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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0067], line 4, of the instant specification, “two or more elements among Mg, Mn, Cr, Ti, and Zr” should read, “two or more elements among Al, Mg, Mn, Cr, Ti, and Zr”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 and 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 3, the claim limitation “two or more elements among Mg, Mn, Cr, Ti, and Zr” should read, “two or more elements among Al, Mg, Mn, Cr, Ti, and Zr” for consistency with the rest of the claim and [0067] of the instant specification.
In claim 19, lines 2-3, the claim limitation “wherein the mass percentage of ethyl propionate in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution is AEP%; a contact area between the separator and the negative electrode plate is Sn m2, and a battery capacity is C Ah” should read, “wherein the mass percentage of ethyl propionate in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution is AEP (%); a contact area between the separator and the negative electrode plate is Sn (m2), and a battery capacity is C (Ah)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 16 is 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.
In Claim 16, line 2, the claim limitation “wherein the negative electrode active material further optionally contains SiOx/C or Si/C” renders the claim indefinite. “Optionally” makes it unclear whether Applicant intends to claim the negative electrode active material containing SiOx/C or Si/C as part of their invention.
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.
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 1-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20170256768 A1) in view of Ishii et al. (US 20180205071 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Yoo discloses a battery (i.e. battery cells, [0004]) comprising a positive electrode plate (i.e. cathode, [0004]), a negative electrode plate (i.e. anode, [0004]), a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate ([0004]), and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (i.e. electrolyte fluid, [0024]).
Yoo further discloses the separator comprises a substrate (i.e. microporous polymer membrane or non-woven fabric mat, [0020], Fig. 3A, 318), a heat-resistant layer (i.e. ceramic layer, [0048]), and an adhesive layer (i.e. binder, [0049]), the heat-resistant layer is disposed on at least one side of the substrate (i.e. ceramic layer 328 disposed along first interface 324, Fig. 3A), and the adhesive layer is disposed on the heat-resistant layer (i.e. binder interposed between ceramic layer and cathode, and between ceramic layer and anode, [0051], Fig. 3A, 302).
Yoo further discloses the adhesive layer comprises a PVDF-HFP copolymer with a weight percent of HFP from 5 to 15% ([0006-0007]).
Yoo does not disclose the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising a non-aqueous organic solvent comprising at least ethyl propionate, or the mass percentage of ethyl propionate in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution.
Ishii teaches a similar battery in which the non-aqueous electrolyte solution contains ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), and ethyl propionate (EP) where when the total volume of non-aqueous of the solvents is 100%, the content of EC is 20-30% vol.%, PC is 5-10 vol.%, DMC+EMC is 50-70 vol.%, and EP is 5-10 vol.% ([0036]), Ishii further teaches by using such a composition for the non-aqueous electrolyte, it is possible to achieve good battery performance at low temperatures and achieve better durability ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have improved the battery of Yoo with the non-aqueous organic solvent comprising ethyl propionate (EP) for the benefit of good battery performance at low temperatures and better durability, as taught by Ishii.
Ishii further teaches a specific embodiment with EC 20 vol.%, PC 10 vol.%, DMC 30 vol.%, and EP 10 vol.% (Table 1, Example 1). This yields a mass percent of the EP within the taught electrolyte solution to be about 8 mass%, as shown in the calculations below.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
869
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Yoo thus discloses a mass percentage of ethyl propionate in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of 8 mass % and a mass percentage of HFP in the copolymer of PvDF-HFP of 5 to 15 mass%, yielding a ratio of mass percentage of ethyl propionate in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution to a mass percentage of HFP in the copolymer of PVdF-HFP of 0.53 to 1.6, which is within the claimed range of 0.2 to 60 of claim 1, and 0.5 to 35 of claim 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at an 8 mass% EP in the electrolyte solution, and the resulting mass percentage of EP to mass percentage of HFP, with a reasonable expectation of success of achieving an electrolyte solution and battery with good battery performance at low temperatures and better durability.
Regarding claim 3-4, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo further discloses the PVdF-HFP copolymer has a molecular weight greater than or equal to 1,000,000 u (Yoo, [0005]), which is equivalent to 1,000,006 Da, and thus overlaps with the claimed range of 200,000 to 2,500,000 Da of claim 3, and 500,000 Da to 2,500,000 Da of claim 4. Modified Yoo further teaches by selecting the molecular weight and weight percent of HFP, the properties of the copolymer can be manipulated to better suit the copolymer to wet lamination processing, dry lamination processing, or both (Yoo, [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected within the overlapping portion of the ranges with reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a copolymer with properties suitable for an adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo further discloses the mass percentage of hexafluoropropylene in the copolymer of hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP) to be 1-15 wt% (Yoo, [0006-0007]), which is within the claimed range of 1 wt.% to 25 wt.%, thus satisfying claim 5.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo further discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte solution with EC 20 vol.%, PC 10 vol.%, DMC 30 vol.%, and EP 10 vol.% (Ishii, Table 1, Example 1) where the mass percentage of EP in the electrolyte solution in 8 mass%, as set forth above. Thus, modified Yoo satisfies claim 6.
The non-aqueous electrolyte solution, in addition to ethyl propionate (EP), comprises ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) (Ishii, Table 1, Example 1), thus satisfying claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo further discloses the electrolyte fluid may have a salt dissolved therein, where the salt may be any type of salt suitable for battery cells such as LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4, LiSO3CF3, LiN(SO2CF3)2, LiBC4O8, Li[PF3(C2CF5)3], and LiC(SO2CF3)3 (Yoo, ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected LiPF6 (lithium hexafluorophosphate) from the finite list of salts provided by Yoo with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory electrolyte fluid and battery.
Regarding claims 9, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo further discloses LiBC4O8 (lithium bis(oxalate)borate) as a salt that that can be used in combination with other salts in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (Yoo, [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected LiBC4O8 as a first additive, with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a satisfactory non-aqueous electrolyte solution.
Alternatively, in claiming a mass percentage of the first additive in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution ranges from 0 wt.% to 10 wt.%, the prior art is not required to possess a first additive, as the claim limitation allows for 0 wt.% of the first additive.
Regarding claim 10-12, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo further discloses the heat-resistant layer (i.e. ceramic layer) includes ceramic particles blended with the binder (Yoo, [0050]) satisfying the claim limitation, “wherein the heat-resistant layer comprises ceramic and a binder” of claim 10.
Modified Yoo further discloses the ceramic particles may represent 60-90 wt.% of the heat-resistant layer (Yoo, [0050]) which is within the claimed range of, 20 wt.% to 99wt.% of claim 11.
Modified Yoo further discloses the ceramic materials for the heat-resistant layer include magnesium oxide materials and aluminum oxide materials such as Al2O3 and that such ceramic layers improve chemical and dimensional stability of the separator during operation of the battery, and also improve mechanical strength of the separator ([0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected Al2O3 (aluminum oxide) as the ceramic, as claimed in claim 12, with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a heat-resistant material capable of improving the chemical and dimensional stability of the separator during operation of the battery, and also improving the mechanical strength of the separator.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo discloses a positive electrode plate (i.e. cathode, Yoo, [0004]) comprising a positive electrode current collector (Yoo, [0004]) and a positive electrode active material coated on a surface of either or both sides of the positive electrode current collector (Yoo, [0004]), and the positive electrode active material comprises a positive electrode active material (i.e. lithium cobalt oxide material, Yoo, [0054]), a positive electrode conductive agent (i.e. active carbon, Yoo, [0054]), and a positive electrode binder (i.e. PVdF binder, Yoo, [0054]), thus satisfying claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo further discloses the negative electrode plate (i.e. anode, Yoo, [0019]) comprises a negative electrode current collector (Yoo, [0019]) and a negative electrode active material layer (i.e. anode active coating, Yoo, Fig.2, 208) coated on surface of either or both sides of the negative electrode current collector (Yoo, Fig. 2, 208).
Modified Yoo further discloses the anode active material layer comprises graphite, SBR, and CMC (Yoo, [0054]), which satisfies the claim limitation, “the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material, a negative electrode conductive agent, and a negative electrode binder; and/or the negative electrode active material is selected from graphite).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20170256768 A1) in view of Ishii et al. (US 20180205071 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Devan et al. (US 20140272543 A1).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo discloses an adhesive layer (i.e. binder, Yoo, [0026]) but does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the adhesive layer.
Devan teaches a similar separator coated with a ceramic coating and a binder coating ([0012]), wherein the binder coating may be approximately 1 µm thick, which is within the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 2 µm, to facilitate optimal laminating of the layers without degrading the circle life of the battery cell and/or causing binder coating to flow during exposure to heat ([0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized an adhesive layer 1 µm in thickness for the benefit of facilitating optimal laminating of the layers without degradation of the circle life of the battery cell, as taught by Devan.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20170256768 A1) in view of Ishii et al. (US 20180205071 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Guo et al. (CN 104037396 B).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the 112(b) rejection above, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo discloses the negative electrode active material includes graphite, SBR, and CMC, but does not disclose the negative electrode active material further containing SiOx/C or Si/C, wherein 0 < x < 2; and/or the negative electrode active material further contains 1 wt.% to 15 wt.% SiOx/C or Si/C.
Guo teaches a lithium ion battery ([6]) with an anode active material compositing of flexible graphite, nano-silicon, and amorphous carbon ([9]), where the nano-silicon is silicon-monoxide (SiO) ([11]).
Guo further teaches such an anode active material provides a silicon-carbon multi-component composite anode material with high capacity, high coulombic efficiency, good cycle performance, and stable structure ([8]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized the negative electrode active material containing flexible graphite, SiO, and amorphous caron for the benefit of high capacity, high coulombic efficiency, good cycle performance, and stable structure, as taught by Guo.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20170256768 A1) in view of Ishii et al. (US 20180205071 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tsujioka et al. (US 20100323240 A1).
Regarding claims 17-18, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo fails to disclose wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte solution further comprises a second additive comprising at least one of 1,3-propane sultone, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylethylene carbonate, or lithium difluorophosphate.
Tsujioka teaches a similar nonaqueous electrolyte battery ([0013]) wherein lithium difluorophosphate is present as an additive in the electrolyte solution useful for improving performance of nonaqueous electrolyte battery ([0011]). Furthermore, Tsujioka teaches the concentration of lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolyte solution is 0.01 wt% to 5 wt.% ([0029]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01 wt.% to 2 wt. % of claim 17.
Tsujioka further teaches when a concentration lower than 0.01 wt.% reduces the durability resulting from lithium difluorophosphate, such as cycle characteristics and high-temperature storage characteristics, and does not sufficiently produce the effect of suppressing gasification ([0029]). Conversely, if the lithium difluorophosphate exceeds 5.0 wt.%, the electrolyte solution may decrease in ionic conduction and increase in internal resistance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected lithium difluorophosphate as a second additive for the benefit of improved battery performance, and to haves selected and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges in order to achieve the desired balance between durability, ionic conduction, and internal resistance.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20170256768 A1) in view of Ishii et al. (US 20180205071 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fukunaga et al. (US 20160190642 A1) and Harris et al. ("Failure statistics for commercial lithium ion batteries: A study of 24 pouch cells").
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Yoo discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yoo discloses a mass percentage of ethyl propionate in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution of AEP = 8%, as set forth above, and discloses the weight percent of HFP effects swelling of the copolymer which degrades contact between the separator and adjacent cathode and anode, resulting in a loss of contact area (Yoo, [0028]), suggesting that modified Yoo desires a high contact area.
While modified Yoo does not explicitly disclose a contact area between the separator and the negative electrode (Sn) and a battery capacity (C), wherein AEP, Sn, and C satisfy the following relationship: 0.5 ≤ AEP/(Sn/C) ≤60 as claimed in claim 19, or 2 ≤ AEP/(Sn/C) ≤ 40 as claimed in claim 20, modified Yoo necessarily and inherently possess a Sn and a battery capacity.
Fukunaga teaches a similar lithium secondary battery ([0005]). Fukunaga further teaches the dimensions the negative electrode was 105x105 mm ([0091]). This yields an area of the negative electrode sheet to be 11025 mm2 or 0.011025 m2. In light of the [0083] of the instant specifications, the area of the negative electrode sheet is within the claimed range of the contact area of 0.0001m2 to 10 m2 of claim 20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the negative electrode plate area and contact area of 0.011025 m2 as this is a known and acceptable dimension in the art, as taught by Fukunaga.
Harris teaches commercial lithium ion cells with anodes and cathodes of synthetic graphite and lithium cobalt oxide, respectively, with a nominal capacity of 4.4 Ah (pg. 590, Experimental, para. 1), which is within the claimed battery capacity range of 0.1 Ah to 100 Ah of claim 20. Furthermore, as evidenced by Husain (Electric and Hybrid Vehicles – Design Fundamentals), capacity is dependent on total electric charge passing through the material, the molar mass, and number of electrons per ion produced at an electrode (pg. 112-113). Therefore, a skilled artisan would recognize, in possessing the same characteristics as what Applicant claims to be part of their invention (i.e. separator, lithium cobalt oxide positive electrode, graphite negative electrode), modified Yoo must necessarily satisfy the battery capacity claimed range of 0.1 Ah to 100 Ah.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have arrived at the battery capacity of 4.4 Ah as this is a common battery capacity for lithium cobalt oxide-graphite batteries, as taught by Harris.
The contact area Sn of 0.011025 m2, the battery capacity C of 4.4 Ah, and mass percentage of ethyl propionate in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution AEP of 8%, as set forth above, yields an AEP/(Sn/C) of 31.927 which is within the claim range of 0.5 ≤ AEP/(Sn/C) ≤ 60 of claim 19, and the claimed range of 2 ≤ AEP/(Sn/C) ≤ 40 of claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jo et al. (KR 20180009911 A) discloses a cathode active material comprising of lithium cobalt oxide doped with at least two dopants, M, from the group consisting of Ni, Mn, Al, Cu, Fe, Mg, Zr, and Cr, and a coating layer containing metal layer A, where metal A may include Al, Ti, Mg, Zr, Ba, Ca, Ta, and Mo.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights