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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a battery comprising a negative electrode slurry comprising artificial graphite with a capacity of 350 mAh/g, a conductive agent and a binder coated at 0.1290g (dry weight)/1540.25 mm2 onto a current collector with the thickness of 8 um and a positive electrode slurry comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with a capacity of 180 mAh/g, a binder and a conductive agent coated at 0.2826 g (dry weight)/1540.25 mm2 onto a current collector with the thickness of 13 um, does not reasonably provide enablement for a battery comprising a ratio of a negative electrode comprising any active material capacity to a positive electrode comprising any material capacity to be a, wherein the battery meets a following relationship: a < 1.05 and 25x(1.05-a)<b<100x(1.05-a). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use unique the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
The breadth of the claims [a battery comprising a ratio of a negative electrode comprising any active material capacity to a positive electrode comprising any material capacity to be a, wherein the battery meets a following relationship: a < 1.05 and 25x(1.05-a)<b<100x(1.05-a)];
The nature of the invention [N/P ratio = Anode specific capacity × Anode areal loading × Active material contentCathode specific capacity × Cathode areal loading × Active material content] ;
The state of the prior art;
The level of one of ordinary skill;
The level of predictability in the art;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor [a battery comprising a negative electrode slurry comprising artificial graphite with a capacity of 350 mAh/g, a conductive agent and a binder coated at 0.1290g (dry weight)/1540.25 mm2 onto a current collector with the thickness of 8 um and a positive electrode slurry comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with a capacity of 180 mAh/g, a binder and a conductive agent coated at 0.2826 g (dry weight)/1540.25 mm2 onto a current collector with the thickness of 13 um];
The existence of working examples [a battery comprising a negative electrode slurry comprising artificial graphite with a capacity of 350 mAh/g, a conductive agent and a binder coated at 0.1290g (dry weight)/1540.25 mm2 onto a current collector with the thickness of 8 um and a positive electrode slurry comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with a capacity of 180 mAh/g, a binder and a conductive agent coated at 0.2826 g (dry weight)/1540.25 mm2 onto a current collector with the thickness of 13 um]; and
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim(s) a ratio of a negative electrode comprising any active material capacity to a positive electrode comprising any material capacity to be a, wherein the battery meets a following relationship: a < 1.05 and 25x(1.05-a)<b<100x(1.05-a). The specification discloses sufficient information for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention when a battery comprises a negative electrode slurry comprising artificial graphite with a capacity of 350 mAh/g, a conductive agent and a binder coated at 0.1290g (dry weight)/1540.25 mm2 onto a current collector with the thickness of 8 um and a positive electrode slurry comprising LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 with a capacity of 180 mAh/g, a binder and a conductive agent coated at 0.2826 g (dry weight)/1540.25 mm2 onto a current collector with the thickness of 13 um. However, the specification does not provide direction on how to provide a battery meeting the relationship: a < 1.05 and 25x(1.05-a)<b<100x(1.05-a). Thus, the disclosed examples and guidance provided in the specification does not bear a reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of the claim(s).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is rejected because the claim should cite “and an electrolyte solution, wherein”. Claim 1 is rejected because unclear what is the lower limit of the capacity “a” because a can equal 0. Claim 3 resolves this issue. In Claim 1 is rejected because unclear how much of the thiourea compound can be present in amount of b weight%. Claim 4 resolves this issue. Claims 1-3 are rejected because unclear what are the ranges allowed of the negative electrode capacity and of the positive electrode capacity. Claims 5-6 are rejected because of the phrase “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d) and because it is unclear whether the limitation claimed after the phrase “optionally” is a choice between what is before versus after the phrase. In Ex parte Cordova, 10 USPQ2d 1949. Claim 5 is rejected because unclear what R and X can comprise because of the way the claimed is written. Claim 6 is rejected because unclear what the claim is claiming because of the use of “selected from at least one…and” language instead of “selected from the group consisting of at least one…and “ language. Claim 6 is rejected because the claim should cite “wherein the electrolyte solution further comprises an additive selected from the group consisting of at least one of …. in an amount of 0.5-2 weight%, based on a total mass of the electrolyte solution. Claim 7 is rejected because there is no antecedent basis for negative electrode film layer. Claim 7 is rejected because unclear what the lower range of the thickness of the negative electrode film which is allowed the negative electrode sheet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overCho (DE 198 39 244, machine translation) in view of Qiao et al. (CN 112 582 673). Cho teaches a battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a lithium composite oxide, a negative electrode comprising a carbon material and an electrolyte solution comprising a surfactant added in an amount of 0.01-5 wt%. Cho teaches in Example 2, a battery comprising the positive electrode, the negative electrode and adding 1 g (1 wt%) of thiourea added to the electrolyte solution. Cho teaches in the table that the initial charge capacity is 441 mAh/g; the initial discharge capacity 340 mAh/g; the battery efficiency is 77% and the discharge capacity after 50 cycles is 906 mAh/g. Cho teaches the claimed invention but does not teach that the ratio of the negative electrode capacity to the positive electrode capacity is less than 1.05. In the field of battery, the cell balance meaning the ratio between the negative electrode capacity and the positive electrode capacity is commonly used to improve the energy density and is part of the standard routine of trials and errors. The value of cell balance prior than the unity indicates that part of the anode material is not utilized which entails an extra weight and not optimize energy density. This means that a person skilled in the art, given the problem of improving the energy density of the Cho reference would derive the provision of the cell balance smaller than 1.05 without extraexercising an inventive step. Cho teaches the claimed invention as explained above teaching that it is known to use 1 wt% of thiourea but does not teach the parameter of a/b. The technical effect is the improvement in terms of energy density and cycle life. The objective technical problem is a revision of the battery with better performances. Thus “a” could have any value from 0.8-2 and a/b would fall in the range. Cho does not specifically teach the thickness of the negative electrode film layer however the range is known. Cho teaches the claimed invention as explained above but does not teach that the electrolyte solution further comprises an additive selected from a metal nitrate, a fluorinated vinyl carbonate or a vinylene carbonate in an amount of 0.5-2 weight %. Qiao et al. teaches a lithium ion battery comprising an electrolyte solution comprising an additive comprising fluorophenylthioamide. Qiao et al. teaches in example 17 that further adding vinylene carbonate as an additive in amount of 1 wt% improves the cycle life of the battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further add a second additive comprising vinylene carbonate because Qiao et al. teaches that further adding vinylene carbonate as an additive in amount of 1 wt% improves the cycle life of the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights