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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by the machine translation of Chen (CN 103456918 B).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a positive electrode (para. 9, [positive electrode]), comprising;
a positive electrode material (para. 9, [positive electrode material]);
wherein the positive electrode material comprises a positive electrode active composite (para. 9, [the material contains layered nickel cobalt aluminate and olivine lithium iron phosphate]);
the positive electrode active composite comprises a lithium iron phosphate material with a mass percentage of X (para. 9, [the olivine lithium iron phosphate is 80% to 95% by weight]) and
a ternary material with a mass percentage of Y (para. 9, [the nickel cobalt aluminate is 5% to 20% by weight]); values of X and Y satisfy X+Y=100%, 60%≤X≤99% (see above, 80% to 95%) and 1%≤Y≤40% (see above, 5% to 20%);
the positive electrode is configured to be applied in a lithium-ion battery (para. 9, [a second object of the present invention is to provide a method for producing a positive electrode of a lithium ion battery described above]);
an operating voltage value V0 of the lithium-ion battery is located between an upper limit voltage value V1 and a lower limit voltage value V2; the upper voltage value V1 satisfies: 3.8 V≤V1≤4.0 V (para. 44, Example 1, upper limit voltage is 4.1 V, examiner notes that the upper limit voltage can be up to 4.1 V which includes voltages between 3.8 and 4.0, as claim 1 requires); and
the lower voltage value V2 satisfies: 2 V≤V2≤2.8 V (para. 44, Example 1, lower limit voltage is 2.0 V).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the positive electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the values of X and Y satisfy 60%≤X≤90% (see claim 1 above, 80% to 95%) and 10%≤Y≤40% (see claim 1 above, 5% to 20%);.
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the positive electrode as claimed in claim 3, wherein the values of X and Y satisfy 60%≤X≤80% (see claim 1 above, 80% to 95%) and 20%≤Y≤40% (see claim 1 above, 5% to 20%).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses a lithium-ion battery (para. 25, [lithium ion battery]), comprising: a cell (para. 25, [an electrode group]); and an electrolyte (para. 25, [non-aqueous electrolyte]);
wherein the cell comprises a positive electrode (para. 25),
a negative electrode (para. 25) and
a separator (para. 25); the separator is located between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 26, [the separator is disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode]);
the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode material (para. 9, [positive electrode material]);
the positive electrode material comprises a positive electrode active composite (para. 9, [the material contains layered nickel cobalt aluminate and olivine lithium iron phosphate]);
the positive electrode active composite comprises
a lithium iron phosphate material with a mass percentage of X (para. 9, [the olivine lithium iron phosphate is 80% to 95% by weight]) and
a ternary material with a mass percentage of Y (para. 9, [the nickel cobalt aluminate is 5% to 20% by weight]);
values of X and Y satisfy X+Y=100%, 60%≤X≤99% (see above, 80% to 95%) and 1%≤Y≤40% (see above, 5% to 20%);
an operating voltage value V0 of the lithium-ion battery is located between an upper limit voltage value V1 and a lower limit voltage value V2;
the upper voltage value V1 satisfies 3.8 V ≤ V1 ≤ 4.0 V (para. 44, Example 1, upper limit voltage is 4.1 V, examiner notes that the upper limit voltage can be up to 4.1 V which includes voltages between 3.8 and 4.0); and the lower voltage value V2 satisfies 2 V≤ V2 ≤2.8 V (para. 44, Example 1, lower limit voltage is 2.0 V).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 5, wherein the values of X and Y satisfy 60%≤X≤90% (see claim 5 above, 80% to 95%) and 10%≤Y≤40% (see claim 1 above, 5% to 20%).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 8, wherein the values of X and Y satisfy 60%≤X≤80% (see claim 5 above, 80% to 95%) and 20%≤Y≤40% (see claim 1 above, 5% to 20%).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 10, wherein the electrolyte further comprises a lithium salt (para. 33) and the lithium salt comprises lithium hexafluorophosphate (para. 33, [lithium hexafluorophosphate]).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 12, wherein the electrolyte further comprises a solvent (para. 33), and the solvent is selected from the group consisting of vinylene carbonate (para. 33), diethyl carbonate (para. 33), dimethyl carbonate (para. 33), and ethyl methyl carbonate (para. 33).
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 5, and further discloses that the ternary material comprises lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (para. 9, [the positive electrode active material contains … lithium nickel cobalt aluminate]).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 14 (see claim 14 above) (para. 9, [the positive electrode active material contains … lithium nickel cobalt aluminate]).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 15 (see claim 14 above)(para. 9, [the positive electrode active material contains … lithium nickel cobalt aluminate]).
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 5, wherein the positive electrode further comprises a current collector (para. 9, [conductive substrate]); and the positive electrode material is coated on or filled in the current collector (para. 9, [a positive electrode material coated on the conductive substrate]).
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.
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.
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 2, 6, 7, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Chen (CN 103456918 B) and further in view of Xie (US 20230261491 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the positive electrode as claimed in claim 1.
Chen does not teach wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises an activation voltage value V3; wherein the activation voltage value V3 satisfies 4.1 V ≤V3≤4.4 V; and when a cell capacity of the lithium-ion battery is subjected to a certain attenuation with an attenuation capacity of Closs, the lithium-ion battery is charged to reach the activation voltage V3.
Xie, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises an activation voltage value V3; wherein the activation voltage value V3 satisfies 4.1 V ≤V3≤4.4 V (Xie, para. 0142, [the activation voltage is higher than the normal charging voltage and ≤ 5.5 V]); and when a cell capacity of the lithium-ion battery is subjected to a certain attenuation with an attenuation capacity of Closs (Xie, para. 0072, [state-of-health value]), the lithium-ion battery is charged to reach the activation voltage V3 (Xie, para. 0072, [when the battery state-of-health value is less than or equal to a first present threshold, an activation voltage is applied to the battery]) (Xie, para. 0073, teaches that the control unit issues an instruction to a charging unit based on a signal for the health value that is sent by a monitoring unit, to apply the activation voltage to the battery) (Examiner notes that Xie teaches an activation voltage and therefore has the capacity to activate the voltage based on the battery’s needs).
In this case the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
See MPEP 2113.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included an activation voltage, as taught by Xie, in order to provide an activation voltage that is higher than a normal charging voltage of the battery during a normal charge/discharge process, so that a lithium supplement agent … is activated to release lithium ions into an electrolyte … to recover activity of the battery (Xie, para. 0073).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 5.
Chen does not teach wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises an activation voltage value V3; wherein the activation voltage value V3 satisfies 4.1 V ≤V3≤4.4 V; and when a cell capacity of the lithium-ion battery is subjected to a certain attenuation with an attenuation capacity of Closs, the lithium-ion battery is charged to reach the activation voltage V3.
Xie, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the lithium-ion battery comprises an activation voltage value V3; wherein the activation voltage value V3 satisfies 4.1 V ≤V3≤4.4 V (Xie, para. 0142, [the activation voltage is higher than the normal charging voltage and ≤ 5.5 V]); and when a cell capacity of the lithium-ion battery is subjected to a certain attenuation with an attenuation capacity of Closs (Xie, para. 0072, [state-of-health value]), the lithium-ion battery is charged to reach the activation voltage V3 (Xie, para. 0072, [when the battery state-of-health value is less than or equal to a first present threshold, an activation voltage is applied to the battery]) (Xie, para. 0073, teaches that the control unit issues an instruction to a charging unit based on a signal for the health value that is sent by a monitoring unit, to apply the activation voltage to the battery) (Examiner notes that Xie teaches an activation voltage and therefore has the capacity to activate the voltage based on the battery’s needs).
In this case the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
See MPEP 2113.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included an activation voltage, as taught by Xie, in order to provide an activation voltage that is higher than a normal charging voltage of the battery during a normal charge/discharge process, so that a lithium supplement agent … is activated to release lithium ions into an electrolyte … to recover activity of the battery (Xie, para. 0073).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a state-of-health value, as taught by Xie, to provide feedback in order to initiate the activation voltage to the battery. (Xie, claim 1, [obtaining a battery state-of-health value of the battery during a charging process; in response to the battery state0-of health value being less than or equal to a first preset threshold, applying an activation voltage to the battery]).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Chen teaches the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 6, wherein an increased charging capacity of the lithium-ion battery from the upper limit voltage value V1 to the activation voltage value V3 is not greater than the attenuation capacity Closs (Xie, claim 1, [the battery state-of-health value being less than … a first preset threshold]) (Examiner notes that since the state-of-health value [analogous to the Closs ] is lower than the first preset threshold [analogous to V1], then the state-of-health value can be greater than the charging capacity from the upper limit voltage to the activation voltage).
In this case the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses a lithium-ion battery (para. 25, [lithium ion battery]), and the lithium-ion battery comprises a cell (para. 25, [an electrode group]) and an electrolyte (para. 25, [non-aqueous electrolyte]); the cell comprises
a positive electrode (para. 25),
a negative electrode (para. 25) and
a separator (para. 25); the separator is located between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (para. 26, [the separator is disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode]);
the positive electrode comprises
a positive electrode material (para. 9, [positive electrode material]), and
the positive electrode material comprises a positive electrode active composite (para. 9, [the material contains layered nickel cobalt aluminate and olivine lithium iron phosphate]);
the positive electrode active composite comprises
a lithium iron phosphate material with a mass percentage of X (para. 9, [the olivine lithium iron phosphate is 80% to 95% by weight]) and
a ternary material with a mass percentage of Y (para. 9, [the nickel cobalt aluminate is 5% to 20% by weight]);
values of X and Y satisfy X+Y=100%, 60%≤X≤99% (see above, 80% to 95%) and 1%≤Y≤40% (see above, 5% to 20%); and
the voltage value is located between an upper limit voltage value V1 and a lower limit voltage value V2; the upper limit voltage value V1 satisfies 3.8 V≤V1≤4.0 V (para. 44, Example 1, upper limit voltage is 4.1 V, examiner notes that the upper limit voltage can be up to 4.1 V which includes voltages between 3.8 and 4.0); the lower limit voltage value V2 satisfies that: 2.0 V≤V2≤2.8 V (para. 44, Example 1, lower limit voltage is 2.0 V).
Chen does not teach:
a voltage control module, wherein the voltage control module is configured to control the lithium-ion battery
the voltage control module comprises a storage unit, a monitoring unit and a control unit; wherein the storage unit is configured to store a preset voltage value
the monitoring unit is configured to monitor an operating voltage of the lithium-ion battery and generate an operating voltage value V0 of the lithium-ion battery; the control unit, the storage unit and the monitoring unit are electrically connected with each other; and the control unit is configured to control the operating voltage value V0 of the lithium-ion battery to be less than or equal to the upper limit voltage value V1 and greater than or equal to the lower limit voltage value V2
Xie, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches:
a voltage control module, wherein the voltage control module is configured to control the lithium-ion battery (Xie, para. 0126, a battery management system (BMS) … includes a control unit)
the voltage control module comprises a storage unit (Xie, para. 0126, [charging unit S330]), a monitoring unit (Xie, para. 0126, [a monitoring unit S310]) and a control unit (Xie, para. 0126, [a control unit S320]); wherein the storage unit is configured to store a preset voltage value (Xie, claim 12, [the charging voltage is configured to: apply a normal charging voltage to the battery in response to receiving the charging signal; and apply an activation voltage to the battery in response to receiving the activation signal])
the monitoring unit is configured to monitor an operating voltage of the lithium-ion battery (Xie, claim 20, [the monitoring unit is configured to monitor one or more state-of-health values of a battery]) and generate an operating voltage value V0 of the lithium-ion battery (Xie, claim 20 as explained above) (Xie, claim 3, [the battery state-of health value is selected from at least one of … an operating voltage]); the control unit, the storage unit and the monitoring unit are electrically connected with each other (Xie, claim 12); and the control unit is configured to control the operating voltage value V0 of the lithium-ion battery to be less than or equal to the upper limit voltage value V1 and greater than or equal to the lower limit voltage value V2 (Xie, claim 12, [the control unit is configured to generate a charging signal or an activation signal based on the one or more state-of-health values])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated a voltage control module to Chen’s battery, as taught by Xie, in order to monitor one or more state-of-health values of the battery, as taught by Xie (para. 0070), and in order to control charge/discharge operations of the battery, as taught by Xie (para. 0085).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Chen teaches the voltage control module as claimed in claim 19, wherein the control unit is further configured to charge the lithium-ion battery and boost the voltage of the lithium-ion battery to an activation voltage value V3 when a cell capacity of the lithium-ion battery is subjected to a certain attenuation with an attenuation capacity of Closs (Xie, claim 12, [the control unit is configured to generate a charging signal or an activation signal based on the one or more state-of-health values]), and the activation voltage value V3 satisfies 4.1 V≤V3≤4.4 V (Xie, para. 0142, [the activation voltage is higher than the normal charging voltage and ≤ 5.5 V]) (Examiner notes that modified Chen teaches a control unit and therefore has the capacity to charge the battery and boost the voltage to an activation voltage value).
In this case the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
See MPEP 2113.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Chen (CN 103456918 B) and further in view of Kim (US 20240072303 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 5.
Chen does not teach wherein the electrolyte comprises an electrolyte additive, the electrolyte additive is selected from the group consisting of a boron-containing additive, a sulfur-containing additive and a carbonate additive.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises an electrolyte additive, the electrolyte additive is selected from the group consisting of a carbonate additive (Kim, para. 0149, [the electrolyte may further include … vinyl ethylene carbonate as an additive]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added an additive into Chen’s electrolyte, as taught by Kim, in order to improve the cycle-life of the battery, as taught by Kim (Kim, para. 0149).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Chen teaches the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 10, wherein the carbonate additive comprises vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC) (Kim, para. 0149, [the electrolyte may further include … vinyl ethylene carbonate as an additive]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of Chen (CN 103456918 B) and further in view of Umeyama (US 20150333324 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches the lithium-ion battery as claimed in claim 5,
wherein the lithium iron phosphate material comprises LiFePO4 (para. 9, [olivine lithium iron phosphate])
with a carbon coating (para. 13);
and a structure of LiFePO4 is olivine-shaped (para. 9, [olivine lithium iron phosphate]).
Chen teaches that a particle size D50 of the lithium iron phosphate material is 600 – 900 nm (para. 16, [particles of olivine-type lithium iron phosphate include .. D50=600-900 nm]).
Chen does not teach that a particle size D50 of the lithium iron phosphate material is 1.1 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized for the D50 particle size of the lithium iron phosphate material, based on specific needs of the battery cell. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”).
Chen does not teach that the carbon coating has a content of 1.2% .
Umeyama, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a carbon coating with a content of 1.2% (para. 0090, [a mass ratio between the base material (lithium iron phosphate particle) and the coating layer (carbon) is about 98:2 to 99:1]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a carbon coating of 1.2% for Chen’s positive electrode, as taught by Umeyama, in order to supplement the conductivity of the electrode (Umeyama, para. 0089, [the conductivity of the lithium iron phosphate is accordingly supplemented and the output is improved]).
Additional Notes
Table 1 of the instant specification provides details that compare the instant invention embodiments to comparative examples. However there is no explanation to why Embodiment 1 does not have an activation voltage value and there is no explanation to why Embodiment 3’s activation voltage is “unactivated”. Clarification would be helpful for future examination purposes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights