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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 14, the limitation of “b=9.7a-0.07+C, wherein -1.5<C
≤
1.5, and 0<a
≤
0.65” is unclear. The variables of “b” and “C” are not defined.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation of “b” is unclear, as the variable of “b” is not defined.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation of “b1/b2” is unclear, the variables of b1 and b2 are not defined.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation of “c/b” are unclear, the variables of “c” and “b” are not defined. Furthermore, claim 5 cites “c” as lowercased, and claim 1 cites “C” as uppercased, it’s not clear if the “c” in claim 5 is the same or different than the “C” in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, the value of “d” is unclear as the variable of “d” is not defined.
Regarding Claim 13, the value of “T”, “b” and “X” are unclear as the variables are not defined.
Claims 4, and 7-12 are also rejected since the claims depend on claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Chen (US Pub No. 2023/0026621)
Regarding Claim 1 and 14, Chen et al. teaches electronic apparatus comprising an electrochemical apparatus, comprising: a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, a separator, and an electrolyte [0036]; wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material [0005], the positive electrode active material comprises element Co, and, based on a total mass of the positive electrode active material [0005], a mass percentage of element Co is a [0005]; and wherein the electrolyte comprises a polynitrile compound, and, based on a total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the polynitrile compound is b% [abstract, polynitrile accounts for 0.2 to 4%]; wherein b=9.7a-0.07+C, wherein 1.5<C
≤
1.5, and 0<a
≤
0.65 [Abstract, 0005].
Regarding Claim 2, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein 0<b≤7 [Abstract, 0005].
Regarding Claim 8, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises at least one of fluoroethylene carbonate, vinylene carbonate, propylene sulfite, ethylene sulfate, lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, or lithium bis(oxalato)borate [0021, ethylene carbonate].
Regarding Claim 11, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein the electrolyte further comprises at least one of dimethyl carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, ethyl acetate, ethyl propionate, or propyl propionate [0034, dimethyl carbonate].
Regarding Claim 12, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Chen et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the apparatus of Chen et al. meeting the limitation of “wherein a differential scanning calorimetry curve of the positive electrode plate comprises at least one main exothermic peak.”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Chen et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the apparatus of Chen et al. meeting the limitation of “wherein, in the differential
scanning calorimetry curve, a temperature of the main exothermic peak is T°C, and T = 10b +
267 + X, wherein -20≤X≤20, 0<b≤7, and 200≤T≤360”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub No. 2023/0026621)
Regarding Claim 5, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein the electrolyte further comprises ethylene carbonate [0034], and silent on based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the ethylene carbonate is c%, wherein 0.5≤c/b≤20, and 3≤c≤30
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus are changed, the precise parameters of the electrochemical apparatus would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the ethylene carbonate is c%, wherein 0.5≤c/b≤20, and 3≤c≤30” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 9, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt [0020], the lithium salt comprises at least one of an inorganic salt or an organic lithium salt [0020], and, based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the lithium salt is 10 to 20 % overlapping the claimed 7.5% to 25% [0022].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein the lithium salt comprises at least one of lithium hexafluorophosphate, lithium tetrafluoroborate, lithium hexafluoroarsenate, lithium perchlorate, lithium bis(fluorosulfony])imide, or lithium bistrifluoromethanesulfonimide [0020, lithium hexafluoroarsenate].
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub No. 2023/0026621) in view of Kuwajima (US Pub No. 2022/0328879)
Regarding Claim 3, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein the polynitrile compound comprises a dinitrile compound and a trinitrile compound; and, based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the dinitrile compound is b1%, and a mass percentage of the trinitrile compound is b2%, wherein 0≤b1/b2≤4.
Kuwajima et al. teaches the use of succinonitrile and 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile [0276-0277] as polynitriles for electrolytes [0263].
Since Chen et al. teaches the use of polynitriles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the polynitriles of Chen et al. with the dinitrile and trinitrile of Kuwajima et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional electrolyte material in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus are changed, the precise parameters of the electrochemical apparatus would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the dinitrile compound is b1%, and a mass percentage of the trinitrile compound is b2%, wherein 0≤b1/b2≤4.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 4, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the dinitrile compound comprises at least one of succinonitrile, adiponitrile, 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane, or 1,4-dicyano-2-butene, and the trinitrile compound comprises at least one of 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile or 1,2,3-tris(2-cyanoethoxy)propane [see claim 3].
Regarding Claim 6, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein the electrolyte comprises lithium difluorophosphate, and, based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the lithium difluorophosphate is d%, wherein 0.01≤d≤1.
Kuwajima et al. teaches a electrolyte comprising lithium difluorophosphate [0464].
Since Chen et al. teaches the use of an electrolyte, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the electrolyte of Chen et al. with the lithium salt of Kuwajima et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional lithium salt in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus are changed, the precise parameters of the electrochemical apparatus would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the lithium difluorophosphate is d%, wherein 0.01≤d≤1.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 7, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on the electrolyte comprises lithium difluorophosphate, and, based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the lithium difluorophosphate is d%, wherein 0.015≤d≤1.
Kuwajima et al. teaches a electrolyte comprising lithium difluorophosphate [0464].
Since Chen et al. teaches the use of an electrolyte, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the electrolyte of Chen et al. with the lithium salt of Kuwajima et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional lithium salt in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus are changed, the precise parameters of the electrochemical apparatus would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “based on the total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the lithium difluorophosphate is d%, wherein 0.015≤d≤1.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the electrochemical apparatus to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights