph 2, line 12). In absentia of absence to the contrary, this means that the artificial SEI layer is found on all of the particles in the anode active material, which meets the requirements of the limitation of “the artificial solid electrolyte interface film is located on 80% to 100% of surface of particles of the negative electrode active material.” of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Wen does not explicitly teach a mass percentage of the particles which are provided with the artificial SEI layer. Wen does however mention that the electrode was examined as a whole for variations of morphology and thickness and states that no obvious variation was found (pg. 11, Col. 1, Paragraph 3, line 5). This means that the thickness was substantially the same throughout the electrode, so the artificial SEI layer must be present on all of the particles to ensure this. This would mean that the mass percentage of the particles of the negative electrode active material on whose surface is provided with an artificial SEI is between 80 and 100%, in absentia of secondary considerations. Therefore, claim 6 is unpatentable over Wen and P.
Regarding claim 7, Wen teaches the negative electrode plate is applied to a secondary battery; and after formation ends, at least part of the surface of the negative electrode active material is provided with both an artificial solid electrolyte interface film and a conventional solid electrolyte interface film located on surface of the artificial solid electrolyte interface film (pg. 11, Col. 1, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 12, Wen teaches a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode plate (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 12, “coin type-cells”).
Regarding claim 13, Wen teaches a battery module comprising the secondary battery (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 12, “coin type-cells”).
Regarding claim 14, Wen teaches a battery pack comprising the battery module (pg. 3, Col 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 12, “coin type-cells”).
Regarding claim 15, Wen teaches an electric apparatus comprising the battery pack (pg. 3, Col. 1, “Electrochemical measurements”, line 22, “a LAND battery test system”).
Regarding claim 16, Wen teaches the negative electrode active material is SnO2 (Abstract).
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 LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights