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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The element “Al” is missing from the second listing of the group of dopants in line 7, despite being present in both the first (line 6) and third (line 9) listings. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oura et al., WO 2017037981 A1, cited by US equivalent US 2018/0131034 A1 (“Oura”) in view of Han et al., WO 2022154430 A1, cited by US equivalent US 2023/0299360 A1 (“Han”).
Regarding Claim 1, Oura discloses:
A battery (Corresponding to “secondary battery”; [See Par. 9]), comprising
a positive electrode plate (Corresponding to “positive electrode”; [See Pars. 9 and 31-38]),
a negative electrode plate (Corresponding to “negative electrode”; [See Pars. 9 and 50-54]),
a non-aqueous electrolyte solution (Corresponding to “electrolyte”; [See Pars. 55-56]), and
a separator (Corresponding to “separator”; [See Pars. 9 and 57]), ;
wherein a termination tape (Corresponding to “insulating tape (14)”; [See Pars. 18-30 and 40-49]), of the positive electrode plate is disposed at a paste coating tail of the positive electrode plate (“The insulating tape covers at least part of the exposed portion of the positive electrode current collector and at least part of the overlapping portion of the positive electrode lead. … This configuration can suppress a short circuit between the exposed portion of the positive electrode current collector and the negative electrode active material layer.” [Par. 18]; See also Annotated Fig. 2 herein showing insulating tape 14 covering exposed portion 11a of the positive electrode current collector 11 as well as a portion of the positive electrode active material layer 12);
the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises a non-aqueous organic solvent [See Par. 55 reciting examples including cyclic carbonates, chain carbonates, chain carboxylates, chain ethers, cyclic ethers, etc.], a lithium salt [See Par. 56 reciting exemplary lithium salts], …
an area of a termination tape of the positive electrode plate is A cm2; …
and a width of the positive electrode plate is C cm; wherein …
a ratio of A to C is in a range of 1 to 3 (See dimensions reported in Example 1 [Pars. 63-64]; See also Annotated Fig. 1 herein showing the ratio of A to C calculated using those dimensions is 1.12 cm]); and
the termination tape comprises a substrate and a (meth)acrylic acid termination adhesive layer coated on a surface of the substrate (“The insulating tape has a substrate layer and an adhesive layer.” [Par. 18]; See also Annotated Fig. 2 herein showing substrate layer 14a and adhesive layer 14b; See also Par. 20 reciting use in the art of acrylic resin as an adhesive and Comparative Examples 1-4 [Pars. 74-77 and Table 1]. Applicant’s definition of (meth) as optional in (meth)acrylic acid at Par. 31 of the instant specification is also noted.)
Oura does not disclose:
the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises… an electrolyte additive; and
the electrolyte additive comprises 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane and/or 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane; and
…using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference, a content of 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane and/or 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane is B56 wt%;
wherein a ratio of A to B56 is in a range of 2-40.
Han discloses:
the non-aqueous electrolyte solution comprises… an electrolyte additive (“…the non-aqueous electrolyte solution…may preferably include a lithium salt-based additive or a nitrile-based additive.” [Par. 80]); and
the electrolyte additive comprises 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane and/or 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane (“The nitrile-based additive may be at least one selected from the group consisting of…1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane (TCEP)…” [Par. 86]); and
…using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference, a content of 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane and/or 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane is B56 wt% (…“the nitrile-based additive controls dissolution of transition metal from a positive electrode… In an embodiment of the present invention, an amount of the nitrile-based additive may be in a range of 0.05 wt% to 10 wt%...based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution. In a case in which the amount of the nitrile-based additive is less than 0.05 wt%, an effect of controlling the dissolution of the transition metal is insignificant, and, in a case in which the amount of the nitrile-based additive is greater than 10 wt %, there is a problem in that wetting is reduced due to an increase in viscosity and the ionic conductivity is reduced.” [Pars. 87-89]);…
Han does not disclose: wherein a ratio of A to B56 is in a range of 2-40.
Although neither Oura nor Han discloses the ratio of A to B56 in a range of 2-40 (because each reference deals with either the tape or the additive and not both), using the endpoints of the range with the value of A calculated from Example 1 of Oura (6.51 cm2) indicates a weight % of the additive would range from 0.16 wt % (6.51/40) to 3.26 wt % (6.51/2). In each of Han’s Examples 1-11 [Pars. 167-193], a combination of nitrile-based additives was used totaling 2.5 – 5 wt % from among the seven alternatives listed at Par. 86, which list included 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane. Use of a 2.5 wt% nitrile-based additive as taught by Example 11 of Han with tape having an area A as disclosed by Example 1 of Oura would result in an A to B56 ratio of 2.60% (6.51/2.5), within the claimed range of 2-40. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to arrive at the invention of Claim 1 prior to the effective filing date thereof using the teachings of Han regarding nitrile-based additives in conjunction with the teachings of Oura regarding insulating tape for the positive electrode, each of which independently provides improvements in battery performance, with a reasonable likelihood of success and without undue experimentation.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
1709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1016
1447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Oura also discloses:
wherein the area A of the termination tape of the positive electrode plate ranges from 3 cm2 and 120 cm2 (See Example 1 and Annotated Fig. 1 indicating area A is 6.51 cm2).
Regarding Claim 3, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Oura also discloses:
wherein the width C of the positive electrode plate ranges from 1 cm to 120 cm (See Example 1 and Annotated Fig. 1 indicating width C (Corresponding to L in Fig. 1) is 6.51 cm2).
Regarding Claim 4, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Neither Oura nor Han explicitly discloses:
wherein a ratio of A to C is in a range of 1.6 to 2.2.
As noted in the rejection of Claim 1, Oura discloses by way of Example 1 a ratio of A to C of 1.12 cm. Although this is outside the range limitation of 1.6 to 2.2, applicant’s specification is silent as to the criticality of either this range or the broader range limitation in Claim 1 of 1 to 3. The specification recites at Par. 15:
A termination tape of a positive electrode plate is disposed at a paste coating tail of the positive electrode plate, so that a tail of a battery cell can be fixed, and burrs on a cut edge of the positive electrode plate can be covered, so as to prevent a battery from being short-circuited, thereby providing insulation protection. However, the applicant found that local deformation and warping easily occur on the termination tape at high temperature and high pressure. When the deformation and warping uplift to a specific extent, a short-circuit risk may occur. In this way, the applicant makes an in-depth study on a size of the termination tape, and finds that when a ratio of an area of the termination tape to a width of the positive electrode plate is in a range of 1 to 3, the termination tape can cover surfaces of paste and foil uncoating surfaces more properly, minimize the impact of an electrolyte on an adhesive layer, and control the short-circuit risk caused by deformation and warping to a low degree.
Regarding the specific ranges of the ratio of A to C, the specification recites, “An area of a termination tape of the positive electrode plate is A cm2, 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. … In an example, the ratio of A to C is in a range of 1.6-2.2.” [Pars. 17-20].
Applicant discloses 22 Examples and 6 Comparative examples in Table 1. These vary not only in area A, width C, and thus ratio A to C, but also in the identity and amount of nitrile additive (B56) and vinylene carbonate (D). To compare the results of applicant’s broader (1 to 3) and narrower (1.6 to 2.2) ranges for the ratio of A to C, Examples 16, 17, 18, and 20 correspond to varying A to C ratios under otherwise identical conditions of additive and vinylene carbonate. Each of these Example batteries passed all tests (5/5) for ignition and explosion in applicant’s thermal shock experiment, and no lithium deposition was observed upon disassembly after 400 cycles at 45°C and 1C. Applicant’s remaining results are reproduced from Table 2 in order of increasing A to C ratio as follows:
Example
Ratio of A to C
Capacity Retention Rate after 400 Cycles at 45°C and 1C
Capacity Retention Rate after 85°C Storage for 10 Hours
Thickness Change Rate after 85°C Storage for 10 Hours
17
1.1
74.6%
56.7%
13.4%
20
1.65
74.7%
56.8%
13.5%
16
2.2
76.2%
58.4%
12.5%
18
2.9
73.1%
55.2%
13.1%
Based upon applicant’s results, it is not readily apparent that the stated narrower range (1.6 to 2.2, Examples 20 and 16) yields unexpected results on any of the tested measures in light of the broader range (1 to 3, including bracketing Examples 17 and 18) recited in Claim 1 within which the teachings of Oura fall. Thus, the claimed narrower range cannot be considered critical. “Where 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). (MPEP §2144.05 II.A.)
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
Given market pressures like those noted in Pars. 3 and 4 of applicant’s specification, specifically, increasing energy density requirements for batteries, broadening applications for portable devices, and safety needs, performance improvements, and capacity retention when batteries are subjected to high temperature conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to conduct routine experimentation to optimize the ratio of the area of an insulating tape to the dimensions of the positive electrode it is designed to protect. Also, given the dimensions of the electrode and the geometry of the positive electrode active material layer thereon, there exist a finite number of options to evaluate to optimize the size of the tape and thus the ratio of A to C. Given the prior findings of Oura regarding the use of a positive electrode insulating tape, one of ordinary skill would also have had a reasonable likelihood of success in so doing. Thus, provided with the teachings of Oura and Han, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by market pressures to conduct routine experimentation to arrive at the battery of Claim 4 before the effective filing date thereof.
Regarding Claim 5, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Han also discloses:
wherein the content of 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane ranges from 0.5 wt% to 3 wt%; or, the content of 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane ranges from 0.5 wt% to 3 wt%; or, the content of the sum of 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane and 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane ranges from 0.5 wt% to 3 wt%. (See Par. 86 indicating seven alternative nitrile-based additives including succinonitrile and 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane, Par. 87 indicating the nitrile-based additive controls dissolution of transition metal from a positive electrode, and Examples 1-9 [Pars. 167-189] in which succinonitrile was added at 2 wt%.)
Regarding Claim 6, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Han also discloses:
wherein the content of 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane ranges from 1 wt% to 2 wt%; or, the content of 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane ranges from 1 wt% to 2 wt%; or, the content of the sum of 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane and 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane ranges from 1 wt% to 2 wt%. (See Par. 86 indicating seven alternative nitrile-based additives including succinonitrile and 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane, Par. 87 indicating the nitrile-based additive controls dissolution of transition metal from a positive electrode, and Examples 1-9 [Pars. 167-189] in which succinonitrile was added at 2 wt%.)
Regarding Claim 7, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Oura does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the (meth)acrylic acid termination adhesive layer comprises cross-linked modified (meth)acrylic acid and/or cross-linked modified (meth)acrylate.
However, Oura presented four Comparative Examples in which an acrylic resin was used as the adhesive layer. The non-aqueous electrolyte used therein was ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate (1:1:8 v/v). Thus, the acrylic resin used therein, although not specified, was necessarily a crosslinked acrylic resin, as a thermoplastic (uncrosslinked) acrylic would readily dissolve or swell in the organic electrolyte, while a thermoset (crosslinked) acrylic would be stable thereto. Therefore, Oura in view of Han teaches all of the limitations of the battery of Claim 7.
Regarding Claims 8-10, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, the additional limitation, “wherein 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” recites the manner by which the battery of Claim 7 has been made. Thus, Claim 8 is a “product-by-process” claim.
Regarding Claim 9, the additional limitation, “wherein, the second cross-linking agent comprises vinylene carbonate” further recites the manner by which the battery of Claim 8 has been made. Thus, Claim 9 is also a “product-by-process” claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the additional limitation, “wherein using a total weight of the cross-linked modified (meth)acrylic acid and/or cross-linked modified (meth)acrylate as a reference, a content of vinylene carbonate ranges from 0.5 wt% to 5 wt%” further recites the manner by which the battery of Claim 9 has been made. Thus, Claim 10 is also a “product-by-process” claim.
"[E]ven 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) (MPEP §2113.I.)
Although the patentability of a product-by-process claim is not limited by the steps recited, consideration of the structure implied by those steps is appropriate. (MPEP §2113.I.) In this instance, the respective steps recited in claims 8, 9, and 10 are the preparation of a cross-linked acrylic adhesive using a second cross linking agent (Claim 8), wherein said agent comprises vinylene carbonate (Claim 9) in an amount of 0.5 to 5 wt% relative to the total weight of cross-linked modified acrylic adhesive. The only structure implied by each step is a cross-linked modified acrylic adhesive, which has already been recited in Claim 7. Accordingly, for purposes of patentability, the assessment of each of Claims 8, 9, and 10 is identical to that of Claim 7, and for the reasons specified above, the battery of each of Claims 8, 9, and 10 is obvious over Oura in view of Han.
Regarding Claim 11, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Oura also discloses:
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 (See Example 1 [Par. 71] describing preparation of non-aqueous electrolyte by dissolving LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate (1:1:8 v/v) at 1.4 mol/L and annotated Fig. 1 indicating A is 6.51 cm2), thus the ratio of A to B1 is 6.51/1.4 = 4.7).
Regarding Claim 12, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Oura also discloses:
wherein the content B 1 of the lithium salt ranges from 1 mol/L to 6 mol/L (See Example 1 [Par. 71] describing preparation of non-aqueous electrolyte by dissolving LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate (1:1:8 v/v) at 1.4 mol/L).
Regarding Claim 15, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Oura also discloses:
wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is selected from at least one of carbonate, carboxylic acid ester, or fluorinated ether (See Par. 55 disclosing exemplary non-aqueous solvents including “cyclic carbonates, …chain carbonates, …chain carboxylates, …chain ethers, …cyclic ethers, …and halogenated products formed by substituting hydrogen atoms of these solvents with halogen atoms such as a fluorine atom.”).
Regarding Claim 16, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 15. Oura also discloses:
wherein the carbonate is selected from one or more combinations of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, or methyl propyl carbonate (See Par. 55 disclosing exemplary cyclic carbonates ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate and exemplary chain carbonates dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and ethyl methyl carbonate); … and/or, the fluorinated ether is selected from 1,1,2,3-tetrafluoroethyl-2,2,3,3-tetrafluoropropyl ether (See Par. 55 disclosing “chain ethers…and halogenated products formed by substituting hydrogen atoms of these solvents with halogen atoms such as a fluorine atom.”).
Han also discloses:
wherein…and/or, the carboxylic acid ester is selected from one or more combinations of ethyl propionate or propyl propionate (See Par. 113 disclosing exemplary ester-based organic solvents including ethyl propionate and propyl propionate);
Regarding Claim 18, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Oura also discloses:
wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer coated on a surface of either or both sides of the negative electrode current collector [See Par. 50]; the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material [See Par. 52]; and the negative electrode active material is selected from graphite or a graphite composite material comprising 1-12 wt% SiOx/C or Si/C [See Par. 52].
Regarding Claim 20, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Oura also discloses:
wherein the battery is a secondary lithium-ion battery (See Par. 52 “The negative electrode active material layer of the lithium-ion secondary battery contains…”).
Claims 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oura et al., WO 2017037981 A1, cited by US equivalent US 2018/0131034 A1 (“Oura”) in view of Han et al., WO 2022154430 A1, cited by US equivalent US 2023/0299360 A1 (“Han”) and further in view of Li et al., WO 2021254451 A1, cited by US equivalent US 2023/0246235 A1 (“Li”).
Regarding Claim 13, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Li also discloses:
wherein the electrolyte additive further comprises another component, and the another component comprises at least one of 1,3-propanesulfonic acid lactone, 1-propene 1,3-sultone, ethylene sulphite, ethylene sulfate, lithium bis(oxalate)borate, lithium difluoro oxalate phosphate, and vinyl ethylene carbonate (See Embodiment 8, Pars. 55-60 and Table 1, indicating inclusion of 3 wt% 1,3-propane sultone (aka 1,3-propanesulfonic acid lactone) as an electrolyte additive in a lithium ion battery; See also Par. 4 indicating this additive “as a film-forming additive…has been widely used in lithium ion electrolyte.”).
As does the current invention, each of Oura, Han, and Li deals with issues relating to lithium ion secondary batteries, specifically enhancing the stability and performance thereof using insulating tape on the positive electrode, one or more nitrile-based additives to control dissolution of transition metal from the positive electrode, and one or more film-forming additives to create a stable SEI layer on the surface of the electrode, respectively. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings regarding protective tape of Oura with those regarding nitrile-based additives of Han and film-forming additives of Li to arrive at the invention of Claim 13 prior to the effective filing date thereof. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success given the distinct mechanism by which each such performance advantage is obtained.
Regarding Claim 14, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 13. Li also discloses:
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% (See Embodiment 8, Pars. 55-60 and Table 1, indicating inclusion of 3 wt% 1,3-propane sultone (aka 1,3-propanesulfonic acid lactone) as an electrolyte additive in a lithium ion battery; See also Par. 4 indicating this additive “as a film-forming additive…has been widely used in lithium ion electrolyte.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Li also discloses:
wherein a charge cut-off voltage of the battery is 4.45 V or above (See Par. 41 reciting, “The charge upper limit voltage of the lithium ion battery is 4.5 V.”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oura et al., WO 2017037981 A1, cited by US equivalent US 2018/0131034 A1 (“Oura”) in view of Han et al., WO 2022154430 A1, cited by US equivalent US 2023/0299360 A1 (“Han”) and further in view of Gogyo, WO 2016060253 A1, cited by US equivalent US 2017/0309954 A1 (“Gogyo”).
Regarding Claim 17, Oura in view of Han discloses the battery of Claim 1. Oura also discloses:
wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer coated on a surface of either or both sides of the positive electrode current collector [See Par. 31]; the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material [See Par. 33]; …
With regard to the final limitation, “the positive electrode active material is selected from lithium cobalt oxide or lithium cobalt oxide doped and coated with two or more elements in Al, Mg, Mn, Cr, Ti, and Zr; and an chemical formula of the lithium cobalt oxide doped and coated with the two or more elements in Mg, Mn, Cr, Ti, and Zr is LixCo1-y1-y2-y3-y4 Ay1By2Cy3Dy4O2, wherein 0.95 <x<1.05, 0.01<y1<0.1, 0.01<y2<0.1, 0<y3<0.1, 0<y4<0.1, and A, B, C, and D are selected from the two or more elements in Al, Mg, Mn, Cr, Ti, and Zr,” at Par. 33 Oura discloses, inter alia, the following two compositions for lithium-containing composite oxides in the positive electrode active material layer:
LiNix1Mny1Co1-(x1+y1)O2
where 0.25<x1<0.5 (Ni), 0.25<y1<0.5 (Mn), and thus the Co subscript is 0<Co<0.5; and
LiNix2Coy2M1-(x2+y2)O2 in which M is at least one element selected from a group consisting of Mg, …Ti, …Cr, …(and) Al …
where 0.75<x2<0.99 (Ni), 0.01<y2<0.25 (Co), and thus the M subscript is 0<M<0.24.
Gogyo likewise discloses lithium transition metal oxides as part of a cathode active material including:
At Par. 32:
LixCoyM1-yOz in which M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of…Mg, …Mn, …Co, (and) Al …
where x = 0 to 1.2 (Li), y = 0 to 0.9 (Co), and z = 2.0 to 2.3 (O), and thus the M subscript is 0.1<M<1.0.
At Par. 41:
Li(1+δ)MnxNiyCo(1-x-y-z)MzO2 in which M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti…, Zr…, (and) Al… [See Par. 44]
At Pars. 46-47, Gogyo also discloses that spinel lithium manganese nickel complex oxides can be stabilized by replacing part of the Mn/Ni sites with other metal atom(s) capable of doing so, including inter alia, Ti, Cr, Co, Mg, and Al. This indicates that, by substitution of Ni for any of these, the scope of any of the above formulas is enhanced to include a wide variety of species falling within the genus represented by the lithium metal oxide formula limitation of Claim 17.
Oura, Han, and Gogyo each involve the structure of lithium secondary batteries, as does the instant case. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings regarding protective tape of Oura with those regarding nitrile-based additives of Han and lithium metal oxides of Oura and Gogyo for the positive electrode active material to arrive at the invention of Claim 17 prior to the effective filing date thereof. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success given not only that Oura and Gogyo teach similar compositions but also that Gogyo indicates the capability of other metals falling within applicant’s claimed invention to substitute for Ni or Mn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Sakurai (US 12,159,975) discloses an insulating tape interposed between positive and negative electrode plates (Abstract). Yoshida et al. (US 11,670,771) discloses a positive electrode tab tape (Abstract). Lee, et al. (US 2012/0107695 A1) discloses lithium transition metal oxide cathode active materials including Co and or Mn potentially doped with at least one of Al, Ti, and Mg. (Par. 27)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G IZZO whose telephone number is (571)270-0705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Michael N. Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER G. IZZO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights