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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on April 29th, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202211507915.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. See priority document exchange failure report.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 – 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (WO 2022232071 A1) and further in view of Chen at al (Journal of Power Sources, Vol 439, 2019, 227056) and Tomoya et al (WO 2018042842 A1).
As to claim 1, Wu teaches an electrochemical device that includes a positive electrode sheet, a negative electrode sheet and a diaphragm that are wound to form an electrode assembly (see Abstract). Wu also teaches the electrode active materials layered on the front and back sides of the positive and negative current collectors to form the respective positive and negative sheets or plates of the electrode assembly (see Par 155). The negative and positive inner and outer electrode rings an analogous to active material layers of a wound double-sided electrode as taught by Wu. Wu does not teach the surface density of one layer applied to the current collector being less than the surface density of the opposite layer of the same current collector. Wu also does not teach the N/P ratio being from 1.1 to 1.5. Chen et al teaches the utilization of N/P ratios in lithium-ion batteries ranging from 0.85 to 1.8 (see Abstract) and an ideal range of 1.1 to 1.2 (See Introduction Par 3 and Fig 1 below) this ideal range optimized the coulombic efficiency and specific capacity of the cells.
PNG
media_image1.png
882
1272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Relation of Specific Capacity and Coulombic Efficiency with N/P ratio of the cells
Wu and Chen do not teach the surface density of one of the layers or plates being less than or greater than the surface density of any plates of the same polarity.
Tomoya et al teaches a type of lithium-ion battery that contains a band-shaped electrode that has been wound into a flat shape. The electrode comprises a collector and an active substance layer provided on the inner surface of the collector (see Abstract). The first positive active material layer on the inner surface of the positive electrode current collector (see 21B first active material layer, 21A inner surface of the current collector in Par 90 and Fig 2). The positive electrode active material layer includes a first region and second region that has a lower area density than the first region (see 21B first active material layer, R1 first region and R2 second region in Par 90 and Fig 2) Also teaches that the regions of differing area density on the same electrode can suppress the formation of cracks that can generate during and after the winding process (see Par 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a wound cell as taught by Wu to have an N/P ratio between 1.1 and 1.5 as this lies within the 0.85 to 1.8 range taught by Chen et al to optimize the columbic efficiency and specific capacity of the battery. It would have been further obvious to modify a wound cell as taught by Wu with regions of lower active material area density on the inner surface of the collector to suppress cracking of the electrode during and/or after winding of said electrode assembly as taught by Tomoya et al.
As to claim 2, Wu teaches the positive electrode active material layer being lithium iron phosphate (see Par 73). Wu does not teach the N/P ratio being 1.1 to 1.3. Chen et al teaches the utilization of N/P ratios ranging from 0.85 to 1.8 (see Abstract) and an ideal range of 1.1 to 1.2 (see introduction Par 3 and Fig 1 above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the N/P ratio of a battery that as a lithium iron phosphate positive electrode active material within the range of 0.85 to 1.8 to have a battery with optimal specific capacity and coulombic efficiency as taught by Chen.
As to claim 3, Chen et al teaches the utilization of N/P ratios ranging from 0.85 to 1.8 (see Abstract) and an ideal range of 1.1 to 1.2 (see introduction Par 3 and Fig 1 above). Additionally, due to the wound structure of a wound battery, it necessarily follows that the positive electrode inner ring and the negative electrode outer ring would face one another as such an arrangement would be unavoidable.
As to claim 6, Wu teaches that the electrode assembly includes a central tube and the electrode assembly is formed by winding the positive electrode sheet, the diaphragm, and the negative around the central tube (see Par 30 and Fig 9). The central tube and central pin are analogous in the art as they both serve as a solid structure to wind the electrode sheet around to form a wound electrode assembly. Each of the variables in the equation disclosed in claim 6 maps to a part of the battery that has well-known functions. Therefore, the equation contains purely result effective variables and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the relationship of said variables for optimization through routine experimentation and mathematical modelling.
As to claim 7, Wu teaches that the electrode assembly includes a central tube and the electrode assembly is formed by winding the positive electrode sheet, the diaphragm, and the negative around the central tube (see Par 30 and Fig 9). The central tube and central pin are analogous in the art as they both serve as a solid structure to wind the electrode sheet around to form a wound electrode assembly. Each of the variables in the equation disclosed in claim 7 maps to a part of the battery that has well-known functions. Therefore, the equation contains purely result effective variables and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the relationship of said variables for optimization through routine experimentation and mathematical modelling.
Claims 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (WO 2022232071 A1), Chen at al (Journal of Power Sources, Vol 439, 2019, 227056) and Tomoya et al (WO 2018042842 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al (WO 2022213306 A1).
As to claim 4, Wu et al teaches the negative electrode active material layer being of silicon-based materials such as silicon and silicon alloys (see Par 74). Wu does not teach the N/P ratio being 1.1 to 1.3 or the positive electrode having a ternary active material. Chen et al teaches the utilization of N/P ratios ranging from 0.85 to 1.8 (see Abstract) and an ideal range of 1.1 to 1.2 (see introduction Par 3 and Fig 1 above). Chen and Wu do not teach the positive electrode having a ternary active material.
Xu et al teaches a battery cell, a battery, an electric device, and a method and apparatus for manufacturing a battery cell where the positive electrode active material is a ternary active material (see Abstract and Par 85 ) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the N/P ratio of a battery that as a silicon negative electrode active material within the range of 0.85 to 1.8 to have a battery with optimal specific capacity and coulombic efficiency as taught by Chen. It would have been further obvious to apply a ternary active material as the active material for the positive electrode as taught by Xu as a ternary positive active material is a well-known electrode active material in the arts.
As to claim 5, Wu, Chen, Tomoya and Xu teach all the limitations of the claim except the positive electrode inner ring and negative electrode outer ring facing one another. However, due to the wound structure of a wound battery, it necessarily follows that the positive electrode inner ring and the negative electrode outer ring would face one another as such an arrangement would be unavoidable.
As to claim 8, Xu et al teaches the combination of the elements of in claim 1 used to form a battery cell that comprises a battery (see abstract).
As to claim 9, Xu et al teaches an electric device that utilizes the battery disclosed therein (see Par 42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from this examiner
should be directed to WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1910. The
examiner can be normally reached M-W 10:00am – 10:00pm, T 10:00am – 2:00pm.
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 Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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 more information about filing 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.
WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights