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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/30/2024 and 04/29/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification filed on 03/30/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada et al. (US 20210288322 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20230163417 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kitada discloses an electrochemical apparatus [Kitada 0002]. Kitada discloses a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate [Kitada Fig. 3 elements 13, 14]. Kitada discloses an electrolyte [Kitada 0036]. Kitada discloses a negative electrode plate comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector [Kitada 0050]. Kitada discloses an electrolyte containing a linear carboxylate compound, wherein based on total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the linear carboxylate compound is 20% to 70% (Kitada Table 24, experiment example 18-3).
Kitada discloses that the content of dinitrile compound in electrolytic solution is preferably from 1 wt% to 20 wt% [Kitada 0295]. Kitada discloses that the reason for this range is that the decomposition of the chain carboxylate ester is sufficiently suppressed while decrease in battery capacity is suppressed [Kitada 0295]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the disclosed quantity of dinitrile compound to the battery disclosed in experiment example 18-3, to suppress the decomposition of the chain carboxylate ester and the decrease in battery capacity [Kitada 0295]. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range.
Kitada does not disclose a bonding force between the negative electrode active material layer and the negative electrode current collector. Li discloses a peeling strength of an active material layer greater than 8 N/m [Li 0043]. Li discloses that an active material layer firmly bonded on a surface of a current collector can enhance structural stability of the battery and improve cycle life of the battery [Li 0043]. Kitada and Li both pertain to electrochemical devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the peeling strength disclosed in Li to the electrode disclosed in Kitada, to enhance structural stability of the battery and improve cycle life of the battery. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range.
If the weight percent of linear carboxylate compound a was 40, the weight percent of dinitrile b was 10, the peeling strength F was 9, the value (100b + f)/100a would result in (1000 + 9)/4000, or ~0.25, within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses a mass percentage a of the linear carboxylate compound such that a is 21% to 49% [Kitada, Table 24, experiment example 18-3]. Modified Kitada discloses a peeling strength F N/m such that F is 8 or greater [Li 0043]. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range. If the weight percent of linear carboxylate compound a was 40, the weight percent of dinitrile b was 10, the peeling strength F was 9, the value (100b + f)/100a would result in (1000 + 9)/4000, or ~0.25, within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses a mass percentage a of the linear carboxylate compound such that a is 36% to 43% [Kitada, Table 24, experiment example 18-3]. Modified Kitada discloses a peeling strength F N/m such that F is 8 or greater [Li 0043]. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range. If the weight percent of linear carboxylate compound a was 40, the weight percent of dinitrile b was 10, the peeling strength F was 9, the value (100b + f)/100a would result in (1000 + 9)/4000, or ~0.25, within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses chain carbonate esters including ethyl acetate, methyl propionate, and propyl propionate [Kitada 0071]. Modified Kitada discloses nitrile compounds including succinonitrile, glutaronitrile, and adiponitrile [Kitada 0073].
Regarding claim 5, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses an electrolytic solution [Kitada 0286] of one or more dinitrile compounds [Kitada 0293] including succinonitrile and adiponitrile [Kitada 0294]. Kitada discloses an electrolyte containing ethyl acetate [Kitada 0289].
Regarding claim 9, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses an electrolyte containing lithium difluorophosphate [Kitada 0074]. Modified Kitada discloses a content of the electrolyte salt greater than or equal to 0.3 mol/kg and less than or equal to 3.0 mol/kg with respect to the solvent. The examiner finds that this is equivalent to a mass percent range of greater than or equal to 0.034 and less than or equal to 0.3237, 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses a negative active material layer comprising a negative electrode material, a binder, and a conductive agent [Kitada 0052]. Modified Kitada discloses a binder comprising styrene-butadiene rubber [Kitada 0048].
Regarding claim 11, Kitada discloses an electric device comprising an electrochemical apparatus [Kitada 0002]. Kitada discloses a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate [Kitada Fig. 3 elements 13, 14]. Kitada discloses an electrolyte [Kitada 0036]. Kitada discloses a negative electrode plate comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector [Kitada 0050]. Kitada discloses an electrolyte containing a linear carboxylate compound, wherein based on total mass of the electrolyte, a mass percentage of the linear carboxylate compound is 20% to 70% (Kitada Table 24, experiment example 18-3).
Kitada discloses that the content of dinitrile compound in electrolytic solution is preferably from 1 wt% to 20 wt% [Kitada 0295]. Kitada discloses that the reason for this range is that the decomposition of the chain carboxylate ester is sufficiently suppressed while decrease in battery capacity is suppressed [Kitada 0295]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the disclosed quantity of dinitrile compound to the battery disclosed in experiment example 18-3, to suppress the decomposition of the chain carboxylate ester and the decrease in battery capacity [Kitada 0295]. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range.
Kitada does not disclose a bonding force between the negative electrode active material layer and the negative electrode current collector. Li discloses a peeling strength of an active material layer greater than 8 N/m [Li 0043]. Li discloses that an active material layer firmly bonded on a surface of a current collector can enhance structural stability of the battery and improve cycle life of the battery [Li 0043]. Kitada and Li both pertain to electrochemical devices. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the peeling strength disclosed in Li to the electrode disclosed in Kitada, to enhance structural stability of the battery and improve cycle life of the battery. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range.
If the weight percent of linear carboxylate compound a was 40, the weight percent of dinitrile b was 10, the peeling strength F was 9, the value (100b + f)/100a would result in (1000 + 9)/4000, or ~0.25, within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses a mass percentage a of the linear carboxylate compound such that a is 21% to 49% [Kitada, Table 24, experiment example 18-3]. Modified Kitada discloses a peeling strength F N/m such that F is 8 or greater [Li 0043]. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range. If the weight percent of linear carboxylate compound a was 40, the weight percent of dinitrile b was 10, the peeling strength F was 9, the value (100b + f)/100a would result in (1000 + 9)/4000, or ~0.25, within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses a mass percentage a of the linear carboxylate compound such that a is 36% to 43% [Kitada, Table 24, experiment example 18-3]. Modified Kitada discloses a peeling strength F N/m such that F is 8 or greater [Li 0043]. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range. If the weight percent of linear carboxylate compound a was 40, the weight percent of dinitrile b was 10, the peeling strength F was 9, the value (100b + f)/100a would result in (1000 + 9)/4000, or ~0.25, within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses chain carbonate esters including ethyl acetate, methyl propionate, and propyl propionate [Kitada 0071]. Modified Kitada discloses nitrile compounds including succinonitrile, glutaronitrile, and adiponitrile [Kitada 0073].
Regarding claim 15, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses an electrolytic solution [Kitada 0286] of one or more dinitrile compounds [Kitada 0293] including succinonitrile and adiponitrile [Kitada 0294]. Kitada discloses an electrolyte containing ethyl acetate [Kitada 0289].
Regarding claim 19, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses an electrolyte containing lithium difluorophosphate [Kitada 0074]. Modified Kitada discloses a content of the electrolyte salt greater than or equal to 0.3 mol/kg and less than or equal to 3.0 mol/kg with respect to the solvent. The examiner finds that this is equivalent to a mass percent range of greater than or equal to 0.034 and less than or equal to 0.3237, 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada further discloses a negative active material layer comprising a negative electrode material, a binder, and a conductive agent [Kitada 0052]. Modified Kitada discloses a binder comprising styrene-butadiene rubber [Kitada 0048].
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada et al. (US 20210288322 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20230163417 A1), as applied to claims 1 or 11 above and in further view of Ide et al. (US 20090191463 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada does not disclose an electrolyte comprising a compound of formula I. Modified Kitada discloses an electrolytic solution comprising an acid anhydride [Kitada 0072]. Ide discloses an electrolyte containing 0.001% to 10% by mass of at least one additive selected from a group comprising phthalic anhydride, a compound of formula I [Ide 0077]. Kitada and Ide both pertain to an electrochemical apparatus. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the phthalic anhydride to the apparatus disclosed in Kitada, as Ide discloses that such an additive is expected to form a coating film on the negative electrode, which will suppress decomposition of the electrolyte [Ide 0077]. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada does not disclose an electrolyte comprising a compound of formula I. Modified Kitada discloses an electrolytic solution comprising an acid anhydride [Kitada 0072]. Ide discloses an electrolyte containing 0.001% to 10% by mass of at least one additive selected from a group comprising phthalic anhydride, a compound of formula I [Ide 0077]. Kitada and Ide both pertain to an electrochemical apparatus. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the phthalic anhydride to the apparatus disclosed in Kitada, as Ide discloses that such an additive is expected to form a coating film on the negative electrode, which will suppress decomposition of the electrolyte [Ide 0077]. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada et al. (US 20210288322 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20230163417 A1) as applied to claims 1 or 11 above and in further view of Cheng et al. (US 20120077076 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada does not disclose an electrolyte comprising a compound of formula I-1 through 5. Cheng discloses the use of an electrolyte comprising a compound of formula I-2 [Cheng Fig. 1]. Kitada and Cheng both pertain to an electrochemical apparatus. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the 2,3-pyrazinedicarboxylic anhydride disclosed in Cheng to the electrochemical apparatus disclosed in Kitada, to obtain an electrolyte with a wide range of electrochemical stability and exhibiting excellent ionic conductivity [Cheng 0006].
Regarding claim 17, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada does not disclose an electrolyte comprising a compound of formula I-1 through 5. Cheng discloses the use of an electrolyte comprising a compound of formula I-2 [Cheng Fig. 1]. Kitada and Cheng both pertain to an electrochemical apparatus. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the 2,3-pyrazinedicarboxylic anhydride disclosed in Cheng to the electrochemical apparatus disclosed in Kitada, to obtain an electrolyte with a wide range of electrochemical stability and exhibiting excellent ionic conductivity [Cheng 0006].
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitada et al. (US 20210288322 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20230163417 A1), as applied to claims 1 or 11 above, in further view of Wang et al. (US 20190036168 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada does not disclose an electrolyte comprising a trinitrile compound. Wang discloses that a multinitrile compound can form a dense and uniform passive film with high ionic conductivity on a surface of each of the positive electrode film and the negative electrode film, so as to prevent continuous oxidation and reduction reaction from occurring between the electrolyte and the positive electrode film and the negative electrode film and make the electrochemical energy storage device have excellent high temperature cycle performance and high temperature storage performance [Wang 0005]. Wang discloses trinitrile compounds including 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile and 1,3,5-pentanetricarbonitrile [0023]. Wang discloses that the content of the multinitrile compound is 0.05% to 7% of the total mass of the electrolyte [0027]. Kitada and Wang both pertain to an electrochemical apparatus. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the multinitrile compound disclosed in Wang to the electrochemical apparatus disclosed in Kitada, to prevent continuous oxidation and reduction reaction from occurring between the electrolyte and the positive electrode film and the negative electrode film and make the electrochemical energy storage device have excellent high temperature cycle performance and high temperature storage performance [Wang 0005]. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range. If the weight percent of dinitrile b is 10%, and the weight percent of trinitrile c is 0.05% to 7%, 0.0014≤d/b≤3.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kitada discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Kitada does not disclose an electrolyte comprising a trinitrile compound. Wang discloses that a multinitrile compound can form a dense and uniform passive film with high ionic conductivity on a surface of each of the positive electrode film and the negative electrode film, so as to prevent continuous oxidation and reduction reaction from occurring between the electrolyte and the positive electrode film and the negative electrode film and make the electrochemical energy storage device have excellent high temperature cycle performance and high temperature storage performance [Wang 0005]. Wang discloses trinitrile compounds including 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile and 1,3,5-pentanetricarbonitrile [0023]. Wang discloses that the content of the multinitrile compound is 0.05% to 7% of the total mass of the electrolyte [0027]. Kitada and Wang both pertain to an electrochemical apparatus. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the multinitrile compound disclosed in Wang to the electrochemical apparatus disclosed in Kitada, to prevent continuous oxidation and reduction reaction from occurring between the electrolyte and the positive electrode film and the negative electrode film and make the electrochemical energy storage device have excellent high temperature cycle performance and high temperature storage performance [Wang 0005]. 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). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to pick any part of the range. If the weight percent of dinitrile b is 10%, and the weight percent of trinitrile c is 0.05% to 7%, 0.0014≤d/b≤3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE WOLFE STONE FENNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/G.W.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights