DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and under consideration on the merits.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s Specification are to the published application US 2026/0005300 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds. Additionally, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, “a a fluorine atom” constitutes a typographical error, which hinders the readability of the claim. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “a [[a]] fluorine atom.”
Regarding claim 7, “the non-aqueous electrolytic solutionn” constitutes a typographical error, which hinders the readability of the claim. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “the non-aqueous electrolytic solution[[n]].”
Regarding claim 9, “A secondary battery according to claim 1” constitutes inconsistent claim language, which hinders the readability of the claim. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “[[A]]The secondary battery according to claim 1.”
Regarding claim 10, “…in the range of 190-998” constitutes inconsistent claim language relative to the phrases “1 to 4”… “1.5 to 3” and “9 to 1100” all recited earlier in claim 10, which hinders the readability of the claim. In order to overcome the objection, the following amendment is respectfully suggested: “…in the range of 190[[-]] to 998.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7 are indefinite as the recitation of possible elements is not properly claimed in the alternative. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “A comprising one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Zn, …, Mo and W.” Alternatively, claim 1 can be amended to recite “A comprising one or more elements selected from Zn, …, Mo or W” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “B comprising one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ti, …, Nb and Ge.” Alternatively, claim 1 can be amended to recite “B comprising one or more elements selected from Ti, …, Nb or Ge” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “C comprising one or more elements selected from the group consisting of B (boron), S, Si and N.” Alternatively, claim 1 can be amended to recite “C comprising one or more elements selected from B (boron), S, Si or N” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “D comprising one or more elements selected from the group consisting of S, …, Cl and Br.” Alternatively, claim 1 can be amended to recite “D comprising one or more elements selected from S, …, Cl or Br” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as reciting “Ra comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of halogen atoms, …, phenyl and benzyl.” Alternatively, claim 1 can be amended to recite “Ra comprises one or more selected from halogen atoms, …, phenyl or benzyl” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 2 is interpreted as reciting “Ra comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a Alternatively, claim 1 can be amended to recite “Ra comprises one or more selected from a or benzyl” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “the second additive comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of ethylene sulfate, lithium difluorophosphate, R2[FSO3-]a, and R2[CbF2b+1SO3-]a ….” Alternatively, claim 5 can be amended to recite “the second additive comprises one or more of ethylene sulfate, lithium difluorophosphate, R2[FSO3-]a, or R2[CbF2b+1SO3-]a …” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “the metal cation comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of Li+, …, Ni2+ and Ni3+.” Alternatively, claim 5 can be amended to recite “the metal cation comprises one or more selected from Li+, …, Ni2+ or Ni3+” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as reciting “the organic group cation comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of NH4+, N(CH3)4+, and N(CH2CH3)4+.” Alternatively, claim 5 can be amended to recite “the organic group cation comprises one or more selected from NH4+, N(CH3)4+, or N(CH2CH3)4+” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 7 is interpreted as reciting “the third additive comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a cyclic carbonate compound …, …, a phosphate compound, and a borate compound.” Alternatively, claim 7 can be amended to recite “the third additive comprises one or more of a cyclic carbonate compound …, …, a phosphate compound, or a borate compound” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 4, 6, and 7 recite the broad recitations “W1 being 0.01 to 20”, “W2 being 0.01 to 20”, and “W3 being 0.01 to 10” respectively, and the claims each also recite “optionally 0.1 to 10, more optionally 0.3 to 5”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claims. For the purposes of examination, claims 4, 6, and 7 are interpreted as instead reciting only the broad recitations as follows: “W1 being 0.01 to 20, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitations of “a metal cation” and “an organic group cation”, and the claim also recites “optionally, the metal cation comprises one or more selected from Li+, Na+, K+, Rb+, Cs+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Ba2+, Al3+, Fe2+, Fe3+, Cu2+, Ni2+ and Ni3+” and “optionally, the organic group cation comprises one or more selected from NH4+, N(CH3)4+, and N(CH2CH3)4+”, which are the narrower statement of the ranges/limitations, respectively. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as instead reciting only the broad recitation as follows: “a metal cation or an organic group cation;
Regarding claim 8, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “A, C and D are each independently any one element within the respective ranges, and wherein B is at least two elements within its range”, and the claim also recites “optionally, A is an element selected from any one of Mg and Nb, and/or B is at least two elements selected from among Fe, Ti, V, Co and Mg, optionally Fe with more than one element selected from among Ti, V, Co and Mg, and/or C is S, and/or D is F”, which are the narrower statements of the ranges/limitations. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required features of the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as instead reciting only the broad recitations as follows: “A, C and D are each independently any one element within the respective ranges, and wherein B is at least two elements within its range
Regarding claim 9, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “y is within the range of 0.01 to 0.5”, and the claim also recites “optionally from the range of 0.25 to 0.5”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as instead reciting only the broad recitation as follows: “y is within the range of 0.01 to 0.5
Regarding claim 10, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitations “(1-y):y is in the range of 1 to 4” and “m:x is in the range of 9 to 1100”, and the claim also recites “optionally in the range of 1.5 to 3” and “optionally in the range of 190-998” respectively, which are the narrower statement of the respective range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as instead reciting only the broad recitations as follows: “wherein (1-y):y is in the range of 1 to 4, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitations “a lattice change rate of 8% or less”, “a Li/Mn anti-site defect concentration of 2% or less”, “a surface oxygen valence state of -1.82 or less”, and “a compaction density at 3T of 2.0 g/cm3 or more” and the claim also recites “optionally 4% or less”, “optionally 0.5% or less”, “optionally -1.89 to -1.98”, and “optionally 2.2 g/cm3 or more” respectively, which are the narrower statement of the respective range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) required features of the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as instead reciting only the broad recitations as follows: “a lattice change rate of 8% or less3 or more, respectively.
Regarding claim 12, “the surface” renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 12, nor claim 1, of which claim 12 directly depends upon, recites/introduces a surface, therefore, it is unclear what element or feature recited in claims 12 or 1 is intended to be limited by the surface species recited in claim 12. For the purposes of examination, claim 12 is interpreted as instead reciting “[[the]]a surface.”
Claims 2-15 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2002/198050 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations; “Nakamura”), in view of Fan et al. (CN 110931869 A, herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations; “Fan”).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (a secondary battery) [0001] for use in vehicles [0004, 0006]. The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprises a positive electrode (a positive electrode plate), a negative electrode (a negative electrode plate), and a non-aqueous electrolyte (a non-aqueous electrolytic solution) [0030-0031, 0048].
The positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material [0008] having a chemical formula of Li1-xAxFe1-y-zMyMezP1-mXmO4-nZn [0010, 0014-0021], wherein A is at least one of Na and K, 0≤x≤0.1, M is at least one metallic element other than Fe, Li, and Al, and among these, Co, Mn, and Ni are preferred, 0≤y≤0.5, Me is at least one of Li and Al, 0≤z≤0.3, 0≤y+z≤0.5, X is at least one of Si, N, As, and S, 0≤m≤0.3, Z is at least one of F, Cl, Br, I, S, and N, 0≤n≤0.5, and z>0 and/or n>0 and/or m>0 and/or x>0 [0015-0021]. The element variables read on the claimed element variables and each element content range overlaps with the corresponding claimed element content range, thereby rendering each element content range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)). The chemical formula Li1-xAxFe1-y-zMyMezP1-mXmO4-nZn is an electrically neutral formula, as there is no associated charge with it.
Nakamura remains silent regarding the non-aqueous electrolytic solution comprises a first additive as defined by claim 1.
Fan is directed towards a lithium secondary battery [0005, 0021, 0071] comprising an electrolyte made of lithium salt and solvent [0005]. Fan teaches that the electrolyte further comprises an additive composition, including a diisocyanate compound(s) [0021], wherein the diisocyanate compound(s) is represented by the following: O=C=N-R1-N=C=O [General formula I, 0024-0045], wherein R1 is a linking group containing 4 to 12 carbon atoms [0028], and is selected from alkyl, cycloalkyl, phenyl, heterocyclic groups, or halogen substituents [0029], for example, Formulas 1a, 1c, 1e, 1f, and 1h [0030-0047], see below for Figure 1. Formulas 1a, 1c, 1e, 1f, and 1h of Fan.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Formulas 1a, 1c, 1e, 1f, and 1h of Fan.
Nakamura and Fan each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------non-aqueous electrolytic solution. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, 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 have modified the non-aqueous electrolyte of Nakamura to add the diisocyanate compound(s) additive of Fan, in order to reduce the reaction between the negative electrode and other materials [Fan, 0047], and to suppress the amount of gas generated during the high-temperature storage of lithium secondary batteries, thereby improving battery cycle life and exhibiting good high-temperature storage performance [Fan, 0021-0022, 0047-0048, 0066, 0071, 0074-0075].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the non-aqueous electrolyte of modified Nakamura would have the diisocyanate compound(s) additive of Fan, represented by the following:
O=C=N-R1-N=C=O, wherein
R1 is a linking group containing 4 to 12 carbon atoms, and is selected from alkyl, cycloalkyl, phenyl, heterocyclic groups, or halogen substituents, wherein specific examples may be seen above in Figure 1. Formulas 1a, 1c, 1f, and 1h of Fan. The diisocyanate compound additive formula of Fan reads on the claimed Formula 1, wherein the R1 group of Fan and its corresponding definition and/or examples reads on the claimed R1 group including the Ra group.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on R1, including Ra, defined by claim 2, see especially ¶30-32 above.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the first additive defined by claim 3, see especially ¶30-32 above.
Regarding claim 4, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Fan further teaches that the diisocyanate compound(s) additive is in an amount 0.003 to 3 parts by weight of the electrolyte [Fan, 0048].
In view thereof, 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 have further modified the non-aqueous electrolyte of Nakamura, so that the diisocyanate compound(s) additive is in an amount 0.003 to 3 parts by weight of the electrolyte, so that a stable SEI film man be formed at the negative electrode [Fan, 0048], where, if the amount of additive is too small, the resulting SEI film will be too thin and will not be able to protect the negative electrode, however, if the amount of additive is too high, the resulting SEI film will be too thick, which will increase the overall impedance of the battery and affect the battery capacity [Fan, 0048], (MPEP 2144.05(II)). The aforementioned range overlaps with the claimed range, 0.01 to 20 by weight based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Nakamura further discloses that the non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a supporting salt, of which includes an organic salt selected from LiSO3CF3, LiC(SO3CF3)2, LiN(SO3CF3)2, LiN(SO2C2F5)2, and LiN(SO2CF3)(SO2C4F9) [Nakamura, 0038-0039], of which reads on a second additive, and the second additive comprises one or more of ethylene sulfate, lithium difluorophosphate, R2[FSO3-]a, R2[CbF2b+1SO3-]a, a being an integer from 1 to 5 and b being an integer from 1 to 6, and R2 representing a metal cation or an organic group cation (see 112(b) claim rejection above for claim interpretation), as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, in view of the rejection of claim 5 above, Nakamura further discloses that the supporting salt concentration is not particularly limited [Nakamura, 0040] and is appropriate for the type of supporting salt, organic solvent, and application [Nakamura, 0040].
However, Nakamura is silent regarding a specific % by weight of the supporting salt.
In view of the foregoing modifications, set forth above in ¶27-32, Fan further teaches lithium salts account for 8-20% of the total weight of the electrolyte [Fan, 0070].
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 have further modified the non-aqueous electrolyte of Nakamura, so that the supporting salt is in an amount 8-20% of the total weight of the electrolyte, in order to exhibit excellent high-temperature cycle life [Fan, 0070-0071, 0074]. The aforementioned range overlaps with the claimed range, 0.01 to 20 % by weight based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nakamura teaches the secondary battery set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Nakamura remains silent regarding a third additive, and the third additive comprises one or more of a cyclic carbonate compound containing unsaturated bonds, a halogenated cyclic carbonate compound, a sulfate compound, a sulfite compound, a sultone compound, a disulfonate compound, a nitrile compound, a phosphonitrile compound, an aromatic hydrocarbon and halogenated aromatic hydrocarbon compound, an acid anhydride compound, a phosphite compound, a phosphate compound, and a borate compound; optionally, the third additive is present in an amount of W3% by weight, with W3 being 0.01 to 10, based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution (see 112(b) claim rejection above for claim interpretation).
In view of the foregoing modifications, set forth above in ¶27-32, Fan further teaches that the electrolyte contains a bicyclic sulfate compound [Fan, 0049-0066] in an amount of 0.1 to 5 parts by weight, based on the total weight of 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte [Fan, 0066].
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 have further modified the non-aqueous electrolyte of Nakamura, to add a bicyclic sulfate compound in an amount of 0.1 to 5 parts by weight, based on the total weight of 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte, like that of Fan, in order to promote the formation of thin and uniform films of the electrolyte at the positive and negative electrodes of the battery [Fan, 0047, 0066], and in particular, to promote the formation of a flexible solid electrolyte interface (SEI) film on the negative electrode, which can effectively reduce the damage to the negative electrode structure caused by lithium ion insertion and extraction, while also reducing the reaction between the negative electrode and other materials, thereby improving battery life [Fan, 0047, 0066]. Additionally, the amount of gas generated during the high-temperature storage of lithium secondary batteries may be suppressed and improved high-temperature cycle life may be exhibited [Fan, 0066, 0074]. When the added content is too low, the improvement effect on battery performance is not obvious; however, when the added amount is too high, the chemical instability caused by the structure of the bicyclic sulfate compound is serious, which will lead to excessive side reactions with other components in the electrolyte (MPEP 2144.05(II)). The aforementioned range overlaps with the claimed range, 0.01 to 10% by weight based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, the positive electrode active material has the chemical formula of Li1-xAxFe1-y-zMyMezP1-mXmO4-nZn [Nakamura, 0010, 0014-0021], wherein A is at least one of Na and K, 0≤x≤0.1, M is at least one metallic element other than Fe, Li, and Al, and among these, Co, Mn, and Ni are preferred, 0≤y≤0.5, Me is at least one of Li and Al, 0≤z≤0.3, 0≤y+z≤0.5, X is at least one of Si, N, As, and S, 0≤m≤0.3, Z is at least one of F, Cl, Br, I, S, and N, 0≤n≤0.5, and z>0 and/or n>0 and/or m>0 and/or x>0 [Nakamura, 0015-0021]. A and Me each read on the claimed A limitation, X and Z each read on the claimed C limitation, and X and Z each read on the claim D limitation (see 112(b) claim rejection above for claim interpretation). Fe1-y-zMy within the chemical formula reads on the claimed B limitation, wherein B is at least two elements within its range, (see 112(b) claim rejection above for claim interpretation), as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the secondary battery defined by claim 9. The positive electrode active material has the chemical formula Li1-xAxFe1-y-zMyMezP1-mXmO4-nZn [0010, 0014-0021], wherein A is at least one of Na and K, 0≤x≤0.1, M is at least one metallic element other than Fe, Li, and Al, and among these, Co, Mn, and Ni are preferred, 0≤y≤0.5, Me is at least one of Li and Al, 0≤z≤0.3, 0≤y+z≤0.5, X is at least one of Si, N, As, and S, 0≤m≤0.3, Z is at least one of F, Cl, Br, I, S, and N, 0≤n≤0.5, and z>0 and/or n>0 and/or m>0 and/or x>0 [0015-0021]. The element variables read on the claimed element variables and each element content range overlaps with the corresponding claimed element content range, thereby rendering each element content range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 10, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, 0≤y≤0.5, and through calculation, (1-y):y may be 1, when y=0.5, or up to near infinity, when y nears 0. The aforementioned (1-y):y range overlaps with the claimed range, 1 to 4 (see 112(b) claim rejection above for claim interpretation), thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Additionally, 0≤x≤0.1, wherein 1-x reads on the claimed m variable, therefore, 1-x is between 0.9-1, and x reads on the claimed x variable. In view thereof, and through calculation, m:x is 9 to near infinity, when x nears 0. The aforementioned m:x range overlaps with the claimed range, 9 to 1100 (see 112(b) claim rejection above for claim interpretation), thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nakamura teaches the secondary battery set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Modified Nakamura remains silent regarding the positive electrode active material satisfies at least one of the following conditions (1) to (4): (1) the positive electrode active material has a lattice change rate of 8% or less; (2) the positive electrode active material has a Li/Mn anti-site defect concentration of 2% or less; (3) the positive electrode active material has a surface oxygen valence state of -1.82 or less; (4) the positive electrode active material has a compaction density at 3T of 2.0 g/cm3 or more (see 112(b) claim rejection above for claim interpretation).
However, the positive electrode active material of modified Nakamura is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed positive electrode active material in Applicant's specification in terms of comprising: the chemical formula of Li1-xAxFe1-y-zMyMezP1-mXmO4-nZn, wherein A is at least one of Na and K, 0≤x≤0.1, M is at least one metallic element other than Fe, Li, and Al, and among these, Co, Mn, and Ni are preferred, 0≤y≤0.5, Me is at least one of Li and Al, 0≤z≤0.3, 0≤y+z≤0.5, X is at least one of Si, N, As, and S, 0≤m≤0.3, Z is at least one of F, Cl, Br, I, S, and N, 0≤n≤0.5, and z>0 and/or n>0 and/or m>0 and/or x>0, of which reads on and corresponds with the claimed and disclosed chemical formula [Claim 1, Applicant’s specification ¶0082].
Given that the positive electrode active material of modified Nakamura is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed positive electrode active material, it stands to reason, and there is a strong expectation, that the positive electrode active material of modified Nakamura would have necessarily exhibited at least one of the following conditions (1) to (4): (1) the positive electrode active material has a lattice change rate of 8% or less; (2) the positive electrode active material has a Li/Mn anti-site defect concentration of 2% or less; (3) the positive electrode active material has a surface oxygen valence state of -1.82 or less; (4) the positive electrode active material has a compaction density at 3T of 2.0 g/cm3 or more (see 112(b) claim rejection above for claim interpretation), as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the electrical device defined by claim 15. Nakamura discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0001] for use in vehicles (an electrical device) [0004, 0006].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Fan as applied to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above, further in view of Wu (US 2016/0190584 A1; “Wu”).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura in view of Fan discloses the secondary battery set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Nakamura in view of Fan remains silent regarding the surface of the positive electrode active material is coated with carbon.
Wu is directed towards Li-ion battery that may undergo charging and discharging [0004, 0038], comprising positive electrode material [0004-0005]. Wu teaches that the positive electrode material contains a carbon coating layer [0010-0012].
Nakamura, Fan, and Wu each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – secondary battery. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, 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 have modified the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Nakamura in view of Fan to add a carbon coating layer on the surface of the positive electrode active material, like that of Wu, in order to exhibit excellent cycle performance and high-temperature storage performance [Wu, 0039].
In accordance with the aforesaid modifications, the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of further modified Nakamura would have the surface of the positive electrode active material coated with a carbon coating layer, thereby reading on the surface of the positive electrode active material is coated with carbon, as claimed.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagihara et al. (US 2016/0043398 A1; “Yanagihara”), in view of Nakamura and Fan.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity.
Yanagihara discloses an electric vehicle [0215-219, FIG. 7] comprising an electric power source (a battery module) [element 76, 0215-219, FIG. 7], of which includes one or more secondary batteries [0218].
Yanagihara remains silent regarding the battery module, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Nakamura is directed towards non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries as power sources for vehicles [Nakamura, 0004], and Fan is directed towards a high-temperature lithium secondary battery [Fan, 0005, 0021, 0071]. Nakamura in view of Fan teaches the secondary battery set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Yanagihara, Nakamura, and Fan each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – secondary battery. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, 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 have modified the electric power source of Yanagihara so that the one or more secondary batteries are the secondary battery of Nakamura in view of Fan set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, in order to exhibit high energy density and high current charge/discharge performance, as well as, to reduce the cost [Nakamura, 0004, 0007-0008, 0011, 0015-0021], and to reduce the damage to a negative electrode structure caused by lithium ion insertion and extraction, while also reducing the reaction between the negative electrode and other materials, thereby improving battery cycle life and exhibiting good high-temperature storage performance [Fan, 0021-0022, 0047-0048, 0066, 0071, 0074-0075].
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein by reference, not repeated for sake of brevity.
Yanagihara discloses an electric vehicle [0215-219, FIG. 7] comprising a battery pack [0001, 0003, 0025, 0028, 0199-0204] of which comprises the electric power source [element 76, 0215-219, FIG. 7], including one or more secondary batteries [0218] as set forth above in the rejection of claim 13.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-14, and 18-21 of copending Application No. 18/608,952. Pugh et al. (CN 1650450 A; herein English machine translation is utilized for all citations, “Pugh”) is utilized as an evidentiary reference in support of the provisional double patenting rejection. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending Application claims encompass the subject matter of the instant claims (see below).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the copending Application claims a secondary battery, comprising a cathode piece and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein the cathode piece comprises a cathode active material, of which reads on the claimed secondary battery, comprising a positive electrode plate and a non-aqueous electrolytic solution, respectively. The cathode active material chemical formula anticipates the claimed positive electrode active material chemical formula, wherein both active materials are electrically neutral. The non-aqueous electrolyte comprises a first additive, wherein the first additive Formula 1 anticipates the claimed non-aqueous electrolytic solution first additive Formula 1. Pugh evidences that it is customary for secondary batteries to include a negative pole, along with a positive pole and an electrolyte [0005], therefore, the claimed secondary battery would necessarily have a negative electrode plate, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of the copending Application claims R1 represents any one of, inter alia anthrylene, of which anticipates the claimed R1, and Ra comprises one or more selected from, inter alia -CN, of which anticipates the claimed Ra (MPEP 2132.02(II)).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of the copending Application claims that the first additive comprises one or more of the following compounds, inter alia
PNG
media_image2.png
59
140
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, of which anticipates the claimed first additive defined by claim 3 (MPEP 2132.02(II)).
Regarding claim 4, claim 5 of the copending Application claims a content of the first additive is W2 wt. %, W2 is between 0.01 and 20, of which overlaps with the claimed first additive range, 0.01 to 20, optionally 0.1 to 10, more optionally 0.3 to 5, based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, claim 6 of the copending Application claims that the non-aqueous electrolyte further comprises a second lithium salt, and the second lithium salt comprises one or more selected from, inter alia lithium difluorophosphate, thereby anticipating the claimed second additive defined by claim 5 (MPEP 2132.02(II)).
Regarding claim 6, claim 7 of the copending Application claims that based on a total weight of the non-aqueous electrolyte, a content of the second lithium salt is W3 wt.%, W3 is between 0.01 and 20, of which overlaps with the claimed second additive range, 0.01 to 20, optionally 0.1 to 10, more optionally 0.3 to 5, based on the total weight of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, claim 9 of the copending Application claims that the non-aqueous electrolyte further comprises a second additive; and the second additive comprises one or more selected from, inter alia the group consisting of a cyclic carbonate compound containing an unsaturated bond, thereby anticipating the claimed third additive defined by claim 7 (MPEP 2132.02(II)).
Regarding claim 8, claim 11 of the copending Application claims that the A, the C, and the D are each independently any one element within the above respective ranges, and the B is at least two elements of within a range thereof, thereby anticipating the claimed A, C, D and B variables defined by claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, claim 12 of the copending Application claims that the x is selected from a range of between 0.001 and 0.005; the y is selected from a range of between 0.01 and 0.5; the Z is selected from a range of between 0.001 and 0.005; and/or, the n is selected from a range of between 0.001 and 0.005, of which are the same ranges of the corresponding claimed variables, thereby anticipating each and every corresponding claimed variable range defined by claim 9 (MPEP 2131.03(I)).
Regarding claim 10, claim 13 of the copending Application claims that (1-y): y is within a range of between 1 and 4, optionally within a range of between 1.5 and 3, and a: x is within a range of between 9 and 1100, wherein both ranges overlap with the corresponding claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 11, claim 14 of the copending Application claims that the cathode active material has a lattice change rate of less than 8%, of which overlaps the claimed range in condition (1) defined by claim 11 (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 12, claim 18 of the copending Application claims that a surface of the cathode active material is coated with carbon, thereby anticipating the surface defined by claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, claim 19 of the copending Application claims a battery module comprising a secondary battery, wherein, the secondary battery is the secondary battery.
Regarding claim 14, claim 20 of the copending Application claims a battery pack, comprising a battery module, wherein, the battery module is the battery module.
Regarding claim 15, claim 21 of the copending Application claims an electric device, comprising at least one of a secondary battery, a battery module, and a battery pack, wherein, the secondary battery is the secondary battery.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Changlong, US 2017/0301952 A1 – teaches cyclic sultones, cyclic sulfates, silane phosphates, silane borates, and fluoro-phosphate salts [0012-0067].
Fukaya et al., US 2019/0288348 A1 – teaches a diisocyanate compound is included in a nonaqueous electrolyte [0104-0105, 0113-0115], wherein the diisocyanate compound includes isophorone diisocyanate, xylylene diisocyanate, dicyclohexylmethane diisocyanate, diphenylmethane diisocyanate, toluylene diisocyanate, and hexamethylene diisocyanate [0114].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights