DETAILED ACTION
Claim Analysis
The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 1) and twelve active dependent claims (claims 2 - 13).
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Regarding the limitation(s) “LIFSI” in claim 1, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, a skilled artisan would appreciate that his abbreviation means LiN(SO2F)2.
Regarding the limitation in claim 10, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, a skilled artisan would appreciate that the abbreviations mean Lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA) and lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxides with specific molar fractions (NCMxyz), as set forth in, for example, Paragraph 0045 of Sum et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2026/0005252 A1), reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
924
1062
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0020972 A1)1 in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2022/0123366 A1) and Matsuoka et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2019/0393556 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shi et al. discloses a lithium-ion battery (Title; Abstract; examples), comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte (ibid and Paragraph 0015), the negative electrode material layer comprises a negative electrode active material (ibid – artificial graphite in examples), the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a solvent (Paragraphs 0041 – 0044 and 0047), an electrolyte salt (Paragraph 0046), vinylene carbonate (a solvent), fluoro ethylene carbonate (a solvent) and an unsaturated phosphate shown in formula 1 (compound A – Abstract and entire disclosure), and the electrolyte salt comprises LiPF₆ and LiFSI (Paragraph 0046)
Shi et al. fails to disclose using mixtures of solvents (essentially four solvents if we consider claim 8), though does disclose _all_ the solvents listed in claims 1 and 8 (Paragraphs 0041 – 0044 and 0047).
However, mixtures of solvents (including mixtures of solvent meeting the limitations of claim 8) are known to a skilled artisan as taught by Shi et al. (Paragraph 0041 clearly teaches ‘more than one’ is known) and Jiang et al. (Abstract and entire disclosure, especially examples) and Matsuoka et al. (at least Paragraphs 0106 – 0113). Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, using a mixture of four solvents meeting the claimed limitations (of claims 1 and 8) are functional equivalents in the field of known solvents and solvent mixtures used in lithium ion secondary batteries. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Shi et al. fails to disclose wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode material layer with a compaction density of ≥1.4g/cm³.
However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the compaction density through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Jiang et al. regarding the desire to achieve those compaction density ranges in order to improve the battery characteristics (at least Paragraph 0063). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Shi et al. fails to disclose using both of the claimed salts.
However, mixtures of salts (including mixtures of salts meeting the claimed limitations) are known to a skilled artisan as taught by Shi et al. (Paragraph 0046 clearly teaches ‘more than one’ is known) and Matsuoka et al. (at least Paragraphs 0152 – 0160). Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, using a mixture of salts meeting the claimed limitations are functional equivalents in the field of known salts and salt mixtures used in lithium ion secondary batteries. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Shi et al. fails to disclose wherein a specific surface area of the negative electrode active material is A m²/g, including a situation where A falls within the range of claim 7, and based on a total mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte being 100%, a mass percentage of fluoro ethylene carbonate is B%, a mass percentage of the unsaturated phosphate shown in formula 1 is C%, a mass percentage of LiFSI is D%, wherein X=A/B, Y=B/C and Z=C/D, and X, Y and Z meet the following criteria: 0.1<X<1, 10<Y<150 and 0.01<Z<1.
However, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the specific surface area of the negative electrode active material given that Jiang et al. teaches ranges of 1.0 – 1.5 m2/g for a similar artificial graphite active material (at least Paragraphs 0057 – 0058) and, as such, optimization of concentrations of the various components to achieve X, Y and Z values meeting the claimed ranges through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Shi et al. regarding the different amounts of fluorinated solvent (Paragraph 0043), unsaturated phosphate additive (Paragraph 0014) and salts (Paragraph 0046), as well as in view of the various teachings in Jiang et al. and Matsuoka et al. regarding the different solvent and salt mixtures noted above. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Shi et al. to meet the claimed limitations as taught by Shi et al., Matsuoka et al., and Jiang et al. as discussed above, as these are all routine optimizations or selections from known functional equivalents, all within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art absent any showing of unexpected results or non-obvious behavior of the combinations.
Regarding claim 2, these limitations are obvious for the same reasons as set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, coating on both sides of a current conductor is old in the art, as taught by at least Jiang et al. (Paragraph 0067). Furthermore, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the coating weight through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that the more active material that is coated, the better battery performance that might be achieved (as less ‘dead’ material in the battery). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, optimization of the various amounts of each solvent is within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art and is deemed obvious for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, additional salts and the total salt content is obvious for the same reasons as set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, these are all conventional active materials for a negative electrode and this claim is met for the reasons previously set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, the specific surface area is met for the reasons set forth above. Likewise, the Examiner notes that the use of silicon based materials with other (higher) specific surface areas is rendered obvious by the pertinent prior art cited herewith, though not necessary to meet the present claim limitations as Shi et al. discloses artificial graphite, as does Jiang et al. (see discussion above).
Regarding claim 8, these limitations are met for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Shi et al. disclose additives meeting the claimed limitations (Paragraphs 0041 – 0042).
Regarding claim 10, Shi et al. disclose encompassing positive active materials rendering obvious the claimed limitations as a matter of routine selection from known functionally equivalent materials (at least Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, these limitations are met for the same ‘obvious to optimize’ reasons as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while no claims have been indicated as allowable, the Examiner notes that Applicants have potential data that might be supportive of a position of unexpected results/non-obviousness.
However, applicant(s) are reminded that a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting a position of unexpected results must be provided by applicant(s). A mere pointing to data requiring the examiner to ferret out evidence of unexpected results is not sufficient to prove that the results would be truly unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re D’Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (1971) and In re Merck & Co, 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In addition, it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the Examiner’s position that the arguments provided by applicant(s) regarding the alleged unexpected results should be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”.
Finally, the Examiner notes that for any claims to be found allowable based on unexpected results, the claims must be reasonably commensurate with the showing of unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
January 10, 2026
1 The Examiner notes that several commonly assigned references disclose the use of an unsaturated phosphate additive to various layers in the secondary battery. The Examiner has picked this particular reference as illustrative of these various references, several additional ones of which have been cited as pertinent prior art.