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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 4/20/26. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive.
This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/13/26 has 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.
Claims 1-13, 15 and 17-19 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 a group of compounds for the one or more olivine-structured lithium-containing phosphate. However, the group is not closed by “and”. Examiner suggests “lithium manganese ion phosphate, and a composite material of lithium manganese iron phosphate and carbon”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the electrolyte comprises an electrolyte” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests “the electrolyte comprises an electrolyte salt and an organic solvent, the electrolyte salt comprises a lithium salt”. The last line of claim 1 recites “mass of electrolyte”, which is indefinite as “electrolyte” currently lacks proper antecedent basis.
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 are 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 8 recites the limitation " negative electrode" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites “a negative electrode plate” at line 2.
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 negative electrode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes claim 10 depends from claim 1 that does not require a negative electrode plate. See rejection of claim 8 regarding the limitation “relative mass of 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 additive". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites "a proportion of the first solvent is greater than or equal to 10%", which is indefinite. The claim does not define what the proportion of the first solvent is based upon.
Claim 15 recites “a mass percentage of the third solvent in the total mass of the organic solvent is greater than or equal to 0%”, which is indefinite. Claim 1 positively recites the third solvent is present in the organic solvent. Thus, examiner suggests “greater than 0%”.
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, 9-13, 15 and 17-19 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 (Formula 2), chain carbonate (Formula 3) and carboxylic ester (Formula 1). 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 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). Preferably, the organic solvent may comprise one or more selected from a group consisting of cyclic carbonate (Formula 2), chain carbonate (Formula 3) and carboxylic ester (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].
Regarding claim 7, the claim 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, a porosity of the positive film is 20-45% [0042].
Regarding claim 15, 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 claim 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.
Wang teaches a specific example of an organic solvent of ethylene carbonate (Formula 2 wherein R21 is H), ethyl methyl carbonate (Formula 3 wherein R31 is methyl and R32 is ethyl) and diethyl carbonate (Formula 3 wherein R31 and R32 are both ethyl) in a volume ratio of 1:1:1 [0069]. Wang teaches and suggest the organic solvent may comprise one or more carboxylic esters. The disclosed carboxylic esters read upon Formula 1 of claim 1. Regarding claim 13, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states claim 1 is amended to include claims 14 and 15. However, claim 1 has been amended to include claims 14 and 16.
35 USC 112
Applicant argues claim 1 is definite because the present specification expressly defines both “mass of the electrolyte” and “rated capacity of the secondary battery” in objective and industry-standard terms. Examiner disagrees the definitions in the specification overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection of at least claim 1. 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 are 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.
Furthermore, Application does not provide any explanation or support for how the “ample examples, testing results and technical explanations on controlling the ratio of mass of first solvent/rated capacity of secondary battery ratio and the ratio of mass of electrolyte/rated capacity of secondary battery” assertedly overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 1.
35 USC 103
Applicant argues “Wang does not teach or suggest a solvent system that necessarily includes all three of the specifically recited solvent types in combination, nor does Wang disclose the structural limitations in claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Wang teaches, preferably, the organic solvent may comprise one or more selected from a group consisting of cyclic carbonate (Formula 2), chain carbonate (Formula 3) and carboxylic ester (Formula 1). Thus, Wang at least suggests, by “one or more”, that the organic solvent may comprise a cyclic carbonate, a chain carbonate and a carboxylic ester. In addition, Wang teaches a specific example of an organic solvent of ethylene carbonate (Formula 2 wherein R21 is H), ethyl methyl carbonate (Formula 3 wherein R31 is methyl and R32 is ethyl) and diethyl carbonate (Formula 3 wherein R31 and R32 are both ethyl) in a volume ratio of 1:1:1 [0069]. Wang teaches and suggest the organic solvent may comprise one or more carboxylic esters. The disclosed carboxylic esters read upon Formula 1 of claim 1. Regarding claim 13, 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 represents Compound 1-8.
Examiner notes the ratios in the last two lines of claim 1 have been rejected as indefinite. The claims have been rejected to the extent they are understood in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections above.
Applicant argues the present invention requires a coordinated design in which solvent composition and electrolyte quantity are tuned relative to electrode structure to achieve improved kinetic performance and controlled irreversible ion consumption. This argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention as no specific solvent composition, electrolyte quantity or electrode structure is specifically recited by at least claim 1.
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 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
Prosecution Insights