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 § 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 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 111628219 A).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Xu teaches an electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery for an electronic device to generally have a solvent, an additive, and a lithium salt (Background of the Invention, ¶1, Page 01/12). Xu teaches the liquid retention amount of the electrolyte is 0.5 g/Ah to 4.0 g/Ah (Summary of the Invention, ¶10, Page 04/12). Xu teaches electrolyte additives A, B, C, D, E, and F wherein the content of additive A is 0.01 wt % to 5 wt % (Summary of the Invention, ¶6 and ¶8, Page 03/12) and the content of additive B is 0.01 wt % to 7 wt %, the content of additive C is 0.01 wt % to 7 wt %, the content of additive D is 0.01 wt % to 7 wt %, the content of additive E is 0.01 wt % to 5 wt %, and the content of additive F is 0.01 wt % to 7 wt %, each based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Other Additive, ¶2-6, Page 03/12). Xu teaches lithium bis(oxalate)borate (Other Additive, additive E ¶5, Page 03/12), vinyl ethylene carbonate (VEC) (Other Additive, additive B ¶2, Page 03/12), methylene methane disulfonate (MMDS) (Other Additive, additive C ¶3, Page 03/12), and 1,3-propane sultone (Other Additive, additive C ¶3, Page 03/12) which is analogous to prop-1-ene-1,3-sultone of the instant claim.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of (1) electrolyte retention g/Ah and (2) additive mass % of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Xu teaches the liquid retention amount of the electrolyte is 0.5 g/Ah to 4.0 g/Ah (Summary of the Invention, ¶10, Page 04/12) as in Claims 1 and 11 above.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of electrolyte retention g/Ah of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, values of Xu for electrolyte retention coefficient “a” and mass percent of additive based on a total mass of the electrolyte solution “b” may be selected as 0.5 g/Ah and 5% respectively, and thus -1.6≤ln(a*b)≤1.8 of the instant claims may be satisfied by -1.6≤ln(0.5*5)≤1.8.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Xu teaches the electrolyte may further include an additive B which includes vinylene carbonate (VC), and the content of additive B is 0.01 wt % to 7 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Other Additive, additive B ¶2, Page 03/12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of additive mass % of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, values of Xu for mass percentage of vinylene carbonate additive based on a total mass of the electrolyte solution “c” and electrolyte retention coefficient “a” may be selected as 1 wt % and 0.5 g/Ah respectively, and thus 0.003≤c/a≤3 of the instant claims may be satisfied by 0.003≤1/0.5≤3.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Xu teaches the electrolyte may further include an additive C which includes at least one of 1,3-propane sultone (PS) and 1,4-butane sultone (BS), and the content of additive C is 0.01 wt % to 7 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Other Additive, additive C ¶3, Page 03/12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of additive mass % of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Xu teaches the electrolyte may further include an additive E which includes at least one of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate, lithium difluorophosphate (LiDFP), and lithiumtetrafluoroborate, and the content of additive E is 0.01 wt % to 5 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Other Additive, additive E ¶5, Page 03/12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of additive mass % of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Xu teaches the electrolyte may further include an additive D which includes at least one of succinonitrile, adiponitrile, 1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile, and 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane wherein 1,2-bis(cyanoethoxy)ethane is anaologous to 1,2-bis(2-cyanoethoxy)ethane, and the content of additive D is 0.01 wt % to 7 wt % based on the total weight of the electrolyte (Other Additive, additive D ¶4, Page 03/12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of additive mass % of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Xu teaches the compaction density of the positive active material layer to be 2.5 to 4.6 g/cm3 (Test Result, Table 4 and ¶6-7, Page 11/12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of positive active material layer compaction densities of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 111628219 A) as in Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19 above, further in view of Xiao et al. (US 2021/0194095 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Xu does not teach the tortuosity of a separator. Xiao teaches tortuosity of films as having values between 1.6 and 2.2, and tortuosity values above 2.0 may be a cause for the increased puncture strength and mix penetration average values where a more tortuous film is also believed to be safer when used as a battery separator for a lithium-ion battery (Paragraph [0175]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range for tortuosity of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, values of Xiao for tortuosity “d” combined with values of Xu for electrolyte retention coefficient “a” may be selected as 2.0 and 1.0 g/Ah respectively, and thus 0.6≤d/a≤3 of the instant claims may be satisfied by 0.6≤(2.0/1.0)≤3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a separator for a lithium-ion battery having a tortuosity range as taught by Xiao with the lithium-ion battery for an electronic device as taught by Xu in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as providing a safer battery separator when the separator exhibits increased average Dielectric Breakdown (DB), increased minimum DB, increased shutdown speed, and increased tortuosity as taught by Xiao (Paragraph [0380]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 111628219 A) as in Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19 above, further in view of Ishii (US 2017/0149100 A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Xu does not teach the electrolyte solution to further comprise an aromatic compound. Ishii teaches a compound for a nonaqueous electrolyte used in fabricating a battery such as biphenyl (BP), cyclohexylbenzene (CHB), 4,4′-difluorobiphenyl, o-cyclohexyl fluorobenzene, and p-cyclohexyl fluorobenzene (Paragraph [0067]). Ishii also teaches the concentration of said additive is about 4 mass % or more based on 100 mass % of the nonaqueous electrolyte (Paragraph [0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of additive mass % of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an aromatic compound for a nonaqueous electrolyte as taught by Ishii with an electrolyte of a lithium-ion battery for an electronic device as taught by Xu in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as increasing reliability of a battery by enabling rapid and accurate CID operation by use of such compounds in an electrolyte which can generate a large amount of gas when decomposed upon the battery voltage exceeding a predetermined voltage as taught by Ishii (Paragraphs [0066], [0068]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (CN 111628219 A) as in Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 14-17, and 19 above, further evidenced by Electrodes And More (Product Data Sheet – Lithium Nickel Manganese Cobalt Oxide NMC 5:3:2).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Xu teaches a separator thickness of 16 µm (Preparation of Lithium-Ion Battery, (4) Preparation of Separator, Page 09/12). Xu teaches the use of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 as the positive electrode active material (Preparation of Lithium-Ion Battery, (1) Preparation of Positive Electrode, Page 09/12) but does not teach an average particle size Dv50 of the positive active material.
Electrodes And More provides a product data sheet for lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide in the form of NMC 5:3:2 with chemical formula LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3O2 as used in Xu as the positive electrode active material (Preparation of Lithium-Ion Battery, (1) Preparation of Positive Electrode, Page 09/12), wherein the D50 for average particle size is reported as 9-13 µm, typically 11.02 µm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of positive active material average particle sizes of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, values of Electrodes And More for positive active material average particle size Dv50 “k” combined with values of Xu for separator thickness “i” may be selected as 10 µm and 16 µm respectively, and thus 5 µm≤i+k≤60 µm of the instant claims may be satisfied by 5 µm≤10+16≤60 µm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the NMC 532 positive active material average particle size as evidenced by Electrodes And More with the positive electrode material of a lithium-ion battery for an electronic device as taught by Xu in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as utilizing a positive electrode active material and its characteristics well-known in the art to yield a predictable result. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights