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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/16/24, 4/25/25, 8/21/25, 4/7/26 were filed on 5/16/24, 4/25/25, 8/21/25, 4/7/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/29/23 are accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the content B1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oura et al (US 2018/0131034) in view of Kano et al (JP 2021166244 A, machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 12, and 15-20, Oura et al discloses a battery, comprising a positive electrode (positive electrode plate), a negative electrode (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 area of an insulating tape (termination tape) of the positive electrode that is (58 mm+2mm+2 mm) x (6.5 mm+2mm+2mm) = (62mm x 10.5mm) = (6.2cm x 1.05 cm) = 6.5 cm2 (A); and a width of the positive electrode plate is 5.8 cm (C); and a ratio of A to C is 1.12;
wherein the insulating tape comprises a substrate layer and a silicon adhesive layer (rubber termination adhesive layer) coated on a surface of the substrate layer;
wherein using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference, a content of the lithium salt is 1.4 mol/L (B1), and a ratio of A to B1 is (6.5/1.4) = 4.64;
wherein the non-aqueous organic solvent is selected from one or more combinations of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, or diethyl carbonate;
wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer coated on a surface of the positive electrode current collector; the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material; 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;
wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer coated on a surface of the negative electrode current collector; the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material; and the negative electrode active material is selected from graphite;
wherein the battery is a secondary lithium-ion battery that inherently has a charge cut-off voltage that is 4.45 V or above ([0031]-[0033],[0039]-[0041],[0050],[0052],[0055],[0056],[0063],[0065],[0071] and Fig. 1).
However, Oura et al does not expressly teach an electrolyte additive comprising lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference, a content of lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate is B3 wt%; wherein a ratio of A to B3 is in a range of 5-200 (claim 1); wherein the content B3 of lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate ranges from 0.1 wt% to 3 wt% (claim 5); wherein the content B3 of lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate ranges from 0.2 wt% to 1 wt% (claim 6).
Kano et al discloses an electrolyte additive comprising lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference, a content of lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate is 0.2 wt% to 0.4 wt% (B3) ([0043]-[0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Oura electrolyte solution to include an electrolyte additive comprising lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, wherein a content of lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate is 0.2 to 0.4 wt% in order to improve the float reliability of the lithium-ion battery at high temperature ([0045]). Examiner’s note: the Office takes the position that the Oura as modified by Kano necessarily results in a ratio of A to B3 = (6.5/0.4) = 16.25 to (6.5/0.2) = 32.5.
Regarding claim 4, Oura et al does not expressly teach a ratio of A to C that is in a range of 1.6 to 2.2.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Oura insulating tape and positive electrode to include a ratio of A to C that is in a range of 1.6 to 2.2 because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).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)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed ratio of A to C.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Kano et al also discloses an electrolyte additive that further comprises lithium difluoro oxalate phosphate, wherein using a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte solution as a reference, a total content of the lithium difluoro oxalate phosphate ranges from 0.2 wt% to 1.2 wt% ([0043],[0044]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oura et al in view of Kano et al as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 105368336 A, machine translation).
However, Oura et al as modified by Kano et al does not expressly teach a rubber termination adhesive layer comprising a cross-linked modified rubber; the cross-linked modified rubber is obtained by cross-linking modification of a first base under an action of a first cross-linking agent, and the first base is selected from at least one of a natural rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, polyisobutylene rubber, butyl rubber, or nitrile rubber.
Yang discloses an adhesive layer that is selected from styrene-butadiene rubber which is a cross-linked modified rubber ([0016]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Yang indicates that styrene-butadiene rubber is a suitable material for use as an adhesive. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use styrene-butadiene rubber.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oura et al in view of Kano et al and Yang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Buning (US 3821174).
However, Oura et al as modified by Kano et al and Yang does not expressly teach a first cross-linking agent comprising vinylene carbonate (claim 9); wherein using a total weight of the cross-linked modified rubber as a reference, a content of vinylene carbonate ranges from 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% (claim 10).
Buning teaches the concept of a cross-linking mechanism that can be influenced by the incorporation of copolymerization monomers such as vinylene carbonate (col. 6, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Oura/Kano/Yang adhesive to include cross-linking agent comprising vinylene carbonate in order to control the cross-linking of the formed bodies and their characteristics in a desirable manner (col. 5, lines 40-41). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Oura/Kano/Yang/Buning adhesive to include a content of vinylene carbonate ranges from 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). 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)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed content of vinylene carbonate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/19/2026
Prosecution Insights