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 § 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, 9-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO 2021184247 A1, “Wang”, US 20230110649 A1 is used herein for citation purposes) in view of Park et al. (US 20130130115 A1, “Park”).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 14, Wang discloses an electrochemical device, comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an electrolytic solution (see abstract “electrochemical device” & see [0041] “positive electrode” & “negative electrode” & “electrolytic solution” & see [0064] “separator”); wherein the electrolytic solution comprises fluoroethylene carbonate and a trinitrile compound (see [0109] “fluoroethylene carbonate” & “electrolytic solution” & “0.5% 1,3,6-hexane tricarbonitrile” & “2% adiponitrile” & see Table 2 describes “content of nitrile-containing additive”; see [0060] “electrolytic solution according to this application further includes a nitrile-containing additive”); based on a mass of the electrolytic solution, a mass percent of the fluoroethylene carbonate is A%, 2 ≤A≤6 (see [0109] “3% fluoroethylene carbonate” which lies within the claimed range), a mass percent of the trinitrile compound is B%, 2≤B≤5 (see [0109] & see Table 2 describes “content of nitrile-containing additive” & “2.5%” which lies within the claimed range), and 4 ≤A×B≤20 (see [0109] describes 3% fluoroethylene carbonate & Table 2 describes 2.5% nitrile-containing additive which equals 7.5 which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding the limitation a defect rate of the negative electrode is denoted by an Id/Ig ratio, and 0.07 < Id/Ig ≤ 0.13; and 1.5 ≤ A/(10 ×Id/Ig) ≤ 8.6, Wang does not explicitly disclose Id/Ig ratio, however, ID/IG ratio is an inherent property of the material.
Park teaches D/G ratio (see [0079] “integrated strength ratio D/G” & “may be in the range of about 0.1 to about 1.9” & “the porous carbon-based material having the integrated strength ratio D/G” & “may have desired electrical conductivity”).
Wang and Park are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries (see Park title).
Park teaches a range of 0.1 to about 1.9, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.07 < Id/Ig ≤ 0.13. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the porous carbon-based material of Park that has an integrated strength ratio D/G between 0.1 and 1.9 (see [0079]) into the electrochemical device of Wang because doing so exhibits desired electrical conductivity, as suggested by Park (see Park [0079]).
Regarding the limitation 1.5 ≤ A/(10 ×Id/Ig) ≤ 8.6, Wang does not explicitly disclose, however, ID/IG ratio is a property of the material.
Park teaches D/G ratio of about 0.1 to 1.9 (see [0079]). Wang discloses an A value 3% fluoroethylene carbonate (see [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that A/10×(Id/Ig) = 3/10×0.1 = 3 which lies within the claimed range.
Further regarding claim 14, Wang discloses an electronic device (see [0004] “electrochemical devices in electric vehicles, mobile electronic devices”).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the electrolytic solution further comprises 1,3-propanesultone (see [0102] “1,3 propane sultone”).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 9 and further discloses a) the electrolytic solution comprises the 1,3-propane sultone; based on the mass of the electrolytic solution, a mass percent of the 1,3-propane sultone is 1.5 wt% (see [0102] “1.5 wt% 1,3 propane sultone”) which lies within the claimed range of 0.5% to 5%.
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the trinitrile compound comprises 1,3,5-pentanetricarbonitrile (see [0061] “1,3,5-pentane tricarbonitrile”).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the electrolytic solution comprises a lithium salt; and the lithium salt comprises lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (see [0059] “lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide”).
Claims 2-8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO 2021184247 A1, “Wang”, US 20230110649 A1 is used herein for citation purposes) in view of Park et al. (US 20130130115 A1, “Park”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okumura et al. (US 20140322576 A1, “Okumura”).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive active material (see title “positive active material”), the positive active material comprises a metal element M; the metal element M comprises at least one of Ti, Mg, or Al (see [0071] describes “M” & “Al”, “Mg”, “Ti”); a content of the metal element M in the positive active material is C (see [0138] describes “mixing the sifted powder with aluminum oxide” & “1%”). Wang does not explicitly disclose 8 ≤ C × B/1000 ≤30 nor explicitly discloses a content of the metal element M in the positive active material is C ppm.
Okumura teaches in [0056] “examples of the surface adherence substances include oxides such as aluminum oxide” & “titanium oxide” & “magnesium oxide” & describes [0058] “surface adherence substance” & “lower limit of the range is preferably 0.1 ppm or more” & “10 ppm or more” & “upper limit is preferably 20% or less” & “more preferably 5% or less”.
Wang and Okumura are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries (see Okumura title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “surface adherence substance” & “oxides” & “aluminum oxides” & “titanium oxide” & “magnesium oxide” & describes at a concentration of “0.1 ppm or more” & “10 ppm or more” (see Okumura [0056] & [0058]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the concentration of Ti, Mg & Al oxide as suggested by Okumura overlaps the claimed range because Okumura teaches 0.1 ppm (see [0058]) which reads on C ppm & Wang discloses 2.5% (see Table 2) which reads on B & a skilled artisan would find it obvious 2.5% is equivalent to 25,000 ppm = (0.1 ppm × 25,000 ppm)/1000 = 2.5 and would also find it obvious that a concentration taught by Okumura of 10 ppm would equal = (10 ppm × 25,000)/1000 = 250. A skilled artisan would find it obvious the range of 2.5 to 250 overlaps the claimed range of 8 to 30.
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein C/(1000 × Id/Ig) ≥ 20.
Okumura teaches 20% (see [0058]) which reads on concentration of C and a skilled artisan would find it obvious 20% is equivalent to 200,000 ppm. Okumura teaches ID/IG and a lower value of 0.2 (see [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that 200,000 ppm / (1000*0.2) = 1000 which is ≥ 20.
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein 2000 ppm ≤ C ppm ≤ 6500 ppm.
Okumura teaches 0.1 ppm to 200,000 ppm (see [0058]) which overlaps the claimed range.
Okumura teaches a range of 0.1 ppm to 200,000 ppm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2000 ppm ≤ C ppm ≤ 6500 ppm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the electrolytic solution further comprises ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate (see [0058] “electrolytic solution” & “ethylene carbonate (EC)” & “propylene carbonate (PC)”); based on a mass of the electrolytic solution, a mass percent of the ethylene carbonate is D%, a mass percent of the propylene carbonate is E% (see [0102] “mixing ethylene carbonate (EC for short)” & “propylene carbonate (PC for short)” & describes a weight ratio of 2:2). Wang does not explicitly disclose 15 ≤ D + E ≤ 40, and D/E ≥ 1.2.
Okumura teaches “ethylene carbonate (EC) is 20 vol% or more and 30 vol% or less” (see abstract) & describes in [0128] “propylene carbonate is 0.1 vol% or more”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that 20 vol% + 0.1 vol% is equivalent to 20.1 vol% which lies within the claimed range of 15 and 40 & a skilled artisan would find it obvious that 20/0.1 =200 which is greater than 1.2.
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 5 and further discloses 3% for A (see [0109] “3% fluoroethylene carbonate”). Wang does not explicitly disclose D%.
Okumura teaches (“ethylene carbonate (EC) is 20 vol% or more and 30 vol% or less”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that D×A = (20*3) = 60 which overlaps the claimed range of D×A ≥35. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose wherein B × (D + E) ≤ 150.
Okumura teaches “ethylene carbonate (EC) is 20 vol % or more” (see abstract) & “propylene carbonate is 0.1 vol% or more” (see [0128]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that disclosed 2.5% (see Wang Table 2) = 2.5%×(20+0.1) = 50.25 which lies within the claimed range of B × (D + E) ≤ 150.
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the electrolytic solution further comprises a dinitrile compound (see [0016] “succinonitrile”), a mass percent of the dinitrile compound is F% , 1≤F≤6 (see [0017] “weight percent of the nitrile-containing additive is 0.1% to 10% & Table 2 describes “2.5” which lies within the claimed range of 1≤F≤6) and 4 ≤ F+B≤ 9 (see [0063] “the weight percentage of the nitrile-containing additive is 0.01 wt % to 20 wt %, 0.01 wt % to 10 wt %, 0.1 wt % to 20 wt %, 0.1 wt % to 10 wt %, 1 wt % to 20 wt %, or 1 wt % to 10 wt %”).
Okumura teaches a range of 0.01 wt% to 20 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 4 ≤ F+B≤ 9. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses the electrochemical device of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the dinitrile compound comprises succinonitrile (see [0016] “succinonitrile”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 08/24/2026
Prosecution Insights