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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 12/28/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 2, Formula 1 and Formula 2 are not printed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1 and 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20220399572 A1) in view of Fukumine et al (US 20150050554 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution. The non-aqueous electrolyte solution at least comprises fluoroethylene carbonate and propyl propionate. The positive electrode comprises a binder [Abstract; paragraph 0020, 0026-0027, 0088-0093, 0105-0157, 0122-0123]. Lee remains silent about the binder composition as claimed. However, Fukumine teaches a binder for a positive electrode of a secondary lithium battery comprising a polymer having a side chain containing hydroxyl. The binder can be obtained by carrying out the graft copolymerization of the monomers by appropriate means. Monomer for the binder may comprise acrylonitrile, acrylic acid, styrene, acrylamide, vinylpyridine [Abstract; paragraph 0031-00065]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 3-4, Lee teaches that the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode active layer, the negative electrode active layer comprises the binder, a proportion of a weight of the binder in the negative electrode active layer is A, and a scope of A ranges from 1 wt% to 30 wt% [paragraph 0106, 0115, 0117, 0146].
Regarding claims 5-9, Lee teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises fluoroethylene carbonate and propyl propionate [paragraph 0123]. The ratio of components is within the technical grasp of skilled artisan and is obvious to adjust for effective outcome.
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches that the positive electrode comprises transition metal lithium oxide [paragraph 0095-0096].
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution further comprises an electrolyte functional additive, and the electrolyte functional additive comprises one or more of the following compounds: 1,3-propane sultone, vinylene carbonate, ethylene sulfate, lithium difluorophosphate [paragraph 0074-0085].
Regarding claims 12-14, Lee teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution further comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent; wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent comprises a mixture of at least one of cyclic carbonate and at least one of a linear carbonate or a linear carboxylate mixed according to any ratio. Lee further teaches that the cyclic carbonate comprises at least one of ethylene carbonate or propylene carbonate; and/or the linear carbonate comprises at least one of dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate or ethyl methyl carbonate; and/or the linear carboxylate comprises at least one of ethyl propionate or propyl acetate [paragraph 0043-0053].
Regarding claims 15-16, Lee teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte solution further comprises an electrolyte lithium salt and the electrolyte lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate and the concentration of the electrolyte lithium salt in the non-aqueous electrolyte solution ranges from 0.5 mol/L to 2 mol/L [paragraph 0038-0042].
Regarding claims 17-19, Lee teaches that the negative electrode is an electrode on the basis of a silicon-based negative electrode material and/or a carbon-based negative electrode material. Lee further teaches that the negative electrode material comprises one or more of artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon, a silicon oxide material [paragraph 0105-0109].
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches that a charging cut-off voltage of the lithium-ion battery is 4.45 V or more [paragraph 0068, 0148, 0173-0174, 0180, 0185-0186].
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2: the prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest or render obvious the lithium-ion battery with the combination of structural element as claimed, including
the binder has a structure as shown in Formula 1 or Formula 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
570
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein: R1, R3, R4, R5, R7 and R8 are each independently selected from H and C1–6 alkyl; R2 and R6 are each independently selected from one or more of a carboxylic acid group, an amide group, an ester group, a sulfonic acid group, a phenyl group, an imidazolyl group, a nitrile group or a related group-derived group; x ranges from 1 to one million, y ranges from 10 to one million, and z ranges from 1 to one million; and a ranges from 1 to one million, b ranges from 1 to one million, c ranges from 1 to 20 million, d ranges from 10 to one million, and e ranges from 0 to 2000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights