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 § 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 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, the term “X” in line 3 of the formula 0.4 ≤ 10X·H+Q ≤ 36 is indefinite as “X” is not defined in claim 1 or claim 11.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpretated as being dependent on claim 10.
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 1-3, 9, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumashiro et al. (US20050153173A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kumashiro discloses, in Example 1, a secondary battery ([0057]), comprising a positive electrode plate ([0057] 71), a separator ([0058] 77), an electrolyte solution ([0058] 78), and a negative electrode plate ([0058] 74), wherein the negative electrode plate comprises: a negative electrode current collector ([0058] 76); and a negative electrode active material layer ([0058]) disposed on the negative electrode current collector ([0058] produced slurry was applied onto 76).
Kumashiro discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a non-faradaic electric quantity Q C of the negative electrode plate that satisfies: 0.05 ≤ Q ≤ 2.5, wherein Q = Cdl x ΔU, Cdl nF is a non-faradaic capacitance of the negative electrode plate, and ΔU V is a potential interval of the negative electrode active material layer.
As a discharging capacity is a variable that can be modified by adjusting a number of non-faradaic reactions in a layer which contribute to the charge of the non-faradaic capacitance used to determine the electric quantity as shown above, with said discharging capacity increasing as non-faradaic electric quantity is decreased in the case of using a negative electrode capable of implanting and discharging lithium ions as an active material wherein faradaic reaction occurs and activated carbon as an active material wherein non-faradaic reaction occurs ([0044]), the range of non-faradaic electric quantity of said negative electrode plate which can be derived from the number of non-faradaic reactions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range of non-faradaic electric quantity cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the range of non-faradaic electric quantity in the apparatus of Kumashiro to obtain desired discharge capacity in the negative electrode plate (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, Kumashiro discloses the secondary battery of claim 1 and all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a non-faradaic capacitance Cdl satisfies: 0.5 ≤ Cdl ≤ 5, and the potential interval ΔU satisfies: 0.1 ≤ ΔU ≤ 0.5.
As a discharging capacity is a variable that can be modified by adjusting a number of non-faradaic reactions in a layer which contribute to the charge of the non-faradaic capacitance, with said discharging capacity increasing as non-faradaic electric capacitance and potential interval are decreased in the case of using a negative electrode capable of implanting and discharging lithium ions as an active material wherein faradaic reaction occurs and activated carbon as an active material wherein non-faradaic reaction occurs ([0044]), the range of non-faradaic electric capacitance of said negative electrode plate which can be derived from the number of non-faradaic reactions and the potential interval would have been considered result effective variables by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range of non-faradaic electric capacitance and potential interval cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the range of non-faradaic electric capacitance and potential interval in the apparatus of Kumashiro to obtain desired discharge capacity in the negative electrode plate (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 3, Kumashiro discloses the secondary battery of claim 1 ([0057]), wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises one or more of artificial graphite, natural graphite, or amorphous carbon ([0058] amorphous carbon and carbon black).
Regarding claim 9, Kumashiro discloses, in Example 1, the secondary battery of claim 1 ([0057]) and an electrolyte solution ([0058] 78). Kumashiro does disclose a lithium salt additive, but it is LiPF6 and not lithium tetrafluoroborate.
Kumashiro, however, discloses in another embodiment that the electrolyte solution comprises a lithium salt additive, and the lithium salt additive comprises of LiPF6 or LiBF4 ([0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the lithium salt, LiPF6, in the electrolyte solution ([0058] 78) of Kumashiro such that the lithium salt in the electrolyte solution is lithium tetrafluoroborate ([0045] LiBF4) because lithium tetrafluoroborate is listed as a known alternative salt used for the electrolyte. MPEP 2143(I)(B) substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
*Note that a secondary battery is an electrochemical device
Regarding claim 13, Kumashiro discloses in Example 1, an electrochemical device, comprising a secondary battery ([0057]), comprising a positive electrode plate ([0057] 71), a separator ([0058] 77), an electrolyte solution ([0058] 78), and a negative electrode plate ([0058] 74), wherein the negative electrode plate comprises: a negative electrode current collector ([0058] 76); and a negative electrode active material layer ([0058]) disposed on the negative electrode current collector ([0058] produced slurry was applied onto 76).
Kumashiro discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a non-faradaic electric quantity Q C of the negative electrode plate that satisfies: 0.05 ≤ Q ≤ 2.5, wherein Q = Cdl x ΔU, Cdl nF is a non-faradaic capacitance of the negative electrode plate, and ΔU V is a potential interval of the negative electrode active material layer.
As a discharging capacity is a variable that can be modified by adjusting a number of non-faradaic reactions in a layer which contribute to the charge of the non-faradaic capacitance used to determine the electric quantity as shown above, with said discharging capacity increasing as non-faradaic electric quantity is decreased in the case of using a negative electrode capable of implanting and discharging lithium ions as an active material wherein faradaic reaction occurs and activated carbon as an active material wherein non-faradaic reaction occurs ([0044]), the range of non-faradaic electric quantity of said negative electrode plate which can be derived from the number of non-faradaic reactions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range of non-faradaic electric quantity cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the range of non-faradaic electric quantity in the apparatus of Kumashiro to obtain desired discharge capacity in the negative electrode plate (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 14, Kumashiro discloses the electrochemical device ([0057 secondary battery]) of claim 13 as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a non-faradaic capacitance Cdl satisfies: 0.5 ≤ Cdl ≤ 5, and the potential interval ΔU satisfies: 0.1 ≤ ΔU ≤ 0.5.
As a discharging capacity is a variable that can be modified by adjusting a number of non-faradaic reactions in a layer which contribute to the charge of the non-faradaic capacitance, with said discharging capacity increasing as non-faradaic electric capacitance and potential interval are decreased in the case of using a negative electrode capable of implanting and discharging lithium ions as an active material wherein faradaic reaction occurs and activated carbon as an active material wherein non-faradaic reaction occurs ([0044]), the range of non-faradaic electric capacitance of said negative electrode plate which can be derived from the number of non-faradaic reactions and the potential interval would have been considered result effective variables by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range of non-faradaic electric capacitance and potential interval cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the range of non-faradaic electric capacitance and potential interval in the apparatus of Kumashiro to obtain desired discharge capacity in the negative electrode plate (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 15, Kumashiro discloses the electrochemical device ([0057 secondary battery]) of claim 13, wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises one or more of artificial graphite, natural graphite, or amorphous carbon ([0058] amorphous and carbon black).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumashiro et al. (US20050153173A1) as applied to claims 1 or 13 above, and further in view of Matsuda et al. (US 20120077093 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kumashiro discloses the secondary battery ([0057]) of claim 1. Kumashiro does not disclose a surface contact angle θ of the negative electrode active material layer with respect to the electrolyte solution satisfies: 10° ≤ θ ≤ 40°.
Matsuda discloses a negative electrode active material layer where a surface contact angle θ of the negative electrode active material layer with respect to the electrolyte satisfies: 10° ≤ θ ≤ 40° ([0055] contact angle θ was smaller than 90°). Matsudo also discloses that when the contact angle was less than 90°, the moving distances of lithium ions and electrons for recombination in the negative electrode active material layer can be very short which contributes to an improvement in charge and discharge characteristics as well as a high capacity ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the positioning between the negative electrode active material layer with the electrolyte solution of Kumashiro such that the contact angle θ satisfies 10° ≤ θ ≤ 40° as taught by Matsuda in order to improve the charge and discharge characteristics as well as the capacity of the negative electrode active material layer of the battery. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 16, Kumashiro discloses the electrochemical device ([0057] secondary battery) of claim 13. Kumashiro does not disclose a surface contact angle θ of the negative electrode active material layer with respect to the electrolyte solution satisfies: 10° ≤ θ ≤ 40°.
Matsuda discloses a negative electrode active material layer where a surface contact angle θ of the negative electrode active material layer with respect to the electrolyte satisfies: 10° ≤ θ ≤ 40° ([0055] contact angle θ was smaller than 90°). Matsudo also discloses that when the contact angle was less than 90°, the moving distances of lithium ions and electrons for recombination in the negative electrode active material layer can be very short which contributes to an improvement in charge and discharge characteristics as well as a high capacity ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the positioning between the negative electrode active material layer with the electrolyte solution of Kumashiro such that the contact angle θ satisfies 10° ≤ θ ≤ 40° as taught by Matsuda in order to improve the charge and discharge characteristics as well as the capacity of the negative electrode active material layer of the battery. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumashiro et al. (US20050153173A1) as applied to claims 1 or 13 above, and further in view of Takami et al. (US20120295151A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kumashiro discloses the secondary battery ([0057]) of claim 1. Kumashiro does not disclose a resistance R mΩ of the negative electrode active material layer satisfies: 5 ≤ R ≤ 20.
Takami discloses a secondary battery wherein a resistance R mΩ of the negative electrode active material layer satisfies: 5 ≤ R ≤ 20 ([0140] negative electrode has an internal resistance of 10 mΩ or less). Takami also discloses that when a low resistance connection is maintained, a high output can be obtained, and without causing elevation of impedance in high output discharge, a sufficient discharge reaction of the positive electrode and negative electrode is assured, and the utility rate of the active material is enhanced ([0144]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the resistance of the negative electrode active material layer of Kumashiro such that the resistance R mΩ satisfies: 5 ≤ R ≤ 20 as taught by Takami in order to maintain a high output, and without causing elevation of impedance in high output discharge, assure a sufficient discharge reaction of the positive electrode and negative electrode, and enhance the utility rate of the active material. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 17, Kumashiro discloses the electrochemical device ([0057] secondary battery) of claim 13. Kumashiro does not disclose a resistance R mΩ of the negative electrode active material layer satisfies: 5 ≤ R ≤ 20.
Takami discloses a secondary battery wherein a resistance R mΩ of the negative electrode active material layer satisfies: 5 ≤ R ≤ 20 ([0140] negative electrode has an internal resistance of 10 mΩ or less). Takami also discloses that when a low resistance connection is maintained, a high output can be obtained, and without causing elevation of impedance in high output discharge, a sufficient discharge reaction of the positive electrode and negative electrode is assured, and the utility rate of the active material is enhanced ([0144]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the resistance of the negative electrode active material layer of Kumashiro such that the resistance R mΩ satisfies: 5 ≤ R ≤ 20 as taught by Takami in order to maintain a high output, and without causing elevation of impedance in high output discharge, assure a sufficient discharge reaction of the positive electrode and negative electrode, and enhance the utility rate of the active material. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumashiro et al. (US20050153173A1) as applied to claims 1 or 13 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US20190097271A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kumashiro discloses the secondary battery ([0057]) of claim 1. Kumashiro does not disclose the negative electrode active material layer has an OI value ranging from 2 to 15.
Wang discloses a secondary battery wherein a negative electrode active material layer has an OI value ranging from 2 to 15 ([0028] 2 ≤ VOI ≤ 120). Wang also discloses that the active reaction sites in the negative electrode active material layer can be characterized by the OI value of the negative electrode layer and that the more the active reaction sites in the negative electrode layer, the faster the charge exchange rate between active ions and electrons on the surface of the negative electrode active material during charging, the better the kinetic performance of the battery, and the higher the rate of the charging speed ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the negative electrode layer of Kumashiro such that the OI value ranges from 2 to 15 as taught by Wang in order to increase the number of active reaction sites in the negative electrode layer in the battery to result in faster charge exchange rate between active ions and electrons on the surface of the negative electrode active material during charging, better kinetic performance of the battery, and higher rate of the charging speed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 18, Kumashiro discloses the electrochemical device of claim 13 ([0057] secondary battery). Kumashiro does not disclose the negative electrode active material layer has an OI value ranging from 2 to 15.
Wang discloses a secondary battery wherein a negative electrode active material layer has an OI value ranging from 2 to 15 ([0028] 2 ≤ VOI ≤ 120). Wang also discloses that the active reaction sites in the negative electrode active material layer can be characterized by the OI value of the negative electrode layer and that the more the active reaction sites in the negative electrode layer, the faster the charge exchange rate between active ions and electrons on the surface of the negative electrode active material during charging, the better the kinetic performance of the battery, and the higher the rate of the charging speed ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the negative electrode layer of Kumashiro such that the OI value ranges from 2 to 15 as taught by Wang in order to increase the number of active reaction sites in the negative electrode layer in the electrochemical device to result in faster charge exchange rate between active ions and electrons on the surface of the negative electrode active material during charging, better kinetic performance of the battery, and higher rate of the charging speed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Claims 7-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumashiro et al. (US20050153173A1) as applied to claims 1 or 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US20200411859A1)
Regarding claim 7, Kumashiro discloses the secondary battery ([0057]) of claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material ([0058] amorphous carbon). Kumashiro does not disclose the amount percentage of fine powder of the negative electrode active material ranges from 0 to 80%, and amount percentage of coarse powder of the negative electrode active material ranges from 0 to 60%; wherein the fine powder is a particle in the negative electrode active material having a particle size less than or equal to 2.2 µm, and the coarse powder is a particle in the negative electrode active material particles having a particle size greater than or equal to 35 µm.
Kim discloses a battery where the amount percentage of fine powder of the positive electrode active material ranges from 0 to 80% ([0014] second powder…between 15 and 60 wt%), and amount percentage of coarse powder of the positive electrode active material ranges from 0 to 60% ([0014] second powder…between 15 and 60 wt%); wherein the fine powder is a particle in the positive electrode active material having a particle size less than or equal to 2.2 µm ([0014] particle size between 2 and 4µm), and the coarse powder is a particle in the positive electrode active material particles having a particle size greater than or equal to 35 µm ([0014] particle size between 10 to 40 µm). Kim also discloses that this mixture of fine and coarse powder results in an increase of volumetric density and less electrode processing issues such as particle breaking and electrode biting ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the negative electrode active material layer of Kumashiro such that the fine powder ranges from 0% to 80% with a particle size less than or equal to 2.2 µm and the coarse powder ranges 0% to 60% with a particle size greater than or equal to 35 µm as taught by Kim in order to increase the volumetric density and have less electrode processing issues such as particle breaking and electrode biting. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses that the amount percentage of the fine powder of the positive electrode active material ranges from 0 to 40% ([0014] second powder…between 15 and 60 wt%); and the amount percentage of the coarse powder of the positive electrode active material ranges from 0 to 30% ([0014] second powder…between 15 and 60 wt% and [0027] mixture is at least 90wt% [therefore, first powder ranges from 30-85 wt%]).
Regarding claim 19, Kumashiro discloses the electrochemical device ([0057] secondary battery) of claim 13, wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material ([0058] amorphous carbon). Kumashiro does not disclose the amount percentage of fine powder of the negative electrode active material ranges from 0 to 80%, and amount percentage of coarse powder of the negative electrode active material ranges from 0 to 60%; wherein the fine powder is a particle in the negative electrode active material having a particle size less than or equal to 2.2 µm, and the coarse powder is a particle in the negative electrode active material particles having a particle size greater than or equal to 35 µm; wherein the amount percentage of the fine powder of the negative electrode active material ranges from 0 to 40%; and the amount percentage of the coarse powder of the negative electrode active material ranges from 0 to 30%.
Kim discloses a battery where the amount percentage of fine powder of the positive electrode active material ranges from 0 to 80% ([0014] second powder…between 15 and 60 wt%), and amount percentage of coarse powder of the positive electrode active material ranges from 0 to 60% ([0014] second powder…between 15 and 60 wt%); wherein the fine powder is a particle in the positive electrode active material having a particle size less than or equal to 2.2 µm ([0014] particle size between 2 and 4µm), and the coarse powder is a particle in the positive electrode active material particles having a particle size greater than or equal to 35 µm ([0014] particle size between 10 to 40 µm); wherein the amount percentage of the fine powder of the positive electrode active material ranges from 0 to 40% ([0014] second powder…between 15 and 60 wt%); and the amount percentage of the coarse powder of the positive electrode active material ranges from 0 to 30% ([0014] second powder…between 15 and 60 wt% and [0027] mixture is at least 90wt% [therefore, first powder ranges from 30-85 wt%]). Kim also discloses that this mixture of fine and coarse powder results in an increase of volumetric density and less electrode processing issues such as particle breaking and electrode biting ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the negative electrode active material layer of Kumashiro such that the fine powder ranges from 0% to 80% with a particle size less than or equal to 2.2 µm and the coarse powder ranges 0% to 60% with a particle size greater than or equal to 35 µm as taught by Kim in order to increase the volumetric density and have less electrode processing issues such as particle breaking and electrode biting. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumashiro et al. (US20050153173A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN106356562A, English machine translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 10, Kumashiro discloses the secondary battery ([0057]) of claim 9, wherein the electrolyte solution comprises a lithium salt additive, and the lithium salt additive comprises lithium tetrafluoroborate ([0045] LiBF4). Kumashiro does not disclose the content X of the lithium salt additive in the electrolyte solution satisfies 0.1% ≤ X ≤ 2%.
Li discloses a lithium-ion battery in which a content X of the lithium salt additive in the electrolyte solution satisfies 0.1% ≤ X ≤ 2%. ([Pg. 3, line 41-42] lithium salt type additive in an amount of 0.1% - 5%). Li also discloses that the lithium salt concentration cannot be too high, because the concentration is too high, the electrolyte viscosity increases, the conductivity decreases, so that the internal impedance of the battery increases ([Pg. 3, line 19-21]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the amount of lithium salt additive in the electrolyte solution of Kumashiro such that the lithium salt additive satisfies 0.1% ≤ X ≤ 2% as taught by Li in order to decrease the internal impedance of the battery. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumashiro et al. (US20050153173A1) and Li et al. (CN106356562A, English machine translation provided with this Office Action) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ka et al. (US20110294014A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kumashiro discloses the secondary battery ([0057]) of claim 1 and a metal coating layer ([0058] negative electrode collector, 76, comprising copper foil). Kumashiro does not disclose the negative electrode active material layer comprises a protective film layer having a thickness H nm, and formula 0.4 ≤ 10X·H+Q≤36 is satisfied.
Ka discloses a secondary battery in which a negative electrode active material layer comprises a protective film layer ([0043] carbon coating layer) having a thickness H nm ([0043] about 1nm to about 10nm), and formula 0.4 ≤ 10X·H+Q ≤ 36 is satisfied where the values of X and Q are previous provided by Kumashiro and Li above. Ka also discloses that the carbon coating layer can be formed on the surface of a metal coating layer ([0041]). Further, Ka discloses that when the coating layer has the thickness and the amount within the ranges, it may enhance the initial coulomb efficiency while not deteriorating the capacity ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the metal coating layer of Kumashiro with a protective film layer such that thickness of the protective film layer satisfies the formula 0.4 ≤ 10X·H+Q ≤ 36 as taught by Ka in order to enhance the initial coulomb efficiency while not deteriorating the capacity of the battery.
Regarding claim 12, Ka discloses a secondary battery in which a thickness H of the protective film layer satisfies: 5 ≤ H ≤ 180 ([0043] about 1nm to about 10nm).
Note claim 13 did not previously rely on Li or Ka.
Regarding claim 20, Kumashiro discloses the electrochemical device ([0057] secondary battery) of claim 13, a metal coating layer ([0058] negative electrode collector, 76, comprising copper foil), and an electrolyte solution ([0058] 78). Kumashiro does disclose a lithium salt additive LiPF6 but not lithium tetrafluoroborate.
Kumashiro, however, discloses in another embodiment that the electrolyte solution comprises a lithium salt additive, and the lithium salt additive comprises of LiPF6 or LiBF4 ([0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the lithium salt, LiPF6, in the electrolyte solution ([0058] 78) of Kumashiro such that the lithium salt in the electrolyte solution is lithium tetrafluoroborate ([0045] LiBF4) because lithium tetrafluoroborate is listed as a known alternative salt used for the electrolyte. MPEP 2143(I)(B) substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, Kumashiro does not disclose the content X of the lithium salt additive in the electrolyte solution satisfies 0.1% ≤ X ≤ 2%; the negative electrode active material layer comprises a protective film layer having a thickness H nm, and formula 0.4 ≤ 10X·H+Q ≤ 36 is satisfied; and the thickness H of the protective film layer satisfies: 5 ≤ H ≤ 180.
Li discloses a lithium-ion battery in which a content X of the lithium salt additive in the electrolyte solution satisfies 0.1% ≤ X ≤ 2%. ([Pg. 3, line 41-42] lithium salt type additive in an amount of 0.1% - 5%). Li also discloses that the lithium salt concentration cannot be too high, because the concentration is too high, the electrolyte viscosity increases, the conductivity decreases, so that the internal impedance of the battery increases ([Pg. 3, line 19-21]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the percentage of lithium salt additive such that the lithium salt additive in the electrolyte solution satisfies 0.1% ≤ X ≤ 2% as taught by Li in order to decrease the internal impedance of the battery. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Ka discloses a secondary battery in which a negative electrode active material layer comprises a protective film layer ([0043] carbon coating layer) having a thickness H nm ([0043] about 1nm to about 10nm), and formula 0.4 ≤ 10X·H+Q ≤ 36 is satisfied where the values of X and Q are previous provided by Kumashiro and Li above. Ka also discloses a secondary battery in which a thickness H of the protective film layer satisfies: 5 ≤ H ≤ 180 ([0043] about 1nm to about 10nm) and that the carbon coating layer can be formed on the surface of a metal coating layer ([0041]). Further, Ka discloses that when the coating layer has the thickness and the amount within the ranges, it may enhance the initial coulomb efficiency while not deteriorating the capacity ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date to modify the metal coating layer of Kumashiro with a protective film layer such that thickness of the protective film layer satisfies the formula 0.4 ≤ 10X·H+Q ≤ 36 as taught by Ka in order to enhance the initial coulomb efficiency while not deteriorating the capacity of the battery. As a result, the battery with that thickness also satisfies the formula 0.4 ≤ 10X·H+Q ≤ 36. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAN N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30am-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, Susan Leong can be reached at 5702701487. 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.
/DAN NGUYEN TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights