DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2024, 07/20/2024, and 09/25/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 10 and 20 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. Specifically, claims 10 and 20 require both a CB value for the “cell balance”, and a CB’ value for “actual cell balance.” It is unclear how these terms differ from each other, or how the original cell balance value is not an “actual” cell balance value. For examination purposes, claims 10 and 20 will be examined as if the “CB” value is the desired CB value, and “CB’” is the actual value provided in the examples.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 113437250A) in view of Sabi (US 20130244109 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches the following elements:
A secondary battery, comprising: (“In some embodiments, the electrochemical device of the present application includes, but is not limited to: all kinds of primary batteries, secondary batteries, fuel cells, solar cells, or capacitors. In some embodiments, the electrochemical device is a lithium secondary battery.” Zheng [71])
a positive electrode plate comprising both a positive current collector and a positive film disposed on at least one surface of the positive current collector, wherein the positive film comprises a positive active material; (“In some embodiments, the positive electrode includes a current collector and a positive electrode active material layer on the current collector.” Zheng [61] In this case, the positive electrode active material layer is clearly disposed on at least a surface of the current collector.)
and a negative electrode plate comprising both a negative current collector and a negative film disposed on at least one surface of the negative current collector, wherein the negative film comprises a negative active material; (“The negative electrode includes a current collector and a negative electrode active material layer, and the negative electrode active material layer includes a negative electrode active material.” Zheng [08]. In this case, the negative electrode active material layer is clearly disposed on at least a surface of the current collector.)
Regarding the final limitation of claim 1—Zheng is silent on the ratio of the discharging energy of the secondary battery to the charging energy of the secondary battery. However, Zheng does teach a CB that can be equal to 1 (or within the claimed range broader than that). If Zheng were to be combined with the teachings of Sabi, which teaches a battery which contains a positive electrode active material that leads to the desired discharge/charge ratio of claim 1 as well as the limitations of claim 4, then the limitations of claim 1 would be met.
wherein the secondary battery satisfies 0.74 ≤ (W2/W1)*CB ≤ 1.03; wherein W1 is charging energy of the secondary battery, W2 is discharging energy of the secondary battery, and W1 and W2 are in watt-hour; and wherein the Cell balance (CB) is a ratio of the capacity of the negative electrode plate per unit area to the capacity of the positive electrode plate per unit area.
Zheng teaches the following: (“According to some embodiments of the present application, the CB value ranges from 0.80 to 1.50, preferably the CB value ranges from 1.00 to 1.35.” Zheng [10])
Sabi teaches the following: (“For example, in cases where the positive electrode active material film 40 is made up with the amorphous-state lithium phosphate compound containing Li, P, Ni (the element M1'), at least one of Al and Ti (the additive element M3) and O, the internal impedance can be lowered and excellent high-rate discharge characteristics can be obtained … In addition, by the internal impedance being low, the ratio of the discharge energy and charge energy (discharge energy/charge energy) becomes close to 1,” Sabi [0081]. Sabi does not provide a value of what explicitly “close to 1” is, but even if it were 0.8 or 0.9, if the CB were to be 1, as taught by Zheng, the above limitation would be met.)
Zheng and Sabi are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries containing positive and negative electrode films. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Zheng to include the positive electrode active material film of Sabi in order to lower the internal impedance, improve high-rate discharge characteristics, and have a discharge/charge ratio that is both desirable and within the claimed range. (“For example, in cases where the positive electrode active material film 40 is made up with the amorphous-state lithium phosphate compound containing Li, P, Ni (the element M1'), at least one of Al and Ti (the additive element M3) and O, the internal impedance can be lowered and excellent high-rate discharge characteristics can be obtained. By the internal impedance decreased, the potential change at the time of high-speed discharge can be reduced and thus can realize the cell with the higher potential. In addition, by the internal impedance being low, the ratio of the discharge energy and charge energy (discharge energy/charge energy) becomes close to 1, and thus it is expected to have the effects that energy loss decreases and energy efficiency becomes higher, as well as that the Joule heat during charge and discharge can be reduced and heat generation can be suppressed.” Sabi [0081]) This would only require the simple substitution of one positive electrode active material film for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 2, Zheng alone is silent on the following elements:
The secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the secondary battery satisfies 0.92 ≤ W2/W1.
However, by combining with Sabi to achieve the limitations of claim 1, as described above, the additional limitations of claim 2 would also be met:
The secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the secondary battery satisfies 0.92 ≤ W2/W1. (“For example, in cases where the positive electrode active material film 40 is made up with the amorphous-state lithium phosphate compound containing Li, P, Ni (the element M1'), at least one of Al and Ti (the additive element M3) and O, the internal impedance can be lowered and excellent high-rate discharge characteristics can be obtained … In addition, by the internal impedance being low, the ratio of the discharge energy and charge energy (discharge energy/charge energy) becomes close to 1,” Sabi [0081]. Sabi does not provide a value of what explicitly “close to 1” is, but in the view of the examiner “close to 1” is exceedingly likely to include a value in between 0.92 and 1 [or above 1]. Thus, examiner finds that the teachings of Sabi would meet this limitation.)
Regarding claim 3, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Zheng also teaches the additional elements of claim 3:
The secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the CB is in a range of 0.8 ≤ CB ≤ 1.08. (“According to some embodiments of the present application, the CB value ranges from 0.80 to 1.50, preferably the CB value ranges from 1.00 to 1.35.” Zheng [10])
Regarding claim 4, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Zheng also teaches the additional elements of claim 4:
The secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive active material comprises LixAyFe(1-y)PO4, and wherein 0.8≤ X≤ 1.2, 0≤ y <1, and an element A comprises at least one of nickel, cobalt, manganese, magnesium, calcium, barium, titanium, or vanadium. (“In some embodiments, the positive electrode active material includes, but is not limited to: lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2), lithium nickel cobalt manganese (NCM) ternary material, lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4),” In this case, LiFePO4 meets all of the limitations of claim 4, as the atomic ratio of element A can be 0. Therefore, by not including an element A, the chemical formula of LiFePO4 still meets all of the limitations of claim 4.)
Further, when combining with Sabi to achieve the desired effects of discharge/charge energy ratio, this limitation would still be met, as Sabi teaches an amorphous-state positive electrode active material that also meets the limitations of claim 4:
The secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive active material comprises LixAyFe(1-y)PO4, and wherein 0.8≤ X≤ 1.2, 0≤ y <1, and an element A comprises at least one of nickel, cobalt, manganese, magnesium, calcium, barium, titanium, or vanadium. (“The positive electrode active material includes an amorphous-state lithium phosphate compound containing Li; P; an element M1' selected from Ni, Co, Mn, Au, Ag, Pd and Cu; at least one additive element M3 selected from B, Mg, Al, Si, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Zn, Ga, Ge, Nb, Mo, In, Sn, Sb, Te, W, Os, Bi, Gd, Tb, Dy, Hf, Ta and Zr; and O.” By including both M1’ and M3, there would be a chemical composition that anticipates the claimed structural formula and meets the limitations of claim 4.)
Regarding claim 10, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Zheng also teaches the additional elements of claim 10:
The secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the secondary battery has an actual CB' value of 1.10-1.30; and 0.88 ≤ CB*CB’ ≤ 1.375 is satisfied for CB and CB'. (Zheng claims a desired CB value between 0.8-1.5. Zhang table 1 on page 13 of the original document shows numerous examples where the measured CB is between 0.8 and 1.4. In this case, by comparing example 9, which has an actual CB value of 1.25, to a desired CB value of 1.00. CB * CB’ would be 1.25, which is within the claimed range.)
Regarding claim 11, Zheng teaches the following elements:
An electrical device, comprising a secondary battery, comprising: (“The application further provides an electronic device, which includes the electrochemical device described in the first aspect of the application.” Zheng [74])
a positive electrode plate comprising both a positive current collector and a positive film disposed on at least one surface of the positive current collector, wherein the positive film comprises a positive active material; (“In some embodiments, the positive electrode includes a current collector and a positive electrode active material layer on the current collector.” Zheng [61] In this case, the positive electrode active material layer is clearly disposed on at least a surface of the current collector.)
and a negative electrode plate comprising both a negative current collector and a negative film disposed on at least one surface of the negative current collector, wherein the negative film comprises a negative active material; (“The negative electrode includes a current collector and a negative electrode active material layer, and the negative electrode active material layer includes a negative electrode active material.” Zheng [08]. In this case, the negative electrode active material layer is clearly disposed on at least a surface of the current collector.)
and wherein the secondary battery serves as a power supply for the electrical device. (It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the secondary battery as a power supply for the electronic device, as this is the entire purpose of the battery. Even if not explicitly states, by providing an electronic device including a battery, the battery would almost certainly be used to power the electronic device.)
Regarding the final limitation of claim 11—Zheng is silent on the ratio of the discharging energy of the secondary battery to the charging energy of the secondary battery. However, Zheng does teach a CB that can be equal to 11 (or within the claimed range broader than that). If Zheng were to be combined with the teachings of Sabi, which teaches a battery which contains a positive electrode active material that leads to the desired discharge/charge ratio of claim 11 as well as the limitations of claim 14, then the limitations of claim 11 would be met.
wherein the secondary battery satisfies 0.74 ≤ (W2/W1)*CB ≤ 1.03; wherein W1 is charging energy of the secondary battery, W2 is discharging energy of the secondary battery, and W1 and W2 are in watt-hour; wherein the Cell balance (CB) is a ratio of the capacity of the negative electrode plate per unit area to the capacity of the positive electrode plate per unit area; Zheng teaches the following: (“According to some embodiments of the present application, the CB value ranges from 0.80 to 1.50, preferably the CB value ranges from 1.00 to 1.35.” Zheng [10])
Sabi teaches the following: (“For example, in cases where the positive electrode active material film 40 is made up with the amorphous-state lithium phosphate compound containing Li, P, Ni (the element M1'), at least one of Al and Ti (the additive element M3) and O, the internal impedance can be lowered and excellent high-rate discharge characteristics can be obtained … In addition, by the internal impedance being low, the ratio of the discharge energy and charge energy (discharge energy/charge energy) becomes close to 1,” Sabi [0081]. Sabi does not provide a value of what explicitly “close to 1” is, but even if it were 0.8 or 0.9, if the CB were to be 1, as taught by Zheng, the above limitation would be met.)
Zheng and Sabi are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries containing positive and negative electrode films. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Zheng to include the positive electrode active material film of Sabi in order to lower the internal impedance, improve high-rate discharge characteristics, and have a discharge/charge ratio that is both desirable and within the claimed range. (“For example, in cases where the positive electrode active material film 40 is made up with the amorphous-state lithium phosphate compound containing Li, P, Ni (the element M1'), at least one of Al and Ti (the additive element M3) and O, the internal impedance can be lowered and excellent high-rate discharge characteristics can be obtained. By the internal impedance decreased, the potential change at the time of high-speed discharge can be reduced and thus can realize the cell with the higher potential. In addition, by the internal impedance being low, the ratio of the discharge energy and charge energy (discharge energy/charge energy) becomes close to 1, and thus it is expected to have the effects that energy loss decreases and energy efficiency becomes higher, as well as that the Joule heat during charge and discharge can be reduced and heat generation can be suppressed.” Sabi [0081]) This would only require the simple substitution of one positive electrode active material film for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 12, Zheng alone is silent on the following elements:
The electrical device of claim 11, wherein the secondary battery satisfies 0.92 ≤ W2/W1.
However, by combining with Sabi to achieve the limitations of claim 11, as described above, the additional limitations of claim 12 would also be met:
The electrical device of claim 11, wherein the secondary battery satisfies 0.92 ≤ W2/W1. (“For example, in cases where the positive electrode active material film 40 is made up with the amorphous-state lithium phosphate compound containing Li, P, Ni (the element M1'), at least one of Al and Ti (the additive element M3) and O, the internal impedance can be lowered and excellent high-rate discharge characteristics can be obtained … In addition, by the internal impedance being low, the ratio of the discharge energy and charge energy (discharge energy/charge energy) becomes close to 1,” Sabi [0081]. Sabi does not provide a value of what explicitly “close to 1” is, but in the view of the examiner “close to 1” is exceedingly likely to include a value in between 0.92 and 1 [or above 1]. Thus, examiner finds that the teachings of Sabi would meet this limitation.)
