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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/309235 filed on 4/28/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding to claim 1: the limitations of “x” and “y” are unclear as the unit associated with x and y could be volume or weight. For compact prosecutions, Examiner takes the position that both x and y are considered to be an areal density (mg/cm2) as the coating amount of the active material.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for their dependence of claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 16, 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A) The English translations of CN 104577194 A is used as reference as attached.
Regarding to claims 1, 3, 11: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2), comprising:
a positive electrode sheet (par. 12) and a negative electrode sheet (par. 13), wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive electrode active material and a supplementary lithium material, the positive electrode active material can be lithium manganese iron phosphate (par. 10) and the supplementary lithium material can be LiNixCoyMnzO2 or LiNixCoyAlzO2, wherein 0 ≤x, y, z ≤ 1, x+y+z=1 (equivalent to ternary material) (par. 10), the negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode active material, the negative electrode active material is graphite (par. 10).
Zhang et al. further disclose the amount of the supplementary lithium material in the active positive electrode is 0.5 wt.% to 15 wt.% (equivalent to A2) (par. 10). As the positive electrode comprises the lithium manganese iron phosphate and the supplementary lithium material, the amount of the lithium manganese iron phosphate in the active positive electrode is calculated to be 85 wt.% to 99.5 wt.% (equivalent to A1).
Zhang et al. further disclose the specific capacity and the initial efficiency of the positive electrode active material are 155 -162 mAh/g (equivalent to M1) and 98.5 -99.5% (equivalent to ŋ1) (par. 10) respectively. The specific capacity and the initial efficiency of the graphite are 355 - 360 mAh/g (equivalent to M3) and 93 - 94% (equivalent to ŋ3) (Example 3 in par. 28, Example 1 in par. 18) respectively.
Zhang et al. further disclose the areal density on the positive electrode is 10 – 50 mg/cm² (equivalent to x) (par. 10). The areal density of the negative electrode (equivalent to y) is calculated based on an excess of 5%–30% of the corresponding capacity of the positive electrode active material (par. 10, see below for the mathematical expression).
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
i
t
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
x
(
a
r
e
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
)
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
x
(
a
r
e
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
)
=1.05 -1.30
Following numbers are taken as an example:
the specific capacity the positive electrode active material (M1)=162 mAh/g,
the areal density on the positive electrode (x)=38 mg/cm²,
the specific capacity the negative electrode active material (M3)=360 mAh/g,
the excess of the corresponding capacity of the negative electrode material over the positive electrode active material=1.2,
The mathematical expression:
360
m
A
h
/
g
x
(
y
m
g
/
c
m
2
)
162
m
A
h
/
g
x
(
38
m
g
/
c
m
2
)
=1.2
y is calculated to be 20.52 mg/cm2. The ratio of y/x is 0.54.
Zhang et al. is silence on M2, ŋ2. However, M2, ŋ2 can be 231 mAh/g and 83.1% respectively as evidenced by Sun et al. (US 20220216507 A1) (example of NMC 811 (LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2) in par. 183).
Following numbers are taken as an example to calculate formula (1) and (2):
M1=162 mAh/g, ŋ1=98.5%, A1=85%,
M2=231 mAh/g, ŋ2=83.1%, A2=15%,
M3=360 mAh/g, ŋ3=94%,
x= 38 mg/cm², y= 20.52 mg/cm2
Formula (1) = 1.11
Formula (2) = 0.68
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 to claim 2: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2) as describe above. It is the position of the examiner that the actual full-cell specific capacity of the lithium manganese iron phosphate is inherent, given that the active materials, the mass percentage of lithium manganese iron phosphate and the supplementary lithium material, the ratio of y/x disclosed by (2) by Zhang et al. and the present application having the same materials and similar ranges. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999).
Regarding to claims 7, 17: Zhang et al. disclose the areal density on the positive electrode is 10 – 50 mg/cm² (equivalent to x) (par. 10). The areal density of the negative electrode (equivalent to y) is calculated based on an excess of 5%–30% of the corresponding capacity of the positive electrode active material (par. 10, see below for the mathematical expression).
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
i
t
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
x
(
a
r
e
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
)
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
x
(
a
r
e
a
l
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
d
e
)
=1.05 -1.30
Following numbers are taken as an example:
the specific capacity the positive electrode active material (M1)=162 mAh/g,
the areal density on the positive electrode (x)=38 mg/cm²,
the specific capacity the negative electrode active material (M3)=360 mAh/g,
the excess of the corresponding capacity of the negative electrode material over the positive electrode active material=1.2,
The mathematical expression:
360
m
A
h
/
g
x
(
y
m
g
/
c
m
2
)
162
m
A
h
/
g
x
(
38
m
g
/
c
m
2
)
=1.2
y is calculated to be 20.52 mg/cm2. The ratio of y/x is 0.54.
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 to claim 8: Zhang et al. disclose the amount of the supplementary lithium material in the active positive electrode is 0.5 wt.% to 15 wt.% (equivalent to A2) (par. 10). As the positive electrode comprises the lithium manganese iron phosphate and the supplementary lithium material, the amount of the lithium manganese iron phosphate in the active positive electrode is calculated to be 85 wt.% to 99.5 wt.% (equivalent to A1). 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 to claims 9, 10: Zhang et al. disclose the supplementary lithium material can be LiNixCoyMnzO2 or LiNixCoyAlzO2, wherein 0 ≤x, y, z ≤ 1, x+y+z=1 (equivalent to x being 0.8-0.95) (par. 10). 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).
Claims 4, 6, 14, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A) as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 103700839 A), Xu et al. (US 20090136836 A1), and Dai et al. (US 20150249261 A1). The English translation of the CN 103700839 A is attached.
Regarding to claims 4, 6, 14: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2) as described in paragraph 3 above. Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a is in the range of 500ppm-1500ppm. However, Wu et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2). The battery comprises lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (equivalent to the ternary material) as a cathode material (par. 6). The residual alkali content of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.3O2 is 1430ppm in Example 6 (par. 144). Wu et al. recognize when using LiH2PO4 solution as a treatment agent for residual alkali content in lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide materials, H+ generated from the hydrolysis of LiH2PO4 neutralizes alkaline substances, thereby removing them. When the solution pH is too low, below 5.0, the solution is too acidic and damages the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide material; when the solution pH is too high, above 6.5, the removal effect of residual alkali in the solution is not good (par. 75). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust pH level to yield more or less residual alkali content in the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose b is in the range of 2.9g/Ah-3.8g/Ah. However, Xu et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises electrolyte. The amount of the electrolyte injected can be from about 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah (par. 28). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the amount of electrolyte of Xu et al. in the lithium-ion batteries of Zhang et al. because Xu et al. teach that 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah is a workable amount of electrolyte (par. 28). 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).
Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose c is in the range of 200 ppm-400 ppm. However, Dai et al. disclose a metal-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises ionic liquid electrolyte. A water content of the ionic liquid electrolyte is no greater than 400 ppm (par. 11). Dai et al. recognize a reduced water content can be attained by electrochemical drying of water, such as by cycling the battery through one or more charge/discharge cycles, during which residual water in the electrolyte can be consumed by decomposition into H2 gas that can be released from the battery (par. 47). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust electrochemical drying condition to yield more or less water content in the electrolyte. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Following numbers are taken as an example to calculate formula (3):
M1=162 mAh/g, ŋ1=98.5%, A1=85%,
M2=231 mAh/g, ŋ2=83.1%, A2=15%,
a=1430 ppm, b= 2.9 g/Ah, c=400ppm
Formula (3) = 0.89
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 to claim 18: Zhang et al. disclose the amount of the supplementary lithium material in the active positive electrode is 0.5 wt.% to 15 wt.% (equivalent to A2) (par. 10). As the positive electrode comprises the lithium manganese iron phosphate and the supplementary lithium material, the amount of the lithium manganese iron phosphate in the active positive electrode is calculated to be 85 wt.% to 99.5 wt.% (equivalent to A1). 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 to claims 19, 20: Zhang et al. disclose the supplementary lithium material can be LiNixCoyMnzO2 or LiNixCoyAlzO2, wherein 0 ≤x, y, z ≤ 1, x+y+z=1 (equivalent to x being 0.8-0.95) (par. 10). 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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A) in view of Perera et al. (US 20210305560 A1).
Regarding to claim 5: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2) as describe in paragraph 3 above. Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose the Mn dissolution of the lithium ion battery after 2000 charge-discharge cycles at 45°C is less than 700 ppm. However, Perera et al. disclose methods for inhibition of transition metal dissolution (abstract). Perera et al. disclose electrolyte additives, such as butylamine, N,N-dicyclohexylcarbmiimide, amino and trimethylsilane can suppress or prevent the Mn dissolution by scavenging water and HF impurities in the electrolyte (par. 41). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can add electrolyte additives to suppress or prevent the Mn dissolution. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claims 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A) as applied in claim 2 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 103700839 A), Xu et al. (US 20090136836 A1), and Dai et al. (US 20150249261 A1). The English translation of the CN 103700839 A is attached.
Regarding to claims 12, 15: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2) as described in paragraph 3 above. Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a is in the range of 500ppm-1500ppm. However, Wu et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2). The battery comprises lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (equivalent to the ternary material) as a cathode material (par. 6). The residual alkali content of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.3O2 is 1430ppm in Example 6 (par. 144). Wu et al. recognize when using LiH2PO4 solution as a treatment agent for residual alkali content in lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide materials, H+ generated from the hydrolysis of LiH2PO4 neutralizes alkaline substances, thereby removing them. When the solution pH is too low, below 5.0, the solution is too acidic and damages the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide material; when the solution pH is too high, above 6.5, the removal effect of residual alkali in the solution is not good (par. 75). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust pH level to yield more or less residual alkali content in the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose b is in the range of 2.9g/Ah-3.8g/Ah. However, Xu et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises electrolyte. The amount of the electrolyte injected can be from about 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah (par. 28). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the amount of electrolyte of Xu et al. in the lithium-ion batteries of Zhang et al. because Xu et al. teach that 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah is a workable amount of electrolyte (par. 28). 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).
Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose c is in the range of 200 ppm-400 ppm. However, Dai et al. disclose a metal-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises ionic liquid electrolyte. A water content of the ionic liquid electrolyte is no greater than 400 ppm (par. 11). Dai et al. recognize a reduced water content can be attained by electrochemical drying of water, such as by cycling the battery through one or more charge/discharge cycles, during which residual water in the electrolyte can be consumed by decomposition into H2 gas that can be released from the battery (par. 47). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust electrochemical drying condition to yield more or less water content in the electrolyte. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Following numbers are taken as an example to calculate formula (3):
M1=162 mAh/g, ŋ1=98.5%, A1=85%,
M2=231 mAh/g, ŋ2=83.1%, A2=15%,
a=1430 ppm, b= 2.9 g/Ah, c=400ppm
Formula (3) = 0.89
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).
Claims 13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 104577194 A) as applied in claim 3 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 103700839 A), Xu et al. (US 20090136836 A1), and Dai et al. (US 20150249261 A1). The English translation of the CN 103700839 A is attached.
Regarding to claims 13, 16: Zhang et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2) as described in paragraph 3 above. Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose a is in the range of 500ppm-1500ppm. However, Wu et al. disclose lithium-ion batteries (par. 2). The battery comprises lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (equivalent to the ternary material) as a cathode material (par. 6). The residual alkali content of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.3O2 is 1430ppm in Example 6 (par. 144). Wu et al. recognize when using LiH2PO4 solution as a treatment agent for residual alkali content in lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide materials, H+ generated from the hydrolysis of LiH2PO4 neutralizes alkaline substances, thereby removing them. When the solution pH is too low, below 5.0, the solution is too acidic and damages the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide material; when the solution pH is too high, above 6.5, the removal effect of residual alkali in the solution is not good (par. 75). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust pH level to yield more or less residual alkali content in the lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose b is in the range of 2.9g/Ah-3.8g/Ah. However, Xu et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises electrolyte. The amount of the electrolyte injected can be from about 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah (par. 28). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the amount of electrolyte of Xu et al. in the lithium-ion batteries of Zhang et al. because Xu et al. teach that 1.5 to 4.9 g/Ah is a workable amount of electrolyte (par. 28). 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).
Zhang et al. fail to explicitly disclose c is in the range of 200 ppm-400 ppm. However, Dai et al. disclose a metal-ion battery (abstract). The battery comprises ionic liquid electrolyte. A water content of the ionic liquid electrolyte is no greater than 400 ppm (par. 11). Dai et al. recognize a reduced water content can be attained by electrochemical drying of water, such as by cycling the battery through one or more charge/discharge cycles, during which residual water in the electrolyte can be consumed by decomposition into H2 gas that can be released from the battery (par. 47). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can adjust electrochemical drying condition to yield more or less water content in the electrolyte. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Following numbers are taken as an example to calculate formula (3):
M1=162 mAh/g, ŋ1=98.5%, A1=85%,
M2=231 mAh/g, ŋ2=83.1%, A2=15%,
a=1430 ppm, b= 2.9 g/Ah, c=400ppm
Formula (3) = 0.89
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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/
Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717