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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-7, 11, & 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (CN 103682297 A), in view of Li et al. (CN 103078141 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chu teaches a lithium-ion battery (Par. 0002), comprising an electrolytic solution (Par. 0011, “electrolyte with added functional additives”) and a negative electrode plate (Par. 0011); wherein the electrolytic solution comprises an electrolyte additive (Par. 0011), the electrolyte additive comprises vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate (Par. 0021, VC and FEC), and the negative electrode plate comprises a negative active material (Par. 0016-0017; graphite negative active material); wherein based on a weight of the electrolytic solution, a weight percent of the vinylene carbonate is b% (Par. 0022, b=2), and a weight percent of the fluoroethylene carbonate is c% (Par. 0022; c=1); wherein 0.02 ≤ b + c ≤ 10 (b + c = 3, which meets the claimed range); and 0.1 ≤ b/c ≤ 3 (b/c = 2/1 = 2, which meets the claimed range). Chu fails to teach an OI value of the negative active material.
However, Li teaches a lithium-ion battery (Par. 0002), comprising an electrolyte (Par. 0014; the electrolyte has film-forming additives) with VC and FEC additives (Par. 0016), and a negative electrode plate (Par. 0022; negative electrode sheets) comprising a negative active material (Par. 0045; graphite negative active material); wherein an OI value of the negative active material is a (Par. 0045; C0004/C110 ratio, or OI value, of 1.9); based on a weight of the electrolytic solution, a weight percent of the vinylene carbonate is b% (Examples 3-7; b=2), and a weight percent of the fluoroethylene carbonate is c% (Examples 3-7; c=4); wherein 0.3 ≤ a/(b + c) ≤ 6 (1.9/(2+4) = 0.317, meeting the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative active material taught by Chu by incorporating a structure which has an OI value of 1.9, as taught by Li. This would be done to improve the diffusion of lithium ions into the graphite, thereby improving high-rate and low-temperature performances of the battery, as stated in Li (Par. 0024; C004/C110 ratio).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chu teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, wherein 0.4 ≤ a/(b + c) ≤ 3 (Chu Par. 0022 teaches that b=2, c=1; Li Par. 0045 teaches an OI value of a=1.9; 1.9/(2+1) = 0.63, meeting the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chu teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, wherein 0.2 ≤ b + c ≤ 5 (Par. 0022; b = 2, c = 1; b + c = 3, meeting the claimed range).
Regarding claim 4, modified Chu teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, wherein 0.5 ≤ b/c ≤ 2.5 (Par. 0022; b/c = 2/1 = 2, meeting the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, modified Chu teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium-ion battery satisfies the following conditions: 0.01 ≤ b ≤ 10 (Par. 0022; b = 2); and 0.01 ≤ c ≤ 10 (Par. 0022; c = 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chu teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, wherein the lithium-ion battery satisfies 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 5 (Par. 0022; c = 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chu teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 5, wherein 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 5 (Par. 0022; b = 2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chu teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, wherein a specific surface area of the negative active material is f m2/g, and 1 ≤ f ≤ 3 (Par. 0017; the negative electrode active material has a specific surface area of 0.5-2.0 m2/g, overlapping the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 14, Chu teaches an electrochemical device (Par. 0010; the lithium-ion battery can be used in energy storage devices), comprising a lithium-ion battery (Par. 0002), the lithium-ion battery comprising an electrolytic solution (Par. 0011, “electrolyte with added functional additives”) and a negative electrode plate (Par. 0011); wherein the electrolytic solution comprises an electrolyte additive (Par. 0011), the electrolyte additive comprises vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate (Par. 0021, VC and FEC), and the negative electrode plate comprises a negative active material (Par. 0016-0017; graphite negative active material); wherein based on a weight of the electrolytic solution, a weight percent of the vinylene carbonate is b% (Par. 0022, b=2), and a weight percent of the fluoroethylene carbonate is c% (Par. 0022; c=1); wherein 0.02 ≤ b + c ≤ 10 (b + c = 3, which meets the claimed range); and 0.1 ≤ b/c ≤ 3 (b/c = 2/1 = 2, which meets the claimed range). Chu fails to teach an OI value of the negative active material.
However, Li teaches a lithium-ion battery (Par. 0002), comprising an electrolyte (Par. 0014; the electrolyte has film-forming additives) with VC and FEC additives (Par. 0016), and a negative electrode plate (Par. 0022; negative electrode sheets) comprising a negative active material (Par. 0045; graphite negative active material); wherein an OI value of the negative active material is a (Par. 0045; C0004/C110 ratio, or OI value, of 1.9); based on a weight of the electrolytic solution, a weight percent of the vinylene carbonate is b% (Examples 3-7; b=2), and a weight percent of the fluoroethylene carbonate is c% (Examples 3-7; c=4); wherein 0.3 ≤ a/(b + c) ≤ 6 (1.9/(2+4) = 0.317, meeting the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative active material taught by Chu by incorporating a structure which has an OI value of 1.9, as taught by Li. This would be done to improve the diffusion of lithium ions into the graphite, thereby improving high-rate and low-temperature performances of the battery, as stated in Li (Par. 0024; C004/C110 ratio).
Regarding claim 15, modified Chu teaches the electrochemical device of claim 14, wherein the lithium-ion battery satisfies the following conditions: 0.2 ≤ b + c ≤ 5 (Par. 0022; b = 2, c = 1; b + c = 3, meeting the claimed range); or 0.5 ≤ b/c ≤ 2.5 (Par. 0022; b/c = 2/1 = 2, meeting the claimed range).
Regarding claim 16, modified Chu teaches the electrochemical device of claim 14, wherein the lithium-ion battery satisfies the following conditions: 0.01 ≤ b ≤ 10 (Par. 0022; b = 2); and 0.01 ≤ c ≤ 10 (Par. 0022; c = 1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Chu teaches the electrochemical device of claim 14, wherein the lithium-ion battery satisfies 0.1 ≤ c ≤ 5 (Par. 0022; c = 1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Chu teaches the electrochemical device of claim 18, wherein 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 5 (Par. 0022; b = 2).
Claims 8-10 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu, in view of Li, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 113363671 A).
Regarding claim 8, Chu fails to teach an electrolyte retention coefficient of the lithium-ion battery.
However, Wu teaches a lithium-ion battery (Pg. 1, Par. 5), with an electrolyte retention coefficient of the lithium-ion battery e of 1.2-4.5 mg/mAh (Pg. 1, Par. 10; while no units are provided in the present application, it is not specified whether the coefficient is unitless or not, so the units will be included in examination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion battery taught by Chu by achieving an electrolyte retention coefficient in the range of 1.2-4.5 mg/mAh, as taught by Wu. This would be done to improve the high-rate cycle performance of the battery under low temperatures, as stated in Wu (Pg. 1, Par. 10).
Modified Chu thus teaches 0.01 ≤ e × (b + c) ≤ 50 (when e is 1.2, 1.2*(2+1) = 3.6; when e is 4.5, 4.5*(2+1) = 13.5; both results meet the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches an electrolyte retention coefficient e of the lithium-ion battery within the range of 1 ≤ e ≤ 7 (Pg. 1, Par. 10; the retention coefficient ranges from 1.2-4.5, fitting in the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches an electrolyte retention coefficient e in the range of 1 ≤ e ≤ 7 (Pg. 1, Par. 10; the retention coefficient ranges from 1.2-4.5, fitting in the claimed range).
Regarding claim 20, Chu fails to teach an electrolyte retention coefficient of the lithium-ion battery.
However, Wu teaches a lithium-ion battery (Pg. 1, Par. 5), with an electrolyte retention coefficient of the lithium-ion battery e of 1.2-4.5 mg/mAh (Pg. 1, Par. 10; while no units are provided in the present application, it is not specified whether the coefficient is unitless or not, so the units will be included in examination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion battery taught by Chu by achieving an electrolyte retention coefficient in the range of 1.2-4.5 mg/mAh, as taught by Wu. This would be done to improve the high-rate cycle performance of the battery under low temperatures, as stated in Wu (Pg. 1, Par. 10).
Modified Chu thus teaches 0.01 ≤ e × (b + c) ≤ 50 (when e is 1.2, 1.2*(2+1) = 3.6; when e is 4.5, 4.5*(2+1) = 13.5; both results meet the claimed range).
Claims 12-13 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu, in view of Li, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 114142090 A).
Regarding claim 12, Chu fails to teach the electrolytic solution comprising a compound B represented by Formula (II).
However, Liu teaches a lithium-ion battery (Par. 0001) comprising an electrolytic solution (Par. 0001), wherein the electrolytic solution comprises a compound B represented by Formula (II) (Par. 0095; the electrolyte contains 2-fluoropyridine, shown below; R6-R9 are hydrogen, R10 is fluorine); and based on the weight of the electrolytic solution, a weight percent of the compound represented by Formula (II) is k%, and 0 < k < 3 (Par. 0095; 2-fluoropyridine is present in a weight percentage of 0.3%, meeting the claimed range).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
339
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolytic solution taught by Chu by incorporating a compound B represented by Formula (II) in a weight percentage between 0% and 3%, as taught by Liu. This would be done to improve the battery’s cycle performance and high-temperature performance, as stated in Liu (Par. 0038).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches the compound B represented by Formula (II) comprising 2-fluoropyridine (Par. 0095).
Regarding claim 19, Chu fails to teach the electrolytic solution comprising a compound B.
However, Liu teaches a lithium-ion battery (Par. 0001) comprising an electrolytic solution (Par. 0001), wherein the electrolytic solution comprises a compound B, wherein the compound B comprises 2-fluoropyridine (Par. 0095); and based on the weight of the electrolytic solution, a weight percentage of the compound B is k%, and 0 < k < 3 (Par. 0095; 2-fluoropyridine is present in a weight percentage of 0.3%, meeting the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrolytic solution taught by Chu by incorporating a compound B represented by Formula (II) in a weight percentage between 0% and 3%, as taught by Liu. This would be done to improve the battery’s cycle performance and high-temperature performance, as stated in Liu (Par. 0038).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. 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, 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights