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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et al (US 20090301866 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220367878 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Zaghib teaches an electrochemical generator (device) comprising a positive electrode (cathode), a negative electrode (anode), and an electrolyte. The positive electrode comprises a current collector and first and second superposed positive electrode active material layers, with the first layer positioned between the current collector and the second layer (claim 76-77). Zaghib Example 1 teaches a collector adjacent first layer comprising LiFePO4, carbon black, a water soluble binder and water, an exterior second layer comprising LiCoO2, carbon black, and PVDF prepared using NMP, applying the LiCoO2/PVDF layer over the LiFePO4/water soluble binder layer and forming a double layer LiCoO2/LiFePO4 positive electrode on an aluminum based current collector (paragraph [0268]- [0271]).
Zaghib does not teach that the adhesion force F1, the cohesion force F2 and the relationship F1/F2≥6.
Zhang teaches a positive electrode comprising a current collector and a first and second positive electrode active material layers arranged in the thickness direction of the electrode. Each layer comprises an active material, a conductive agent, and a binder. The binders in the respective layers may be the same or different (paragraph [0007]- [0009], [0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Zhang’s multilayer positive electrode teachings, including its disclosed binder and thickness ranges, into the multilayer positive electrode of Zaghib because Zaghib teaches that employing different binder and solvent systems provides mechanical and chemical stability to the multilayer electrode (paragraph [0246]).
Although Zaghib and Zhang do not expressly identify the resulting adhesion and cohesion forces as F1 and F2 and their relationship. The positive electrode resulting from their combined teaches would be substantially identical in the material and structural characteristics responsible for the claimed forces to the working examples of the instant application. The instant application identifies the binder identity, the binder content, solvent system, active material and layer configurations as the relevant variable governing the adhesion between the current collector and first layer and cohesion within the second layer. Therefore, the substantially identical prior art electrode provides a technical basis for concluding that it would inherently possess F1/F2 ≥ 6.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case exists that an unexpressed property is inherent. The burden therefore shifts to the applicant to establish that the substantially identical prior art electrode does not possess the claimed force relationship. See MPEP §2112, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding Claim 2: Zaghib discloses all the limitations set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib does not disclose that the adhesion force F1 between the current collector and the first positive electrode active material layer is greater or equal to 200 N/m.
Zhang teaches a lithium polyacrylate as a suitable binder for a positive electrode active material layer, preferred binder contents of approximately 0.9-5 wt%, and layer thickness substantially like those employed in the working example of the instant application (paragraph [0049]). Zhang does not expressly report the claimed adhesion force F1 greater or equal to 200 N/m.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Zhang’s multilayer positive electrode teachings, including its disclosed binder and thickness ranges, into the multilayer positive electrode of Zaghib because Zaghib teaches that employing different binder and solvent systems provides mechanical and chemical stability to the multilayer electrode (paragraph [0246]).
Although Zaghib and Zhang do not expressly identify the resulting adhesion force as F1 and greater or equal to 200 N/m. The resulting electrode would comprise a collector adjacent aqueous LiFePO4 layer containing lithium polyacrylate, with a binder content and layer thickness like the corresponding instant examples. The substantially identical electrode resulting from Zaghib in view of Zhang provides a technical basis for concluding that the electrode would inherently possess F1 ≥ 200 N/m.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case exists that an unexpressed property is inherent. The burden therefore shifts to the applicant to establish that the substantially identical prior art electrode does not possess the claimed force relationship. See MPEP §2112, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding Claim 3: Zaghib discloses all the limitations set forth above in claim. Zaghib further teaches that the collector adjacent first positive electrode active material layer comprises a water-soluble binder and is prepared using water (paragraph [0245], [0266]). Therefore, Zaghib satisfies the condition (1) of claim 3. Because claim 3 requires “at least one” of the conditions (1)-(4), no further showing regarding conditions (2)-(4) is necessary.
Therefore, the additional limitations of claim 3 is taught by Zaghib and would have been obvious over Zaghib in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 4: Zaghib discloses all the limitations set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib does not disclose a binder mass fraction b, F1 ≥ 200 N/m or F1/b ≥ 10.
Zhang teaches that each positive electrode active material layer comprises a binder and that the binder content is approximately 0.5-15 wt%, preferably approximately 0.9-5 wt% (paragraph [0047]- [0049]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Zhang’s multilayer positive electrode teachings, including its disclosed binder and thickness ranges, into the multilayer positive electrode of Zaghib because Zaghib teaches that employing different binder and solvent systems provides mechanical and chemical stability to the multilayer electrode (paragraph [0246]) and Zhang teaches that its multilayer positive electrode configuration reduce the lithium precipitation and improve cycle life and cycle expansion without reducing rapid charging performance or energy density (paragraph [0005], [0068]).
Although Zaghib and Zhang do not expressly identify F1 or F1/b. However, the electrode resulting from the combined teaching would substantially be identical in the relevant material and the structural characteristics to Instant Example 1-1. The substantially identical electrode resulting from Zaghib in view of Zhang provides a technical basis for concluding that the electrode would inherently possess 2 ≤ b ≤ 20, F1 ≥ 200 N/m or F1/b ≥ 10.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case exists that an unexpressed property is inherent. The burden therefore shifts to the applicant to establish that the substantially identical prior art electrode does not possess the claimed force relationship. See MPEP §2112, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding Claim 5: Zaghib discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib Example 1 teaches a collector adjacent first layer comprising LiFePO4, carbon black, a water soluble binder and water, an exterior second layer comprising LiCoO2, carbon black, and PVDF prepared using NMP, applying the LiCoO2/PVDF layer over the LiFePO4/water soluble binder layer and forming a double layer LiCoO2/LiFePO4 positive electrode on an aluminum based current collector (paragraph [0268]- [0271]). PVDF is a fluoropolymer. Therefore, Zaghib satisfies the condition (2) of the claim 5, because claim 5 requires “at least one” of the conditions (1)-(4), no further showing regarding conditions (1), (3)-(4) is necessary.
Therefore, the additional limitations of claim 5 are taught by Zaghib and would have been obvious over Zaghib in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 6: Zaghib discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib does not disclose a mass fraction of the second binder is 0.5 ≤ a ≤ 5, the cohesion force is 5 ≤ F2 ≤ 60 and F2/a ≥ 1.
Zhang teaches that each positive electrode active material layer comprises a binder and that the binder content is approximately 0.5-15 wt%, preferably approximately 0.9-5 wt% (paragraph [0047]- [0049]), which encompasses the PVDF content employed in instant Example 1-1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Zhang’s multilayer positive electrode teachings, including its disclosed binder and thickness ranges, into the multilayer positive electrode of Zaghib because Zaghib teaches that employing different binder and solvent systems provides mechanical and chemical stability to the multilayer electrode (paragraph [0246]) and Zhang teaches that its multilayer positive electrode configuration reduce the lithium precipitation and improve cycle life and cycle expansion without reducing rapid charging performance or energy density (paragraph [0005], [0068]).
Although Zaghib and Zhang do not expressly identify F2 or F2/a. However, the electrode resulting from the combined teaching would substantially be identical in the relevant material and the structural characteristics to Instant Example 1-1. Table 1 of the instant specification report that this corresponding second positive electrode active material layer possesses F2 = 5 N/m.
The substantially identical electrode resulting from Zaghib in view of Zhang provides a technical basis for concluding that the electrode would inherently possess F2 = 5 N/m, which satisfies 5 ≤ F2 ≤ 60. And using the corresponding binder mass fraction: a = 1.5%; F2/a = 5/1.5 = 3.33, which satisfies F2/a ≥ 1 and 0.5 ≤ a ≤ 5
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case exists that an unexpressed property is inherent. The burden therefore shifts to the applicant to establish that the substantially identical prior art electrode does not possess the claimed force relationship. See MPEP §2112, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding Claim 7: Zaghib discloses all the limitations set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib expressly teaches that the collector adjacent LiFePO4 layer comprises a water-soluble binder and is prepared using water. Zaghib further teaches that the exterior LiCoO2 layer comprises a water insoluble PVDF and is prepared using NMP (paragraph [0268]- [0271]).
Therefore, the additional limitations of claim 7 is taught by Zaghib and would have been obvious over Zaghib in view of Zhang.
Regarding Claim 8: Zaghib discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib does not disclose that the mass fraction of the first binder b% and the mass fraction of the second binder a%; have values of 2.5 ≤ a + b ≤ 25 and 1 ≤ b/a ≤ 40.
Zhang teaches that each positive electrode active material layer comprises a binder and that the first binder content is preferably approximately 0.9-5 wt% (paragraph [0047]) and the second binder content is preferably approximately 0.9-5 wt% (paragraph [0051]). Zhang’s disclosed ranges overlap the binder constants required by claim 8 and encompass combinations satisfying 2.5 ≤ a + b ≤ 25 and 1 ≤ b/a ≤ 40. For instance, values of a and b within the disclosed range equal to or greater than 1.25 wt% necessarily produce a + b ≤ 25 and selecting b ≥ a produces b/a ≥ 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the binder contents of Zaghib’s respective layers from Zhang’s disclosed ranges to retain the mechanical and chemical stability obtained from Zaghib’s teachings while obtaining Zhang’s improvements in lithium precipitation. See Zaghib [0246], and Zhang [0005], [0068])
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et al (US 20090301866 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 20220367878 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US20210399308 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: Zaghib-Zhang discloses all the limitations set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib-Zhang does not teach that the positive electrode satisfies at least one conditions: (1) a thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is H µm, H1/H ≤ 0.1; or (2) 0.1 ≤ H1 ≤ 5.
Kim teaches a multilayer electrode having a first coating layer disposed of a current collector and a second coating layer disposed of the first coating layer, such that the first coating layer is interposed between the current collector and the second coating layer (paragraph [0027]). Kim teaches that the second coating layer may be thicker than the first coating layer and that the ratio of the first layer thickness to the second layer thickness may be greater than or equal to 1:99 and less than 1:9 (paragraph [0038]). Kim’s disclosed ratio satisfies the claimed limitation. Specifically, when H1/H2 is less than 1/9:
H
1
H
=
H
1
H
1
+
H
2
=
1
1
+
9
=
0.1
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the relative thickness of Zaghib’s first and second positive electrode active material layers according to the thickness ratio taught by Kim because Kim teaches that reducing the thickness of the first coating layer may increase the electrode power and decreases the impedance (paragraph [0058]).
Claims 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et al (US 20090301866 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 20220367878 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bo et al. (US 20200099100 A1).
Regarding Claim 10: Zaghib-Zhang discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib-Zhang does not disclose that the electrolyte comprises a compound containing a cyano group.
Bo teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-ion caterer comprising a nitrile compound. Bo teaches trinitrile compounds selected from 1,3,6-hexanetrizonitrile, 1,2,6-hexanetricarbonitrile, 1,3,5-pentatrionitrile, 1,2,3-propanetricarbonitrile. Bo teaches dinitrile compounds including butanedinitrile, pentane dinitrile, adiponitrile, heptane dinitrile, ethylene glycol bis(propionitrile) ether. Each disclosed nitriles compound contains at least one cyan group (paragraph [0023]- [0028]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bo’s nitrile containing electrolyte into the electrochemical device of Zaghib as modified by Zhang because Bo teaches that the nitrile compound stabilizes the positive electrode interface and forms a protective film (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 11: Zaghib-Zhang discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 10. Zaghib-Zhang does not disclose that the percentage of the compound containing a cyano group is x%, and the electrochemical device satisfies at least one of the following conditions: (1) 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 15; or (2) F1 ≥ 200 and F1/x ≥ 13.33.
Bo teaches that the content of the trinitrile compound in the electrolyte is from approximately 0.1 wt % to 5 wt%, based on the total mass of the electrolyte. Bo further teaches that a dinitrile compound may be present in the amount from 0.1 wt% to 8 wt% (paragraph [0032]). Bo’s disclosed trinitrile range from 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 5 falls entirely within the range required by condition (1) of claim 11.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the amount of the cyano group containing compound within Bo’s ranges because Bo teaches that the nitrile compound stabilizes the positive electrode interface, improve the cycle, rate and floating charge performance of the lithium battery (abstract, paragraph [0032])
Regarding Claim 12: Zaghib-Zhang-Bo discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 10. Zaghib and Zhang in view of Bo teaches the electrolyte comprising a compound containing a cyano group. Bo expressly teaches that the nitrile compound contained in the electrolyte may comprise one or more trinitrile compounds selected from: 1,3,6-hexanetrizonitrile, 1,2,6-hexanetricarbonitrile, 1,3,5-pentatrionitrile, 1,2,3-propanetricarbonitrile (paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bo’s nitrile containing electrolyte into the electrochemical device of Zaghib as modified by Zhang because Bo teaches that the nitrile compound stabilizes the positive electrode interface and forms a protective film (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 13: Zaghib-Zhang discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib-Zhang does not disclose that the electrolyte comprises propylene carbonate.
Bo teaches that the organic solvent of the electrolyte may comprise one or more from: ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), and dimethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), propyl propionate (PP), ethyl propionate (EP), methyl propionate (MP), propyl acetate (PA) and ethyl acetate (EA) (paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bo’s propylene carbonate electrolyte into the electrochemical device of Zaghib modified by Zhang because Bo teaches that its electrolyte formulation is suitable for lithium ion batteries and is used with additive that improve cycle performance and rate performance (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claim 14: Zaghib-Zhang-Bo discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 13.
Bo expressly teaches that the organic solvent of the electrolyte may comprise one or more from: ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), and dimethyl carbonate (DEC), ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), propyl propionate (PP), ethyl propionate (EP), methyl propionate (MP), propyl acetate (PA) and ethyl acetate (EA) (paragraph [0035]). Bo’s Comparative Example 1 teaches that ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), dimethyl carbonate (DEC) and propyl propionate (PP) are mixed in a mass ratio of EC:PC: DEC: PP=10:15:35:20. Bo employs 15 parts by mass of propylene carbonate in its electrolyte solvent formulation. This disclosed amount falls within the range required by claim 14: 2 ≤ y ≤ 25.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bo’s propylene carbonate electrolyte into the electrochemical device of Zaghib modified by Zhang because Bo teaches that its electrolyte formulation is suitable for lithium ion batteries and is used with additive that improve cycle performance and rate performance (paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claim 16: Zaghib-Zhang discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib-Zhang does not disclose that the percentage of the propyl propionate (z%), wherein 5 ≤ z ≤ 50.
Bo teaches that the organic solvent of a lithium-ion battery electrolyte may comprise propyl propionate (PP) (paragraph [0035]). Bo teaches preparing an electrolyte composition containing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and propyl propionate (PP) in a mass ratio of EC:PC: DEC: PP=10:15:35:20 (paragraph [0044]). Accordingly, Bo expressly employs 20 parts by mass of propyl propionate in the Comparative Example 1. Bo’s disclosed amount falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bo’s electrolyte containing propyl propionate into the electrochemical device of Zaghib modified by Zhang because Bo teaches that the disclosed electrolyte formulation and composition help to improve cycle performance, rate performance and charge performance (paragraph [0005], [0052]).
Regarding Claim 17: Zaghib-Zhang discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib-Zhang does not disclose a cyano group containing compound (x%) and propyl propionate (z%) in the amount satisfying 12 ≤ x + z ≤ 65 and 0.5 ≤ z/x ≤ 50.
Bo teaches an electrolyte comprising a nitrile compound and propyl propionate. Bo teaches preparing an electrolyte composition containing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and propyl propionate (PP) in a mass ratio of EC:PC: DEC: PP=10:15:35:20, followed by adding fluor sulfonyl silane acetate with a mass fraction of 2 wt % (paragraph [0044]). Bo teaches examples with a trinitrile compound that is present at 2 wt% based on the mass of the electrolyte (Comparative Example 1 paragraph [0044]). Using Bo’s disclosed values: x = 2, z = 20; producing:
x
+
z
=
2
+
20
=
22
; which satisfies 12 ≤ x + z ≤ 65; and,
z
/
x
=
20
/
2
=
10
; which satisfies: 0.5 ≤ z/x ≤ 50.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bo’s disclosed electrolyte formulation into the electrochemical device of Zaghib as modifies by Zhang because Bo teaches that the disclosed electrolyte formulation and composition help to improve cycle performance, rate performance and charge performance (paragraph [0005], [0052]) and, further teaches that the nitrile compound stabilizes the positive electrode interface and forms a protective film (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 18: Zaghib-Zhang discloses all the limitations as set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib-Zhang does not disclose propylene carbonate (y%) and propyl propionate (z%), in the amount satisfying 15 ≤ y + z ≤ 70 and 1 ≤ z/y ≤ 5.
Bo teaches an electrolyte comprising a nitrile compound and propyl propionate. Bo teaches preparing an electrolyte composition containing ethylene carbonate (EC), propylene carbonate (PC), diethyl carbonate (DEC), and propyl propionate (PP) in a mass ratio of EC:PC: DEC: PP=10:15:35:20 (paragraph [0044]). Bo’s disclosed relative amount of y = 15 and z = 20, producing:
y
+
z
=
15
+
20
=
35
; which satisfies 15 ≤ y + z ≤ 70; and,
z
/
y
=
20
/
15
=
1.33
; which satisfies: 1 ≤ z/y ≤ 5.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bo’s disclosed electrolyte formulation into the electrochemical device of Zaghib as modifies by Zhang because Bo teaches that the disclosed electrolyte formulation and composition help to improve cycle performance, rate performance and charge performance (paragraph [0005], [0052]).
Regarding Claim 19: Zaghib-Zhang discloses all the limitations set forth above in claim 1. Zaghib-Zhang does not disclose at least one selected from the group consisting of fluoroethylene carbonate, 1,3-propane sultone, vinyl sulfate, vinylene carbonate, and 1-propylphosphoric acid cyclic anhydride.
Bo teaches that a lithium-ion battery electrolyte may comprise additives that may include one or more vinylene carbonate (VC), fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), propylene sulfite (PS), ethylene sulfate (DTD), 1,3-propene sultone (PST), γ-butyrolactone (GBL), tetrahydrofuran (paragraph [0037]). Because claim 19 recited “at least one” compound, Bo’s disclosed compound satisfies the additional limitations.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bo’s disclosed electrolyte formulation, including FEC or VC, into the electrochemical device of Zaghib as modifies by Zhang because Bo teaches that the disclosed electrolyte formulation and composition help to improve cycle performance, rate performance and charge performance (paragraph [0005], [0052]).
Regarding Claim 20: Zaghib-Zhang discloses all the limitations set forth above in claim 1.
Zaghib’s electrochemical generator corresponds to the claimed electrochemical device. However, Zaghib-Zhang does not disclose a separate electronic device comprising an electrochemical device.
Bo teaches that the lithium-ion battery is employed as a power source in electronic devices, including phones, computes and drones (paragraph [0003]). Therefore, Bo teaches an electronic device comprising an electrochemical device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Zaghib-Zhang electrochemical generator (device) into the electronic devices as taught by Bo because Bo expressly teaches the established use of lithium-ion batteries in phones, computer and drones. The Zaghib-Zhang electrochemical device is likewise a lithium-ion battery and would perform the same known power supply function when incorporated into Bo’ electronic device. The combination would not require changing the electrode structure of Zaghib-Zhang device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaghib et al (US 20090301866 A1), Zhang et al. (US 20220367878 A1) and Bo et al. (US 20200099100 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US20220140396 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: Zaghib-Zhang-Bo discloses all the limitations set forth above in claim 13. Zaghib-Zhang-Bo does not disclose that the propylene carbonate (y%) in the amount satisfying F2/y ≥ 0.5.
Yang teaches a lithium-ion electrochemical cell comprising an electrolyte containing propylene carbonate. Yang discloses propylene carbonate concentration approximately 5 wt% to 10 wt% based on the electrolyte composition. Yang further discloses an electrolyte solvent containing EC: PC:EMC ratio of about 3:5:65 (paragraph [0014], [0056]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yang’s electrolyte including 5 wt% propylene carbonate into the Zaghib-Zhang-Bo electrochemical device because Yang teaches that the propylene carbonate in the electrolyte reduces the graphite exfoliation and the positive electrode degradation and provides improved capacity retention and battery lifetime (paragraph [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALY M RESTO OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)895-1575. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/NMRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights