DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 4-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norihisa (JP 2015056384A, “Norihisa”).
Regarding claim 1:
Norihisa discloses a battery (i.e. electrochemical apparatus) with a positive electrode mixture (i.e. positive electrode material layer) which is comprised of a positive electrode active material, and is added on a current collector (i.e. positive electrode plate) (see paragraph [0018]). Norihisa discloses that a cross sectional SEM image of the positive electrode active material layer was performed (see paragraph [0016]). Norihisa discloses that the average diameter of the circumscribed circle around the positive electrode active material is (A) and the average diameter of the inscribed circle around the positive electrode active material is (B) (see paragraph [0016]). Norihisa discloses that the positive electrode active material is preferred to have an average particle size (D50) of 2 to 20 micrometers. The minimum area of the profile of the particles, with equivalent volumes, can have occurs when the profile is a perfect circle. The minimum D50 for a perfectly spherical particle to have an area greater than 5 micrometers squared is 2.523 micrometers, which is within the bounds that Norihisa discloses (see paragraph [0017]). Norihisa discloses for Example 5, that an average diameter of the circumscribed circle (A) is 2.97 and an average diameter of the inscribed circle (B) is 1.38. The ratio of these diameters, measured as A/B (i.e. Rc/Ri) is 2.15. (see Table 1)
Regarding claim 4:
Norihisa discloses an electrolyte solution that contains a 1:1 ratio of ethylene carbonate (i.e. cyclic carbonate, EC) and dimethyl carbonate (i.e. linear carbonate, DMC) (see paragraph [0028]). The molar mass of ethylene carbonate (i.e. cyclic carbonate) is 88.062 g/mol and the molar mass of dimethyl carbonate (i.e. linear carbonate) is 90.078 g/mol. In the 1:1 ratio that Norihisa discloses, the mass percentage of the ethylene carbonate (i.e. cyclic carbonate) is 49.43%. The ratio (w1/w2) is 1.02, such that w1 is the mass percentage of the dimethyl carbonate (i.e. linear carbonate) and w2 is the mass percentage of the ethylene carbonate (i.e. cyclic carbonate).
Regarding claim 5:
Norihisa discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises of lithium manganese oxide (i.e. lithium manganate) (see paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 8:
Norihisa discloses that the positive electrode active material is preferred to have an average particle size (D50) of 2 to 20 micrometers. Norihisa discloses that D50 is the particle sizes at which when the cumulative curve is calculated with the total volume of a certain powder group is set to 100%, the cumulative curve reaches 50% (i.e. Dv50) (see paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claims 9-10:
Norihisa disclose an electrolyte solution that contains a 1:1 ratio of ethylene carbonate (i.e. cyclic carbonate) and dimethyl carbonate (i.e. linear carbonate) (see paragraph [0028]).
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.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable under Norihisa (JP 2015056384 A, “Norihisa”) in view of Leng et al. (US2021/0167366 A1, “Leng”).
Regarding claim 2:
Norihisa discloses the electrochemical apparatus with a positive electrode material layer as set forth above.
Norihisa discloses that the positive electrode active material has a secondary particle form (i.e. second particles) and a primary form (i.e. first particles) (see paragraphs, [0006], [0016] and Figure 1 and Figure 2). Norihisa discloses for Example 5, that an average diameter of the circumscribed circle (A) is 2.97 and an average diameter of the inscribed circle (B) is 1.38. The ratio of these diameters, measured as A/B (i.e. Rc2/Ri2) is 2.15. (see Table 1)
Norihisa does not disclose that a minimum circumscribed radius of the profile of each first particle is Rc1, a maximum inscribed circle radius of the profile of the each first particle is Ri1, and 1 < average value of Rc1/Ri1 < 3.
Leng discloses a positive electrode sheet for a secondary battery with first and second lithium transition metal oxide particles (see paragraphs [0006] and [0041]). Leng discloses that the first lithium nickel transition metal oxides (i.e. first particles) have a sphericity degree of 0.7 to 1.0 in order to inhibit volume expansion rate, improve cycle performance, compaction density, and volume energy density of the battery (see paragraph [0046]). Leng discloses that sphericity is measures by scanning the cross sectional diameter of the positive electrode active material and measuring the ratio of a maximum inscribed circle radius to a minimum circumscribed radius (i.e. Ri1/Rc1). When taking the inverse of this ratio with Leng's disclosed ranges of 0.7 to 1.0, the ratio of Rc1/Ri1 of first particles is between a range of 1.0 and 1.42. (see paragraph [0045]).
Therefore, in light of the motivation to have the ranges of the Rc1/Ri1 of first particles as disclosed by Leng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the first particles of Leng as the primary particles in Norihisa to inhibit volume expansion rate, improve cycle performance, compaction density, and volume energy density of the battery.
Regarding claim 3:
Norihisa in view of Leng discloses the electrochemical apparatus with a positive electrode material layer as set forth above.
Norihisa discloses that the secondary particle form can be made up of a larger number of primary particles (see paragraph [0016]), therefore, the cross-sectional area of the second particles must be larger than the first particles. Additionally, given that Norihisa disclose that the primary particle diameter is 1-2 microns (see paragraph [0021]) and the secondary particles have average particle size of 2-20 microns (see paragraph [0017]), it is clear that the area percentage of the secondary particles would necessarily be greater than 50% while the area percentage of the primary particles would necessarily be less than 50%.
Regarding claim 6:
Norihisa in view of Leng discloses the electrochemical apparatus with a positive electrode material layer as set forth above.
Norihisa discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises aluminum and magnesium (see paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 7:
Norihisa in view of Leng discloses the electrochemical apparatus with a positive electrode material layer as set forth above.
Norihisa discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises aluminum and magnesium at a value of 0.05% by mass (see paragraph [0014]).
Norihisa discloses the positive electrode active material comprises 0.05% by mass aluminum or magnesium, while the present claims require 0.1 wt.% aluminum or magnesium.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of aluminum or magnesium and that taught by Norihisa are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of aluminum or magnesium disclosed by Norihisa and the amount disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of aluminum or magnesium disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Norihisa, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14:
Norihisa discloses the electrochemical apparatus with a positive electrode material layer as set forth above.
Norihisa does not disclose a negative electrode plate, wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode material layer, the negative electrode material layer comprises a negative electrode active material; and the negative electrode active material layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of artificial graphite, natural graphite, and hard carbon.
Leng discloses that the lithium ion battery includes a negative electrode sheet (i.e. negative electrode plate), a negative electrode active material layer with a negative electrode active material, and that the negative electrode active material layer can have artificial graphite and natural graphite (see paragraph [0068]). This is included in order to provide a flow of electrons during charging and discharging, ensuring the battery can provide a current.
Therefore, in light of the motivation to have a negative electrode sheet with a negative electrode active material layer having an active material and comprising of artificial and natural graphite, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the negative electrode sheet in Leng to the positive electrode sheet in Norihisa, in order to provide a flow for electrons and a current.
Regarding claim 15:
Norihisa discloses a battery (i.e. electrochemical apparatus) with a positive electrode mixture (i.e. positive electrode material layer) which is comprised of a positive electrode active material, and is added on a current collector (i.e. positive electrode plate) (see paragraph [0018]). Norihisa discloses that a cross sectional SEM image of the positive electrode active material layer was performed (see paragraph [0016]). Norihisa discloses that the average diameter of the circumscribed circle around the positive electrode active material is (A) and the average diameter of the inscribed circle around the positive electrode active material is (B) (see paragraph [0016]). Norihisa discloses that the positive electrode active material is preferred to have an average particle size (D50) of 2 to 20 micrometers. The minimum area of the profile of the particles, with equivalent volumes, can have occurs when the profile is a perfect circle. The minimum D50 for a perfectly spherical particle to have an area greater than 5 micrometers squared is 2.523 micrometers, which is within the bounds that Norihisa discloses (see paragraph [0017]). Norihisa discloses for Example 5, that an average diameter of the circumscribed circle (A) is 2.97 and an average diameter of the inscribed circle (B) is 1.38. The ratio of these diameters, measured as A/B (i.e. Rc/Ri) is 2.15. (see Table 1)
Norihisa does not disclose an electronic apparatus that is comprised of the electrochemical apparatus as stated above.
Leng discloses that an electronic apparatus is provided for the secondary battery with the positive electrode to be housed in order for the secondary battery to be used as a power supply for the electronic apparatus (see paragraph [0082] and Figure 2).
Therefore, in light of the motivation to use the secondary battery to provide a power source to an electronic apparatus as disclosed by Leng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the electronic apparatus of Leng as the housing compartment for the electrochemical apparatus in Norihisa to provide a power supply for the electronic apparatus.
Regarding claim 16:
Norihisa in view of Leng disclose the electronic apparatus as set forth above.
Norihisa discloses that the positive electrode active material has a secondary particle form (i.e. second particles) and a primary particles (i.e. first particles) (see paragraph [0016] and Figure 1. and Figure 2.). Norihisa discloses for Example 5, that an average diameter of the circumscribed circle (A) is 2.97 and an average diameter of the inscribed circle (B) is 1.38. The ratio of these diameters, measured as A/B (i.e. Rc2/Ri2) is 2.15. (see Table 1)
Norihisa does not disclose that a minimum circumscribed radius of the profile of each first particle is Rc1, a maximum inscribed circle radius of the profile of the each first particle is Ri1, and 1 < average value of Rc1/Ri1 < 3.
Leng discloses a positive electrode sheet for a secondary battery with first and second lithium transition metal oxide particles (see paragraphs [0006] and [0041]). Leng discloses that the first lithium nickel transition metal oxides (i.e. first particles) have a sphericity degree of 0.7 to 1.0 in order to inhibit volume expansion rate, improve cycle performance, compaction density, and volume energy density of the battery (see paragraph [0046]). Leng discloses that sphericity is measures by scanning the cross sectional diameter of the positive electrode active material and measuring the ratio of a maximum inscribed circle radius to a minimum circumscribed radius (i.e. Ri1/Rc1). When taking the inverse of this ratio with Leng's disclosed ranges of 0.7 to 1.0, the ratio of Rc1/Ri1 of first particles is between a range of 1.0 and 1.42. (see paragraph [0045]).
Therefore, in light of the motivation to have the ranges of the Rc1/Ri1 of first particles as disclosed by Leng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the first particles of Leng as the primary particles in Norihisa to inhibit volume expansion rate, improve cycle performance, compaction density, and volume energy density of the battery.
Regarding claim 17:
Norihisa in view of Leng disclose the electronic apparatus as set forth above.
Norihisa discloses that the secondary particle form can be made up of a larger number of primary particles (see paragraph [0016]), therefore, the cross-sectional area of the second particles must be larger than the first particles. Additionally, given that Norihisa disclose that the primary particle diameter is 1-2 microns (see paragraph [0021]) and the secondary particles have average particle size of 2-20 microns (see paragraph [0017]), it is clear that the area percentage of the secondary particles would necessarily be greater than 50% while the area percentage of the primary particles would necessarily be less than 50%.
Regarding claim 18:
Norihisa in view of Leng disclose the electronic apparatus as set forth above.
Norihisa discloses an electrolyte solution that contains a 1:1 ratio of ethylene carbonate (i.e. cyclic carbonate, EC) and dimethyl carbonate (i.e. linear carbonate, DMC) (see paragraph [0028]). The molar mass of ethylene carbonate (i.e. cyclic carbonate) is 88.062 g/mol and the molar mass of dimethyl carbonate (i.e. linear carbonate) is 90.078 g/mol. In the 1:1 ratio that Norihisa discloses, the mass percentage of the ethylene carbonate (i.e. cyclic carbonate) is 49.43%. The ratio (w1/w2) is 1.02, such that w1 is the mass percentage of the dimethyl carbonate (i.e. linear carbonate) and w2 is the mass percentage of the ethylene carbonate (i.e. cyclic carbonate).
Regarding claim 19:
Norihisa in view of Leng disclose the electronic apparatus as set forth above.
Norihisa discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises lithium manganese oxide (i.e. lithium manganate) (see paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 20:
Norihisa in view of Leng disclose the electronic apparatus as set forth above.
Norihisa discloses that the positive electrode active material comprises aluminum and magnesium (see paragraph [0014]).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable under Norihisa (JP2015056384 A, “Norihisa”) in view of Leng et al. (US2021/0167366 A1, “Leng”) as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Wang et al. (US2023/0317961, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 11-13:
Norihisa in view of Leng disclose the first and second particles in the electrochemical apparatus as set forth above.
Norihisa in view of Leng does not disclose the electrolyte comprising a sulfonate compound as claimed where the mass percentage of the sulfonate compound is greater than or equal to 0.5% and less than or equal to 10%.
Wang discloses an electrochemical apparatus with a positive electrode containing primary and secondary particles (see paragraphs [0045, 0174]). Wang discloses that a cyclic sulfonate includes 1,3-propanesulfonate (i.e. I-1) in order to be effectively dissolved and improve high temperature performance (see paragraph [0105] and paragraph [0115]). Wang also discloses that the percentage of sulfur oxygen double bond containing compounds (i.e. sulfonates) is between 0.1% to 10% (see paragraph [0115]).
Therefore, in light of the motivation to use 1,3-propanesulfonate in an electrolyte in an amount of 0.1 to 10% disclosed by Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 1,3-propanesulfonate in the electrochemical apparatus as disclosed by Norihisa in view of Leng in order to improve the high temperature performance of the electrochemical apparatus.
Further, given that “A/B” in claim 11 only further limits an optional limitation of claim 3, the claim is considered met by Norihisa in view of Leng, further in view of Wang. Alternatively, given that Wang discloses the use of 0.01-10 wt.% sulfonate compound (see paragraph [0115]) and given that Norihisa discloses B is at least 50% (see claim 3 above), A/B is less than 0.002 – 0.2 (0.01/50 – 10/50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSH J ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-0580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 0800-1700.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/Joshua J Zacharia/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights