DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-18 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, it is not clear what “using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference” means when referring to a standard salt molarity, defined in mol/L. It is unclear what positive structural is implied or intended by such language, assuming that it is not completely superfluous or otherwise an error. The claim has been interpreted as referring to molarity, normally defined.
Claim 12 requires “a total content of the another component ranges from 0 wt% to 10 wt%.” On the face of it, claim 12 appears to render entirely optional claim 11, and therefore actually broadens the claim, since the component at 0 wt% would not actually be an additional component at all. It is therefore unclear whether the claim is intended to require a range of “greater than 0 wt% to less than 10 wt%,” or similar. The claim has been interpreted broadly as referring to an optional component.
Claim 8 refers to “a second base under an action of a second cross-linking agent.” It is unclear what “a second cross-linking agent” might signify when no “first cross-linking agent” is required. It is has been interpreted broadly to require a cross-linker.
Claim 17 specifies “a charge cut-off voltage.” While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F. 3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. It is unclear whether the “charge cut-off voltage” only specifies a method of use or requires some specific positive structural features that further limit the claim by their presence or absence. The claim has been interpreted broadly as a capacity—any battery in the prior art that is capable of being charged such that it does not go over 4.45 V would meet the criterion.
The other dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukui (US 2011/0217577 to Fukui et al.), or (alternatively) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui (US 2011/0217577 to Fukui et al.) in view of Shiozaki (US 2018/0159136 to Shiozaki et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Fukui teaches:
a battery with a cathode, anode, electrolyte and separator (¶ 0044-0052)
the electrolyte comprising a lithium salt like LiPF6 in a solvent such as fluoroethylene carbonate, cyclic carbonate, or chain carbonates as were conventional in the art (¶ 0076)
a termination tape 14, at the terminal end of an electrode 11 (which in some embodiments can be a positive electrode, see ¶ 0098), where the tape 14 is disposed at what reads on a “paste coating tail” since it is an end portion of the electrode layer 11B (Figs. 3 and 4, ¶ 0046)
PNG
media_image1.png
298
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
274
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an area of a termination tape overlapping the electrode plate is, in one embodiment, 0.45 cm x 3.57 cm (Fig. 3, ¶ 0130, in view of ¶ 0098), with the width of the plate being 3.57 cm, and 1.6 cm x 3.6 cm in another embodiment (¶ 0141)
the concentration of lithium salt is 1M (¶ 0135)
the termination tape comprises a substrate with a methacrylic acid adhesive layer (¶ 0063)
such that the ratio of the area to the salt concentration varies from 1.6–5.76 (see A calculated above), and a ratio of A to C is 0.45–1.6
Fukui, therefore appears to teach embodiments that anticipate the claimed ratios. Even if no particular embodiment explicitly includes all the claimed values and features, Fukui teaches a substantially overlapping range of dimensional values that render the claim obvious. 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 [R-5]). Similarly, although Fukui does not teach exactly the tape overlap or structure of the instant figures and described in the as-filed specification as a “paste coating tail,” Fukui teaches structures that read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase, coming at terminal ends of electrode plates.
Alternatively, Shiozaki, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery of electrode plates, teaches an insulating tape over terminal ends of coated portions and stretching over a uncoated portions (Figs. 1 and 2), and further teaches embodiments where the uncovered portions can come at a true end portion of the current collector (¶ 0035), which was a conventional alternative for forming electrode intended to be formed into rolled electrode bodies. Shiozaki additionally teaches conventional lengths (i.e. widths) of 2-8 cm (¶ 0037). The particular position of the end portion was selectable from a variety of conventional positions in the art depending on design preferences with predictable outcomes. See e.g. US 2020/0153047 to Kawai et al. and US 2020/0168886 to Sato et al. for evidence of ordinary skill in the art regarding the use of insulative tape at termination ends of electrodes in jelly rolls.
Regarding Claim 2, Fukui and Shiozaki render obvious:
areas of the terminal tape on the order of 2–8 cm x 0.5–1.6 cm (see ¶ 0130, 0141 of Fukui, and ¶ 0037, 0064-006 of Shiozaki)
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 [R-5]).
Regarding Claim 3, Fukui teaches:
widths on the order of 3 cm
Regarding Claim 4, Fukui teaches:
a ratio of A to C around 1.6
Regarding Claim 5, Fukui teaches:
1 M (¶ 0135)
Regarding Claim 6, Fukui teaches:
1 M (¶ 0135)
Shiozaki, however, teaches lithium salt molarities up to 1.7 M (¶ 0057). It would have been obvious to use conventional values in the art, including values up to 1.7 M, absent evidence of unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 7, Fukui teaches:
adhesive comprising cross-linked modified acrylic acid (¶ 0141)
Regarding Claim 8, Fukui teaches:
adhesive comprising cross-linked butyl acrylate and acrylic acid with crosslinking agent (¶ 0141)
Regarding Claims 13-14, Fukui teaches:
a solvent such as fluoroethylene carbonate, cyclic carbonate, or chain carbonates as were conventional in the art (¶ 0076)
Regarding Claim 15, Fukui teaches:
lithium cobalt (¶ 0131)
Regarding Claim 16, Fukui teaches:
graphite (¶ 0126)
Regarding Claim 17, Fukui teaches:
conventional cathodes and anodes, that can be prevented from charging beyond 4.45 V
See also previously cited Kawai, which expressly teaches that conventional batteries in the art were known to have charge cutoff voltages of up to 4.45 V or more (¶ 0019).
Regarding Claim 18, Fukui teaches:
a lithium ion battery (abstract, etc.)
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui (US 2011/0217577 to Fukui et al.) in view of Shiozaki (US 2018/0159136 to Shiozaki et al.), in further view of Bruckmeier (US 2017/0179478 to Bruckermeier et al.).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Fukui does not teach:
vinylene carbonate as the cross-linker at a content of 0.5–5 wt%
Bruckmeier, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a tacky, adhesive binder for use on a lithium-ion electrode, teaches a copolymer with acrylic acid (derivatives) up to 95 wt% (¶ 0017-0018) and a vinylene carbonate monomer with a lower range of around 5 wt% (claim 1). It would have been obvious to use vinylene carbonate as the cross-linker within the claimed range absent a showing of unexpected results. 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 [R-5]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui (US 2011/0217577 to Fukui et al.) in view of Shiozaki (US 2018/0159136 to Shiozaki et al.), in further view of Wen (US 2021/0328268 to Wen et al.).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Fukui does not explicitly teach:
electrolyte additive as claimed
Such electrolyte additives were conventional in the art for SEI optimization. Wen, for example, teaches an electrolyte additive added at 0.01–10 wt% that can include vinylene carbonate, LiBOB, sultones, etc. (¶ 0024). See also Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to use a conventional additive as claimed to improve performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights