DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. It is believed “sutone” in line 3 should be --sultone--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-5 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (CN 111 354 949), English equivalent EP 3 896 763.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 16, Guo discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising:
a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate (abstract), and an electrolyte solution (para 0022);
the positive electrode plate includes a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active substance layer on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (abstract);
the positive electrode made of active material/conductive material/binder in a ratio of 95/3/2 (para 0038: Example 2); and
no cracks (Table 1: Examples 2-1 to 2-5).
Since the crack width (W) is zero, this results in Applicant’s M/W being over 47.5.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Guo discloses a weight per unit area of active substance is 360 mg/1540.25 mm2 (para 0038: Example 2) and M1/W ≥ 50.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Guo discloses a solid content of 70% (para 0031) and M2/W ≥ 27.5.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Guo discloses polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (para 0031); the melting point is approximately 177 °C, with a typical commercial range between 170 °C and 180 °C depending on the specific type.
Regarding claim 13, Guo discloses lithium iron phosphate (para 0037: Example 2); and with W = 0 meet 2D1 ≥ W.
Regarding claim 15, OFFICIAL NOTICE is taken with respect to the fact that lithium-ion batteries are commonly used in electronic devices (e.g., mobile devices and electric vehicles).
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.
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 6, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 111 354 949) in view of Luo et al. (CN 102 723 458), machine translation.
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 20, Guo does not teach a polymer having an ether bond.
Luo, directed to a cathode and lithium-ion battery, teaches a high polymer additive including a polyether (para 0012) in an amount of 0.1 to 0.6 wt.% (para 0016), which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of less than or equal to 0.3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include a polyether because it has a certain thermal stability and good film forming property, can effectively improve the contact interface between the cathode active material particles and the electrolyte, reducing the degree of oxidation of the electrolyte, reduces the damage caused by the generated gas thereby improving the lithium-ion battery with high-pressure circulation and high temperature storage performance, and reduces thickness swelling of the battery cell (para 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the recited concentration because a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 111 354 949) in view of Pan et al. (CN 112 216 862), machine translation.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 12, Guo does not teach an additive including a cyano group or a compound having a F-P-O bond.
Pan, directed to a lithium-ion battery, teaches lithium difluorophosphate (a compound having a F-P-O bond) in an amount of 0.5% to 1.0% of the total mass of the electrolyte (para 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further include the above additive reducing the cracking degree of the passivation film, so as to improve the electrochemical performance of the lithium-ion battery (para 0006).
Regarding claim 11, instant claim is proviso upon limitation compound having a cyano group not required by the dependent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claim 14, Pan further teaches 1,3-propane sultone and fluorinated ethylene carbonate (para 0014).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights