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 . 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 12, and 16 are objected to because they present a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1, be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Here, claims 1 and 16 are identical except for the recitation of intended use in the preamble of claim 16. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.02. Specifically, claim 16 recites “[a]n electrical device,” without providing any additional limitations drawn to said electrical device beyond the secondary battery of claim 1. It is clear that the recited secondary battery is intended to provide electrical power to the electrical device.
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 1-5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 109148820 A1), hereinafter “Zhang.”
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode plate, in this case the positive electrode (p. 3); and
a negative electrode plate, in this case the negative electrode (p. 2);
wherein a ratio of the ratio of the ratio of the capacity of the negative electrode plate per unit area to the capacity of the positive electrode plate per unit area (CB) to the density of the positive electrode plate in g/cm3 (PD) corresponds to 0.258 ≤ CB/PD ≤ 0.700, in this case the positive electrode capacity is 68 mg/cm2 (p. 7, Example 2), the negative electrode capacity is 29 mg/cm2 (p. 7, Example 2), and the positive electrode density is 1.4 g/cm3 to 1.7 g/cm3 (p. 4), resulting in a CB/PD value of 0.25 to 0.30.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further teaches that a ratio of the ratio of the ratio of the capacity of the negative electrode plate per unit area to the capacity of the positive electrode plate per unit area (CB) to the density of the positive electrode plate in g/cm3 (PD) corresponds to 0.275 ≤ CB/PD ≤ 0.55, in this case the positive electrode capacity is 68 mg/cm2 (p. 7, Example 2), the negative electrode capacity is 29 mg/cm2 (p. 7, Example 2), and the positive electrode density is 1.4 g/cm3 to 1.7 g/cm3 (p. 4), resulting in a CB/PD value of 0.25 to 0.30. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further teaches that a ratio of the ratio of the ratio of the capacity of the negative electrode plate per unit area to the capacity of the positive electrode plate per unit area (CB) to the density of the positive electrode plate in g/cm3 (PD) corresponds to 0.31 ≤ CB/PD ≤ 0.48, in this case the positive electrode capacity is 68 mg/cm2 (p. 7, Example 2), the negative electrode capacity is 29 mg/cm2 (p. 7, Example 2), and the positive electrode density is 1.4 g/cm3 to 1.7 g/cm3 (p. 4), resulting in a CB/PD value of 0.25 to 0.30. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further teaches 0.8 ≤ CB ≤ 1.1, in this case the ratio of negative electrode capacity to positive electrode capacity may be 1.0 to 1.2 (p. 1, abstract), which results in 0.83 ≤ CB ≤ 1.0. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang further teaches that the positive electrode density satisfies 1.5 ≤ PD ≤ 3.1, in this case the positive electrode density is 1.4 g/cm3 to 1.7 g/cm3 (p. 4). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses an electrical device, in this case an electric vehicle (p. 3), comprising a secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode plate, in this case the positive electrode (p. 3); and
a negative electrode plate, in this case the negative electrode (p. 2);
wherein a ratio of the ratio of the ratio of the capacity of the negative electrode plate per unit area to the capacity of the positive electrode plate per unit area (CB) to the density of the positive electrode plate in g/cm3 (PD) corresponds to 0.258 ≤ CB/PD ≤ 0.700, in this case the positive electrode capacity is 68 mg/cm2 (p. 7, Example 2), the negative electrode capacity is 29 mg/cm2 (p. 7, Example 2), and the positive electrode density is 1.4 g/cm3 to 1.7 g/cm3 (p. 4), resulting in a CB/PD value of 0.25 to 0.30.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2025/0118743 A1), hereinafter “Park.”
Regarding claim 6, Zhang further discloses that:
the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer comprising a positive electrode active material, in this case the positive active material mixed material (p. 3); and
the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode active material layer comprising a negative electrode active material, in this case the negative active material mixed material (p. 3).
Zhang is silent as to the particle sizes of the positive and negative active materials. However, Park teaches a negative electrode active material with a D50 ranging from 0.01 μm to 20 μm (¶ [0086]) and a positive electrode active material with a D50 ranging from 2 μm to 10 μm (¶ [0061]). This results in Dv50’/Dv50 ranging from 0.001 to 10. One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing positive and negative active materials corresponding to this range would have provided good capacity characteristics while preventing degradation of capacity and rate capability (¶ [0061]) as well as sufficient electrode density (¶ [0086]), thereby facilitating improved secondary battery operation. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the positive and negative electrode active material particle sizes to correspond to 2 ≤ Dv50’/Dv50 ≤ 25 in order to have facilitated improved secondary battery operation.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang and Park are silent as to the positive and negative electrode material layers’ thicknesses. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have made both electrode active material layers of sufficient thickness relative to each other in order to have facilitated secondary battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the positive and negative electrode active material layers’ respective thicknesses to correspond to 0 ≤
H
1
-
H
2
H
2
≤ 0.9 in order to have facilitated secondary battery operation.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang further discloses an electrolyte (p. 3), but does not disclose the electrolyte first additive. However, Park teaches including an additive to the electrolyte, such as vinylene carbonate (VC) (¶ [0109]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such an additive would have improved secondary battery life characteristics, suppressed capacity reduction, and inhibited gas generation (¶ [0109]), thereby facilitating improved secondary battery operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a first electrolyte additive in order to have facilitated improved secondary battery operation and safety.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang does not teach the electrolyte additives. However, Park teaches including an additive to the electrolyte, such as LiPO2F2, LiBOB, and LiBF4 (¶ [0109]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including such an additive would have improved secondary battery life characteristics, suppressed capacity reduction, and inhibited gas generation (¶ [0109]), thereby facilitating improved secondary battery operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a second electrolyte additive in order to have facilitated improved secondary battery operation and safety.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the CB/PD relationship as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above, does not disclose the first additive. Park teaches the first additive as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, above, but does not teach its loading. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide an amount of the additive sufficient to provided improved secondary battery life characteristics, suppressed capacity reduction, and inhibited gas generation (¶ [0109]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a first additive loading that would satisfy 0.2 ≤ a x CB/PD ≤ 3 in order to have facilitated improved secondary battery operation and safety.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang does not disclose the additives. Park teaches the first and second additives as set forth in the rejections of claims 8 and 9, above, but does not teach the additive loading. However, one with ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide sufficient loading of each additive in order to achieve improved secondary battery life characteristics, suppressed capacity reduction, and inhibited gas generation (¶ [0109]), thereby facilitating improved secondary battery operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have satisfied at least one of 0.1 ≤ a+b ≤ 5 or 0.1 ≤ a/b ≤ 10 in order to have facilitated improved secondary battery operation and safety.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang is silent as to the particle sizes of the positive and negative active materials. However, Park teaches a negative electrode active material with a D50 ranging from 0.01 μm to 20 μm (¶ [0086]) and a positive electrode active material with a D50 ranging from 2 μm to 10 μm (¶ [0061]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing positive and negative active materials corresponding to this range would have provided good capacity characteristics while preventing degradation of capacity and rate capability (¶ [0061]) as well as sufficient electrode density (¶ [0086]), thereby facilitating improved secondary battery operation. Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the active material particles to satisfy both 5 ≤ Dv50’ ≤ 25 and 0.3 ≤ Dv50 ≤ 3.5 in order to have facilitated improved secondary battery operation.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang and Park are silent as to the various particle size distributions. However, Park does teach that the negative electrode possesses overlapping D50 values ranging from 0.01 μm to 20 μm (¶ [0086]). It would not be unreasonable to expect that the recited particle size values to similarly overlap. Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have sized the active material particles appropriately in order to facilitate secondary battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the negative electrode active material particles to satisfy 0.5 ≤ Dv10′ ≤ 10, 2.5 ≤ Dv90′ ≤ 45, Dv99′ ≤ 50, Dn10′ ≤ 4, 0.5 ≤ Dn50′ ≤ 10.5, 1.5 ≤ Dn90′ ≤ 5, and Dn99′ ≤ 40, in units of μm, in order to have facilitated secondary battery operation.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang and Park are silent as to the various particle size distributions. However, Park does teach that the positive electrode possesses overlapping D50 values ranging from 0.01 μm to 20 μm (¶ [0086]). It would not be unreasonable to expect that the recited particle size values to similarly overlap. Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have sized the active material particles appropriately in order to facilitate secondary battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the positive electrode active material particles to satisfy 0.1 ≤ Dv10 ≤ 1, 0.5 ≤ Dv90 ≤ 6.5, 3.5 ≤ Dv99 ≤ 20, 0.05 ≤ Dn10 ≤ 1, 0.1 ≤ Dn50 ≤ 2.5, 0.5 ≤ Dn90 ≤ 3.5, 1.5 ≤ Dn99 ≤ 10, in units of μm, in order to have facilitated secondary battery operation.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang and Park are silent as to the positive and negative electrode material layers’ thicknesses. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have made both electrode active material layers of sufficient thickness relative to each other in order to have facilitated secondary battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the positive and negative electrode active material layers’ respective thicknesses to correspond to 40 ≤ H1 ≤ 160 and 30 ≤ H2 ≤ 120 in order to have facilitated secondary battery operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights