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 statements (IDS) submitted on 5/15/23, 3/18/24, 5/6/24, 4/9/25 and 10/16/25 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims1-19 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 1 recites “and its modified compound” in line 6, which is indefinite. It is unclear what “its modified compound” encompasses as the claim does not recite how the compound is modified.
Claim 1 recites “mass of first solvent/rated capacity of secondary battery is ≥ 0.7 g/Ah” and “mass of electrolyte/rated capacity of secondary battery is ≤ 3.5 g/Ah”, which is indefinite. The relationship recited by claim 1 is based on the total mass of the electrolyte, the mass of the first solvent of the electrolyte and the rated capacity of the secondary battery. The electrolyte comprises an organic solvent wherein the organic solvent comprises a first solvent represented by Formula 1. Battery electrolytes contain a solvent and an electrolyte salt. The claimed relationship outlines a broad protection range. A person skilled in the art would have known rated capacity of a battery is influenced by several key elements, including the battery’s chemistry, design, and the specific conditions under which it is tested. To those skilled in the art, apart from the specific parameter ranges presented in the Examples and/or Comparative Examples of the present specification, it is not clear how to precisely adjust key elements such as electrolyte (solvent and salt amounts), positive active material (lithium containing phosphate compound and amount of compound), negative active material (compound and amount of compound), etc.) of the battery resulting in the rated capacity of the secondary battery (mass of solvent/rated capacity or mass of electrolyte/rated capacity) of at least claim 1. It is unclear what secondary batteries would be encompassed by the claims as the rated capacity limitation is not clearly defined.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inorganic additive" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the negative electrode" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the electrolyte retention coefficient refers to a quotient calculated by dividing the mass of the electrolyte by the rated capacity of the secondary battery”, which is indefinite. As discussed above regarding claim 1, it is unclear what secondary batteries would be encompassed by the claims as the rated capacity limitation is not clearly defined. In addition, it is unclear what “proportion of additive” encompasses and wherein the battery the additive is contained. Furthermore, “relative mass of negative electrode” is indefinite as it is unclear if the “negative electrode” is referring to the “negative electrode plate” or “the negative electrode active material” of claim 8. Additionally, “a proportion of the first solvent” is not clearly defined by claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the relative mass of the negative electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. See also rejection of claim 8 regarding the limitation “relative mass of the negative electrode” of claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the specific surface area of the negative electrode active material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the proportion of the additive". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the proportion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites a compound 1-1 having the structure shown by the claim. Compound 1-1 improperly broadens the subject matter of claim 1. In claim 1, Formula 1, R11 is selected from a C1-C4 alkyl or C1-C4 haloalkyl (cannot be H as shown in compound 1-1).
To the extent the claims are understood in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections above, note the following prior art rejections.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., US 2020/0014061 A1.
Wang teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery, which comprises a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a separator and an electrolyte [abstract]. The positive electrode plate comprises a positive current collector and a positive film, the positive film is provided on at least one surface of the positive current collector and comprises a positive active material, a conductive agent and a binder. More preferably, the positive active material may be LiFe1-yMnyPO4 (0≤y≤1) or a doping and/or coating modified compound thereof [0032-0033]. The electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and an organic solvent. The specific types and the specific components of the lithium salt and the organic solvent are not specifically limited and may be selected based on actual demands.
Preferably, the organic solvent may comprise one or more selected from a group consisting of cyclic carbonate, chain carbonate and carboxylic ester. The cyclic carbonate may be one or more selected from a group consisting of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, butylene carbonate and γ-butyrolactone; the chain carbonate may be one or more selected from a group consisting of dimethly carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate and ethyl propyl carbonate; the carboxylic ester may be one or more selected from a group consisting of methyl formate, ethyl formate, methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, propyl propionate, ethyl butyrate, ethyl propionate and propyl butyrate. The electrolyte may further comprise functional additives, such as vinylene carbonate, ethylene sulfate, propane sultone, fluoroethylene carbonate and the like [0059-0060].
