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 .
Note on Reference Documents
All references to “Wang” or “Wang et al.” (CN 112151855 A) as set forth in this Action utilize the paragraph numbers provided in a translated copy of the prior art description, attached to the instant Official Correspondence set as NPL item “Wang_CN112151855A_DESC_TR.pdf”, which does not include the images as necessary for review of Claims 13-15 of the instant application.
Please refer to the attached NPL item “Wang_CN112151855A_DESC_TR_2.pdf” for an alternate translated copy of the prior art description, which does not include the paragraph numbers as cited but may be appropriately juxtaposed to find the corresponding section with the underlined heading II. Electrolyte Solution starting on Page 10/24 of the document and thus the relevant structure images as necessary for review of Claims 13-15 of the instant application. This second document will be referred to as “Wang_2” along with relevant page numbers in review of Claims 13-15.
Further regarding Wang (CN 112151855 A), the translation utilizes the term “intermediate material” which is contextually evaluated to correspond to “insulation material” of the instant application and thus the terms are used interchangeably.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 112151855 A) in view of Uematsu et al. (JP 2017157471 A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Wang teaches an electrochemical device and an electronic device (Paragraph [0002]) comprising an electrode which further comprises a current collector, an intermediate layer on the current collector, and an active material layer on the intermediate layer (Paragraph [0009]). Wang does not teach the additional elements specifically pertaining to a positive electrode. Uematsu teaches an electrode with a current collector, a mixture layer containing active material, and an insulating layer wherein the active material mixture layer and insulating layer are both formed on the current collector and the active material layer overlaps on the insulating layer such that the overlap region contains both substances (Paragraph [0011]). Uematsu teaches that the active material may be a positive electrode active material (Paragraph [0016]), and further teaches a positive electrode current collector (Paragraph [0029]), positive electrode mixture layer containing positive electrode active material (Paragraph [0030]), and the insulating layer of a positive electrode (Paragraph [0046]). Uematsu teaches that the insulation layer comprises an inorganic insulating material (Paragraph [0052]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang and Uematsu by using a known technique to improve a similar device, method, or product in the same way, resulting in a prima facie case of obviousness supported by KSR rationale (C). See MPEP §2143. The teachings of Wang in regards to an electrode would have been obvious to apply to a positive electrode in the manner of Uematsu in order to gain the same benefits of the configuration. "It's enough … to show that there was a known problem … in the art, that [another reference] … helped address that issue, and that combining the teachings of [the two references] wasn't beyond the skill of an ordinary artisan. Nothing more is required to show a motivation to combine under KSR." See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380-81, 2023 USPQ2d 297 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Wang teaches an electrolyte containing a sulfur-oxygen double bond compound (Paragraph [0127]) and in some embodiments, further comprises compounds containing a cyano group (Paragraphs [0148] and [0150]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang teaches the content of the cyano compound “a” is 0.1% to 15% based on the weight of the electrolyte (Paragraph [0169]). Wang teaches the content of the sulfur-oxygen double bond compound “b” is 0.1% to 10% based on the weight of the electrolyte (Paragraph [0145]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have picked any part of the ranges disclosed by Wang, such as a = 4 (for mass percentage of the cyano-containing compound) and b = 2.5 (for mass percentage of the sulfur-oxygen double bond containing compound), to arrive at values for a and b that fulfill the claimed system of equations since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Wang does not teach the ratio A1/A2 > 1.2 of the positive electrode active material mass “A1” over the insulation region mass “A2” wherein both masses are over the same area, nor the mass of the positive electrode active material over the set area A1 to be 100 mg to 400 mg. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang and Uematsu to optimize the ratio A1/A2 > 1.2 wherein A1 is 100 mg to 400 mg to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio A1/A2 > 1.2 wherein A1 is 100 mg to 400 mg by the desire to improve the safety of the electrochemical device and reducing the DC internal resistance and expansion rate by satisfying the area ratio of the intermediate layer to the active material layer as taught by Wang (Paragraph [0146]) and to suppress manufacturing defects of power storage elements by maintaining a total active material thickness that is greater than or equal to the combination active and insulation region thickness as taught by Uematsu (Paragraph [0015]).
Although thickness and area are unitary measurements which differ from that of mass loading per unit area, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been able to recognize the significance of any measurable “amount” of intermediate/insulation material, which may be by a metric of thickness or area or mass, as being necessarily less than that of the active material from the teachings of Wang and Uematsu, and thus optimize the amount of active material and amount of intermediate/insulation material based on the product manufacturing and performance motivations as taught by Wang and Uematsu.
Regarding Claim 5, Wang does not teach the ratio 0.3 ≤ M1/A2 ≤ 1.5 of the mass percentage of the inorganic filler in the insulation region “M1” over the insulation region mass per set area “A2”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang and Uematsu to optimize the ratio 0.3 ≤ M1/A2 ≤ 1.5 to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio 0.3 ≤ M1/A2 ≤ 1.5 by the desire to effectively suppress micro-short circuits between the positive and negative electrodes by applying an insulating substance and utilizing an inorganic material as an insulating material as taught by Uematsu (Paragraphs [0005] and [0052]), and thus to optimize the performance of the insulation member in which the inorganic material content in the mass of the insulation may be a lever.
Regarding Claim 6, Wang does not teach the ratio A1/a > 8 of the positive electrode active material mass “A1” over the content of the cyano compound based on the weight of the electrolyte “a”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang to optimize the ratio A1/a > 8 to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the ratio A1/a > 8 by the desire to improve the safety of the electrochemical device and reducing the DC internal resistance and expansion rate by satisfying the area ratio of the intermediate layer to the active material layer by optimizing (1) the percent composition of the electrolyte such as sulfur-oxygen double bond compounds and (2) the ratio of intermediate material to active material as taught by Wang (Paragraph [0146]), wherein the electrolyte may further contain cyano compounds (Paragraphs [0148] and [0150]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang does not teach the inorganic filler material. Uematsu teaches examples of an inorganic insulating material to include SiO2, Al2O3, and alumina-silica composite oxides; particles of clays such as talc and montmorillonite; mineral-resource-derived substances such as boehmite, zeolite, apatite, kaoline, mullite, spinell, olivine, sericite, bentonites, and micas; and artificial products thereof (Paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an inorganic material of Uematsu with the intermediate/insulating material of Wang in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as selecting an insulating material to use in manufacturing an energy storage device in which micro-short circuits between electrodes and manufacturing defects are suppressed, as taught by Uematsu (Paragraph [0083]). See re Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang teaches compounds containing a cyano group include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: succinonitrile, glutaronitrile, adiponitrile, 1, 5-dicyanopentane, 1, 6-dicyanohexane, tetramethylsuccinonitrile, 2-methylglutaronitrile, 2, 4-dimethylglutaronitrile, 2,4, 4-tetramethylglutaronitrile, 1, 4-dicyanopentane, 1, 2-dicyanobenzene, 1, 3-dicyanobenzene, 1, 4-dicyanobenzene, ethylene glycol bis (propionitrile) ether, 3, 5-dioxa-pimelonitrile, 1, 4-bis (cyanoethoxy) butane, diethylene glycol bis (2-cyanoethyl) ether, triethylene glycol bis (2-cyanoethyl) ether, tetraethylene glycol bis (2-cyanoethyl) ether, 1, 3-bis (2-cyanoethoxy) propane, 1, 4-bis (2-cyanoethoxy) butane, 1, 5-bis (2-cyanoethoxy) pentane, ethylene glycol di (4-cyanobutyl) ether, 1, 4-dicyano-2-butene, 1, 4-dicyano-2-methyl-2-butene, 1, 4-dicyano-2-ethyl-2-butene, 1, 4-dicyano-2, 3-dimethyl-2-butene, 1, 4-dicyano-2, 3-diethyl-2-butene, 1, 6-dicyano-3-hexene, 1, 6-dicyano-2-methyl-3-hexene, 1,3, 5-pentatriformonitrile, 1,2, 3-propanetriformonitrile, 1,3, 6-hexanetricarbonitrile, hexane-2-butene, 1, 4-dicyano-2-methyl-3-hexene, 1,3, 5-pentatriformonitrile, 1,2, 3-propanetriformitrile, 1,3, 1,2, 6-hexanetricarbonitrile, 1,2, 3-tris (2-cyanoethoxy) propane, 1,2, 4-tris (2-cyanoethoxy) butane, 1,1, 1-tris (cyanoethoxymethylene) ethane, 1,1, 1-tris (cyanoethoxymethylene) propane, 3-methyl-1, 3, 5-tris (cyanoethoxy) pentane, 1,2, 7-tris (cyanoethoxy) heptane, 1,2, 6-tris (cyanoethoxy) hexane and 1,2, 5-tris (cyanoethoxy) pentane (Paragraph [0186]).
Wang teaches the content of the cyano compound is 0.1% to 15% based on the weight of the electrolyte (Paragraph [0169]).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang teaches the cyano-containing compound may comprise at least two dinitrile compounds, such as 2-methylglutaronitrile and diethylene glycol di(2-cyanoethy) ether (Paragraph [0168]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Wang teaches the cyano-containing compound may comprise a dinitrile compound and a trinitrile compound, furthermore an ether bond-containing dinitrile compound or an ether bond-containing trinitrile compound, such as diethylene glycol di(2-cyanoethy) ether or 1,3-di(2-cyanoethoxy)propane respectively (Paragraph [0168]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang teaches the electrolyte compound containing a sulfur-oxygen double bond comprising the compound of Formula 1 in the instant claim and the selections of W, L, m, n, and p (Paragraphs [0135]-[0142]; Fig. 1 on Page 11/24 in Wang_2).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Wang teaches the electrolyte compound containing a sulfur-oxygen double bond to further include at least one of the compounds of Formulas 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, and 1-7 in the instant claim (Paragraph [0143]; Figs. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, and 1-7 on Page 12/24 in Wang_2 respectively).
Claims 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 112151855 A) in view of Uematsu et al. (JP 2017/157471 A) as applied to Claims 1-11, 13-15, and 20 above, further in view of Makhmut et al. (US 2015/0086861 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang teaches the electrolyte compound containing a sulfur-oxygen double bond to further include at least one of the compounds such as methylene disulfonate (Paragraph [0132]), which is identical to methylene methanedisulfonate of the instant claim.
Furthermore, Makhmut teaches a disultone-based compound (Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; Formula 1) which is identical to bicyclic sultone of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Wang does not teach the bicyclic sultone compounds. Makhmut teaches a disultone-based compound (Paragraphs [0027]-[0028]; Formula 1) which is identical to bicyclic sultone of the instant claim. Makhmut also teaches A1, A2, A3, and A4 may be a substituted or unsubstituted alkylene group (Paragraph [0028]), a halogen or alkyl (Paragraph [0037), or halogen-substituted alkyl (Paragraphs [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disultone-based compounds of Makhmut with the electrolyte containing sulfur-oxygen double bond compounds of Wang in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as using disultone-based compounds as an additive in electrolyte solution to improve performance of a lithium battery as taught by Makhmut (Paragraph [0029]). See re Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang does not teach the bicyclic sultone compounds. Makhmut teaches all compounds of the instant claim (Paragraph [0055]). See following table for comparison.
Instant application
Makhmut (US 2015/0086861 A1)
Formula 2-1
Formula 6
Formula 2-2
Formula 7
Formula 2-4
Formula 8
Formula 2-5
Formula 11
Formula 2-6
Formula 12
Formula 2-7
Formula 13
Formula 2-8
Formula 16
Formula 2-9
Formula 17
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disultone-based compounds of Makhmut with the electrolyte containing sulfur-oxygen double bond compounds of Wang in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as using disultone-based compounds as an additive in electrolyte solution to improve performance of a lithium battery as taught by Makhmut (Paragraph [0029]). See re Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 112151855 A) in view of Uematsu et al. (JP 2017/157471 A) as applied to Claims 1-11, 13-15, and 20 above, further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2021/0296735 A1).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Wang does not teach the presence of polyol or specifically a glycol in the positive electrode active material. Tanaka teaches use of a leveling agent such as a non-ionic surfactant in a slurry composition for surface coating including one or more of polyethylene glycol-based surfactants, polyoxyalkylene alkyl ether-based surfactants, polyol-based non-ionic surfactants, polyoxyethylene distyrenated phenyl ethers, polyoxyethylene tribenzyl phenyl ethers, and polyoxyalkylene alkyl ethers (Paragraph [0080]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the polyol-based or polyethylene glycol-based leveling agent of Tanaka with the positive electrode active material of Wang in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as improving the smoothness of a coated surface as taught by Tanaka (Paragraph [0079]), wherein a uniform active material coating surface is known to be a desirable quality in electrode surface properties in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See re Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights