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 Amendment
In response to the amendment received July 23, 2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The previous drawing objections are withdrawn.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment. All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
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 9 and 19 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 9 is dependent upon claim 1. Claim 1 requires a compound represented by formula I wherein at least one of R1, R-2, and R3 is the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms, wherein the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from ethynyl, propynyl, propargyl, butynyl, or pentynyl. Claim 9 recites “the compound represented by formula I is selected from at least on of…” and lists trifluoromethyl diallyl phosphate, diallyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl phosphate, diallyl 3,3,3-trifluoropropyl phosphate, or diallyl hexafluoroisopropyl phosphate. These compounds do not read on claimed formula I wherein at least one R1, R-2, and R3 is the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms, wherein the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from ethynyl, propynyl, propargyl, butynyl, or pentynyl as required by claim 1. Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 9 are unclear and the claim is indefinite.
Claim 19 is dependent upon claim 10. Claim 10 requires a compound represented by formula I wherein at least one of R1, R-2, and R3 is the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms, wherein the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from ethynyl, propynyl, propargyl, butynyl, or pentynyl. Claim 9 recites “the compound represented by formula I is selected from at least on of…” and lists trifluoromethyl diallyl phosphate, diallyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl phosphate, diallyl 3,3,3-trifluoropropyl phosphate, or diallyl hexafluoroisopropyl phosphate. These compounds do not read on claimed formula I wherein at least one R1, R-2, and R3 is the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms, wherein the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from ethynyl, propynyl, propargyl, butynyl, or pentynyl as required by claim 10. Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 19 are unclear and the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2022/0131196) in view of Gan et al. (US 2002/0094479) and Wang et al. (CN 108470939A). The English machine translation of Wang et al. is attached and referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Liu et al teaches a positive electrode plate (Para. [0041]) (i.e. a positive electrode sheet), comprising a positive current collector (i.e. positive electrode current collector) and a positive active material layer (i.e. positive electrode material layer) disposed on (i.e. formed on) the positive current collector, the positive active material is doped or coated with element A (Para. [0045]) which is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, B, Ca, Mg, Ti, Cu, Nb, Si, Zr, Y or W (Para. [0044]) (i.e. the positive electrode material layer comprises a positive electrode active material doped or coated with metal elements), a first additive included in the electrolytic solution such as a triallyl phosphate (Para. [0012]), the first additive can form an SEI film on the surface of the positive active material (Para. [0063]) (i.e. and a compound represented by formula I of the instant claim, wherein R1, R2, and R3 are each an unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 3 carbon atoms), the positive active material is Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1)AcO--2 wherein the subscript c of the elements A depends on the content of the element A (Para. [0126]) and 0.001≤c≤0.1 and the positive active material prepared has a weight ratio of 97.7/100 (or 97.7%) of the positive electrode material layer (Para. [0098]) and thus, at the very least is overlapping with the claimed range of “n” if the element A is Zr as the total content of Zr when c = 0.001 is 0.094 % or 940 ppm and 0.094% * 97.7% = 0.092% or 920 ppm (i.e. total content of the metal elements doped or coated in the positive electrode material layer may be 920 ppm, and thus, at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of 50 ≤ n ≤ 10000) (see calculations below).
#
Atom
Molar Mass (MM)
Subtotal Mass
Subtotal Mass
(g/mol)
(%)
(g/mol)
1
Li
6.94
7.127%
6.94
0.8
Ni
58.69
48.220%
46.952
0.1
Co
58.93
6.052%
5.893
0.1
Mn
54.94
5.642%
5.494
0.001
Zr
91.22
0.094%
0.09122
2
O
16
32.864%
32
total
1
97.3702
Liu et al. does not teach a content of the compound represented by formula I in the positive electrode material layer wherein the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from ethynyl, propynyl, propargyl, butynyl or pentynyl, with a content of the compound in a unit of ppm is 50 [ppm] ≤ m ≤ 10000 [ppm] (i.e. “m” as claimed).
However, Gan et al. teaches a phosphate additive added to a cathode active mixture (Para. [0025]) such as tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]) (i.e. formula I as claimed wherein the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from propargyl) and is included in the cathode active mixture in a range of about 0.05% to about 5.0% by weight (i.e. a content of the compound represented by formula I in the positive electrode material layer of 500 ppm to 50000 ppm, overlapping with the claimed range of 50 ≤ m ≤ 10000).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the phosphate and content of phosphate in the cathode active mixture of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of a tripropargyl phosphate and content as taught by Gan et al., as such an amount provides a benefit to cycling efficiency (Para. [0025]).
Liu et al. does not teach a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer (i.e. “k”).
However, Wang et al. teaches a positive electrode film (i.e. positive electrode material layer) comprising positive active material (Para. [0014]) comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1O2 (Para. [0022]) wherein the compacted density is 3.45 g/cm3 (Para. [0045]) (i.e. “k” as claimed is 3.45).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material layer of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the compacted density as taught by Wang et al., as such a compacted density ensures improved cycle life and increased volume energy density (Para. [0026]) (i.e. a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer is 3.45 g/cm3 reading on the claimed range of 2.8 ≤ k ≤ 3.8).
Thus, the very least, Liu et al. as modified above has an overlapping
m
+
n
100
k
value as n may be 920, m may be 500 and k is 3.45 and (500+920)/(100*3.45) = 4.12, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 ≤
m
+
n
100
k
≤ 59. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding the claimed properties of the positive electrode sheet has a potential range of greater than or equal to 4.25 V with respect to metal lithium and wherein a solution obtained after ultrasonically shaking the positive electrode sheet in a solvent is subjected to a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometer (MC-MS) analysis and a characteristic peak appears in a region having a retention time of 6.5 min to 7.5 min, as Liu et al. as modified above teaches the same structure and composition as claimed positive electrode sheet of modified Liu et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the claimed properties, or (b) differences in the properties set forth in the instant claim, having a potential range of greater than or equal to 4.25 V with respect to metal lithium and wherein a solution obtained after ultrasonically shaking the positive electrode sheet in a solvent is subjected to a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometer (MC-MS) analysis and a characteristic peak appears in a region having a retention time of 6.5 min to 7.5 min would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition and structure of Liu et al. as modified above is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the positive electrode sheet of modified Liu et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the claimed properties) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches the positive active material is Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1)AcO--2 wherein the subscript c of the elements A depends on the content of the element A (Para. [0126]) and 0.001≤c≤0.1 and the positive active material prepared has a weight ratio of 97.7/100 (or 97.7%) of the positive electrode material layer (Para. [0098]) and thus, at the very least is overlapping with the claimed range of “n” if the element A is Zr as the total content of Zr when c = 0.001 is 0.094 % or 940 ppm and 0.094% * 97.7% = 0.092% or 920 ppm (i.e. total content of the metal elements doped or coated in the positive electrode material layer may be 920 ppm, and thus, at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of 50 ≤ n ≤ 10000) (see calculations below).
#
Atom
Molar Mass (MM)
Subtotal Mass
Subtotal Mass
(g/mol)
(%)
(g/mol)
1
Li
6.94
7.127%
6.94
0.8
Ni
58.69
48.220%
46.952
0.1
Co
58.93
6.052%
5.893
0.1
Mn
54.94
5.642%
5.494
0.001
Zr
91.22
0.094%
0.09122
2
O
16
32.864%
32
total
1
97.3702
Liu et al. does not teach a content of the compound represented by formula I in the positive electrode material layer, in a unit of ppm is 50 ≤ m ≤ 10000 (i.e. “m” as claimed).
However, Gan et al. teaches a phosphate additive added to a cathode active mixture (Para. [0025]) such as tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]) (i.e. formula I as claimed) and is included in the cathode active mixture in a range of about 0.05% to about 5.0% by weight (i.e. a content of the compound represented by formula I in the positive electrode material layer of 500 ppm to 50000 ppm, overlapping with the claimed range of 50 ≤ m ≤ 10000).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of phosphate in the cathode active mixture of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of a content as taught by Gan et al., as such an amount provides a benefit to cycling efficiency (Para. [0025]).
Liu et al. does not teach a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer.
However, Wang et al. teaches a positive electrode film (i.e. positive electrode material layer) comprising positive active material (Para. [0014]) comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1O2 (Para. [0022]) wherein the compacted density is 3.45 g/cm3 (Para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material layer of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the compacted density as taught by Wang et al., as such a compacted density ensures improved cycle life and increased volume energy density (Para. [0026]) (i.e. a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer is 3.45 g/cm3 reading on the claimed range of 2.8 ≤ k ≤ 3.8).
Thus, the very least, Liu et al. as modified above has an overlapping
m
+
n
100
k
value as n may be 920, m may be 500 and k is 3.45 and (500+920)/(100*3.45) = 4.12, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.6 ≤
m
+
n
100
k
≤ 25. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches the positive active material includes a compound represented by the formula III: Lin--Ni1-a-b-cCoaMn-bAcO2-mDm where, 0.90≤n≤1.10, 0.05≤a≤0.3 , 0.002≤b≤0.3 , 0.001≤c≤0.1 , 0≤m≤0.05 , and 0.60<1-b-c<0.95 (Para. [0076]) and the positive active material is doped or coated with element A (Para. [0045]) which is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, B, Ca, Mg, Ti, Cu, Nb, Si, Zr, Y or W (Para. [0044]) (i.e. reading on M2 -of Formula (1) of the instant claim as M2 -is a doped and/or coated metal element comprising one or more of W, Mg, Ti, Ca, Zr and Si) and D includes or is at least one selected from S, F, N, Cl or I (Para. [0076]) thus, at the very least, teaches an overlapping range to Formula (I) of the instant claim as the Liu et al. compound may be LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.099Zr0.001O2 reading on Formula (I) wherein the claimed variables are x = 0, a = 0.8, b = 0.1, M1 -is Mn, c = 0.099, M2 -is Zr, a+b+c=0.8+0.1+0.099=0.999 reading on 0<a+b+c<1 and y = 0. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." See MPEP §2132.02.
Regarding Claim 4, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. does not teach a content of the compound represented by formula I in the positive electrode material layer is from 50 ppm to 5000 ppm.
However, Gan et al. teaches a phosphate additive added to a cathode active mixture (Para. [0025]) such as tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]) (i.e. formula I as claimed) and is included in the cathode active mixture in a range of about 0.05% to about 5.0% by weight (i.e. a content of the compound represented by formula I in the positive electrode material layer of 500 ppm to 50000 ppm, overlapping with the claimed range of 50 ppm to 5000 ppm).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of phosphate in the cathode active mixture of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of a tripropargyl phosphate content as taught by Gan et al., as such a compound and amount provides a benefit to cycling efficiency (Para. [0025]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches the positive active material is Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1)AcO--2 wherein the subscript c of the elements A depends on the content of the element A (Para. [0126]) and 0.001≤c≤0.1 and the positive active material prepared has a weight ratio of 97.7/100 (or 97.7%) of the positive electrode material layer (Para. [0098]) and thus, at the very least is overlapping with the claimed range of “n” if the element A is Zr as the total content of Zr when c = 0.001 is 0.094 % or 940 ppm and 0.094% * 97.7% = 0.092% or 920 ppm (i.e. total content of the metal elements doped or coated in the positive electrode material layer may be 920 ppm, and thus, at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of 100 ppm to 3000 ppm) (see calculations below).
#
Atom
Molar Mass (MM)
Subtotal Mass
Subtotal Mass
(g/mol)
(%)
(g/mol)
1
Li
6.94
7.127%
6.94
0.8
Ni
58.69
48.220%
46.952
0.1
Co
58.93
6.052%
5.893
0.1
Mn
54.94
5.642%
5.494
0.001
Zr
91.22
0.094%
0.09122
2
O
16
32.864%
32
total
1
97.3702
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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. does not teach a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer (i.e. “k”) is from 3.0 to 3.6 g/cm3.
However, Wang et al. teaches a positive electrode film (i.e. positive electrode material layer) comprising positive active material (Para. [0014]) comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1O2 (Para. [0022]) wherein the compacted density is 3.45 g/cm3 (Para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material layer of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the compacted density as taught by Wang et al., as such a compacted density ensures improved cycle life and increased volume energy density (Para. [0026]) (i.e. a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer is 3.45 g/cm3 reading on the claimed range of 3.0 to 3.6 g/cm3).
Regarding Claim 8, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Gan et al. teaches a phosphate additive added to a cathode active mixture (Para. [0025]) such as tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Gan et al. cited herein .As the instant claim is interpreted as defining the alkyl, ether and fluoroether groups, without requiring the presence thereof, the claim has been met by the teaching of tripropargyl phosphate by Gan et al.
Regarding Claim 9, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Gan et al. teaches a phosphate additive added to a cathode active mixture (Para. [0025]) such as tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Gan et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 10, Liu et al teaches a lithium-ion battery (Para. [0093]) comprising a negative electrode comprising coating a negative current collector copper foil with the negative electrode slurry evenly and drying to form a negative active material layer (i.e. negative electrode sheet) (Para. [0006], [0099]), an electrolytic solution comprising ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate (Para. [0100]) (i.e. a non-aqueous electrolyte), a positive electrode plate (Para. [0041]) (i.e. a positive electrode sheet), comprising a positive current collector (i.e. positive electrode current collector) and a positive active material layer (i.e. positive electrode material layer) disposed on (i.e. formed on) the positive current collector, the positive active material is doped or coated with element A (Para. [0045]) which is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, B, Ca, Mg, Ti, Cu, Nb, Si, Zr, Y or W (Para. [0044]) (i.e. the positive electrode material layer comprises a positive electrode active material doped or coated with metal elements), a first additive included in the electrolytic solution such as triallyl phosphate (Para. [0012]), the first additive can form an SEI film on the surface of the positive active material (Para. [0063]) (i.e. and a compound represented by formula I of the instant claim, wherein R1, R2, and R3 are each an unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 3 carbon atoms), the positive active material is Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1)AcO--2 wherein the subscript c of the elements A depends on the content of the element A (Para. [0126]) and 0.001≤c≤0.1 and the positive active material prepared has a weight ratio of 97.7/100 (or 97.7%) of the positive electrode material layer (Para. [0098]) and thus, at the very least is overlapping with the claimed range of “n” in units of ppm if the element A is Zr as the total content of Zr when c = 0.001 is 0.094 % or 940 ppm and 0.094% * 97.7% = 0.092% or 920 ppm (i.e. total content of the metal elements doped or coated in the positive electrode material layer may be 920 ppm, and thus, at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of 50 [ppm] ≤ n ≤ 10000 [ppm]) (see calculations below).
#
Atom
Molar Mass (MM)
Subtotal Mass
Subtotal Mass
(g/mol)
(%)
(g/mol)
1
Li
6.94
7.127%
6.94
0.8
Ni
58.69
48.220%
46.952
0.1
Co
58.93
6.052%
5.893
0.1
Mn
54.94
5.642%
5.494
0.001
Zr
91.22
0.094%
0.09122
2
O
16
32.864%
32
total
1
97.3702
Liu et al. does not teach a content of the compound represented by formula I in the positive electrode material layer wherein the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from ethynyl, propynyl, propargyl, butynyl or pentynyl, with a content of the compound in a unit of ppm is 50 [ppm] ≤ m ≤ 10000 [ppm] (i.e. “m” as claimed).
However, Gan et al. teaches a phosphate additive added to a cathode active mixture (Para. [0025]) such as tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]) (i.e. formula I as claimed wherein the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from propargyl) and is included in the cathode active mixture in a range of about 0.05% to about 5.0% by weight (i.e. a content of the compound represented by formula I in the positive electrode material layer of 500 ppm to 50000 ppm, overlapping with the claimed range of 50 ≤ m ≤ 10000).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the phosphate and content of phosphate in the cathode active mixture of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of a tripropargyl phosphate and content as taught by Gan et al., as such an amount provides a benefit to cycling efficiency (Para. [0025]).
Liu et al. does not teach a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer (i.e. “k”).
However, Wang et al. teaches a positive electrode film (i.e. positive electrode material layer) comprising positive active material (Para. [0014]) comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1O2 (Para. [0022]) wherein the compacted density is 3.45 g/cm3 (Para. [0045]) (i.e. “k” as claimed is 3.45).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material layer of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the compacted density as taught by Wang et al., as such a compacted density ensures improved cycle life and increased volume energy density (Para. [0026]) (i.e. a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer is 3.45 g/cm3 reading on the claimed range of 2.8 ≤ k ≤ 3.8).
Thus, the very least, Liu et al. as modified above has an overlapping
m
+
n
100
k
value as n may be 920, m may be 500 and k is 3.45 and (500+920)/(100*3.45) = 4.12, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 ≤
m
+
n
100
k
≤ 59. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding the claimed properties of the positive electrode sheet has a potential range of greater than or equal to 4.25 V with respect to metal lithium and wherein a solution obtained after ultrasonically shaking the positive electrode sheet in a solvent is subjected to a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometer (MC-MS) analysis and a characteristic peak appears in a region having a retention time of 6.5 min to 7.5 min, as Liu et al. as modified above teaches the same structure and composition as claimed positive electrode sheet of modified Liu et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the claimed properties, or (b) differences in the properties set forth in the instant claim, having a potential range of greater than or equal to 4.25 V with respect to metal lithium and wherein a solution obtained after ultrasonically shaking the positive electrode sheet in a solvent is subjected to a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometer (MC-MS) analysis and a characteristic peak appears in a region having a retention time of 6.5 min to 7.5 min would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the composition and structure of Liu et al. as modified above is substantially identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the positive electrode sheet of modified Liu et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the claimed properties) would be small and obvious. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 11, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches the electrolytic solution includes a first additive of triallyl phosphate (Para. [0012]) (i.e. the non-aqueous electrolyte further comprises an additive comprising an unsaturated phosphate ester).
Regarding Claim 12, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Gan et al. teaches a phosphate additive added to a cathode active mixture (Para. [0025]) such as tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]) (i.e. wherein the unsaturated phosphate ester is a compound repented by Formula 3 of the instant claim wherein R31-33 are each an unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group). See the rejection to claim 11 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Gan et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 13, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches the electrolytic solution includes a first additive of triallyl phosphate (Para. [0012]) accounts for 0.1 to 20% based on a total mass of the electrolytic solution (Para. [0013]) (i.e. wherein the additive is added in an amount overlapping with the range from 0.05 to 10% in the non-aqueous electrolyte). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 14, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches the positive active material is Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1)AcO--2 wherein the subscript c of the elements A depends on the content of the element A (Para. [0126]) and 0.001≤c≤0.1 and the positive active material prepared has a weight ratio of 97.7/100 (or 97.7%) of the positive electrode material layer (Para. [0098]) and thus, at the very least is overlapping with the claimed range of “n” if the element A is Zr as the total content of Zr when c = 0.001 is 0.094 % or 940 ppm and 0.094% * 97.7% = 0.092% or 920 ppm (i.e. total content of the metal elements doped or coated in the positive electrode material layer may be 920 ppm, and thus, at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of 50 ≤ n ≤ 10000) (see calculations below).
#
Atom
Molar Mass (MM)
Subtotal Mass
Subtotal Mass
(g/mol)
(%)
(g/mol)
1
Li
6.94
7.127%
6.94
0.8
Ni
58.69
48.220%
46.952
0.1
Co
58.93
6.052%
5.893
0.1
Mn
54.94
5.642%
5.494
0.001
Zr
91.22
0.094%
0.09122
2
O
16
32.864%
32
total
1
97.3702
Liu et al. does not teach a content of the compound represented by formula I in the positive electrode material layer wherein the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from ethynyl, propynyl, propargyl, butynyl or pentynyl, with a content of the compound in a unit of ppm is 50 [ppm] ≤ m ≤ 10000 [ppm] (i.e. “m” as claimed).
However, Gan et al. teaches a phosphate additive added to a cathode active mixture (Para. [0025]) such as tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]) (i.e. formula I as claimed wherein the unsaturated hydrocarbonyl group of 2 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from propargyl) and is included in the cathode active mixture in a range of about 0.05% to about 5.0% by weight (i.e. a content of the compound represented by formula I in the positive electrode material layer of 500 ppm to 50000 ppm, overlapping with the claimed range of 50 ≤ m ≤ 10000).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the phosphate and content of phosphate in the cathode active mixture of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of a tripropargyl phosphate and content as taught by Gan et al., as such an amount provides a benefit to cycling efficiency (Para. [0025]).
Liu et al. does not teach a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer.
However, Wang et al. teaches a positive electrode film (i.e. positive electrode material layer) comprising positive active material (Para. [0014]) comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1O2 (Para. [0022]) wherein the compacted density is 3.45 g/cm3 (Para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material layer of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the compacted density as taught by Wang et al., as such a compacted density ensures improved cycle life and increased volume energy density (Para. [0026]) (i.e. a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer is 3.45 g/cm3 reading on the claimed range of 2.8 ≤ k ≤ 3.8).
Thus, the very least, Liu et al. as modified above has an overlapping
m
+
n
100
k
value as n may be 920, m may be 500 and k is 3.45 and (500+920)/(100*3.45) = 4.12, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.6 ≤
m
+
n
100
k
≤ 25. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 15, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches the positive active material includes a compound represented by the formula III: Lin--Ni1-a-b-cCoaMn-bAcO2-mDm where, 0.90≤n≤1.10, 0.05≤a≤0.3 , 0.002≤b≤0.3 , 0.001≤c≤0.1 , 0≤m≤0.05 , and 0.60<1-b-c<0.95 (Para. [0076]) and the positive active material is doped or coated with element A (Para. [0045]) which is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, B, Ca, Mg, Ti, Cu, Nb, Si, Zr, Y or W (Para. [0044]) (i.e. reading on M2 -of Formula (1) of the instant claim as M2 -is a doped and/or coated metal element comprising one or more of W, Mg, Ti, Ca, Zr and Si) and D includes or is at least one selected from S, F, N, Cl or I (Para. [0076]) thus, at the very least, teaches an overlapping range to Formula (I) of the instant claim as the Liu et al. compound may be LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.099Zr0.001O2 reading on Formula (I) wherein the claimed variables are x = 0, a = 0.8, b = 0.1, M1 -is Mn, c = 0.099, M2 -is Zr, a+b+c=0.8+0.1+0.099=0.999 reading on 0<a+b+c<1 and y = 0. 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." See MPEP §2132.02.
Regarding Claim 16, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Liu et al. further teaches the positive active material is Li(Ni0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1)AcO--2 wherein the subscript c of the elements A depends on the content of the element A (Para. [0126]) and 0.001≤c≤0.1 and the positive active material prepared has a weight ratio of 97.7/100 (or 97.7%) of the positive electrode material layer (Para. [0098]) and thus, at the very least is overlapping with the claimed range of “n” if the element A is Zr as the total content of Zr when c = 0.001 is 0.094 % or 940 ppm and 0.094% * 97.7% = 0.092% or 920 ppm (i.e. total content of the metal elements doped or coated in the positive electrode material layer may be 920 ppm, and thus, at the very least overlapping with the claimed range of 100 ppm to 3000 ppm) (see calculations below).
#
Atom
Molar Mass (MM)
Subtotal Mass
Subtotal Mass
(g/mol)
(%)
(g/mol)
1
Li
6.94
7.127%
6.94
0.8
Ni
58.69
48.220%
46.952
0.1
Co
58.93
6.052%
5.893
0.1
Mn
54.94
5.642%
5.494
0.001
Zr
91.22
0.094%
0.09122
2
O
16
32.864%
32
total
1
97.3702
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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 17, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Liu et al. does not teach a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer (i.e. “k”) is from 3.0 to 3.6 g/cm3.
However, Wang et al. teaches a positive electrode film (i.e. positive electrode material layer) comprising positive active material (Para. [0014]) comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1O2 (Para. [0022]) wherein the compacted density is 3.45 g/cm3 (Para. [0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode material layer of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the compacted density as taught by Wang et al., as such a compacted density ensures improved cycle life and increased volume energy density (Para. [0026]) (i.e. a compacted density of the positive electrode material layer is 3.45 g/cm3 reading on the claimed range of 3.0 to 3.6 g/cm3).
Regarding Claim 19, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Gan et al. teaches a phosphate additive added to a cathode active mixture (Para. [0025]) such as tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]) (i.e. the compound represented by formula I is tripropargyl phosphate). See the rejection to claim 11 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Gan et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 20, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Gan et al. teaches a phosphate additive added to a cathode active mixture (Para. [0025]) such as tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]) (i.e. the compound represented by the formula I is mixed in an interior of the positive electrode material layer). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Gan et al. cited herein.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2022/0131196) in view of Gan et al. (US 2002/0094479) and Wang et al. (CN 108470939A) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Takehara et al. (US 2020/0388887) and Matsuoka et al. (US 2021/0344046).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Liu et al. does not teach a thickness of the positive electrode material later on one side of the positive electrode current collector is from 80 to 200 micrometers, and a one-side areal density of the positive electrode material layer is from 15 to 30 mg/cm2.
However, Takehara et al. teaches a thickness of a positive electrode plate (i.e. positive electrode sheet) having a mixture layer comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. positive electrode material layer) formed on a current collector (i.e. on one side of the positive electrode current collector) (Para. [0349]) wherein the thickness of the mixture layer which excludes the thickness of the metal foil is 20 micrometers or more and 450 micrometers or less (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of from 80 micrometers to 200 micrometers) (Para. [0356]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the positive electrode material layer of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the thickness as taught by Takehara et al., as such a thickness per side of the current collector increases capacity and output (Para. [0356]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Liu et al. does not teach a one-side areal density of the positive electrode material layer is from 15 to 30 mg/cm2.
However, Matsuoka et al. teaches forming a positive electrode active material layer on one side of an aluminum foil (i.e. on one side of a positive electrode current collector ) wherein the basis weight of the positive electrode active material was 18.1 mg/cm2 (Para. [0446]) (i.e. a one-side areal density of the positive electrode material layer is from 15 to 30 mg/cm2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material layer of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the basis weight of the positive electrode active material of 18.1 mg/cm2 (Para. [0446]) (i.e. a one-side areal density of the positive electrode material layer is from 15 to 30 mg/cm2) as taught by Matsuoka et al., as such a positive electrode active material layer provides high cycle performance (Para. [0483]).
Regarding Claim 18, Liu et al. as modified by Gan et al. and Wang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 10 as explained above.
Liu et al. does not teach a thickness of the positive electrode material later on one side of the positive electrode current collector is from 80 to 200 micrometers, and a one-side areal density of the positive electrode material layer is from 15 to 30 mg/cm2.
However, Takehara et al. teaches a thickness of a positive electrode plate (i.e. positive electrode sheet) having a mixture layer comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. positive electrode material layer) formed on a current collector (i.e. on one side of the positive electrode current collector) (Para. [0349]) wherein the thickness of the mixture layer which excludes the thickness of the metal foil is 20 micrometers or more and 450 micrometers or less (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of from 80 micrometers to 200 micrometers) (Para. [0356]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the positive electrode material layer of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the thickness as taught by Takehara et al., as such a thickness per side of the current collector increases capacity and output (Para. [0356]). 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).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Liu et al. does not teach a one-side areal density of the positive electrode material layer is from 15 to 30 mg/cm2.
However, Matsuoka et al. teaches forming a positive electrode active material layer on one side of an aluminum foil (i.e. on one side of a positive electrode current collector ) wherein the basis weight of the positive electrode active material was 18.1 mg/cm2 (Para. [0446]) (i.e. a one-side areal density of the positive electrode material layer is from 15 to 30 mg/cm2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode active material layer of Liu et al. to incorporate the teaching of the basis weight of the positive electrode active material of 18.1 mg/cm2 (Para. [0446]) (i.e. a one-side areal density of the positive electrode material layer is from 15 to 30 mg/cm2) as taught by Matsuoka et al., as such a positive electrode active material layer provides high cycle performance (Para. [0483]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the first additive is not equivalent to the compound represented by formula I in claim 1 as the first additive of Liu can not form a film and does not disclose the first additive formed on the first positive active material.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Liu et al. explicitly teaches the first additive can form an SEI film on the surface of the positive active material (Para. [0063]). Furthermore, the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the amendment does not rely on Liu et al. to teach the compound of formula I, but rather relies on Gan et al. which teaches tripropargyl phosphate (Para. [0026]). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues Liu and Gan teach different cathode active materials and thus one having skill in the art would not be motivated to combine these references as one would not consider additives of other positive active materials and thus, is impermissible hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examples in paragraph [0021] are not a teaching away from broader recitations of Gan. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123. Furthermore, Gan et al. teaches the lithiated cathode active material includes oxides of metals such as nickel, cobalt and manganese (Para. [0021]). Thus, the teachings of the additive in Gan et al. and its benefits directed towards lithiated oxides of metals such as nickel, cobalt and manganese are reasonably applicable to the positive electrode active material of Liu et al. which is Lin--Ni1-a-b-cCoaMn-bAcO2-mDm (Para. [0076]) (i.e. a lithiated oxide of nickel, cobalt and manganese) with a reasonable expectation of success. The same reasoning applies to Wang et al. which teaches LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn-0.1O2 (Para. [0022]). Thus, the argument is not persuasive. 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). As the current rejection of record takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not rely upon knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, no improper hindsight reasoning was used.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejections with respect to the independent claims have been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
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 ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights