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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ren et al (US 2019/0237753 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ren discloses a negative electrode active material (anode active material; paragraph [0016]) comprising a silicon-carbon composite (SiO/graphite composite particles; paragraph [0016]), wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises a silicon oxide and graphite (SiO particles and graphite particles mixed together to form SiO/graphite composite particles; paragraph [0016]), a general formula of the silicon oxide is SiOX where 0.5≤x≤1.6 (SiO particles where x is 1; paragraph [0016]); and 2≤b/a<6, wherein a is an average particle size of the silicon oxide, b is an average particle size of the graphite (graphite particles with an average particle diameter of 5 µm and SiO particles with an average particle diameter of 1 µm resulting in b/a being 5; paragraph [0050]).
Claims 1-2, 10, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiraoka et al (JP 2015-046221 A).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation of Hiraoka et al (JP 2015-046221 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hiraoka discloses a negative electrode active material comprising a silicon-carbon composite (composite of SiO particles and graphite particles; pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation), wherein the silicon-carbon composite comprises a silicon oxide (SiO particles; pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation) and graphite (graphite particles; pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation), a general formula of SiOx where 0.5 < x < 1.5 (pg. 5 of Hiraoka translation), and 2≤b/a<6, wherein a is an average particle size of the silicon oxide, b is an average particle size of the graphite (graphite particles having an average particle diameter of 25 µm and SiO particles having an average particle diameter of 6 µm resulting in b/a being 4.25; pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation).
Regarding claim 2, Hiraoka discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Hiraoka discloses the negative electrode active material comprising an average particle size of silicon oxide being 6 µm (SiO particles having an average particle diameter of 6 µm; pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation) and an average particle size of graphite being 25 µm (graphite particles having an average particle diameter of 25 µm; pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation).
Regarding claim 10, Hiraoka discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Hiraoka discloses the negative electrode active material comprising a mass fraction of silicon oxide in the negative electrode active material being 20% (10 parts by mass of SiO particles/50 total parts by mass of SiO particles and graphite particles; pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation) and a mass fraction of graphite in the negative electrode active material being 80% (40 parts by mass of graphite particles/50 total parts by mass of SiO particles and graphite particles; pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation).
Regarding claim 12, Hiraoka discloses an electrochemical apparatus (nonaqueous secondary battery; pg. 1 of Hiraoka translation) comprising a negative electrode (pg. 11 of Hiraoka translation), an electrolyte (pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation), a separator (pg. 11 of Hiraoka translation) and a positive electrode (pg. 11 of translation) and wherein the negative electrode active material of claim 1 is disclosed by Hiraoka as noted above.
Regarding claim 16, Hiraoka discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 12 as noted above and Hiraoka discloses the electrochemical apparatus comprising an average particle size of silicon oxide being 6 µm (SiO particles having an average particle diameter of 6 µm; pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation) and an average particle size of graphite being 25 µm (graphite particles having an average particle diameter of 25 µm; pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation).
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.
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.
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 3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al (US 2019/0237753 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ren discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Ren discloses the negative electrode active material comprising an average particle size of the graphite and an average particle size of the silicon oxide (graphite particles with an average particle diameter of 5 µm and SiO particles with an average particle diameter of 1 µm; paragraph [0050]) and a Dv50 of the negative electrode active material (particle size of the final composite particles in the range of 10 to 50 µm; paragraph [0017]).
A+b as disclosed in Ren is 6 µm and 5b is 25 µm. c would need to be from 6 and to 25 µm in order to be satisfied.
The particle size of the final composite particles overlaps the claimed range of from 6 and to 25 µm for the Dv50 of the negative electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide a structure of the SiO/graphite particles with fast charging efficiency (paragraph [0052] of Ren). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Ren discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Ren discloses the negative electrode active material further comprising a protective layer provided on a surface of the silicon-carbon composite (carbon coating layer on the surface of the SiO/graphite composite particle; paragraph [0023]); and the protective layer comprises amorphous carbon (binder and surfactant in carbon coating layer becoming amorphous carbon; paragraph [0042]); wherein the protective layer comprises a first protective material (binder and surfactant in carbon coating layer becoming amorphous carbon; paragraph [0042]) and a second protective material (carbon nanotubes; paragraph [0024]) and wherein a thickness of the first protective material is 20 nm to 200 nm (carbon coating layer; paragraph [0017])
Ren does not disclose the negative electrode active material comprising a thickness of the second protective material ranging from 20 nm to 500 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the carbon nanotubes to be from 20 nm to 500 nm because doing so provides enhanced electrical conductivity of the anode active material increasing fast charging capability of the battery (paragraph [0024] of Ren).
Regarding claim 6, Ren discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 5 as noted above and Ren discloses the negative electrode active material comprising the first protective material being amorphous carbon (binder and surfactant in carbon coating layer becoming amorphous carbon; paragraph [0042]) and the second protective material being carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotubes; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Ren discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 6 as noted above and Ren discloses the negative electrode active material comprising the second protective material being carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotubes; paragraph [0024]).
Ren does not disclose the negative electrode active material comprising a tube length of each carbon nanotube being from 1 µm to 15 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the tube length of each carbon nanotube to be from 1 µm to 15 µm because doing so provides enhanced electrical conductivity of the anode active material increasing fast charging capability of the battery (paragraph [0024] of Ren).
Regarding claim 8, Ren discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 5 as noted above.
Ren discloses the negative electrode active material comprising the mass fraction of the protective layer being 1 to 10% (mass percentage of carbon coating layer; paragraph [0019]). The mass percentage of the carbon coating layer overlaps the claimed range for the mass fraction of the protective layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to protect SiO well (paragraph [0023] of Ren). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Ren discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Ren discloses the negative electrode active material comprising the specific surface area of the negative electrode active material (SiO/graphite composite particles; paragraph [0043]) being from 1.0 m2g to 3.0 m2/g (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 10, Ren discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Ren discloses the negative electrode active material comprising a mass fraction of silicon oxide being 1 to 10% (mass percentage of silicon oxide particles; paragraph [0019]) and the mass fraction of graphite being 80 to 98% (mass percentage of graphite particles; paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have fast charging efficiency (paragraph [0052] of Ren). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Ren discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 10 as noted above and Ren discloses the negative electrode active material comprising the specific surface area of the negative electrode active material (SiO/graphite composite particles; paragraph [0043]) being from 1.0 m2g to 3.0 m2/g (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 12, Hiraoka discloses an electrochemical apparatus (nonaqueous secondary battery; pg. 1 of Hiraoka translation) comprising a negative electrode (pg. 11 of Hiraoka translation), an electrolyte (pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation), a separator (pg. 11 of Hiraoka translation) and a positive electrode (pg. 11 of translation).
Claims 2, 4, 12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al (US 2019/0237753 A1) in view of Hiraoka et al (JP 2015-046221 A).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation of Hiraoka et al (JP 2015-046221 A).
Regarding claim 2, Ren discloses the negative electrode active material of claim 1 as noted above and Ren discloses the negative electrode active material comprising an average particle size of the graphite being 5 µm (graphite particles with an average particle diameter of 5 µm; paragraph [0050]).
Ren does not disclose the negative electrode active material comprising the average particle size of the silicon oxide being between 2 µm and 6 µm.
However, Hiraoka discloses a negative electrode active material comprising average particle size of the silicon oxide being between 2 µm and 10 µm (average particle diameter of silicon oxide; pg. 6 of Hiraoka translation).
The average particle diameter of silicon oxide overlaps the claimed range for the claimed average particle size of the silicon oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to suppress the pulverization, control the double layer capacity, easy to secure initial charge/discharge efficiency and good charge/discharge cycle characteristics (pg. 6 of Hiraoka translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative electrode active material of Ren include the average particle diameter of Hiraoka for the silicon oxide of Ren because doing so will suppress the pulverization, control the double layer capacity, easy to secure initial charge/discharge efficiency and good charge/discharge cycle characteristics (pg. 6 of Hiraoka translation).
Regarding claim 4, Ren and Hiraoka disclose the negative electrode active material of claim 2 as noted above and Ren discloses the negative electrode active material comprising an average particle size of the graphite and an average particle size of the silicon oxide (graphite particles with an average particle diameter of 5 µm and SiO particles with an average particle diameter of 1 µm; paragraph [0050]) and a Dv50 of the negative electrode active material (particle size of the final composite particles in the range of 10 to 50 µm; paragraph [0017]).
a+b as disclosed in Ren is 6 µm and 5b is 25 µm. c would need to be from 6 and to 25 µm in order to be satisfied.
The particle size of the final composite particles overlaps the claimed range of from 6 and to 25 µm for the Dv50 of the negative electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide a structure of the SiO/graphite particles with fast charging efficiency (paragraph [0052] of Ren). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, Ren discloses an electrochemical apparatus (lithium ion battery; paragraphs [0001] and [0045]) comprising a negative electrode (anode comprising anode active material, binder and conductive agent; paragraph [0045]) and wherein the negative electrode active material of claim 1 is disclosed by Ren as noted above.
Ren does not disclose the electrochemical apparatus comprising an electrolyte, a separator and a positive electrode.
However, Hiraoka discloses an electrochemical apparatus (nonaqueous secondary battery; pg. 1 of Hiraoka translation) comprising a negative electrode (pg. 11 of Hiraoka translation), an electrolyte (pg. 10 of Hiraoka translation), a separator (pg. 11 of Hiraoka translation) and a positive electrode (pg. 11 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the negative electrode of Ren to include the electrolyte, the separator and the positive electrode of Hiraoka to form a nonaqueous secondary battery because doing so provides a nonaqueous secondary battery with high charge/discharge efficiency and high capacity (pg. 11 of Hiraoka translation).
Regarding claim 16, Ren and Hiraoka disclose the electrochemical apparatus of claim 12 as noted above and Ren discloses the electrochemical apparatus comprising the negative electrode active material comprising an average particle size of the graphite being 5 µm (graphite particles with an average particle diameter of 5 µm; paragraph [0050]).
Ren does not disclose the electrochemical apparatus comprising the average particle size of the silicon oxide being between 2 µm and 6 µm.
However, Hiraoka discloses a negative electrode active material comprising average particle size of the silicon oxide being between 2 µm and 10 µm (average particle diameter of silicon oxide; pg. 6 of Hiraoka translation).
The average particle diameter of silicon oxide overlaps the claimed range for the claimed average particle size of the silicon oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to suppress the pulverization, control the double layer capacity, easy to secure initial charge/discharge efficiency and good charge/discharge cycle characteristics (pg. 6 of Hiraoka translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 17, Ren and Hiraoka disclose the electrochemical apparatus of claim 12 as noted above and Ren discloses the electrochemical apparatus comprising the negative electrode active material comprising an average particle size of the graphite and an average particle size of the silicon oxide (graphite particles with an average particle diameter of 5 µm and SiO particles with an average particle diameter of 1 µm; paragraph [0050]) and a Dv50 of the negative electrode active material (particle size of the final composite particles in the range of 10 to 50 µm; paragraph [0017]).
a+b as disclosed in Ren is 6 µm and 5b is 25 µm. c would need to be from 6 and to 25 µm in order to be satisfied.
The particle size of the final composite particles overlaps the claimed range of from 6 and to 25 µm for the Dv50 of the negative electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide a structure of the SiO/graphite particles with fast charging efficiency (paragraph [0052] of Ren). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Ren and Hiraoka disclose the electrochemical apparatus of claim 12 as noted above and Ren discloses the electrochemical apparatus comprising the negative electrode active material further comprising a protective layer provided on a surface of the silicon-carbon composite (carbon coating layer on the surface of the SiO/graphite composite particle; paragraph [0023]); and the protective layer comprises amorphous carbon (binder and surfactant in carbon coating layer becoming amorphous carbon; paragraph [0042]); wherein the protective layer comprises a first protective material (binder and surfactant in carbon coating layer becoming amorphous carbon; paragraph [0042]) and a second protective material (carbon nanotubes; paragraph [0024]) and wherein a thickness of the first protective material is 20 nm to 200 nm (carbon coating layer; paragraph [0017])
Ren does not disclose the electrochemical apparatus comprising a thickness of the second protective material ranging from 20 nm to 500 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the carbon nanotubes to be from 20 nm to 500 nm because doing so provides enhanced electrical conductivity of the anode active material increasing fast charging capability of the battery (paragraph [0024] of Ren).
Regarding claim 19, Ren and Hiraoka disclose the electrochemical apparatus of claim 18 as noted above and Ren discloses the electrochemical apparatus comprising the first protective material being amorphous carbon (binder and surfactant in carbon coating layer becoming amorphous carbon; paragraph [0042]) and the second protective material being carbon nanotubes (carbon nanotubes; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 20, Ren and Hiraoka disclose the electrochemical apparatus of claim 12 as noted above and Ren discloses the electrochemical apparatus comprising the specific surface area of the negative electrode active material (SiO/graphite composite particles; paragraph [0043]) being from 1.0 m2g to 3.0 m2/g (paragraph [0043]).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al (US 2019/0237753 A1) in view of Hiraoka et al (JP 2015-046221 A) in further view of the article titled Lithium Bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide-Lithium Hexafluorophosphate Binary Salt Electrolytes for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Aluminum Corrosion Behaviors and Electrochemical Properties by Lan et al.
A machine translation is being used as the English translation of Hiraoka et al (JP 2015-046221 A).
Regarding claim 13, Ren and Hiraoka disclose the electrochemical apparatus of claim 12 as noted above.
Ren does not disclose the electrochemical apparatus comprising the electrolyte further comprising a lithium salt.
However, Hiraoka discloses the electrochemical apparatus comprising the electrolyte comprising a lithium salt (pg. 9 of Hiraoka translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical apparatus of Ren to include the lithium salt of Hiraoka in the electrochemical apparatus of Ren because doing so provides enhanced effect of improving cycle characteristics and obtaining a high capacity (pg. 9 of Hiraoka translation).
Ren and Hiraoka do not disclose the electrochemical apparatus comprising the electrolyte further comprising a lithium salt and wherein the lithium salt comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and lithium hexafluorophosphate.
However, Lan discloses a binary-salt electrolyte (pg. 1954) comprising LiFSI-LiPF6 with varying molar ratios from 0 to 1.2 mol/L LiFSI and 1.2 to 0 mol/L LiPF6 (pg. 1955)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical apparatus of Ren and Hiraoka to include the binary salt electrolyte of LiFSI-LiPF6 of Lan in the electrolyte of Hiraoka because the required binary salt electrolyte of LiFSI-LiPF6 provides enhanced longevity and storage properties of Li-ion batteries (pg. 1954 of Lan).
Regarding claim 14, Ren, Hiraoka and Lan disclose the electrochemical apparatus of claim 13 as noted above.
Ren does not disclose the electrochemical apparatus comprising a concentration of the lithium salt ranging from 1 mol/L to 2 mol/L .
However, Hiraoka discloses the electrochemical apparatus comprising a concentration of the lithium salt ranging from 0.5 mol/L to 2 mol/L (pg. 9 of Hiraoka translation).
The concentration of the lithium salt overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide an enhanced effect of improving cycle characteristics and obtaining a high capacity (pg. 9 of Hiraoka translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Ren, Hiraoka and Lan disclose the electrochemical apparatus of claim 13 as noted above.
Ren and Hiraoka do not disclose the electrochemical apparatus comprising the electrolyte further comprising a mass ratio of the lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to lithium hexafluorophosphate ranges from 0.06 to 5.
However, Lan discloses a binary-salt electrolyte (pg. 1954) comprising LiFSI-LiPF6 with varying molar ratios from 0 to 1.2 mol/L LiFSI and 1.2 to 0 mol/L LiPF6 (pg. 1955).
The varying molar ratio from 0 to 1.2 mol/L LiFSI and 1.2 to 0 mol/L LiPF6 overlaps the claimed range for the mass ratio of the lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to lithium hexafluorophosphate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide enhanced longevity and storage properties of Li-ion batteries (pg. 1954 of Lan). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraoka et al (JP 2015-046221 A) in view of the article titled Lithium Bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide-Lithium Hexafluorophosphate Binary Salt Electrolytes for Lithium-Ion Batteries: Aluminum Corrosion Behaviors and Electrochemical Properties by Lan et al.
A machine translation is being used as the English translation of Hiraoka et al (JP 2015-046221 A).
Regarding claim 13, Hiraoka discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 12 as noted above and Hiraoka discloses the electrochemical apparatus comprising the electrolyte comprising a lithium salt (pg. 9 of Hiraoka translation).
Hiraoka does not disclose the electrochemical apparatus comprising the electrolyte further comprising a lithium salt and wherein the lithium salt comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and lithium hexafluorophosphate.
However, Lan discloses a binary-salt electrolyte (pg. 1954) comprising LiFSI-LiPF6 with varying molar ratios from 0 to 1.2 mol/L LiFSI and 1.2 to 0 mol/L LiPF6 (pg. 1955)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical apparatus of Hiraoka to include the binary salt electrolyte of LiFSI-LiPF6 of Lan in the electrolyte of Hiraoka because the required binary salt electrolyte of LiFSI-LiPF6 provides enhanced longevity and storage properties of Li-ion batteries (pg. 1954 of Lan).
Regarding claim 14, Hiraoka and Lan disclose the electrochemical apparatus of claim 13 as noted above and Hiraoka discloses the electrochemical apparatus comprising a concentration of the lithium salt ranging from 0.5 mol/L to 2 mol/L (pg. 9 of Hiraoka translation).
The concentration of the lithium salt overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide an enhanced effect of improving cycle characteristics and obtaining a high capacity (pg. 9 of Hiraoka translation). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Hiraoka and Lan disclose the electrochemical apparatus of claim 13 as noted above.
Hiraoka does not disclose the electrochemical apparatus comprising the electrolyte further comprising a mass ratio of the lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to lithium hexafluorophosphate ranges from 0.06 to 5.
However, Lan discloses a binary-salt electrolyte (pg. 1954) comprising LiFSI-LiPF6 with varying molar ratios from 0 to 1.2 mol/L LiFSI and 1.2 to 0 mol/L LiPF6 (pg. 1955).
The varying molar ratio from 0 to 1.2 mol/L LiFSI and 1.2 to 0 mol/L LiPF6 overlaps the claimed range for the mass ratio of the lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide to lithium hexafluorophosphate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide enhanced longevity and storage properties of Li-ion batteries (pg. 1954 of Lan). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 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, 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785