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 .
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-9 are found allowable, claims 10-18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 & 112
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
Claims 4 and 10-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “ wherein from step (1) to step (3) … the vacuum drying” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the vacuum drying “ from step (1) to step (3) of the claim.
Claims 10-18 provides for the use of a method, but, since the claims do not set forth any steps involved in the process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps detailing how this use is actually practiced.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 10-18 fail to further limit the preparation method of the claims they depend upon, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2023/0327090A1 (Li) in view of CN1053367943(Chang) in further view of CN111834632A(Zhu) , which are listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, and further in view of US2021/0320378A1 (Lee) .
Regarding claims 1-5, 8, 10-14 and 17, Li teaches a method of preparing a soft-pack battery comprises ([0099]:
Preparing a positive electrode plate ([0100]):
Mixing a positive electrode active material such as LiCoO2 ([0091]), a binder such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) ([0092]), and a conductive agent such as carbon black and NMP to obtain a slurry, wherein the mass ratio of LiCoO2, PVDF and carbon black is 94:2:2 ([0100]), which meets the claimed ratio; filtering and coating the slurry onto an aluminum foil; drying, rolling and die cutting go obtain a positive electrode plate ( [0100]);
Preparing a negative electrode plate ([0101]):
Mixing graphite, carboxmethyl cellulose, conductive carbon black , styrene butadiene rubber and water to obtain a slurry, wherein the mass ratio of graphite, conductive carbon black, carboxymethyl cellulose and styrene butadiene rubber is 96:1:1.5:1.5 ([0102]) ; applying the slurry to a copper foil; drying, compacting and slicing to obtain a negative electrode plate ([0102]);
Assembling a battery and performing battery formation and capacity grading([0103] and [0104]) ([0103]) :
In a glove box, stacking the positive electrode plate, a separator, and the negative electrode plate in sequence and winding into a square unpackaged cell; placing the unpackaged cell is into a battery housing and welding; injecting electrolyte and sealing the battery housing to obtain a soft-pack battery; performing formation, reducing the temperature to 45°C, releasing gas and closing the opening ([0104]), which meets the claimed temperature; and capacity test/rating of the battery performance ([0103]).
Li does not teach vacuumizing in the preparation of positive electrode slurry and negative electrode slurry followed by sieving of claimed step (1) and (2), the drying temperature, preparing aluminum-plastic film pit of claimed step (3), and placing it into the pit , heat-sealing the sides of the aluminum-plastic film and vacuum drying the resulting pack of claimed step (5).
Chang teaches a method of preparing a lithium battery, wherein both the positive electrode slurry and negative electrode slurry are mixed/stirred under vacuum followed by sieving, wherein the positive electrode and negative electrode are dried at a temperature of 95°C for 8hs ([0026]), which meets the claimed drying temperature and time of claim 4, and the electric core is placed into a pre-made aluminum-plastic film pit after tab welding, the sides of which are heat-sealed, the resulting pack is vacuum dried before injecting electrolyte ([0026] and Fig. 1).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the techniques of Chang, i.e., mixing/stirring slurries under vacuum, sieving slurries prior to coating, drying temperature and time, electrode tab welding, making and applying aluminum-plastic film pit for housing of the electric core, heat-sealing the sides and drying under vacuum, in the method of Li since it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) to yield predictable results. In the instant case, a known technique to prepare lithium batteries. See MPEP 2143 (D).
While teaching the negative electrode slurry comprise graphite, conductive carbon black, carboxymethyl cellulose and styrene butadiene rubber is 96:1:1.5:1.5 ([0102]), Li does not teach a conductive agent in addition to carbon black in the claimed step (2).
Zhu teaches that conductive agent for negative electrode may comprise one or more of conductive carbon black, Super -P and conductive graphite([0008]), exemplified as 0 to 2% carbon black and 0 to 2% of conductive graphite ([0011]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace conductive carbon black of Li and Chang with the mixture of carbon black and conductive graphite or Super-P of Zhu since Zhu teaches that they are functionally equivalent as negative electrode conductive agent ([0008] and [0011]), which renders it obvious the mass ratio of graphite, conductive carbon black, conductive super-P/or conductive graphite, carboxymethyl cellulose and styrene butadiene rubber is 95:1:1:1.5:1.5 when 1% of conductive black and 1% of super-P or conductive graphite are included. See MPEP 2144.06(II) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair & Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc v Ag-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988),
None of Li, Chang and Zhu discloses performing hot pressing of the electric core of claimed step (4).
Lee teaches that jelly roll electrode assembly can be hot-pressed to improve adhesion between the electrodes and the separator ([0151]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply hot-press of Lee to the electric core of Li , Chang and Zhu. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Lee that to do so would predictably provide improved adhesion between the electrodes and the separator ([0151]).
Regarding the claimed vacuum degree of claim 4, while Chang teaches vacuum drying the electrode strips , none of Li, Chang, Zhu and Lee discloses the claimed vacuum degree, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the vacuum pressure in order to obtain a workable product. It is noted that no criticality has been demonstrated in the specification with regard to the vacuum degree recited in the claims.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combined teachings of Li, Chang, Zhu and Lee are set forth above.
Li further teaches that the electrolyte comprises LiPF6 in a mixed solvent of ethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate in a volume ratio of 1:1.
Li does not the claimed dimethyl carbonate and methyl ethyl carbonate.
Lee teaches an effective organic solvent for LiPF6 electrolyte comprises a mixture of cyclic carbonate such as ethylene carbonate , an asymmetric chain carbonate such as ethyl methyl carbonate and a symmetric carbonate such as dimethyl carbonate or diethyl carbonate([0107]-[0110]), and exemplifies a mixture of such in a volume ratio of 1:1:1 ([0174]), which meets the claimed ratio.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace the mixture ethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate of Li with the mixture of ethylene carbonate , ethyl methyl carbonate and dimethyl carbonate of Lee in the method of Li, Chang, Zhu and Lee since Lee teaches that they are functionally equivalent ([0107], [0109] and [0110]). See MPEP 2144.06(II) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair & Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc v Ag-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988).
While Chang discloses heat-sealing of the aluminum plastic film pit containing electric core and vacuum drying the pack ([0026]), Chang does not teach the claimed sealing temperature and vacuum drying temperature, however, Zhu teaches the aluminum-plastic film housing electric cores can be sealed with a heat sealer at a temperature of 150 -250°C ([0006] and [0027]) , which encompasses the claimed sealing temperature, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I; and the resulting pack can be vacuum dried at 80-120°C for 20-24h exemplified as 95°C for 22h ([0029] and [0105]) , which meets the claimed range.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to applying the sealing and drying temperature of Zhu in the method since it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) to yield predictable results. In the instant case, a known technique to seal and dry lithium battery pack. See MPEP 2143 (D).
None of Li, Chang, Lee and Zhu expressly discloses the claimed vacuum degree, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the vacuum pressure in order to obtain a workable product. It is noted that no criticality has been demonstrated in the specification with regard to the vacuum degree recited in the claims.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chang, Zhu and Lee as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 10-15 and 17 above, and further in view of CN110911771A(Guo), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
The combined teachings of Li, Chang, Zhu and Lee are set forth above.
None of Li, Chang, Zhu and Lee teaches the instantly claimed formation procedure.
Guo teaches an effective lithium battery formation procedure comprises placing a battery ce4ll to be formed in a cabinet, charging to 3.1 V at 0.05C, which abuts the claimed 3.4V, letting standing for 3 minutes; charging to 3.6 v at 0.1C , letting standing for 3 minutes; then charging to 3.95 V at 0.5C ([0006]) , which abuts the claimed 0.33 C, and a prima facie 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. See MPEP 2144.05 Titanium Metals Corp of Am v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed Cir 1985).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to applying the formation procedure of Guo in the method of Li, Chang, Zhu and Lee since it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) to yield predictable results. In the instant case, a known technique for lithium battery formation. See MPEP 2143 (D).
Claims 9 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chang , Zhu and Lee as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 10-15 and 17 above, and further in view of CN104409778A (Tang), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
The combined teachings of Li, Chang , Zhu and Lee are set forth above.
None of Li, Chang, Zhu and Lee teaches the instantly claimed capacity grading procedure.
Tang teaches a lithium battery capacity grading procedure comprises charging to 4.2 V, letting standing for 5 minutes ([0021]; discharging to 3.2 V, letting standing for 5 minutes; and finally charging to 4.2V to complete the process ([0023]-[0024]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to applying the capacity grading procedure of Tang in the method of Li, Chang , Zhu and Lee since it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) to yield predictable results. In the instant case, a known technique for lithium battery capacity grading. See MPEP 2143 (D).
As to the claimed charge current, none of Li, Chang, Zhu, Lee and Tang discloses the claimed charging /discharging current , however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the charging/discharging current in order to obtain a workable product. It is noted that no criticality has been demonstrated in the specification with regard to the charging current recited in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766