Regarding claim 13, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Zheng also teaches the additional elements of claim 13:
The electrical device of claim 11, wherein the CB is in a range of 0.8 ≤ CB ≤ 1.08 (“According to some embodiments of the present application, the CB value ranges from 0.80 to 1.50, preferably the CB value ranges from 1.00 to 1.35.” Zheng [10])
Regarding claim 14, modified Zheng teaches all of claim 11, as shown above. Zheng teaches the additional elements of claim 14:
The electrical device of claim 11, wherein the positive active material comprises LixAyFe(1-y)PO4, and wherein 0.8<X<1.2,0<y<1, and an element A comprises at least one of nickel, cobalt, manganese, magnesium, calcium, barium, titanium, or vanadium. (“In some embodiments, the positive electrode active material includes, but is not limited to: lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2), lithium nickel cobalt manganese (NCM) ternary material, lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4),” In this case, LiFePO4 meets all of the limitations of claim 4, as the atomic ratio of element A can be 0. Therefore, by not including an element A, the chemical formula of LiFePO4 still meets all of the limitations of claim 4.)
Further, when combining with Sabi to achieve the desired effects of discharge/charge energy ratio, this limitation would still be met, as Sabi teaches an amorphous-state positive electrode active material that also meets the limitations of claim 14:
The electrical device of claim 11, wherein the positive active material comprises LixAyFe(1-y)PO4, and wherein 0.8<X<1.2,0<y<1, and an element A comprises at least one of nickel, cobalt, manganese, magnesium, calcium, barium, titanium, or vanadium. (“The positive electrode active material includes an amorphous-state lithium phosphate compound containing Li; P; an element M1' selected from Ni, Co, Mn, Au, Ag, Pd and Cu; at least one additive element M3 selected from B, Mg, Al, Si, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Zn, Ga, Ge, Nb, Mo, In, Sn, Sb, Te, W, Os, Bi, Gd, Tb, Dy, Hf, Ta and Zr; and O.” By including both M1’ and M3, there would be a chemical composition that anticipates the claimed structural formula and meets the limitations of claim 4.)
Regarding claim 20, modified Zheng teaches all of claim 11, as shown above. Zheng teaches the additional elements of claim 20:
The electrical device of claim 11, wherein the secondary battery has an actual CB' value of 1.10-1.30; and 0.88 CB*CB' 1.375 is satisfied for CB and CB'. (Zheng claims a desired CB value between 0.8-1.5. Zhang table 1 on page 13 of the original document shows numerous examples where the measured CB is between 0.8 and 1.4. In this case, by comparing example 9, which has an actual CB value of 1.25, to a desired CB value of 1.00. CB * CB’ would be 1.25, which is within the claimed range.)
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 113437250A) in view of Sabi (US 20130244109 A1) and further in view of Lee (US 20210367263 A1)
Regarding claim 5, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Zheng and Sabi are silent on the following elements of claim 5:
The secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive film has an area of S1 m2, the negative film has an area of S2 m2, and S1/S2<0.995 is satisfied for S1 and S2.
However, Lee teaches all of the elements of claim 5 that are not found in Zheng or Sabi:
The secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the positive film has an area of S1 m2, the negative film has an area of S2 m2, and S1/S2<0.995 is satisfied for S1 and S2. (“NCM811 (LiNi.sub.0.8Co.sub.0.1Mn.sub.0.1O.sub.2) as a positive electrode active material, … to obtain electrode slurry. … The slurry was applied to the current collector … to obtain an electrode … Then, the electrode was cut into a circular shape having an area of 1.4875 cm.sup.2. Lithium metal foil cut into a circular shape having an area of 1.7671 cm.sup.2 was prepared as a counter electrode.” Lee [0127]. Lee teaches a battery in which the positive film has an area of 1.4875 cm2 and a negative film has an area of 1.7671 cm2. The ratio of S1/S2 would be 0.842, which would anticipate the claimed range of less than 0.995.)
Lee is considered to be analogous to Zheng because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries with positive and negative electrode films. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng to have a slightly larger negative electrode than positive in order to improve ion conductivity and discharge capacity (“As can be seen from Table 1, the batteries comprising the solid electrolyte membranes according to Examples 1-7 show higher ion conductivity and discharge capacity and a delayed short-circuit point, as compared to the batteries according to Comparative Examples.” Lee [0135]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Zheng and Sabi are silent on the following elements of claim 15:
The electrical device of claim 11, wherein the positive film has an area of S1 m2, the negative film has an area of S2 m2, and S1/S2 ≤ 0.995 is satisfied for S1 and S2.
However, Lee teaches all of the elements of claim 15 that are not found in Zheng or Sabi:
The electrical device of claim 11, wherein the positive film has an area of S1 m2, the negative film has an area of S2 m2, and S1/S2 ≤ 0.995 is satisfied for S1 and S2. (“NCM811 (LiNi.sub.0.8Co.sub.0.1Mn.sub.0.1O.sub.2) as a positive electrode active material, … to obtain electrode slurry. … The slurry was applied to the current collector … to obtain an electrode … Then, the electrode was cut into a circular shape having an area of 1.4875 cm.sup.2. Lithium metal foil cut into a circular shape having an area of 1.7671 cm.sup.2 was prepared as a counter electrode.” Lee [0127]. Lee teaches a battery in which the positive film has an area of 1.4875 cm2 and a negative film has an area of 1.7671 cm2. The ratio of S1/S2 would be 0.842, which would anticipate the claimed range of less than 0.995.)
Lee is considered to be analogous to Zheng because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries with positive and negative electrode films. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng to have a slightly larger negative electrode than positive in order to improve ion conductivity and discharge capacity (“As can be seen from Table 1, the batteries comprising the solid electrolyte membranes according to Examples 1-7 show higher ion conductivity and discharge capacity and a delayed short-circuit point, as compared to the batteries according to Comparative Examples.” Lee [0135]).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 113437250A) in view of Sabi (US 20130244109 A1) further in view of Lee (US 20210367263 A1), further in view of Yang (US 20220069284 A1) and further in view of Fukuchi (US 20160190535 A1)
Regarding claim 7, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 5, as shown above. Zheng, Sabi, and Lee are silent on the following elements of claim 7:
The secondary battery of claim 5, wherein the positive active material has a gram capacity of 130-159 mAh/g and the positive film has a surface density of 150-600 g/m2.
However, Yang and Fukuchi, respectively, teach all of the elements of claim 7 that are not found in Zheng, Sabi, or Lee:
Yang teaches the following elements of claim 7:
The secondary battery of claim 5, wherein the positive active material has a gram capacity of 130-159 mAh/g (“A positive electrode active substance lithium iron phosphate (a reversible gram capacity was 139 mAh/g), a conductive agent acetylene black, and a binder PVDF were mixed at a mass ratio of 94:4:2, a solvent N-methylpyrrolidone was added into the mixture, and the mixture was fully stirred and mixed evenly to obtain a positive electrode slurry.” Yang [0072]. The gram capacity of 139mAh/g would anticipate the claimed range.)
Yang and Zheng are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries using lithium iron phosphate based positive electrode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium iron phosphate material of Zheng to specifically have a gram capacity of 139 mAh/g, as this is a known property of the material, and while it could additionally be argued that the gram capacity is an inherent property of the material without needing to be mentioned by Zheng, Yang further teaches that a LFP with this gram capacity is a known material in the art, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Fukuchi teaches the following elements of claim 7:
and the positive film has a surface density of 150-600 g/m2. (“Subsequently, the positive active mass slurry was uniformly coated on an aluminum current collecting film with a bar coater by adjusting the gap of the bar coater to coat the slurry in a coating amount (surface density) of the active mass of 22.7 mg/cm.sup.2 after the drying.” 22.7 mg/cm2 would be the equivalent of 227 g/m2, which would anticipate the claimed range.)
Fukuchi and Zheng are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries containing a positive film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode active material layer of Zheng to have the surface density of Fukuchi in order to improve cycle characteristics in a secondary battery cell (“As shown in Table 2, the rechargeable lithium ion battery cells according to Examples 25 to 36 showed improved cycle characteristics compared with the one according to Comparative Example 2.” Fukuchi [0225]). Additionally, Fukuchi teaches that using a specific surface density of positive electrode active material within the claimed range is known in the art, and would therefore be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to replicate.
Regarding claim 17, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 15, as shown above. Zheng, Sabi, and Lee are silent on the following elements of claim 17:
The electrical device of claim 15, wherein the positive active material has a gram capacity of 130-159 mAh/g
and the positive film has a surface density of 150-600 g/m2.
However, Yang and Fukuchi, respectively, teach all of the elements of claim 17 that are not found in Zheng, Sabi, or Lee:
Yang teaches the following elements of claim 17:
The electrical device of claim 15, wherein the positive active material has a gram capacity of 130-159 mAh/g (“A positive electrode active substance lithium iron phosphate (a reversible gram capacity was 139 mAh/g), a conductive agent acetylene black, and a binder PVDF were mixed at a mass ratio of 94:4:2, a solvent N-methylpyrrolidone was added into the mixture, and the mixture was fully stirred and mixed evenly to obtain a positive electrode slurry.” Yang [0072]. The gram capacity of 139mAh/g would anticipate the claimed range.)
Yang and Zheng are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries using lithium iron phosphate based positive electrode materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium iron phosphate material of Zheng to specifically have a gram capacity of 139 mAh/g, as this is a known property of the material, and while it could additionally be argued that the gram capacity is an inherent property of the material without needing to be mentioned by Zheng, Yang further teaches that a LFP with this gram capacity is a known material in the art, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Fukuchi teaches the following elements of claim 17:
and the positive film has a surface density of 150-600 g/m2. (“Subsequently, the positive active mass slurry was uniformly coated on an aluminum current collecting film with a bar coater by adjusting the gap of the bar coater to coat the slurry in a coating amount (surface density) of the active mass of 22.7 mg/cm.sup.2 after the drying.” 22.7 mg/cm2 would be the equivalent of 227 g/m2, which would anticipate the claimed range.)
Fukuchi and Zheng are considered to be analogous because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries containing a positive film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode active material layer of Zheng to have the surface density of Fukuchi in order to improve cycle characteristics in a secondary battery cell (“As shown in Table 2, the rechargeable lithium ion battery cells according to Examples 25 to 36 showed improved cycle characteristics compared with the one according to Comparative Example 2.” Fukuchi [0225]). Additionally, Fukuchi teaches that using a specific surface density of positive electrode active material within the claimed range is known in the art, and would therefore be within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to replicate.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 113437250A) in view of Sabi (US 20130244109 A1) further in view of Choi (US 20190013504 A1)
Regarding claim 8, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Zheng teaches the following elements:
The secondary battery of claim 1, wherein the secondary battery further comprises an electrolyte comprising an organic solvent, (“Electrolyte: Mix ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) at a volume ratio of 3:7, and then dissolve fully dried lithium salt LiPF6 in a mixed organic solvent at a ratio of 1 mol/L, based on the above The basic electrolyte, and finally an additional 2wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) is added to prepare the electrolyte.” Zheng [80])
Zheng and Sabo are silent on the following elements of claim 8:
and wherein the organic solvent comprises an unsaturated carbonate and a sulfur-oxygen double bond compound;
the unsaturated carbonate comprises at least one of vinylene carbonate and vinyl carbonate;
and the sulfur-oxygen double bond compound comprises at least one of 1, 3 propane sultone, vinyl sulfate, 1, 4-butanesultone, vinyl sulfite, or methylene methanedisulfonate.
However, Choi teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Zheng or Sabo. Specifically, Choi teaches an organic solvent electrolyte material meeting all of the limitations of claim 8:
and wherein the organic solvent comprises an unsaturated carbonate and a sulfur-oxygen double bond compound; the unsaturated carbonate comprises at least one of vinylene carbonate and vinyl carbonate; and the sulfur-oxygen double bond compound comprises at least one of 1, 3 propane sultone, vinyl sulfate, 1, 4-butanesultone, vinyl sulfite, or methylene methanedisulfonate. (“An electrolyte solution was prepared by adding 0.2% of LiBF4, 5.0% of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), 1.0% of vinylene carbonate (VC), 3.00% of succinonitrile (SN), 1.0% of 1,3-propane sultone (PS), 1.0% of succinic anhydride (SA), and 1.5 M LiPF.sub.6 (PANAX ETEC Co., Ltd.) in a mixed solvent of ethylenecarbonate (EC)/ethylmethylcarbonate (EMC)/diethylcarbonate (DEC) in a volume ratio of 3:5:2.” Choi [0110]. In this case, vinylene carbonate is used as the unsaturated carbonate and 1,3 propane sultone is used as the sulfur-oxygen double bond.)
Choi is considered to be analogous to Zheng because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries containing organic solvent electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng by substituting one electrolyte material for another known electrolyte material. This would only require a simple substitution, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 8, as shown above. Zheng and Sabo are silent on the following elements of claim 9:
The secondary battery of claim 8, wherein, based on a weight of the electrolyte, the unsaturated carbonate has a content of a%, the sulfur- oxygen double bond compound has a content of b%, and the secondary battery satisfies at least one of following features:
0.1<a+b<7;
0.05 ≤ a/b ≤ 10;
0.05 ≤ a ≤ 3
0.05≤ b≤ 4;
0.06 ≤ a/CB ≤ 3.75; or
0.06 ≤ b/CB≤ 5.0.
However, Choi teaches all of the elements of claim 9 not found in Zheng or Sabo:
The secondary battery of claim 8, wherein, based on a weight of the electrolyte, the unsaturated carbonate has a content of a%, the sulfur- oxygen double bond compound has a content of b%, and the secondary battery satisfies at least one of following features: (“An electrolyte solution was prepared by adding 0.2% of LiBF4, 5.0% of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), 1.0% of vinylene carbonate (VC), 3.00% of succinonitrile (SN), 1.0% of 1,3-propane sultone (PS), 1.0% of succinic anhydride (SA), and 1.5 M LiPF.sub.6 (PANAX ETEC Co., Ltd.) in a mixed solvent of ethylenecarbonate (EC)/ethylmethylcarbonate (EMC)/diethylcarbonate (DEC) in a volume ratio of 3:5:2.” Choi [0110]. In this case, vinylene carbonate is used as the unsaturated carbonate and 1,3 propane sultone is used as the sulfur-oxygen double bond. In this case, as least III is met, as the percentage of the unsaturated carbonate, in this case vinylene carbonate, is between 0.05-3% by weight based on weight of the electrolyte [it is 1%]. This would anticipate the claimed range and thus meet the limitations of claim 9.)
0.1<a+b<7;
0.05 ≤ a/b ≤ 10;
0.05 ≤ a ≤ 3
0.05≤ b≤ 4;
0.06 ≤ a/CB ≤ 3.75; or
0.06 ≤ b/CB≤ 5.0.
Regarding claim 18, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 11, as shown above. Zheng teaches the following elements:
The electrical device of claim 11, wherein the secondary battery further comprises an electrolyte comprising an organic solvent, (“Electrolyte: Mix ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) at a volume ratio of 3:7, and then dissolve fully dried lithium salt LiPF6 in a mixed organic solvent at a ratio of 1 mol/L, based on the above The basic electrolyte, and finally an additional 2wt% of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) is added to prepare the electrolyte.” Zheng [80])
Zheng and Sabo are silent on the following elements of claim 18:
and wherein the organic solvent comprises an unsaturated carbonate and a sulfur-oxygen double bond compound;
the unsaturated carbonate comprises at least one of vinylene carbonate and vinyl carbonate;
and the sulfur-oxygen double bond compound comprises at least one of 1, 3 propane sultone, vinyl sulfate, 1, 4-butanesultone, vinyl sulfite, or methylene methanedisulfonate.
However, Choi teaches all of the elements of claim 8 that are not found in Zheng or Sabo. Specifically, Choi teaches an organic solvent electrolyte material meeting all of the limitations of claim 18:
and wherein the organic solvent comprises an unsaturated carbonate and a sulfur-oxygen double bond compound; the unsaturated carbonate comprises at least one of vinylene carbonate and vinyl carbonate; and the sulfur-oxygen double bond compound comprises at least one of 1, 3 propane sultone, vinyl sulfate, 1, 4-butanesultone, vinyl sulfite, or methylene methanedisulfonate. (“An electrolyte solution was prepared by adding 0.2% of LiBF4, 5.0% of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), 1.0% of vinylene carbonate (VC), 3.00% of succinonitrile (SN), 1.0% of 1,3-propane sultone (PS), 1.0% of succinic anhydride (SA), and 1.5 M LiPF.sub.6 (PANAX ETEC Co., Ltd.) in a mixed solvent of ethylenecarbonate (EC)/ethylmethylcarbonate (EMC)/diethylcarbonate (DEC) in a volume ratio of 3:5:2.” Choi [0110]. In this case, vinylene carbonate is used as the unsaturated carbonate and 1,3 propane sultone is used as the sulfur-oxygen double bond.)
Choi is considered to be analogous to Zheng because they are both within the same field of secondary batteries containing organic solvent electrolytes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng by substituting one electrolyte material for another known electrolyte material. This would only require a simple substitution, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Zheng teaches all of the elements of claim 18, as shown above. Zheng and Sabo are silent on the following elements of claim 19:
The electrical device of claim 18, wherein, based on a weight of the electrolyte, the unsaturated carbonate has a content of a%, the sulfur-oxygen double bond compound has a content of b%, and the secondary battery satisfies at least one of following features:
0.1<a+b<7;
0.05 ≤ a/b ≤ 10;
0.05 ≤ a ≤ 3
0.05≤ b≤ 4;
0.06 ≤ a/CB ≤ 3.75; or
0.06 ≤ b/CB≤ 5.0.
However, Choi teaches all of the elements of claim 19 not found in Zheng or Sabo:
The electrical device of claim 18, wherein, based on a weight of the electrolyte, the unsaturated carbonate has a content of a%, the sulfur-oxygen double bond compound has a content of b%, and the secondary battery satisfies at least one of following features: (“An electrolyte solution was prepared by adding 0.2% of LiBF4, 5.0% of fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC), 1.0% of vinylene carbonate (VC), 3.00% of succinonitrile (SN), 1.0% of 1,3-propane sultone (PS), 1.0% of succinic anhydride (SA), and 1.5 M LiPF.sub.6 (PANAX ETEC Co., Ltd.) in a mixed solvent of ethylenecarbonate (EC)/ethylmethylcarbonate (EMC)/diethylcarbonate (DEC) in a volume ratio of 3:5:2.” Choi [0110]. In this case, vinylene carbonate is used as the unsaturated carbonate and 1,3 propane sultone is used as the sulfur-oxygen double bond. In this case, as least III is met, as the percentage of the unsaturated carbonate, in this case vinylene carbonate, is between 0.05-3% by weight based on weight of the electrolyte [it is 1%]. This would anticipate the claimed range and thus meet the limitations of claim 19.)
0.1<a+b<7;
0.05 ≤ a/b ≤ 10;
0.05 ≤ a ≤ 3
0.05≤ b≤ 4;
0.06 ≤ a/CB ≤ 3.75; or
0.06 ≤ b/CB≤ 5.0.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 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: After significant search and consideration, there was not discovered any piece or prior art or combination of prior art that would render obvious the limitations of claims 6 and 16. Specifically, there is no art or combination of art that teaches both an intentionally set ratio of discharge to charge energy as well as an intentionally set ratio of positive and negative electrode areas, where the ratio of area S1/S2 is less than 0.995 and the ratio of discharge to charge energies is specifically larger than the ratio of the areas. The closest discovered prior art was used to reject claims 5 and 15, but would not render obvious the further limitations of claims 6 and 16. If the subject matter of claims 6 and 16 were incorporated into independent claims 1 and 11, and the 112(b) issues regarding claims 10 and 20 are overcome, then the application would be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights