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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 and 05/09/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 3 and 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “a peak intensity” in claim 3, lines 1-2 should read “the peak intensity”.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation “a peak intensity” in claim 14, lines 1-2 should read “the peak intensity”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lang et al. (Pub. No. CN 103296249 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lang teaches an electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery, see [0028]), comprising a positive electrode plate (positive electrode sheet, see [0028]), wherein the positive electrode plate (positive electrode sheet, see [0028]) comprises a positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]); and when a state of charge SOC of the electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery, see [0028]) ranges from 90% to 100% (100%, see [0093] where the battery was charged and the positive pole piece tested was fully charged), a differential scanning calorimetry curve (see Fig. 2, see [0093]) of the positive electrode plate (positive electrode sheet, see [0028]) has a first exothermic peak A1 (peak 1, Fig. 2 below) and a second exothermic peak A2 (peak 2, see Fig. 2 below) in a temperature range of 150° C. to 400° C. (see Fig. 2 below where peak 1 and 2 are both within the range of 150-400oC); wherein based on a mass of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]), the first exothermic peak A1 (peak 1, Fig. 2 below) is an exothermic peak at a temperature closest to 400° C. (see Fig. 2 below where peak 1 is closer to 400oC than peak 2) with a peak intensity greater than 0.1 mW/mg (see Fig. 2 below where the peak intensity of peak 1 is approximately 4.5 mW/mg), the second exothermic peak A2 (peak 2, see Fig. 2 below) is an exothermic peak at a temperature closest to 150° C. (see Fig. 2 below where peak 2 is closer to 150oC than peak 1) with a peak intensity greater than 0.1 mW/mg (see Fig. 2 below where the peak intensity of peak 2 is approximately 1.1 mW/mg), and a difference between a peak position Ta (310oC, see Fig. 2 below) of the first exothermic peak A1 (peak 1, Fig. 2 below) and a peak position Tb (240oC, see Fig. 2 below) of the second exothermic peak A2 (peak 2, see Fig. 2 below) ranges from 20° C. to 150° C (70oC, see Fig. 2 below, 310-240 = 70oC).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lang teaches wherein the peak position Ta (310oC, see Fig. 2 above) of the first exothermic peak A1 (peak 1, Fig. 2 above) is within a range of 250° C. to 400° C. (310oC, see Fig. 2 above), and the peak position Tb (240oC, see Fig. 2 above) of the second exothermic peak A2 (peak 2, Fig. 2 above) is within a range of 200° C. to 300° C (240oC, see Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 3, Lang teaches wherein a ratio S of a peak intensity (see Fig. 2 above where the peak intensity of peak 1 is approximately 4.5 mW/mg) of the first exothermic peak A1 (peak 1, Fig. 2 above) to a peak intensity (see Fig. 2 above where the peak intensity of peak 2 is approximately 1.1 mW/mg) of the second exothermic peak A2 (peak 2, Fig. 2 above) ranges from 0.1 to 10 (4.09, see Fig. 2 above, 4.5/1.1 = 4.09).
Regarding claim 5, Lang teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]) contains a lithium transition metal composite oxide (LiNi.sub.1/3Co.sub.1/3Mn.sub.1/3Al.sub.0.01O.sub.2, see [0052]), and the lithium transition metal composite oxide (LiNi.sub.1/3Co.sub.1/3Mn.sub.1/3Al.sub.0.01O.sub.2, see [0052]) contains a doping element M (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide); wherein the doping element M (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide) comprises at least one of Al (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide), Mg, Ti, Cr, Cu, Fe, Co, W, Zn, Ga, Zr, Ru, Ag, Sn, Au, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Nb, or Gd; and the lithium transition metal composite oxide (LiNi.sub.1/3Co.sub.1/3Mn.sub.1/3Al.sub.0.01O.sub.2, see [0052]) further contains Mn (Mn, see [0052] where the formula includes Mn), wherein a molar ratio of the doping element M (LiNi.sub.1/3Co.sub.1/3Mn.sub.1/3Al.sub.0.01O.sub.2, see [0052]) to Mn (Mn, see [0052] where the formula includes Mn), n.sub.M/n.sub.Mn, ranges from 0.1% to 10% (3%, see [0052] where molar ratio of Al is 0.01 and molar ratio of Mn is 1/3, 0.01/(1/3)*100 = 3%).
Regarding claim 6, Lang teaches wherein the doping element M (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide) comprises at least one of Al (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide) or Nb, wherein a molar ratio of a total molar content of Al (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide) and Nb to a molar content of Mn (Mn, see [0052] where the formula includes Mn), n.sub.(Al+Nb)/n.sub.Mn, ranges from 1% to 10% (3%, see [0052] where molar ratio of Al is 0.01 and molar ratio of Mn is 1/3, 0.01/(1/3)*100 = 3%).
Regarding claim 7, Lang teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]) comprises secondary particles (secondary particles, see [0053]) aggregated from primary particles (primary particles, see [0053]), and the electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery, see [0028]) satisfies at least one of the following conditions (a) to (d): (a) an average particle size D.sub.s of the primary particles (primary particles, see [0053]) ranges from 0.8 μm to 5 μm (1 micron, see [0053]); (b) a median particle size D.sub.v50 of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]) ranges from 5 μm to 15 μm (8.983 microns, see [0053]); (c) a ratio of the median particle size D.sub.v50 of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]) to the average particle size D.sub.s of the primary particles (primary particles, see [0053]), D.sub.v50/D.sub.s, ranges from 1.5 to 20 (8.983, see [0053], 8.983/1 = 8.983); or (d) the positive electrode active material is a spinel structure, wherein a cell parameter a of the positive electrode active material ranges from 0.8200 nm to 0.8250 nm.
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.
5. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (Pub. No. CN 103296249 A).
Regarding claim 4, Lang fails to teach wherein after the positive electrode plate has been soaked in N-methylpyrrolidone at 25° C. for 8 hours, the N-methylpyrrolidone is replaced and the positive electrode plate is soaked again twice, the DSC curve of the positive electrode plate has an exothermic peak B at a temperature ranging from 240° C. to 400° C., and based on the mass of the positive electrode active material, a peak area of the exothermic peak B is less than 360 J/g.
However, Lang teaches an electrochemical apparatus with the same composition as claimed, therefore if processed in the same way and measured under a DSC curve, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected an electrochemical apparatus with the same composition to exhibit the same characteristics. Therefore it is the Examiner’s position that if the positive electrode plate as taught by Lang was soaked in N-methylpyrrolidone at 25° C. for 8 hours, the N-methylpyrrolidone is replaced and the positive electrode plate is soaked again twice, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the positive electrode plate as taught by Lang to exhibit an exothermic peak B at a temperature ranging from 240° C. to 400° C., and based on the mass of the positive electrode active material, a peak area of the exothermic peak B is less than 360 J/g.
6. Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (Pub. No. CN 103296249 A) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yun et al. (Pub. No. US 20240120547 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lang teaches wherein the electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery, see [0028]) further comprises an electrolyte (electrolyte, see [0028]) but fails to teach the electrolyte comprises an unsaturated carbonate compound.
However, Yun teaches wherein an electrolyte (electrolyte solution, see [0036]) comprises an unsaturated carbonate compound (vinylene carbonate, see [0036]), wherein based on a mass of the electrolyte (electrolyte solution, see [0036]), a mass percentage of the unsaturated carbonate compound (vinylene carbonate, see [0036]) is 0.01% to 5% (1 wt% to 5 wt%, see [0036]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lang to add vinylene carbonate to the electrolyte in 1 to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte as taught by Yun to improve a battery service life (see [0036] of Yun). Further Lang teaches that modifications can be made (see [0095] of Lang).
Regarding claim 9, Lang in view of Yun teaches wherein the unsaturated carbonate compound (vinylene carbonate, see [0036] of Yun, see modifications above) comprises a compound (vinylene carbonate, see [0036] of Yun, see modifications above) represented by a formula (I) (see chemical diagram of vinylene carbonate below), and in formula (I) (see chemical diagram of vinylene carbonate below), R.sup.3 (R.sup.3, chemical diagram below) is selected from substituted C.sub.1 to C.sub.6 alkylidene groups and substituted or unsubstituted C.sub.2 to C.sub.6 alkenylene groups (C.sub.2 alkenylene group, see chemical diagram below), when being substituted, substituted groups comprise at least one of halogen atoms, C.sub.1 to C.sub.6 alkyl groups, and C.sub.2 to C.sub.6 alkenyl groups, and when R.sup.3 is selected from substituted C.sub.1 to C.sub.6 alkylidene groups, substituted groups comprise at least C.sub.2 to C.sub.6 alkenyl groups.
PNG
media_image2.png
330
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chemical Diagram of Vinylene Carbonate provided by PubChem
Regarding claim 10, Lang in view of Yun teaches wherein the unsaturated carbonate compound (vinylene carbonate, see [0036] of Yun, see modifications above) is selected from at least one of the following compounds (I-1) to (I-8) (I-1, see chemical diagram above):
Regarding claim 11, Lang in view of Yun teaches wherein based on a mass of the electrolyte (electrolyte, see [0028]), a mass percentage of the unsaturated carbonate compound (vinylene carbonate, see [0036] of Yun, see modifications above) is 0.01% to 5% (1 wt% to 5 wt%, see [0036] of Yun, see modifications above).
7. Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (Pub. No. CN 103296249 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Pub. No. US 6171724 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Lang teaches an electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery, see [0028]), wherein the electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery, see [0028]), comprising a positive electrode plate (positive electrode sheet, see [0028]), wherein the positive electrode plate (positive electrode sheet, see [0028]) comprises a positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]); and when a state of charge SOC of the electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery, see [0028]) ranges from 90% to 100% (100%, see [0093] where the battery was charged and the positive pole piece tested was fully charged), a differential scanning calorimetry curve (see Fig. 2, see [0093]) of the positive electrode plate (positive electrode sheet, see [0028]) has a first exothermic peak A1 (peak 1, Fig. 2 below) and a second exothermic peak A2 (peak 2, see Fig. 2 below) in a temperature range of 150° C. to 400° C. (see Fig. 2 below where peak 1 and 2 are both within the range of 150-400oC); wherein based on a mass of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]), the first exothermic peak A1 (peak 1, Fig. 2 below) is an exothermic peak at a temperature closest to 400° C. (see Fig. 2 below where peak 1 is closer to 400oC than peak 2) with a peak intensity greater than 0.1 mW/mg (see Fig. 2 below where the peak intensity of peak 1 is approximately 4.5 mW/mg), the second exothermic peak A2 (peak 2, see Fig. 2 below) is an exothermic peak at a temperature closest to 150° C. (see Fig. 2 below where peak 2 is closer to 150oC than peak 1) with a peak intensity greater than 0.1 mW/mg (see Fig. 2 below where the peak intensity of peak 2 is approximately 1.1 mW/mg), and a difference between a peak position Ta (310oC, see Fig. 2 below) of the first exothermic peak A1 (peak 1, Fig. 2 below) and a peak position Tb (240oC, see Fig. 2 below) of the second exothermic peak A2 (peak 2, see Fig. 2 below) ranges from 20° C. to 150° C (70oC, see Fig. 2 below, 310-240 = 70oC), but fails to teach an electric device, comprising the electrochemical apparatus.
However, Li teaches an electric device (calculator/watch, see [Col. 1, lines 11-14]), comprising an electrochemical apparatus (button-type battery, see [Col. 1, lines 11-14]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lang to use the electrochemical apparatus as taught by Lang in a calculator or watch as taught by Li as Li teaches it is known in the art to use button type batteries in calculators and watches. Further Lang teaches that modifications can be made (see [0095] of Lang).
Regarding claim 13, Lang in view of Li teaches wherein the peak position Ta (310oC, see Fig. 2 above) of the first exothermic peak A1 (peak 1, Fig. 2 above) is within a range of 250° C. to 400° C. (310oC, see Fig. 2 above), and the peak position Tb (240oC, see Fig. 2 above) of the second exothermic peak A2 (peak 2, Fig. 2 above) is within a range of 200° C. to 300° C (240oC, see Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 14, Lang in view of Li teaches wherein a ratio S of a peak intensity (see Fig. 2 above where the peak intensity of peak 1 is approximately 4.5 mW/mg) of the first exothermic peak A1 (peak 1, Fig. 2 above) to a peak intensity (see Fig. 2 above where the peak intensity of peak 2 is approximately 1.1 mW/mg) of the second exothermic peak A2 (peak 2, Fig. 2 above) ranges from 0.1 to 10 (4.09, see Fig. 2 above, 4.5/1.1 = 4.09).
Regarding claim 15, Lang in view of Li fails to teach wherein after the positive electrode plate has been soaked in N-methylpyrrolidone at 25° C. for 8 hours, the N-methylpyrrolidone is replaced and the positive electrode plate is soaked again twice, the DSC curve of the positive electrode plate has an exothermic peak B at a temperature ranging from 240° C. to 400° C., and based on the mass of the positive electrode active material, a peak area of the exothermic peak B is less than 360 J/g.
However, Lang in view of Li teaches an electric device with the same composition as claimed, therefore if processed in the same way and measured under a DSC curve, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected an electrochemical apparatus with the same composition to exhibit the same characteristics. Therefore it is the Examiner’s position that if the positive electrode plate as taught by Lang in view of Li was soaked in N-methylpyrrolidone at 25° C. for 8 hours, the N-methylpyrrolidone is replaced and the positive electrode plate is soaked again twice, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the positive electrode plate as taught by Lang to exhibit an exothermic peak B at a temperature ranging from 240° C. to 400° C., and based on the mass of the positive electrode active material, a peak area of the exothermic peak B is less than 360 J/g.
Regarding claim 16, Lang in view of Li teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]) contains a lithium transition metal composite oxide (LiNi.sub.1/3Co.sub.1/3Mn.sub.1/3Al.sub.0.01O.sub.2, see [0052]), and the lithium transition metal composite oxide (LiNi.sub.1/3Co.sub.1/3Mn.sub.1/3Al.sub.0.01O.sub.2, see [0052]) contains a doping element M (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide); wherein the doping element M (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide) comprises at least one of Al (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide), Mg, Ti, Cr, Cu, Fe, Co, W, Zn, Ga, Zr, Ru, Ag, Sn, Au, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Nb, or Gd; and the lithium transition metal composite oxide (LiNi.sub.1/3Co.sub.1/3Mn.sub.1/3Al.sub.0.01O.sub.2, see [0052]) further contains Mn (Mn, see [0052] where the formula includes Mn), wherein a molar ratio of the doping element M (LiNi.sub.1/3Co.sub.1/3Mn.sub.1/3Al.sub.0.01O.sub.2, see [0052]) to Mn (Mn, see [0052] where the formula includes Mn), n.sub.M/n.sub.Mn, ranges from 0.1% to 10% (3%, see [0052] where molar ratio of Al is 0.01 and molar ratio of Mn is 1/3, 0.01/(1/3)*100 = 3%).
Regarding claim 17, Lang in view of Li teaches wherein the doping element M (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide) comprises at least one of Al (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide) or Nb, wherein a molar ratio of a total molar content of Al (Al, see [0051] where Al doped into the transition metal oxide) and Nb to a molar content of Mn (Mn, see [0052] where the formula includes Mn), n.sub.(Al+Nb)/n.sub.Mn, ranges from 1% to 10% (3%, see [0052] where molar ratio of Al is 0.01 and molar ratio of Mn is 1/3, 0.01/(1/3)*100 = 3%).
Regarding claim 18, Lang in view of Li teaches wherein the positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]) comprises secondary particles (secondary particles, see [0053]) aggregated from primary particles (primary particles, see [0053]), and the electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery, see [0028]) satisfies at least one of the following conditions (a) to (d): (a) an average particle size D.sub.s of the primary particles (primary particles, see [0053]) ranges from 0.8 μm to 5 μm (1 micron, see [0053]); (b) a median particle size D.sub.v50 of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]) ranges from 5 μm to 15 μm (8.983 microns, see [0053]); (c) a ratio of the median particle size D.sub.v50 of the positive electrode active material (positive electrode material, see [0028]) to the average particle size D.sub.s of the primary particles (primary particles, see [0053]), D.sub.v50/D.sub.s, ranges from 1.5 to 20 (8.983, see [0053], 8.983/1 = 8.983); or (d) the positive electrode active material is a spinel structure, wherein a cell parameter a of the positive electrode active material ranges from 0.8200 nm to 0.8250 nm.
8. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (Pub. No. CN 103296249 A) in view of Li et al. (Pub. No. US 6171724 B1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yun et al. (Pub. No. US 20240120547 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Lang in view of Li teaches wherein the electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery, see [0028]) further comprises an electrolyte (electrolyte, see [0028]) but fails to teach the electrolyte comprises an unsaturated carbonate compound.
However, Yun teaches wherein an electrolyte (electrolyte solution, see [0036]) comprises an unsaturated carbonate compound (vinylene carbonate, see [0036]), wherein based on a mass of the electrolyte (electrolyte solution, see [0036]), a mass percentage of the unsaturated carbonate compound (vinylene carbonate, see [0036]) is 0.01% to 5% (1 wt% to 5 wt%, see [0036]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lang in view of Li to add vinylene carbonate to the electrolyte in 1 to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the electrolyte as taught by Yun to improve a battery service life (see [0036] of Yun). Further Lang in view of Li teaches that modifications can be made (see [0095] of Lang).
Regarding claim 20, Lang in view of Li and further in view of Yun teaches wherein based on a mass of the electrolyte (electrolyte, see [0028]), a mass percentage of the unsaturated carbonate compound (vinylene carbonate, see [0036] of Yun, see modifications above) is 0.01% to 5% (1 wt% to 5 wt%, see [0036] of Yun, see modifications above).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights