DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
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 4, 5, 10, 16-18 and 20 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.
Claim 4 is unclear because the requirement for “mol” as a unit of measurement does not correspond to a specific area for the active substance layer, meaning the claimed invention is insolubly ambiguous as to how this feature should be interpreted.
Claims 5, 16 and 17 are unclear as to how the structured sub-layers should be interpreted. Is the coating mass per unit area required to have a gradient in a specific direction? Is the amount of the substance of the surfactant lithium salt in the plurality of active substance sub-layers required to have a gradient in a specific direction? The claimed invention is insolubly ambiguous in this respect. Examiner notes for the record that although claim 6 depends from claim 5, claim 6 is clear and incorporating the limitations of claim 6 into claim 5 would overcome the rejection of record.
Claims 10 and 18 are unclear as to the requirement of a pure solvent electrolyte. Claim 1, from which claims 10 and 18 depend, is characterized by an open-ended transitional phrase. If Applicant intends to limit claims 10 and 18 to a single solvent electrolyte, Applicant should use more restrictive language and a different transitional phrase.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claim 20 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 10.
(3)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su (CN 111755664 A), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement. The citations to Su refer to the included English-language machine translation.
With respect to claims 1 and 3, Su teaches an electrode plate of a lithium ion battery comprising a current collector and an active material layer (active substance layer) disposed on at least one surface of the current collector, wherein the active material layer comprises a surfactant lithium salt in the form of lithium perchlorate. Page 2, Fourth paragraph and Page 3, Fourth paragraph.
Regarding the lithium salt being a surfactant lithium salt, Examiner notes that the courts have held that "a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable," In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381 (CCPA 1963). Additionally, as per the MPEP, the "products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present." MPEP 2112.01 (internal citation omitted). In this case, claim 3 of Applicant’s disclosure identifies lithium perchlorate as a surfactant lithium salt within the meaning of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 2 and 15, Su further teaches the active material layer comprises a plurality of layers laminated on ethe current collector body, one of which is a functional layer within the scope of the claimed invention, the functional layer being located on a surface away from the current collector and also comprising the surfactant lithium salt, which is lithium perchlorate. Page 2, Fifth paragraph and Page 3, Fourth paragraph.
With respect to claims 5, 16 and 17, Su teaches the active substance layer comprises, in a direction away from the current collector, a plurality of active substance sub-layers disposed in a stacked manner and each comprising a different weight amount of the substance of the surfactant lithium salt varying from small to large, meaning a coating mass per unit area varies from small to large within the scope of the claimed invention. Page 2, Fourth and fifth paragraphs.
With respect to claim 8, Su teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising the electrode plate (anode) and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the two are separated by a diaphragm (separator) and further comprising an electrolyte. Pages 6-7, Embodiment 1.
With respect to claim 9, 11 and 19, Su teaches the electrolyte is an ester electrolyte and comprises ethylene carbonate as a solvent. Page 3, Tenth paragraph and Pages 6-7, Embodiment 1.
With respect to claims 10 and 18, Su teaches the electrolyte solvent is a pure solvent in that it is not disclosed to be contaminated. Pages 6-7, Embodiment 1.
(4)
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (CN 111755664 A), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement. The citations to Su refer to the included English-language machine translation.
With respect to claim 4, Su teaches the concentration of lithium salt in one of the active substance layers is between 0-2 wt% to as high as 10 wt%. Page 2, Fourth and fifth paragraphs. As per the MPEP, where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). In this case, it’s obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a mol amount of lithium salt within the weight ranges taught by Su because Su teaches this to be an effective amount, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(5)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (CN 111755664 A), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Inagaki et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0257746). The citations to Su refer to the included English-language machine translation.
With respect to claim 14, Su teaches the battery but is silent as to whether it is disposed within a module.
However, Inagaki, which deals with lithium ion batteries, teaches batteries of the type taught by Su are interconnected in series or parallel to form a battery module. Paragraph 120.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Su with Inagaki is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Su and Inagaki deal with lithium ion batteries. Inagaki teaches the batteries can be interconnected in series or parallel with additional batteries to form a module. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a module using Su’s battery cell because Inagaki teaches this to be an effective technique for forming a module, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(6)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 12, 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, individually or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the first and second sub-layers having the specific coating mass per unit area and amount of substance of surfactant lithium salt requirements of claim 6. The prior art of record, individually or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the specific sum of amounts of substance of the surfactant lithium salt in the active substance layer and a functional layer of the electrode plate and the total volume of the electrolyte satisfy the relationship of between 1-2 mol/L, as required by claims 12 and 20.
(7)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights