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 § 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 7 & 17 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.
The term “a compound represented by Formula (II)” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a compound represented by Formula (II)” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner notes that Formula (II) is not provided in the claims or specification..”
The term “a compound represented by Formula (II)” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a compound represented by Formula (II)” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner notes that Formula (II) is not provided in the claims or specification..”
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 1-5, 9-15, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (CN 107666011 B), in view of Wang et al. (CN 114784223 A).
Regarding claim 1, Shen teaches an electrochemical device (Par. 0002; “secondary battery”), comprising a positive electrode plate (Par. 0030; “positive electrode”) and an electrolyte (Par. 0002; “non-aqueous electrolyte”), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive active material (Par. 0039; active material of the positive electrode material; the electrolyte comprises a compound represented by Formula (I) (Ex. 7, Par. 0080-82; succinic anionyl nitrile (BDN), also known as succinonitrile, which corresponds to Formula (I-2), is added to the electrolyte); and based on a mass of the electrolyte, a mass percent of the compound represented by Formula (I) is q%, 0.1 ≤ q ≤ 12 (Par. 0082; the additive has a mass percent of 2 wt% based on a mass of the electrolyte). Shen fails to teach a positive current collector and a positive electrode additive.
However, Wang teaches a positive electrode (Par. n0001; “positive electrode sheet”) comprising a positive current collector (Par. n0007) and a positive active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive current collector (Par. n0007); the positive active material layer comprises a positive active material (Par. n0007; the active material layer comprises 90-98% of an active material) and a positive electrode additive (Par. n0007; a solid electrolyte is added to the active material layer); the positive electrode additive comprises at least one of lithium aluminum titanium phosphate (Par. n0008, n0036); based on a mass of the positive active material layer, a mass percent of the positive electrode additive is p%, 0.1 ≤ p ≤ 1.2 (Par. n0036; the solid electrolyte additive lithium titanium aluminum phosphate is added to the active material layer in a mass percentage of 0.5%).
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 electrochemical device taught by Shen by incorporating a positive electrode additive of lithium titanium aluminum phosphate in a mass percentage of 0.1-1.2% into the positive active material layer, as taught by Wang. This would be done to provide lithium ions to the layered oxide positive active material in the charging state, thus improving structural stability, delaying and reducing oxygen release, and improving the safety of the electrochemical device, as stated in Wang (Par. n0019).
Regarding claim 2, modified Shen teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1, wherein the compound represented by Formula (I) comprises the compound of Formula (I-2) (Par. 0082, succinic anionyl nitrile, or succinonitrile).
Regarding claim 3, modified Shen teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1, wherein 0.5 ≤ q ≤ 12 (Par. 0082; 2 wt%).
Regarding claim 4, modified Shen teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1, wherein 0.025 ≤ p/q ≤ 1 (As Shen teaches a q of 2, and Wang teaches a p of 0.5, p/q = 0.5/2 = 0.25, fitting the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, modified Shen fails to teach a particle diameter of the positive electrode additive.
However, Wang teaches a particle diameter D nm of the positive electrode additive, wherein 300 ≤ D ≤ 500 (Par. n0009; the particle size of the electrolyte is 30-500 nm, 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 9, modified Shen teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte further comprises an electrolyte additive, and the electrolyte additive comprises 1,3-propane sultone and vinylene carbonate (Par. 0072; vinylene carbonate and 1,3-propane sulfonate lactone, also known as 1,3-propane sultone, are added to the electrolyte); and based on the mass of the electrolyte, a mass percent of the electrolyte additive is 0.01% to 7% (Par. 0072; VC and 1,3-PS are added in mass percentages of 2% and 1.5%, respectively).
Regarding claim 10, modified Shen teaches the electrochemical device of claim 9, wherein the electrolyte additive comprises 1,3-propane sultone and vinylene carbonate (Par. 0072); and, based on the total mass of the electrolyte, an aggregate mass percent of the 1,3-propane sultone and the vinylene carbonate is y%, 0.5 ≤ q/y ≤ 1.6 (Par. 0072; VS and 1,3-PS are added in a total of 3 wt% of the total mass of the electrolyte; as q = 2 in Par. 0082, q/y = 2/3 = 0.66).
Regarding claim 11, Shen teaches an electronic device (Par. 0004; laptops, mobile phones, and wearable devices) comprising an electrochemical device (Par. 0002; “secondary battery”), wherein the electrochemical device comprises a positive electrode plate (Par. 0030; “positive electrode”) and an electrolyte (Par. 0002; “non-aqueous electrolyte”), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive active material (Par. 0039; active material of the positive electrode material); the electrolyte comprises a compound represented by Formula (I) (Ex. 7, Par. 0080-82; succinic anionyl nitrile (BDN), also known as succinonitrile, which corresponds to Formula (I-2), is added to the electrolyte); and based on a mass of the electrolyte, a mass percent of the compound represented by Formula (I) is q%, 0.1 ≤ q ≤ 12 (Par. 0082; the additive has a mass percent of 2 wt% based on a mass of the electrolyte). Shen fails to teach a positive current collector and a positive electrode additive.
However, Wang teaches a positive electrode (Par. n0001; “positive electrode sheet”) comprising a positive current collector (Par. n0007) and a positive active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the positive current collector (Par. n0007); the positive active material layer comprises a positive active material (Par. n0007; the active material layer comprises 90-98% of an active material) and a positive electrode additive (Par. n0007; a solid electrolyte is added to the active material layer); the positive electrode additive comprises at least one of lithium aluminum titanium phosphate (Par. n0008, n0036); based on a mass of the positive active material layer, a mass percent of the positive electrode additive is p%, 0.1 ≤ p ≤ 1.2 (Par. n0036; the solid electrolyte additive lithium titanium aluminum phosphate is added to the active material layer in a mass percentage of 0.5%).
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 electrochemical device taught by Shen by incorporating a positive electrode additive of lithium titanium aluminum phosphate in a mass percentage of 0.1-1.2% into the positive active material layer, as taught by Wang. This would be done to provide lithium ions to the layered oxide positive active material in the charging state, thus improving structural stability, delaying and reducing oxygen release, and improving the safety of the electrochemical device, as stated in Wang (Par. n0019).
Regarding claim 12, modified Shen teaches the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the compound represented by Formula (I) comprises the compound of Formula (I-2) (Par. 0082, succinic anionyl nitrile, or succinonitrile).
Regarding claim 13, modified Shen teaches the electronic device of claim 11, wherein 0.5 ≤ q ≤ 12 (Par. 0082; 2 wt%).
Regarding claim 14, modified Shen teaches the electronic device of claim 11, wherein 0.025 ≤ p/q ≤ 1 (As Shen teaches a q of 2, and Wang teaches a p of 0.5, p/q = 0.5/2 = 0.25, fitting the claimed range).
Regarding claim 15, modified Shen fails to teach a particle diameter of the positive electrode additive.
However, Wang teaches a particle diameter D nm of the positive electrode additive, wherein 300 ≤ D ≤ 500 (Par. n0009; the particle size of the electrolyte is 30-500 nm, 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 19, modified Shen teaches the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the electrolyte further comprises an electrolyte additive, and the electrolyte additive comprises 1,3-propane sultone and vinylene carbonate (Par. 0072; vinylene carbonate and 1,3-propane sulfonate lactone, also known as 1,3-propane sultone, are added to the electrolyte); and based on the mass of the electrolyte, a mass percent of the electrolyte additive is 0.01% to 7% (Par. 0072; VC and 1,3-PS are added in mass percentages of 2% and 1.5%, respectively).
Regarding claim 20, modified Shen teaches the electronic device of claim 19, wherein the electrolyte additive comprises 1,3-propane sultone and vinylene carbonate (Par. 0072); and, based on the total mass of the electrolyte, an aggregate mass percent of the 1,3-propane sultone and the vinylene carbonate is y%, 0.5 ≤ q/y ≤ 1.6 (Par. 0072; VS and 1,3-PS are added in a total of 3 wt% of the total mass of the electrolyte; as q = 2 in Par. 0082, q/y = 2/3 = 0.66).
Claims 6 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen, in view of Wang, and further in view of Lu (CN 112242560 A).
Regarding claim 6, Shen fails to teach molar ratios between elements at a position between particles of the positive active material in a cross-section of the positive electrode plate.
Wang teaches a positive active material containing titanium and aluminum which only come from the lithium titanium aluminum phosphate electrolyte, but fails to teach the proportions in which the titanium and aluminum are present in the electrolyte.
However, Lu teaches a lithium aluminum titanium phosphate electrolyte material with a molar ratio between elements at a position between particles of the electrolyte in a cross-section of the positive electrode plate which satisfies the following condition: 0.5 ≤ Ti/Al ≤ 5, where Ti/Al is a molar ratio of the element Ti to the element Al (Par. 0117; Li1.4Al0.4Ti1.6(PO4)3, Ti/Al = 1.6/0.4 = 4).
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 positive electrode additive taught by Wang by providing LATP with a molar ratio of Ti/Al of between 0.5 and 5, as taught by Lu. One of ordinary skill would have determined that this would yield predictable results of increased ionic conductivity, as this compound has a higher lithium concentration than that of a typical La1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 LATP compound.
Regarding claim 16, Shen fails to teach molar ratios between elements at a position between particles of the positive active material in a cross-section of the positive electrode plate.
Wang teaches a positive active material containing titanium and aluminum which only come from the lithium titanium aluminum phosphate electrolyte, but fails to teach the proportions in which the titanium and aluminum are present in the electrolyte.
However, Lu teaches a lithium aluminum titanium phosphate electrolyte material with a molar ratio between elements at a position between particles of the electrolyte in a cross-section of the positive electrode plate which satisfies the following condition: 0.5 ≤ Ti/Al ≤ 5, where Ti/Al is a molar ratio of the element Ti to the element Al (Par. 0117; Li1.4Al0.4Ti1.6(PO4)3, Ti/Al = 1.6/0.4 = 4).
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 positive electrode additive taught by Wang by providing LATP with a molar ratio of Ti/Al of between 0.5 and 5, as taught by Lu. One of ordinary skill would have determined that this would yield predictable results of increased ionic conductivity, as this compound has a higher lithium concentration than that of a typical La1.3Al0.3Ti1.7(PO4)3 LATP compound.
Claims 7 -8 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen, in view of Wang, and further in view of Cui (CN 114122519 A, common inventors, published 03/01/2022).
Regarding claim 7, modified Shen teaches the electrochemical device of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte further comprises a compound represented by Formula (II), and the compound represented by Formula (II) comprises Formula (II-8) (Par. 0158; ethoxypentafluorophosphonium nitrile is added to the electrolyte, which corresponds to Formula (II-8)). Shin fails to teach a mass percent of the compound represented by Formula (II).
However, Cui teaches an electrolyte (Par. n0004) comprising a compound which is represented by Formula (II-8) (Formula (I-1) of Cui corresponds to Formula (II-8) of the present application); and based on the mass of the electrolyte, and a mass percent of the compound is x%, where 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 5 (Par. 0006, the mass percentage of the compound based on the mass of the electrolyte is represented by WI; Par. n0035, Cui teaches values for WI of 0.1%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, or 5%, and when WI is in this range, the electrode interface has less resistance and cycle performance is improved).
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 electrolyte taught by Shen by incorporating the compound of Formula (II-8) in a mass percent of 0.1-5% based on a mass of the electrolyte, as taught by Cui. This would be done to suppress excessive electrode interface impedance and to improve the cycle performance of the electrochemical device, as stated in Cui (Par. n0035).
Regarding claim 8, Shin fails to teach a mass percentage of the compound represented by Formula (II).
However, Cui teaches an electrolyte (Par. n0004) comprising a compound which is represented by Formula (II-8) (Formula (I-1) of Cui corresponds to Formula (II-8) of the present application); and based on the mass of the electrolyte, and a mass percent of the compound is x%, where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 3 (Par. n0006, the mass percentage of the compound based on the mass of the electrolyte is represented by WI; Par. n0035, Cui teaches values for WI of 1%, 2%, or 3%).
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 electrolyte taught by Shen by incorporating the compound of Formula (II-8) in a mass percent of 0.5-3% based on a mass of the electrolyte, as taught by Cui. This would be done to suppress excessive electrode interface impedance and to improve the cycle performance of the electrochemical device, as stated in Cui (Par. n0035).
Regarding claim 17, modified Shen teaches the electrochemical device of claim 11, wherein the electrolyte further comprises a compound represented by Formula (II), and the compound represented by Formula (II) comprises Formula (II-8) (Par. 0158; ethoxypentafluorophosphonium nitrile is added to the electrolyte, which corresponds to Formula (II-8)). Shin fails to teach a mass percent of the compound represented by Formula (II).
However, Cui teaches an electrolyte (Par. n0004) comprising a compound which is represented by Formula (II-8) (Formula (I-1) of Cui corresponds to Formula (II-8) of the present application); and based on the mass of the electrolyte, and a mass percent of the compound is x%, where 0.1 ≤ x ≤ 5 (Par. n0006, the mass percentage of the compound based on the mass of the electrolyte is represented by WI; Par. n0035, Cui teaches values for WI of 0.1%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, or 5%, and when WI is in this range, the electrode interface has less resistance and cycle performance is improved).
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 electrolyte taught by Shen by incorporating the compound of Formula (II-8) in a mass percent of 0.1-5% based on a mass of the electrolyte, as taught by Cui. This would be done to suppress excessive electrode interface impedance and to improve the cycle performance of the electrochemical device, as stated in Cui (Par. n0035).
Regarding claim 18, Shin fails to teach a mass percentage of the compound represented by Formula (II).
However, Cui teaches an electrolyte (Par. n0004) comprising a compound which is represented by Formula (II-8) (Formula (I-1) of Cui corresponds to Formula (II-8) of the present application); and based on the mass of the electrolyte, and a mass percent of the compound is x%, where 0.5 ≤ x ≤ 3 (Par. n0006, the mass percentage of the compound based on the mass of the electrolyte is represented by WI; Par. n0035, Cui teaches values for WI of 1%, 2%, or 3%).
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 electrolyte taught by Shen by incorporating the compound of Formula (II-8) in a mass percent of 0.5-3% based on a mass of the electrolyte, as taught by Cui. This would be done to suppress excessive electrode interface impedance and to improve the cycle performance of the electrochemical device, as stated in Cui (Par. n0035).
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