Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 12 and 18 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.
The “the content B1” recited in claim 12 is not defined because the basis on which the claimed value is based is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
The meanings of “SiOx/C” and “Si/C” recited in claim18 are ambiguous, rendering the scope of the claim unclear. The claim is indefinite.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20140120408 A1, hereafter Kim) in view of “Lithium difluorophosphate as an additive to improve the low temperature performance of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2/graphite cells; Electrochimica Acta (2016) p. 107-114 , hereafter Yang)
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a battery (See at least Abstract and Figures), comprising a positive electrode plate (e.g., 150), a negative electrode plate (e.g., 130), a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (See [0042], [0054]-[0056]), and a separator (e.g., 170, 180), wherein a termination tape (“resin member” 190, Fig. 6) of the positive electrode plate is disposed at a paste coating tail (See the annotated Fig. 6) of the positive electrode plate; and
the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprising a lithium salt such as LiPF6 ([0055]) and a non-aqueous organic solvent such as ethylene carbonate (EC) ([0055]).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim is silent as to an electrolyte additive comprising lithium difluorophosphate. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches adding lithium difluorophosphate into an electrolyte solution comprising a lithium salt and lithium difluorophosphate may improve the low temperature performance of LIBs and a high rate performance was strongly enhanced by using lithium difluorophosphate (abs, p. 107-108). Further, the content B4 of lithium difluorophosphate as an additive may be 1 wt% of the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution (p. 108-109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added lithium difluorophosphate into the electrolyte solution of Kim for the benefit of improving battery performances such as initial efficiency and capacity of the battery.
As to the claimed ratio of A/B4, for a given area of a termination tape of the positive electrode plate is A cm2, Kim does not explicitly teach the area A and Yang teaches B4. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed ratio through routine experimentations since Kim teaches the area is adjustable [i.e 0045]; therefore, a skilled artisan would be able to adjust the values of A/B4 and arrive at the claimed values.
As to the claimed ratio of A/C, for a given area of a termination tape of the positive electrode plate is A cm2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed ratios through routine experimentations since it is well known that a width of the positive electrode plate can be adjusted and predetermined. This limitation involves merely a matter of design choice. It is held to be unpatentable as a matter of design choice in the absence of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A. Also, changes in size or proportion do not patently distinguish the invention in the absence of persuasive evidence. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
As to the above-claimed concentrations or ratios of concentration, it is also noted that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 2, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the area A of the termination tape of the positive electrode plate ranges from 3 cm2 and 120 cm2. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed dimensions through experimentations since it involves merely a matter of design choice. It is held to be unpatentable as a matter of design choice in the absence of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A. Please refer to the explanation for the claimed ranges in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the width C of the positive electrode plate ranges from 1 cm to 120 cm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed dimensions through experimentations since it involves merely a matter of design choice. It is held to be unpatentable as a matter of design choice in the absence of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A. Please refer to the explanation for the claimed ranges in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kim does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio of A to C is in a range of 1.6 to 2.2. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed dimensions through experimentations since it involves merely a matter of design choice. It is held to be unpatentable as a matter of design choice in the absence of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A. Please refer to the explanation for the claimed ranges in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches wherein the content B4 of lithium difluorophosphate ranges from 0.1 wt% to 3 wt% [Yang p. 107-108; i.e. the additive weight of 1wt% overlaps the ranges of 0.1 wt% to 3 wt%]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches wherein the content B4 of lithium difluorophosphate ranges from 0.2 wt% to 1 wt% [Yang p. 107-108; i.e. the additive weight of 1wt% overlaps the ranges of 0.2 wt% to 1 wt%]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 11, Kim as modified teaches the battery according to claim 1, and as addressed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed contents of B1 [i.e. wherein using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference, a content of the lithium salt is B 1 mol/L, and a ratio of A to B 1 is in a range of 2-20] through routine experimentations since it involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Note that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 12, Kim as modified teaches the battery according to claim 1, and as addressed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed contents of B1 [i.e. wherein the content B 1 of the lithium salt ranges from 1 mol/L to 6 mol/L.
through routine experimentations since it involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Note that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A.
Regarding claim 13, Kim as modified teaches the battery according to claim 1, and further teaches vinylene carbonate can be present in the electrolyte solution ([0055] Kim). The claimed vinyl ethylene carbonate is a homolog of vinylene carbonate disclosed by Kim. However, it has been held that closely related homologs, analogues, and isomers in chemistry creates a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon 16 USPQ 2d 1897, 1904 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Payne 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979); In re Mills 126 USPQ 513 (CCPA 1960); In re Henze 85 USPQ 261 (CCPA 1950); In re Hass 60 USPQ 544 (CCPA 1944). See MPEP § 2144.09.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the content of the vinylene carbonate (or vinyl ethylene carbonate) can be 0 wt%, since Kim lists vinylene carbonate as an example but not required, it reads on the claimed wherein using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference, a total content of the another component ranges from 0 wt% to 10wt%.
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is selected from at least one of carbonate, carboxylic acid ester, or fluorinated ether [i.e. ethylene carbonate; 0055].
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches wherein the carbonate is ethylene carbonate [00055].
Regarding claim 17, Kim as modified teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector (152, Fig. 6, Kim) and a positive electrode active material layer (165) coated on a surface of either or both sides of the positive electrode current collector (See, Fig. 6, Kim), and the positive electrode active material layer comprising a positive electrode active material, which may be lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2) ([0050], Kim).
Regarding claim 18, Kim as modified teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode current collector (140, Kim) and a negative electrode active material layer (145) coated on a surface of either or both sides of the negative electrode current collector (See, Fig. 6, Kim), and the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material, which may be silicon oxide and silicon carbide ([0050]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim as modified teaches the battery according to claim 1, and the limitation “a charge cut-off voltage of the battery is 4.45 V or above” represents a property or characteristic of the battery. Since Kim as modified teaches the same battery as claimed, the claimed property of characteristic is necessarily present. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (See MPEP § 2112.01).
Regarding claim 20, Kim as modified teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein the battery is a secondary lithium-ion battery (0036, Kim).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20140120408 A1, hereafter Kim) in view of “Lithium difluorophosphate as an additive to improve the low temperature performance of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2/graphite cells; Electrochimica Acta (2016) p. 107-114 , hereafter Yang) and Han et al. (US 20130177812 A1, hereafter Han).
Regarding claim 7, Kim further teaches the termination tape comprises a substrate (“base material”, [048]-[049]) and an adhesive layer, such as butyl rubber, coated on a surface of the substrate ([048]-[0049]), but is silent as to a (meth)acrylic acid is included in the termination tape. However, in the same field of endeavor, Han teaches a positive electrode material [abs] and discloses that butyl rubber and copolymers of (meth)acrylic acid are functional equivalents as a component of an adhesive for a positive electrode ([0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed copolymers of (meth)acrylic acid as an alternative to the butyl rubber of Kim, since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06). Furthermore, the copolymers of (meth)acrylic acid are cross-linked modified (meth)acrylic acid.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the battery according to claim 7. With regards to: “wherein the (meth)acrylic acid termination adhesive layer comprises cross-linked modified (meth)acrylic acid and/or cross-linked modified (meth)acrylate; and/or, the (meth)acrylic acid termination adhesive layer is obtained by cross-linking modification of a second base under an action of a second cross-linking agent, and the second base is selected from at least one of methacrylic acid, acrylic acid, methacrylate, or acrylate;” these limitations are considered to be a product by process limitations. Since Kim as modified teaches the (meth)acrylic acid termination adhesive layer, as addressed above, the process limitation is not distinguishable. Note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the second cross-linking agent comprises vinylene carbonate [0055].
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches wherein using a total weight of the cross-linked modified (meth)acrylic acid and/or cross-linked modified (meth)acrylate as a reference [please refer to claim 8]. Kim does not explicitly teach a content of vinylene carbonate ranges from 0.5 wt% to 5 wt%. As to the above-claimed wt%, it is also noted that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 12347829B2 [Mu] in view of “Lithium difluorophosphate as an additive to improve the low temperature performance of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2/graphite cells; Electrochimica Acta (2016) p. 107-114 , hereafter Yang. Patent ‘829 teaches: A battery, comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a non-aqueous electrolyte solution, and a separator; wherein a termination tape of the positive electrode plate is disposed at a paste coating tail of the positive electrode plate; the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent, a lithium salt, and an electrolyte additive; and
an area of a termination tape of the positive electrode plate is A cm2; using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference, and a width of the positive electrode plate is C cm; and a ratio of A to C is in a range of 1 to 3; however fails to teach the electrolyte additive comprises lithium difluorophosphate; a content of lithium difluorophosphate is B4 wt %; wherein a ratio of A to B4 is in a range of 5-200. Yang teaches the additive lithium difluorophosphate as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘829 in view of Yang as for the benefit of improving battery performances such as initial efficiency and capacity of the battery. As to the claimed ratio of A/B4, for a given area of a termination tape of the positive electrode plate is A cm2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed ratio through routine experimentations and arrive at the claimed values.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights