DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because it appears to include factually incorrect information.
The goal of the instant application as described at P9 is improved wettability performance of the electrolyte solution, with a disclosure that the wettability feature is measured by way of a contact angle on a surface of a glass slide, the measurement is positively correlated with contact angles and wettability of the electrolyte solution on the surface of the positive electrode plate, the negative electrode plate, and the surface of the separator, and “…a greater contact angle of the electrolyte solution on the surface of the glass slide indicates higher wettability of the electrolyte solution for the positive electrode plate, the negative electrode plate, and the separator.” The disclosure and claims are then both directed at providing a high contact angle of θ > 60° (P10, claim 1).
The underlined portion above is counter to every teaching in the state of the prior art, and the foundational basis of what contact angle measures and how it correlates to wettability of the tested solution and the component it is measured on. As evidence, see:
Haick et al. (US 2021/0364461) (P217):
“The contact angle is determined by the balance between adhesive and cohesive forces. As the tendency of a drop to spread out over a flat, solid surface increases, the contact angle decreases. Thus, the contact angle provides an inverse measure of wettability. A high contact angle indicates a low wettability, in which the fluid minimizes the contact with the surface.”
Sun et al., Wetting behavior of four polar organic solvents containing one of three lithium salts on a lithium-ion-battery separator,” J. Colloid and Interface Science, 529 (2018) 582-587, section 3.1:
PNG
media_image1.png
335
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bauer et al. (P77):
“The contact angle is a measure of the wetting behavior of a liquid, in particular water, with regard to a surface, and can be determined using conventional methods, for example in accordance with ASTM D 5725. A low contact angle denotes good wetting, and a high contact angle denotes poor wetting.”
Morisue (US 2006/0040435):
PNG
media_image2.png
106
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the specification is objected to as it appears to provide factually incorrect information counter to the well-known relationship between a measured contact angle and wettability.
Appropriate correction and explanation is required. It is noted that no new matter may be added to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-20, are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The above two rejections are addressed concurrently below.
Claim 1 recites the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
65
655
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The limitation at issue is the recited property of, “wherein the electrolyte solution has a contact angle θ > 60°” with no further limitations recited as to compositional requirements that meet this recited property.
A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (A single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was held nonenabling for the scope of the claim because the specification disclosed at most only those means known to the inventor.). When claims depend on a recited property, a fact situation comparable to Hyatt is possible, where the claim covers every conceivable composition/structure (means) for achieving the stated property (result) while the specification discloses at most only those known to the inventor (emphasis mine).
Thus, while not means-plus-function limitations, the claims depend on a recited property/result and thus a fact situation comparable to Hyatt is present given the claim covers every conceivable compositional option for achieving the stated property while the specification discloses only those known to the inventor. MPEP 2164.08 notes that a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. 112 as broader than the enabling disclosure is a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, enablement rejection. The claims as stated are essentially all-encompassing claims similar to Amgen v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 856 (1991). In Amgen, the patent claims were directed to a purified DNA sequence encoding polypeptide analogs of the protein erythropoietin (EPO). The court stated that:
Amgen has not enabled preparation of DNA sequences sufficient to support its all-encompassing claims. . . . [D]espite extensive statements in the specification concerning all the analogs of the EPO gene that can be made, there is little enabling disclosure of particular analogs and how to make them. Details for preparing only a few EPO analog genes are disclosed. . . . This disclosure might well justify a generic claim encompassing these and similar analogs, but it represents inadequate support for Amgen’s desire to claim all EPO gene analogs. There may be many other genetic sequences that code for EPO-type products. Amgen has told how to make and use only a few of them and is therefore not entitled to claim all of them.
Likewise to the instant scenario, the instant disclosure does not provide adequate enablement for the claiming of all electrolyte solutions having the property of a contact angle θ > 60°.
See also In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Given the…. lack of a reasonable correlation between the narrow disclosure in the specification and the broad scope of protection sought in the claims, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for lack of enablement was appropriate.). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’”. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to the breadth of a claim, the relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1244, 68 USPQ2d 1280, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2003);In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1236, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971). See also Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 315 F.3d 1335, 1339, 65 USPQ2d 1452, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
MPEP 2173.05(g) notes that unlimited functional/property claim limitations that extend to all means or methods of resolving a problem may not be adequately supported by the written description or may not be commensurate in scope with the enabling disclosure, both of which are required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1340, 94 USPQ2d at 1167.
Accordingly, the limitation of, “wherein the electrolyte solution has a contact angle θ > 60°” is an unlimited claim reciting a property that covers every conceivable composition/ (means) for achieving the stated property (result) while the specification discloses at most only those known to the inventor comparable to the Hyatt single means claim scenario, and as such, the full scope of the claim is not considered adequately supported by the written description or commensurate in scope with an enabling disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
5. 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.
6. Claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-20; claim 3, and thus dependent claims 4-6 and 20; claim 15; claim 16; and claim 17 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.
A) Claim 1 recites the property of, “…wherein the electrolyte solution has a contact angle θ > 60°” and fails to recite what this contact angle is relative to. Is the contact angle measured relative to a separator surface? Is the contact angle measured relative to the positive electrode plate surface or the negative electrode plate surface? Is the contact angle measured relative to a specific entity of one of these components (e.g., binder, conductive additive, active material, polymeric material)? The entity that the contact angle is measured against will intrinsically alter the obtained measurement; the absence of defining what this contact angle is measured relative to renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
B) Claim 1 recites the property of, “…wherein the electrolyte solution has a contact angle θ > 60°” and in addition to the claims not stating what this contact angle is relative to (see section A above), the necessary compositional requirements to meet this property are not disclosed in the instant application such that the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. It is not known from the instant application what is required of the claim to achieve the property in terms of: type(s) and amount(s) of non-aqueous organic solvent; type(s) and amount(s) of lithium salt(s); whether the presence or absence of the taught additive described is required or the contact angle can be achieved without the additive; if the additive is required, how much of the additive is required to meet the feature, etc. For example, regarding the amount of the additive (if it is even required), there are examples including the additive claimed that do not meet the contact angle requirement (see at least Comparative Examples 6 and 8), etc. Accordingly, it is not clear what is needed to meet the property/functional limitation claimed.
Thus, the limitation is ambiguous functional language as there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, the boundaries are not well-defined as the claim language only states a problem solved or result obtained, and one or ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what compositional requirements is/are encompassed by the claim.
As detailed in MPEP 2173.05(g), Examiners should consider three factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained, and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.
The language is simply a result obtained, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would now know from the claim terms or specification what compositional requirements are encompassed by the claim such that there is not a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what compositional requirement(s) are encompassed by the claim to achieve the result obtained such that the well-defined boundaries are not set forth and there is not a clear cut scope of the subject matter covered by the claim.
C) Claim 3 defines a structural formula (1) and defines what the R and M- entities are. The claim then recites, “and when a substituent is comprised, the substituent is an alkyl group, a halogen group, or an alkoxy group.” The claim does not make clear what this substituent is in reference to (e.g., a substituent on the M- portion, a substituent on the R portion, a substituent on the methyl group, or a substituent on the nitrogen-ring). If this substituent is meant to reference the R portion, it is then not clear if this is meant to define an all-together new substituent entity on the Formula (1) compound genus, or if it is attempting to define (without invoking proper antecedent basis) that the substituted portion of the substituted alkyl group, the substituted ester group, or the substituted alkenyl group is an alkyl group, a halogen group, or an alkoxy group.
D) Claim 15 recites, “the-nitrogen-containing compound…” in each of lines 1 and 4 (separated by an “and/or” clause). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation at both locations. It appears if the claim tree was 1-3-14-15 (instead of 1-2-14-15), the issue would be corrected.
E) Claim 16 recites the term “an OI value” which is not clear in its meaning rendering the claim indefinite.
F) Claim 17 recites:
“wherein a D/d range of the negative electrode plate is 1.04 < D/d < 1.1, wherein D is a thickness of the negative electrode plate obtained after rolling and left for 48 hours, and d is a thickness of the negative electrode plate obtained after rolling.”
The claims are directed to the statutory category of a product, wherein the above limitation is entirely unclear as to the structural requirements intended to be conveyed by the limitation recited to the final negative electrode plate (what is being claimed). Given there is no time value for the “d” feature, it is not clear if this is meant to occur (immediately) after rolling, or sometime later than the 48 hours D measurement being made. The claim is wholly unclear as to what it is intended to convey, implicitly or explicitly, to the structure of the negative electrode plate obtained by the method of rolling, and measuring the variance in thicknesses at different times. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as to what is structurally required to meet the feature or achieve the range recited for thicknesses measured at different times.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7 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.
8. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (CN 105552430) (original copy and machine translation provided, both of which are relied upon given the formulas and tables do not show in the machine translation and are only shown in the original copy).
Regarding claim 1, Shi teaches a battery (page 6), comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a separator (page 6), and an electrolyte solution (abstract; pages 1-5; entire disclosure relied upon), wherein the electrolyte solutions disclosed have a contact angle as shown in truncated Table 2 below, each of examples 1-5, 9, 10, and 15 having a value that is greater than 60° such that anticipatory examples exist in the prior art against the range presented of a contact angle θ > 60° given:
"[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is 'anticipated' if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) See MPEP § 2131.03.
A truncated screenshot of Table 2 of Shi listing the contact angle of the electrolyte solution obtained pertaining to Examples 1-16, wherein Table 1 and the disclosure teaches the specific compositional requirements of said electrolyte solutions:
PNG
media_image4.png
442
251
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shi teaches wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a lithium salt and a non-aqueous organic solvent (abstract; page 5; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 3, Shi teaches wherein the electrolyte solution further comprises an additive, and the additive comprises a nitrogen-containing compound; and a structural formula of the nitrogen-containing compound is shown in Formula (1) (original claim 1):
PNG
media_image5.png
218
576
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Page 4 of the machine translation:
PNG
media_image6.png
109
664
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is defined as including CH3 (i.e., R1 is defined with x may be equal to 1, the rules of chemistry dictating three hydrogen bonds to this carbon atom), R2 is defined as including Cx2Hy2OzNw with the ranges above, and X- (“M-” in the claim includes at least PF6- (hexafluorophosphate) and BF4- (tetrafluoroborate) (original claim 1; entire disclosure). Formula 1 is further exemplified the compounds shown in Figs. 1 & 2 corresponding to the further defined formulas of V and VI, as well as a list of compounds listed on page 4.
It is noted that both z and w in R2 (i.e., OzN-w) may be zero such that R2 (“R” in Formula 1 of the claim) may be an unsubstituted alkyl group (i.e., no substituent is comprised (in the R2 group) such that the “when” clause is not applicable in this scenario). Alternatively, in the case that R2 may include constituent shown in the Formula V compound, this reads on R2 is a substituted alkyl group, wherein in this instance, there is “a substituent” comprised on the “R1” group (i.e., CH3 is now CH2CH3) that is an alkyl group, and there are further no additional substituents on at least the nitrogen ring, and/or the X- (“M-“) anion such that the (unclear) recitation of “when a substituent is comprised, the substituent is an alkyl group, a halogen group, or an alkoxy group” as best understood by the Examiner is considered met (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph pertaining to this feature).
Formula 1 from the instant claim set is reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image7.png
128
296
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the example illustrated in Fig. 1 reading on the formula claimed is within many of the examples that have the contact angle in the range recited (e.g., at least Example 3, among others).
Regarding claim 4, Shi teaches wherein within R2 (i.e., OzN-w) may be zero such that R2 (“R” in Formula 1 of the claim) may be an unsubstituted alkyl group with Cx2 being 2 < x2 < 120 such that R2 may be a C2 or C3 alkyl group (original claim 1; page 4 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Shi teaches wherein a mass percentage of the nitrogen-containing compound in a total mass of the electrolyte solution in Example 3, including the Example 1/Fig. 1 compound, is 0.05% (“B wt%”) (page 8), thereby anticipating the range claimed of B wt% < 2 wt%. Other examples exist that anticipate the range presented (see Tables 1 & 2; pages 8-9).
It is noted that the amount of the additive is further taught as being “in an amount of 0.01 wt% of the electrolyte, in an amount of 0.05 wt% in the electrolyte, in the amount of 2 wt% of the electrolyte” such that these example amounts for the general formula taught also anticipate the range claimed (page 4).
Regarding claim 7, Shi teaches wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is selected from (at least) a carbonate ester, and the carbonate ester is selected from one or more of the following solvents: ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate (Page 5; Table 1 examples).
Regarding claim 8, Shi teaches wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises (at least) a linear carbonate ester having a quantity of carbon atoms less than or equal to 5 and/or a linear carboxylic ester having a quantity of carbon atoms less than or equal to 5 (e.g., at least dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate are taught – page 5).
Regarding claim 9, Shi teaches at least Example 1 in which EC: DMC are used in a 3:7 volume ratio. The density of these solvents is 1.321 g/mL and 1.069 g/mL, respectively, such that a 30/70 volume mixture (selecting 1000 mL such that there are 300 mL EC and 700 mL DMC) calculates to a mass amount (grams) of 396.3: 748.83, a total mass of 1,145.13 grams.
To this is added 1/mol/L LiPF6 (=151.91 grams of LiPF6) such that the total mass of the electrolyte solution is 1,297.04. The mass% of the DMC (“a linear carbonate ester having 3 carbon atoms”) is thus 65%, thereby anticipating the range claimed of (“wherein a mass of the linear carbonate ester having a quantity of carbon atoms less than or equal to 5 and/or the linear carboxylic ester having a quantity of carbon atoms less than or equal to 5 accounts for 10 wt% to 70 wt% of a total mass of the electrolyte solution”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shi et al. (CN 105552430) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, Shi fails to teach, “…wherein a D/d range of the negative electrode plate is 1.04 <D/d< 1.1, wherein D is a thickness of the negative electrode plate obtained after rolling and left for 48 hours, and d is a thickness of the negative electrode plate obtained after rolling.” As detailed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph, it is entirely unclear what the limitation lends to the final construct of the negative electrode plate, if anything, the claim being examined as best as possible for compact prosecution purposes. Accordingly, the negative electrode plate of Shi is considered to anticipate the claim given there appears to be no additional structure required of the product-by-process limitation. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the negative electrode plate of Shi. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 105552430) as applied to at least claims 1 and 3 above, optionally in view of Lee et al., “Ionic liquid containing an ester group as potential electrolytes,” Electrochemistry Communications 8 (2006) 460-464 (copy provided).
Regarding claim 5, Shi teaches wherein the nitrogen-containing compound is shown in Formula (1) (original claim 1):
PNG
media_image5.png
218
576
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Page 4 of the machine translation:
PNG
media_image6.png
109
664
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is defined as including CH3 (i.e., R1 is defined with x may be equal to 1, the rules of chemistry dictating three hydrogen bonds to this carbon atom), R2 is defined as including Cx2Hy2OzNw with the ranges above, and X- (“M-” in the claim includes at least PF6- (hexafluorophosphate) and BF4- (tetrafluoroborate) (original claim 1; entire disclosure).
On page 4, the following compounds are taught for the imidazolium portion (i.e., the nitrogen ring with R1 and R2 groups) of the compound that are paired with bistrifluoromethylsulfonimide anion (i.e., one of the options for X- (“M-” as claimed that also includes PF6- and BF4-), with the taught R2 group being italicized:
1-methyl acetate-3-methylimdazolium; 1-acetic acid B (butyl?) ester-3-methyl-imadizolium; n-propyl acetate- 1-methylimidaizolium, and 1-p-methylbenzoic acid ethyl ester-3-methyllimidaozlium.
The chemical structure of these R2 constituents are shown below (when paired with the nitrogen ring, the -CH3 methyl group would just be -CH2- are shown below:
Methyl acetate acetic-acid-butyl ester n-propyl acetate
PNG
media_image8.png
296
544
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
142
240
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
142
246
media_image10.png
Greyscale
1-p-methylbenzoic acid ethyl ester
PNG
media_image11.png
244
494
media_image11.png
Greyscale
As illustrated, these R2 groups have the core common structural element of the carboxylic ester group R-CO-OR' where each R and R' can vary, but R includes at least a methyl group adjacent the carbonyl portion of the carboxylic acid, and then R' includes a short chain alkyl group on the other end (e.g., -CH3, -CH2CH3, -CH2CH2CH3, -CH2CH2CH2CH3, or -CH2CH3). Accordingly, Shi demonstrates the known R group options including at a minimum a methyl group, and the known R' groups methyl, ethyl, propyl, and butyl. The anion (X-) (“M-” in the claim includes at least PF6- (hexafluorophosphate) and BF4- (tetrafluoroborate) (original claim 1; entire disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to select as the anion (X-) (“M-” in the claim) to be one of the taught options of PF6- (hexafluorophosphate) or BF4- (tetrafluoroborate); to select R1 as methyl as is taught in all of these compounds enumerated above; and R2 is a carboxylic acid ester group (R-CO-OR') as explicitly taught in all of the compounds listed above, and to specifically select known R and R' for the carboxylic acid ester group (R-CO-OR') from the taught options of the compounds named such that R is a methyl group and R' is a short chain alkyl group that is specifically an ethyl group given the analysis above and the overall teachings of Shi which lead one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the compounds listed in the claim. It is noted that the compounds claimed also fall within the overall genus taught by Shi in Formula 1 in which R1 is defined as Cx1H-y1 with C = 1 and H=3 being in the ranges recited, and R2 is Cx2Hy2OzNw where x =3, y=7, z= 3, and w = 0 being in the ranges recited for each, with the examples listed above leading one to specifically select compounds including carboxylic acid ester options.
For convenience, the compounds claimed are shown below:
PNG
media_image12.png
144
324
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
151
309
media_image13.png
Greyscale
The above rejection stands alone, and is optionally made further in view of Lee.
Lee teaches the use of imidazolium-based ionic liquids containing an ester group (the most basic ester group of a methyl ester group selected), and that the presence of an ester group on the cations of ionic liquids improved thermal and electrochemical properties of the ionic liquids including ionic conductivities and C-rate performance (Section 4). The specific ester-group-containing imidazolium ionic compound tested by Lee is shown below:
PNG
media_image14.png
134
148
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches the beneficial effects are originated by the interaction between the ester group and the lithium ions, with the ester group playing a favorable role in transporting lithium ions through an interaction with a lithium salt, ultimately resulting in improved C-rate performance (Sections 3 and 4).
Thus, Lee provides additional motivation to select this type of R2 group within the construct of Shi, and further demonstrates that the known positive benefit results from the core structure of the ester group, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and expect that whether methyl, ethyl, butyl, propyl, etc. was attached as the R' for the R-CO-OR' ester group, the ester group would achieve the same beneficial effects of transporting lithium ions through an interaction with a lithium salt, ultimately resulting in improved C-rate performance (Sections 3 and 4).
12. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 105552430) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (US 2020/0388851).
Regarding claim 10, Shi is silent as to the construct of the positive electrode plate; however, looking to known constructs in the same field of endeavor, Jin teaches analogous art of a battery including a positive electrode plate that comprises a positive electrode current collector 10 and a positive electrode coating layer (12, 14) (P21; Fig. 1; entire disclosure relied upon);
the positive electrode coating layer comprises a safety coating 12 (“a first coating layer”) and a positive active material layer 14 (“second coating layer”), wherein the first coating layer 12 is applied onto a surface of the positive electrode current collector 10 (Fig. 1), and the second coating layer 14 is applied onto a surface of the first coating layer 12 (P21, 55; Fig. 1);
the first coating layer 12 comprises an inorganic filler, a first conductive agent and a first binder (P22-53);
the second coating layer comprises a positive electrode active material, a second conductive agent, and a second binder (P99; examples);
and a thickness of the first coating layer is L (1- 20 µm, preferably 3-10 µm – P53 with examples at 8 µm), a thickness of the second coating layer 14 is M (20-77 µm given the total film layer is 30-80 µm – see P59-61), and L/M overlaps the range claimed of < 0.3 [(3/77 – 10/20 = 0.03-0.5 for L/M], thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness given in the case where the claimed range "overlaps or lies inside range(s) disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Therefore, the construct claimed for the positive electrode plate is known in the art as taught by Jin, the selection and implementation thereof in the construct of Shi to achieve the predictable, taught results of providing a positive electrode within a battery with improved safety and electrical performance being achieved by the use of said positive electrode plate (P8-9 of Jin).
Regarding claim 11, Shi teaches wherein the thickness L of the first coating layer 12 ranges from 1- 20 µm, preferably 3-10 µm – P53 with examples at 8 µm, (claimed range is from 2 µm to 10 µm), and the thickness M of the second coating layer 14 is M (20-77 µm given the total film layer is 30-80 µm – see P59-61) (claimed range is 30-80 µm).
Regarding claim 12, Shi teaches (at least) wherein a content of the first binder in the first coating layer is greater than a content of the second binder in the second coating layer (see Table 1 and P99).
Regarding claim 13, Shi teaches (at least) wherein a median particle size Dv50 of the inorganic filler ranges from 100 nm to 10 µm, more preferably from 1-6 µm (claimed range is 0.05 µm to 8 µm) (P44).
13. Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 105552430) as applied to at least claim 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Iwahana et al. (US 2021/0391598).
Regarding claim 14, Shi fails to disclose the thickness of the negative electrode plate (claimed range is less than 200 µm).
In the same field of endeavor, Iwahana teaches analogous art of a battery comprising a negative electrode plate and that the negative electrode plate preferably has a thickness of 70 to 800 µm, preferably 95 to 500 µm, and that the larger the thickness of the negative electrode, the higher the battery capacity and energy density is achieved (P43), with an examples of a negative electrode having thicknesses of 70 µm and 120 µm (P88, 97).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to look to known constructs and teachings for suitable negative electrode constructs including thickness values/ranges and to select the ranges taught by Iwahana in order to achieve a desired battery capacity and energy density (P43).
Regarding claim 15, Shi teaches wherein a mass percentage of the nitrogen-containing compound in a total mass of the electrolyte solution is “in an amount of 0.01 wt% of the electrolyte, in an amount of 0.05 wt% in the electrolyte, in the amount of 2 wt% of the electrolyte” (“B wt%). In Example 3, Shi teaches the specific example of 0.05% (“B wt%”) (page 8).
As taught by Iwahana, a suitable thickness range of a negative electrode plate is 70 to 800 µm, preferably 95 to 500 µm, with specific examples at 70 µm and 120 µm (P88, 97), such that the implementation of the ranges or the specific values taught by Iwahana results in a ratio of B
B (0.01 or 0.05 or 2) to a value of the thickness (the ranges or the values of 70 or 120) of the negative electrode plate is greater than or equal to 0.0001 as claimed (e.g.,, 0.05/70 = 0.0007; 2/70 = 0.02, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, Shi fails to disclose a porosity of the negative electrode plate ranges from 20% to 55%.
In the same field of endeavor, Iwahana teaches analogous art of a battery comprising a negative electrode plate and that the porosity range is 20-60%, more preferably 30-55 wt% (P46). Iwahana teaches that within such a range, the lithium ion conductivity and electron conductivity are each compatible with each other which contributes to improving the rate performance (P46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to look to known constructs and teachings for suitable negative electrode constructs including porosity ranges, and to select 20-60%, more preferably 30-55 wt%, given Iwahana teaches that within such a range, the lithium ion conductivity and electron conductivity are each compatible with each other which contributes to improving the rate performance (P46).
14. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 105552430) as applied to at least claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Saeki et al. (US 2021/0249735).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Shi teaches wherein the separator comprises a porous polyolefin separator base material (page 6); however, Shi is silent as the porosity range of the porous polyolefin separator base material (claimed range is greater than or equal to 35%) [claim 18], and the material is selected from one of polyethylene, polypropyene, or a composite thereof [claim 19].
In the same field of endeavor, Saeki teaches analogous art of a battery and that the separator has a porosity of preferably 30% or more, more preferably 40% or more so as to ensure the holding amount of a nonaqueous electrolyte to thereby improve the ion permeability. The upper bound of the range is 80% or less in order to ensure the strength of the separator and prevent internal short circuit (P122), with the material of the separator being taught as polyethylene (P50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to look to analogous separator constructs and to select known, suitable materials and porosity ranges thereof as taught by Saeki in order to provide the taught, predictable results of providing a battery separator that holds a sufficient amount of nonaqueous electrolyte to thereby improve the ion permeability while balancing strength requirements to prevent internal short circuit (P122).
Regarding claim 20, Shi teaches wherein a mass percentage of the nitrogen-containing compound in a total mass of the electrolyte solution is “in an amount of 0.01 wt% of the electrolyte, in an amount of 0.05 wt% in the electrolyte, in the amount of 2 wt% of the electrolyte” (“B wt%). In Example 3, Shi teaches the specific example of 0.05% (“B wt%”) (page 8).
Shi is silent as to the porosity of the separator; however, Saeki teaches analogous art of a battery and that the separator has a porosity of preferably 30% or more, more preferably 40% or more so as to ensure the holding amount of a nonaqueous electrolyte to thereby improve the ion permeability. The upper bound of the range is 80% or less in order to ensure the strength of the separator and prevent internal short circuit (P122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to look to analogous separator constructs and to select a known porosity range thereof as taught by Saeki in order to provide the taught, predictable results of providing a battery separator that holds a sufficient amount of nonaqueous electrolyte to thereby improve the ion permeability while balancing strength requirements to prevent internal short circuit (P122).
The combined teachings of the reference result in a ratio of B (selecting 2 wt%) to a value of the porosity of the separator (selecting 30% and 40%) is greater than or equal to 0.02 (e.g., 2/30 = 0.06, or 2/40 = 0.05, etc.).
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sun et al., Wetting behavior of four polar organic solvents containing one of three lithium salts on a lithium-ion-battery separator,” J. Colloid and Interface Science, 529 (2018) 582-587, studies the wetting behavior via contact angle of electrolyte solutions that anticipate the feature of having a contact angle θ > 60° (Fig. 3 reproduced below; see also Fig. 5 reporting at least 24 additional electrolyte solution compositions that anticipate the range claimed:
PNG
media_image15.png
520
536
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights