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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “high-nickel” used within the claims is interpreted to mean that the nickel content within the active material according to the formula I has a molar subscript of greater than 0.7 as used within the claim, see formula I wherein subscript for the Nickel material is q and wherein q is less than or equal to 1 and greater than or equal to 0.7. This is interpreted to read on the “high-nickel” content as the nickel amount used within the claims is greater than the Co or M materials used and thus will be interpreted according to formula I used within the claims.
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 7 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 and 18 state, “wherein the mass percent content b of the high nickel positive electrode material represented by the formula I in the positive electrode…”. Claims 1 and 10 state, “b is the mass percent content of the compound represented by the formula II in the positive electrode material layer”. Therefore, claims 7 and 18 directly contradict claims 1 and 18 as b is already related to formula II and thus cannot also be used to relate to formula I thus the claim is rendered indefinite as b cannot be used to describe the mass percentages of both formula I and formula II. Examiner will interpret claims 7 and 18 to mean that the content of formula II in the positive electrode material layer is between 90-99.2 %.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (WO 2021018243 A1) in view of Shi et al. (US 2019/0103633 A1) and Sawa et al. (US 2022/0149435 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Deng discloses a positive electrode sheet, comprising;
A positive electrode current collector ([0007] secondary battery having a positive electrode current collector and electrode material located on the current collector, can be a positive electrode); and
A positive electrode material layer formed on the positive electrode current collector ([0007] secondary battery having a positive electrode current collector and electrode material located on the current collector, can be a positive electrode),
Wherein the positive electrode material layer comprises a high-nickel positive electrode material represented by formula I LiaNiqCoyMzO2 wherein a is between 0.9-1.2, q is between 0.7-1, y and z are greater than or equal to 0, wherein q+y+z=1 and wherein M is selected from one or both of Mn and Al (Claim 5, positive electrode active material can be LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2),
Wherein x is a molar ratio of Ni element: (Ni +Co+M element) and is between 0.7-1 (Claim 5; LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 can have a ratio of 0.8:1).
Deng further discloses wherein the thickness of the electrode plate was 120-150 micrometers and is silent with respect to the thickness of the active material on one side of the current collector is between 80-140 micrometers.
Sawa discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte solution and energy storage device and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of batteries. Sawa discloses wherein the thickness of the positive electrode plate is not particularly limited and from the standpoint of attaining a high capacity and high output and excellent rate characteristics, the thickness of the active material layer can be between 10-500 micrometers on one side of the current collector ([0230]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the thickness of the active material layer on each side of the current collector to be between 10-500 micrometers, such as between 80-140 micrometers, in order to produce a high capacity, high output and excellent rate characteristics for the battery as taught by Sawa. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to adjust the active material thickness in order to achieve the excellent rate characteristics and high output and capacity as taught by Sawa and thus overlaps with the range as claimed through the modification. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Deng further discloses wherein an additive for an electrolyte is used according to Formula 6 see below ([0037-0044]), wherein the additive is provided in small amounts such as between 0.1-2% with respect to the total mass of the mixture ([0050]). Deng discloses wherein an additive can be used to form a stable SEI film on the surface of an electrode ([0055]). Deng discloses wherein the additive is applied to the electrolyte and can form an SEI film with the negative electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
217
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shi discloses a nan-aqueous electrolyte and is within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Shi discloses wherein a non-aqueous electrode can have a compound according to formula I or II that is similar to the additive of Deng and is provided to form a passivation film on the surface of the electrodes to suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte ([0008-0020]).
Both Shi and Deng disclose a phosphate compound additive that is applied to form a film on a surface of an electrode. While Shi and Deng both disclose wherein the additive is applied to the electrolyte in order to form a film on the electrode, it would have been obvious to incorporate the additive into the electrode active material instead of the electrolyte in order to form a film on the electrode as it is determined that providing the additive in the active material instead of the electrolyte would still form the film on the electrode. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to try and incorporate the additive into the active material layer as the additive is used to form a film on an electrode as an alternative to forming the film by incorporating the additive into the electrolyte. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex
Modified Deng discloses the mass percent of the additive according to formula II, the molar ratio of Ni in the positive electrode active material, and the thickness of the active material on one side of the positive electrode current collector as claimed. Applicant further claims wherein the positive electrode sheet satisfies the following conditions: 0.05 ≤ (b/10)*(h/x) ≤ 15. Examiner notes that the resulting modification teaches all of the elements of the conditions above and would be within the claimed range, for example b=0.02 (2%), h=100, x=0.8 then the resulting conditions reads 0.05≤ 0.25≤ 15 and is within the range taught as all of the individual conditions are met and thus the relationship would be taught and rendered obvious through the combination.
Applicant further claims wherein a solution obtained after ultrasonically shaking the positive electrode sheet in a solvent is subjected to a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometer analysis, and has a characteristic peak in a region having a retention time of 6.5-7.5 minutes. This limitation is deemed to be inherent as applicant is claiming testing results of the positive electrode sheet that is rendered obvious through the modifications above and thus would be inherent as there are no structural differences between the claimed invention and modifications within the prior art according to claim 1. While the prior art does not explicitly teach the liquid chromatography mass spectrometer analysis retention time peaks, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the positive electrode sheet disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the positive electrode sheet taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 1, the prior art inherently teaches the retention time peaks. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 2, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Deng discloses the mass percent of the additive according to formula II, the molar ratio of Ni in the positive electrode active material, and the thickness of the active material on one side of the positive electrode current collector as claimed. Applicant further claims wherein the positive electrode sheet satisfies the following conditions: 0.08 ≤ (b/10)*(h/x) ≤ 8. Examiner notes that the resulting modification teaches all of the elements of the conditions above and would be within the claimed range, for example b=0.02 (2%), h=100, x=0.8 then the resulting conditions reads 0.08≤ 0.25≤ 8 and is within the range taught as all of the individual conditions are met and thus the relationship would be taught and rendered obvious through the combination.
Regarding claim 3, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Deng discloses wherein the mass percent content b of the compound represented by formula II in the positive electrode material layer is from 0.05-0.5% (see modification of claim 1; [0050] 0.1-2% with respect to the total mass of the mixture can be provided in the active material according to the modification of claim 1). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Deng discloses wherein the molar ratio x of Ni element (Ni+ Co+ M) in the high nickel positive electrode material is from 0.8-0.9 (Claim 5; LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 can have a ratio of 0.8:1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Deng discloses wherein the thickness h of the positive electrode material layer on one side of the positive electrode current collector is from 100-140 micrometers (Sawa [0230] the thickness of the active material layer can be between 10-500 micrometers on one side of the current collector and thus renders obvious the thickness of 100-140 micrometers). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Deng further discloses wherein the high nickel positive electrode material represented by the formula I is selected from at least one of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 as well as other materials listed (Deng [0084]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Deng further discloses wherein the mass percent content of the high nickel positive electrode material represented by the formula I in the positive electrode material layer is from 90-99.2% (see modification of claim 1; the active material layer comprises material I and II wherein material II can be between 0.1-2%, [0050], and thus the material 1 can be between 98-99.9% which overlaps the claimed range). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Deng further discloses wherein the alkyl group of 1 to 5 carbon atoms is selected from methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl, n-butyl, isobutyl, sec-butyl, tert-butyl, n-pentyl, isopentyl, sec-pentyl, and neopentyl; The fluoroalkyl group of 1-5 carbon atoms is selected from the group consisting of one or more hydrogen elements in the alkyl group of 1-5 carbon atoms being substituted with a fluorine element ([0043]),
the unsaturated hydrocarbon group of 2-5 carbon atoms may be selected from, for example, vinyl, propenyl, allyl, butenyl, pentenyl, methylvinyl, methylallyl, ethynyl, propynyl, propargyl, butynyl, pentynyl ([0044]),
the ether groups of 1-5 carbon atoms can be selected from, for example, methyl ether, diethyl ether, methyl ether, propyl ether, methyl propyl ether, and ethyl propyl ether; the fluoroether groups of the 1-5 carbon atoms can be selected from, for example, fluoroether, fluoroether, fluoromethyl ether, fluoropropyl ether, fluoromethpropyl ether, fluoroethylene propyl ether ([0045]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 9, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Deng further discloses wherein the compound represented by formula II is selected from at least tripropargyl phosphate as well as other materials ([0043-0049], [0048]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 10, Deng discloses a lithium ion battery comprising:
A negative electrode sheet, a non-aqueous electrolyte and a positive electrode sheet ([0036] lithium ion battery having a negative electrode; [0025] a positive electrode and an non-aqueous electrolyte [0037]), comprising:
A positive electrode current collector ([0007] secondary battery having a positive electrode current collector and electrode material located on the current collector, can be a positive electrode); and
A positive electrode material layer formed on the positive electrode current collector ([0007] secondary battery having a positive electrode current collector and electrode material located on the current collector, can be a positive electrode),
Wherein the positive electrode material layer comprises a high-nickel positive electrode material represented by formula I LiaNiqCoyMzO2 wherein a is between 0.9-1.2, q is between 0.7-1, y and z are greater than or equal to 0, wherein q+y+z=1 and wherein M is selected from one or both of Mn and Al (Claim 5, positive electrode active material can be LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2),
Wherein x is a molar ratio of Ni element: (Ni +Co+M element) and is between 0.7-1 (Claim 5; LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 can have a ratio of 0.8:1).
Deng further discloses wherein the thickness of the electrode plate was 120-150 micrometers and is silent with respect to the thickness of the active material on one side of the current collector is between 80-140 micrometers.
Sawa discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte solution and energy storage device and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of batteries. Sawa discloses wherein the thickness of the positive electrode plate is not particularly limited and from the standpoint of attaining a high capacity and high output and excellent rate characteristics, the thickness of the active material layer can be between 10-500 micrometers on one side of the current collector ([0230]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the thickness of the active material layer on each side of the current collector to be between 10-500 micrometers, such as between 80-140 micrometers, in order to produce a high capacity, high output and excellent rate characteristics for the battery as taught by Sawa. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to adjust the active material thickness in order to achieve the excellent rate characteristics and high output and capacity as taught by Sawa and thus overlaps with the range as claimed through the modification. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Deng further discloses wherein an additive for an electrolyte is used according to Formula 6 see below ([0037-0044]), wherein the additive is provided in small amounts such as between 0.1-2% with respect to the total mass of the mixture ([0050]). Deng discloses wherein an additive can be used to form a stable SEI film on the surface of an electrode ([0055]). Deng discloses wherein the additive is applied to the electrolyte and can form an SEI film with the negative electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
217
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shi discloses a nan-aqueous electrolyte and is within the same field of endeavor of batteries. Shi discloses wherein a non-aqueous electrode can have a compound according to formula I or II that is similar to the additive of Deng and is provided to form a passivation film on the surface of the electrodes to suppress the decomposition of the electrolyte ([0008-0020]).
Both Shi and Deng disclose a phosphate compound additive that is applied to form a film on a surface of an electrode. While Shi and Deng both disclose wherein the additive is applied to the electrolyte in order to form a film on the electrode, it would have been obvious to incorporate the additive into the electrode active material instead of the electrolyte in order to form a film on the electrode as it is determined that providing the additive in the active material instead of the electrolyte would still form the film on the electrode. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to try and incorporate the additive into the active material layer as the additive is used to form a film on an electrode as an alternative to forming the film by incorporating the additive into the electrolyte. A patent claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was obvious to try. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR v. Teleflex
Modified Deng discloses the mass percent of the additive according to formula II, the molar ratio of Ni in the positive electrode active material, and the thickness of the active material on one side of the positive electrode current collector as claimed. Applicant further claims wherein the positive electrode sheet satisfies the following conditions: 0.05 ≤ (b/10)*(h/x) ≤ 15. Examiner notes that the resulting modification teaches all of the elements of the conditions above and would be within the claimed range, for example b=0.02 (2%), h=100, x=0.8 then the resulting conditions reads 0.05≤ 0.25≤ 15 and is within the range taught as all of the individual conditions are met and thus the relationship would be taught and rendered obvious through the combination.
Applicant further claims wherein a solution obtained after ultrasonically shaking the positive electrode sheet in a solvent is subjected to a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometer analysis, and has a characteristic peak in a region having a retention time of 6.5-7.5 minutes. This limitation is deemed to be inherent as applicant is claiming testing results of the positive electrode sheet that is rendered obvious through the modifications above and thus would be inherent as there are no structural differences between the claimed invention and modifications within the prior art according to claim 10. While the prior art does not explicitly teach the liquid chromatography mass spectrometer analysis retention time peaks, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the positive electrode sheet disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the positive electrode sheet taught by the prior art and the applicant are identical within the scope of claim 10, the prior art inherently teaches the retention time peaks. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Deng further discloses wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises an additive comprising at least one of a cyclic sulfate ester compound, a sultone ester compound, a cyclic carbonate ester compound, and unsaturated phosphate ester compound and a nitrile compound ([0051-0052] additive further includes a cyclic sulfate ester compound such as vinyl sulfate or methyl vinyl sulfate; and thus the additive can be applied to both the electrolyte and the electrode material; claim 10 propane sultone being the sultone ester compound; [0052] vinylene carbonate being the cyclic carbonate; [0041] additive of formula 6). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 13, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 11. Deng further discloses wherein the additive is added in an amount ranging from 0.05 to 10 % in the non-aqueous electrolyte ([0050] 0.1-2%). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Deng further discloses wherein the mass percent content b of the compound represented by the formula II in the positive electrode material layer is form 0.05-0.5% (0.1-2 % [0050] see modification of claim 10 as the additive can be obvious to try in the active material due to the formation of a passivation layer on the electrode layer. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Modified Deng discloses wherein the molar ratio x of Ni element (Ni+ Co+ M) in the high nickel positive electrode material is from 0.8-0.9 (Claim 5; LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 can have a ratio of 0.8:1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Modified Deng discloses wherein the thickness h of the positive electrode material layer on one side of the positive electrode current collector is from 100-140 micrometers (Sawa [0230] the thickness of the active material layer can be between 10-500 micrometers on one side of the current collector and thus renders obvious the thickness of 100-140 micrometers). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Deng further discloses wherein the high nickel positive electrode material represented by the formula I is selected from at least one of LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 as well as other materials listed (Deng [0084]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Modified Deng further discloses wherein the mass percent content of the high nickel positive electrode material represented by the formula I in the positive electrode material layer is from 90-99.2% (see modification of claim 10; the active material layer comprises material I and II wherein material II can be between 0.1-2%, [0050], and thus the material 1 can be between 98-99.9% which overlaps the claimed range). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Deng further discloses wherein the compound represented by formula II is selected from at least tripropargyl phosphate as well as other materials ([0043-0049], [0048]). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 20, modified Deng discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10. Modified Deng further discloses wherein the compound represented by the formula II is formed on a surface of the positive electrode material layer or mixed in an interior of the positive electrode material layer (Deng [0059] formed on the surface of the active material; Shi [0025] passivation film formed on the surface of the electrodes).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsukagoshi et al. (US 2016/0036057 A1)-discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery wherein the positive electrode contains a phosphate ester compound according to formula (1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728