The disclosed carboxylic esters read upon Formula 1 of claim 1. Regarding claim 13, methyl formate has the structure of Compound 1-1, methyl acetate has the structure of Compound 1-2, ethyl acetate has the structure of Compound 1-3, propyl propionate has the structure of Compound 1-6 and ethyl butyrate has the structure of Compound 1-8, for example.
Wang teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery satisfies m/Cap is 2 g/Ah-6 g/Ah. Preferably, m/Cap is 2 g/Ah-3.0 g/Ah [0012] wherein m represents a total mass of the electrolyte with a unit of g and Cap represents a rated capacity of the battery with a unit of Ah [0020].
Wang does not explicitly teach “mass of first solvent/rated capacity of secondary battery is ≥ 0.7 g/Ah”. However, Wang teaches the organic solvent may include a first solvent represented by Formula 1. The organic solvent may comprise one or more selected from a group consisting of cyclic carbonate, chain carbonate and carboxylic ester (disclosed examples are represented by Formula 1). Wang teaches the lithium-ion secondary battery preferably satisfies m/Cap is 2 g/Ah-3.0 g/Ah wherein m represents a total mass of the electrolyte with a unit of g and Cap represents a rated capacity of the battery with a unit of Ah. One of skill in the art would have found the present invention obvious at the time of filing as Wang teaches the organic solvent comprises a carboxylic ester having Formula 1 as the organic solvent wherein m/Cap is 2 g/Ah-3.0 g/Ah (range is encompassed by ≥ 0.7 g/Ah).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the lithium salt (inorganic additive) may be one or more selected from a group consisting of lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium tetrafluoro(oxalato)phosphate, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(oxalato)borate and lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate [0059].
Examiner notes claim 7 has been rejected under 35 USC 112. Furthermore, claim 7 recites the inorganic additive in a total mass of the additive is less than or equal to 50%, which includes the value zero. Wang teaches the additive may be vinylene carbonate (100% of an organic additive in a total mass of the additive). Regarding claim 9, the porosity of the positive film is 20-45% [0042].
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches the cyclic carbonate (Formula 2) may be one or more selected from a group consisting of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, butylene carbonate and γ-butyrolactone; the chain carbonate (Formula 3) may be one or more selected from a group consisting of dimethly carbonate, diethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate and ethyl propyl carbonate. The solvent of Wang does not require the chain carbonate (greater than or equal to 0% of the third solvent). The battery may be used in an portable electronic product and automotives [0003].
Regarding claim 2, the electrolyte of Wang includes the first solvent in a proportion of the total organic solvent, the positive electrode film inherently has a thickness (greater than zero) and the porosity of the positive electrode is 20-45%. In the relationship of claim 2, 0.008/ porosity of the positive electrode film layer ranges from 0.0002-0.0004. One of skill would reasonably conclude based on the teachings of Wang that proportion of the first solvent/thickness of positive electrode film layer would have been greater than 1. Thus, the relationship of claim 2 being ≥ 1 would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Wang.
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses the negative electrode plate comprises a negative current collector and a negative film, the negative film is provided on at least one surface of the negative current collector and comprises a negative active material, the negative active material at least comprises graphite [0009]. A coating weight per unit area on one surface represented by CW is 0.006 g/cm2-0.012 g/cm2 [0014]. An average particle diameter of the negative active material represented by D50 is 4 μm-15 μm [0017]. When the particle diameter of the negative active material falls within the above preferred range, the negative film can have better homogeneity, thereby avoiding the negative active material with too small particle diameter from affecting the performances of the battery by generating more side reactions with the electrolyte, and also avoiding the negative active material with too large particle diameter from affecting the performances of the battery by hindering the transmission of the lithium ions inside the negative active material [0053]. See also [0066] and Table 1 of Wang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725