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 § 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 2-4 and 13 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “average molecular weight of 10,000 to 1,000,000, preferably 100,000 to 500,000, and more preferably 300,000.” It is unclear which numerical values serve as the boundaries of the claim. Please see MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I): Use of a narrow numerical range that falls within a broader range in the same claim may render the claim indefinite when the boundaries of the claim are not discernible. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim.
The examiner will interpret Claim 2 as, “The positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 1, wherein the polymer additive has an average molecular weight of 10,000 to 1,000,000.”
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “selected from one or more of NBR, HNBR, SBR, PVP and PAA, preferably one or more of NBR, HNBR and PVP, and more preferably NBR.” It is unclear which polymer additives are within the boundaries of the claim. Please see MPEP § 2173.05(d): Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.
The examiner will interpret Claim 3 as, “The positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries according to claim 1, wherein the polymer additive is selected from one or more of NBR, HNBR, SBR, PVP and PAA.”
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “0.001 wt% to 0.1 wt%, preferably 0.01 wt%.” It is unclear which numerical values serve as the boundaries of the claim. Please see MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I): Use of a narrow numerical range that falls within a broader range in the same claim may render the claim indefinite when the boundaries of the claim are not discernible. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim.
The examiner will interpret Claim 4 as, “The positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 1, wherein an addition amount of the polymer additive in the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries is 0.001 wt% to 0.1 wt%.”
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites “surface area of 20.2 m2/g to 23.8 m2/g, preferably 23.2 m2/g.” It is unclear which numerical values serve as the boundaries of the claim. Please see MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I): Use of a narrow numerical range that falls within a broader range in the same claim may render the claim indefinite when the boundaries of the claim are not discernible. Description of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim.
The examiner will interpret Claim 13 as, “The positive electrode plate for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 12, wherein lithium carbonate particles have a BET surface area of 20.2 m2/g to 23.8 m2/g.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US-20190207204-A1), hereafter referred to as Hong.
Regarding Claim 1, Hong teaches a positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries (“positive electrode additive and preparation method thereof, a positive electrode plate and a lithium-ion secondary battery,” paragraph 6) comprising lithium carbonate (“a positive electrode additive, which comprises a modified lithium carbonate,” paragraph 7) and a polymer additive as shown in Formula I or II [“the polymer may be one or more selected from a group consisting from poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), polyacrylic acid (PAA),” paragraph 16].
Regarding Claim 2, Hong teaches the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 1, wherein the polymer additive has an average molecular weight of 10,000 to 1,000,000 (“the weight-average molecular mass of the polymer is from 100,000 to 250,000,” paragraph 17).
Regarding Claim 3, Hong teaches that the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries according to claim 1, wherein the polymer additive is selected from one or more of NBR, HNBR, SBR, PVP and PAA [“the polymer may be one or more selected from a group consisting from poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), polyacrylic acid (PAA),” paragraph 16].
Regarding Claim 6, Hong teaches the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 1, wherein the positive electrode material comprises 90 wt% to 99 wt% of a positive electrode active material (“a positive electrode slurry was obtained, wherein, a mass ratio of PVDF, NCA, positive electrode additive and acetylene black was 3:100:3:2,” paragraph 43, where the positive electrode active material, NCA, is 92.6 wt %).
Regarding Claim 7, Hong teaches the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 6, wherein the positive electrode active material is selected from one or more of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide and lithium iron phosphate (“layered lithium metal oxide may be selected from lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), nickel cobalt manganese ternary material (NCM) and nickel cobalt aluminum ternary material (NCA),” paragraph 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Hong teaches the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 1, wherein the positive electrode material further comprises 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of a binder [“PVDF (binder),” paragraph 40; “a mass ratio of PVDF, NCM (523), the positive electrode additive and acetylene black was 3:100:1:2,” paragraph 40].
Regarding Claim 9, Hong teaches the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 8, wherein the binder is selected from one or more of polyvinylidene fluoride, carboxymethyl cellulose and styrene-butadiene rubber [“PVDF (binder),” paragraph 40].
Regarding Claim 10, Hong teaches the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 1, wherein the positive electrode material further comprises 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of a conductive agent (in all of Examples 1-5, paragraphs 35-43, a conductive agent is added at a wt% between .1% and 10%).
Regarding Claim 11, Hong teaches the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 10, wherein the conductive agent is selected from one or more of conductive carbon black, superconducting carbon black, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers and graphite conductive agents (“The conductive agent may be one or more selected from a group consisting of graphite, acetylene black, conductive carbon black, super conductive carbon black, graphene, carbon nanotube,” paragraph 24).
Regarding Claim 12, Hong teaches a positive electrode plate for lithium-ion batteries comprising the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 1 (“a positive electrode additive and a preparation method thereof, a positive electrode plate and a lithium-ion secondary battery,” paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Hong teaches the positive electrode plate for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 12, wherein lithium carbonate particles have a BET surface area of 20.2 m2/g to 23.8 m2/g (while Hong does not specify this, the production method and particle sizes taught in Hong, e.g. Examples 1-5 in paragraphs 35-43, are analogous to the instant application; it is, thus, assumed that this property is inherently met).
Regarding Claim 14, Hong teaches the positive electrode plate for lithium-ion batteries according to claim 12, wherein a size of an agglomeration of the lithium carbonate particles is less than 100 µm [“an average particle size (that is D50) of the lithium carbonate particle is from 20 nm to 20 μm,” paragraph 15].
Regarding Claim 15, Hong teaches the positive electrode plate for lithium-ion batteries according to claim 14, wherein the number of agglomerations of the lithium carbonate particles is not more than 2 (while Hong does not specify this, the production method and particle sizes taught in Hong, e.g. Examples 1-5 in paragraphs 35-43, are analogous to the instant application; it is, thus, assumed that this property is inherently met).
Regarding Claim 16, Hong teaches the positive electrode plate for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 14, wherein the agglomeration of the lithium carbonate has a density of no more than 0.08 particles/square centimeter (while Hong does not specify this, the production method and particle sizes taught in Hong, e.g. Examples 1-5 in paragraphs 35-43, are analogous to the instant application; it is, thus, assumed that this property is inherently met).
Regarding Claim 17, Hong teaches the positive electrode plate for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 12, wherein there is no agglomeration of lithium carbonate particles in the positive electrode plate for lithium-ion batteries (while Hong does not specify this, the production method and particle sizes taught in Hong, e.g. Examples 1-5 in paragraphs 35-43, are analogous to the instant application; it is, thus, assumed that this property is inherently met).
Regarding Claim 18, Hong teaches a lithium-ion battery, comprising the positive electrode plate for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 12 (“positive electrode additive and preparation method thereof, a positive electrode plate and a lithium-ion secondary battery,” paragraph 6).
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hong.
Regarding Claim 4, Hong teaches the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 1, wherein an addition amount of the polymer additive in the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries is 0.001 wt% to 0.1 wt% (“The positive electrode additive comprises a modified lithium carbonate. The modified lithium carbonate comprises a lithium carbonate particle and a polymer coating,” Abstract; “a content of the positive electrode additive is 0.5%-10% of a mass of the positive electrode active material,” paragraph 28; “a mass of the polymer coating is 1%-50% of a mass of the lithium carbonate particle,” paragraph 18). Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding Claim 5, Hong teaches the positive electrode material for lithium-ion batteries as claimed in claim 1, wherein the positive electrode material comprises 0.3 wt% to 1.0 wt% of lithium carbonate (“The positive electrode additive comprises a modified lithium carbonate. The modified lithium carbonate comprises a lithium carbonate particle and a polymer coating,” Abstract; “a content of the positive electrode additive is 0.5%-10% of a mass of the positive electrode active material,” paragraph 28; “a mass of the polymer coating is 1%-50% of a mass of the lithium carbonate particle,” paragraph 18). Please see MPEP § 2144.05(I): In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights