DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a final office action in response to Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on January 25, 2026. Claims 1, 23 and 24 are currently amended. Claims 17-19, 25 and 26 are canceled. Claims 27 and 28 are newly added. Claims 1-15, 20-24, 27 and 28 are pending review in this action. The previous 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s corresponding amendments.
New grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 15, 20, 23, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0223916, hereinafter Zhang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0117520, hereinafter Huang, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto and alternatively over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416331, hereinafter Dong, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0393246, hereinafter Yun and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,445, hereinafter Schmidt.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a lithium-ion battery cell. The lithium-ion battery cell includes a housing (“shell”), an electrode assembly and an electrolyte accommodated in the housing (“shell”) (paragraph [0056]).
The electrolyte comprises an electrolytic salt and a linear ester solvent (paragraphs [0018, 0024, 0032, 0033, 0035]). In a specific example, the linear ester solvent is the linear carbonate diethyl carbonate (DEC) and is present at 30 wt% (paragraph [0055]).
The electrolytic salt comprises the hexafluorophosphate LiPF6 and lithium fluorosulfonyl (trifluoromethane sulfonyl) imide (LiFTFSI) (paragraph [0024], Table 1 and Table 3).
In one specific example, LiPF6 is present at 0.4 M and the ratio of the molar concentration of LiFTFSI to LiPF6 is 1 (Table 3, Example 7).
In another specific example, LiPF6 is present at 0.6 M and the ratio of the molar concentration of LiFTFSI to LiPF6 is 1.25 (Table 3, Example 9).
Zhang teaches that the electrode assembly comprises a positive electrode (paragraph [0056]). The positive electrode comprises a lithium nickel cobalt manganate (paragraph [0044]). Lithium nickel cobalt manganate is a layered transition metal oxide.
Zhang fails to: 1) provide the stoichiometry of the lithium nickel cobalt manganate; 2) teach that the housing (“shell”) is cylindrical and has the claimed dimensions; and 3) teach that the housing (“shell”) includes the claimed film layer.
Regarding 1), Lithium nickel cobalt manganates (NCMs) are well-known positive active materials – see, e.g. Huang (paragraph [0076]).
One typical example is LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (paragraph [0076]). This compound satisfies the instantly claimed formula with a = 1, b = 0.6, c = 0.2, M = Mn, d = 0.2, e = 2 and f = 0.
Another typical example is LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (paragraph [0076]). This compound satisfies the instantly claimed formula with a = 1, b = 0.8, c = 0.1, M = Mn, d = 0.1, e = 2 and f = 0.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the stoichiometries taught by Huang without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding 2), it is well-known in the art that a cylindrical housing is a customary case for a lithium-ion battery. Hwangbo teaches a case (20 and 30), which is a cylindrical structure having a specified form factor. The form factor is defined as the ratio of the diameter to the height of the battery cell and has a preferred value of greater than 0.4 (paragraphs [0040, 0300]). Specific examples have form factors of 0.418, 0.436, 0.575, 0.6 and 0.640 (paragraphs [0301-0305]).
Hwangbo’s form factor is the inverse of the instantly claimed ratio. Thus, Hwangbo’s preferred examples have ratios of the axial direction dimension (height) to the radial direction dimension (diameter) of 2.39, 2.29, 1.74, 1.67 and 1.56 (paragraphs [0301-0305]) – all well within the instantly claimed range. Further, all of the examples have axial direction dimensions (heights) and radial direction dimensions (diameters) within the instantly claimed ranges as detailed below:
The example with a ratio of 2.39 has an axial direction dimension (height) of 110 mm and a radial direction dimension (diameter) of 46 mm (paragraph [0301]).
The example with a ratio of 2.29 has an axial direction dimension (height) of 110 mm and a radial direction dimension (diameter) of 48 mm (paragraph [0303]).
The example with a ratio of 1.74 has an axial direction dimension (height) of 80 mm and a radial direction dimension (diameter) of 46 mm (paragraph [0305]).
The example with a ratio of 1.67 has an axial direction dimension (height) of 80 mm and a radial direction dimension (diameter) of 48 mm (paragraph [0304]).
The example with a ratio of 1.56 has an axial direction dimension (height) of 75 mm and a radial direction dimension (diameter) of 48 mm (paragraph [0302]).
Hwangbo teaches that the preferred form factor leads to an increased energy density, enhanced safety against thermal runaway and improved cooling efficiency (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hwangbo’s improved cylindrical case to house Zhang’s electrolyte and electrode assembly for the purpose of maximizing the safety, energy density and cooling efficiency of the battery cell.
Regarding 3), Hwangbo teaches that the shell (20 and 30) includes a body formed of steel and a nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) formed on a surface thereof (paragraphs [0047, 0052, 0053]). The shell (20) is intended to be electrically conductive and is electrically connected to the electrode assembly (paragraph [0180]).
Goto teaches a nickel-plated steel sheet for a battery container (paragraphs [0002, 0040]). Goto teaches that the average composition of the entire nickel plating is 50% to 95% by mass Ni and 5% to 50% by mass Fe (paragraph [0043]).
Goto teaches that the preparation process of the material causes a diffusion of carbon from the steel into the nickel plating (“film layer”) (paragraphs [0032, 0034, 0048]). Specifically, Goto teaches that this diffusion causes a carbon concentration equal to or more than twice of the carbon concentration in the base steel (paragraph [0048]). Goto teaches that this increased carbon concentration improves the adhesion between the base steel sheet and the nickel plating (“film layer”).
Goto teaches a carbon concentration in the base steel sheet of 0.057 wt% (Table 1). Thus, the carbon concentration found in the nickel plating (“film layer”) is understood to be greater than 0.114 wt%. As such, the combination of Zhang, Hwangbo and Gogo is understood to teach a range of possible carbon concentrations that overlaps the instantly claimed range of 4wt% to 12wt%.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Hwangbo’s nickel-plated layer, such that it includes a Ni alloy layer (“film”) including 90% or more by mass of Ni and 5% or less by mass of Fe and greater than 0.114 wt% C and such that the nickel-plated layer faces the electrolyte for the purpose of providing corrosion resistance to the shell (20 and 30).
The optimum range of Zhang as modified by Hwangbo and Goto for the composition of the nickel plating (“film layer”) overlaps the instant application's optimum ranges of at least 70 wt% Ni, 1 wt% to 5 wt% Fe and 4 wt% to 12 wt% C. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Alternatively, it is known in the art to add carbon black to battery housings that are intended to be electrically conductive for the purpose of enhancing their electrical conductivity – see, e.g. Dong (paragraph [0092]). It is also known to surface-treat steel with carbon and nickel to form electrically conductive battery elements – see, e.g. Yun (paragraph [0048]). Further, Schmidt teaches a battery housing comprising a steel sheet electroplated with nickel and including carbon black in the electroplated coating at a concentration of 0.7 wt% to 15 wt% (col. 2, lines 1-17; col. 3, lines 45-49). In a specific example, Schmidt teaches 9 wt% (col. 4, lines 49-54).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include carbon in the nickel plating (“film layer”) at a concentration of 9 wt% for the purpose of enhancing the electrical conductivity of the housing (“shell”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches that the linear ester solvent is the linear carbonate DEC and is present at 30 wt% (paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Zhang teaches the linear carbonate DEC (paragraph [0055]. DEC is represented by instantly claimed formula I-3.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the shell (20 and 30) comprises a can (20, “housing”) and a cap (30, “end cover”) (Hwangbo’s figure 6).
The can (20, “housing”) comprises a side wall and an end wall (20a) connected to the side wall (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0179]. The can (20, “housing”) has an opening (paragraph [0179]). The cap (30, “end cover”) is connected to the side wall via an intermediate member and seals the opening (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0188] and figure 13).
The end wall (20a) and the cap (30, “end cover”) are opposite each other along the axial direction (z-direction) of the “shell” (Hwangbo’s figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the side wall is formed of steel (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0179]). A thickness of the side wall is in the range 0.3 mm to 0.8 mm (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the side wall and the end wall (20a) are integrally formed (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0179]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the cap (30, “end cover”) is provided with a pressure relief mechanism (31) (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0190]).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches an electrode terminal (40) disposed on the end wall (20a) (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0161] and figure 5).
The electrode assembly (10) is accommodated in the can (20, “housing”) (figure 6). The electrode assembly (10) comprises a first current collector (80, “tab”) and a second current collector (60, “tab”) (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0161]).
The first current collector (80, “tab”) is electrically connected to the end wall (20a) (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0213, 0253] and figure 13). The second current collector (60, “tab”) is electrically connected to the electrode terminal (40) (Hwangbo’s paragraphs [0195, 0197] and figure 7).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang’s battery cell is itself a battery.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Zhang teaches the sulfonylimide LiFTFSI.
LiFTFSI comprises an anion represented by instantly claimed formula A-3 (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 27, Zhang as modified by Huang teaches the compound LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (paragraph [0076]). This compound satisfies the instantly claimed formula with a = 1, b = 0.8, c = 0.1, M = Mn, d = 0.1, e = 2 and f = 0.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0223916, hereinafter Zhang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0117520, hereinafter Huang, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto and alternatively over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416331, hereinafter Dong, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0393246, hereinafter Yun and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,445, hereinafter Schmidt as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,541,162, hereinafter Song.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches that the linear ester solvent comprises a linear carboxylate and a linear carbonate (paragraphs [0032-0035]). Zhang explicitly recites the linear carboxylates methyl acetate (MA), ethyl acetate (EA) and propyl acetate (paragraph [0035]) and the linear carbonates dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate (paragraph [0034]).
Zhang does not specify the relative concentrations of the linear carboxylate and linear carbonate.
Song teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery (abstract). The electrolyte comprises a lithium salt and a solvent (col. 3, lines 49-51). The solvent is a mixture of an alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) and a linear carbonate (col. 3, lines 52-54). The alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) is present in the range 5 vol% to 60 vol% (col. 3, line 54).
Song’s examples of suitable linear carboxylates are the same as Zhang’s - methyl acetate (MA), ethyl acetate, propyl acetate (col. 3, lines 62-65).
Song’s examples of suitable linear carbonates are also the same as Zhang’s - dimethyl carbonate (DMC), diethyl carbonate, methyl ethyl carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate (col. 3, lines 56-59).
In a specific example, Song teaches a mixture of electrolyte solvents including DMC, MA and the cyclic carbonate EC. The composition is 30 vol% DMC, 40 vol% MA and 30 vol% EC (Table 1, Example 4). Using the densities of the solvents (DMC – 1.07 g/ml, MA – 0.934 g/ml and EC – 1.32 g/ml), it can be calculated that DMC is present at 29 wt% and MA is present at 34 wt%.
Song teaches that the composition of the solvent provides improved low temperature performance and safety (col. 6, lines 44-46).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a concentration for the linear carboxylate within the claimed range for the purpose of assuring an improved low temperature performance and safety for the battery as taught by Song.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang as modified by Song teaches a linear carboxylate such as MA, EA or propyl acetate (Zhang’s paragraph [0035] and Song’s col. 3, lines 62-65).
These solvents satisfy instantly claimed Formula II as follows:
in MA, R21 and R22 are a C1 alkyl group;
in EA, R21 is a C1 alkyl group and R22 is a C2 alkyl group; and
in propyl acetate, R21 is a C1 alkyl group and R22 is a C3 alkyl group.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang as modified by Song teaches a linear carboxylate such as MA, EA or propyl acetate (Zhang’s paragraph [0035] and Song’s col. 3, lines 62-65).
MA is represented by instantly claimed Formula II-3. EA is represented by instantly claimed Formula II-2.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang as modified by Song teaches that the electrolyte contains a mixture of three types of solvents – a cyclic carbonate, a chain (“linear”) carbonate and an alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) (Zhang’s paragraphs [0032, 0033, 0035] and Song’s col. 3, lines 49-54).
The chain (“linear”) carbonate may be DMC (formula I-1) (Zhang’s paragraph [0034] and Song’s col. 3, lines 56-57).
The chain (“linear”) carbonate may be present at 20 vol% to 70 vol% (Song’s col. 3, lines 53-54).
The alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) may be a mixture of MA (formula II-3) and EA (formula II-2) (Zhang’s paragraph [0035] and Song’s col. 3, lines 62-65).
The alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) may be present at 5 vol% to 60 vol% (Song’s col. 3, lines 53-54).
As such, Song at least teaches overlapping ranges for the concentration of the solvents. The optimum concentration ranges of Zhang as modified by Song overlap the instant application's optimum concentration ranges. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Alternatively, in specific examples, Song teaches including the chain (“linear”) carbonate DMC at 30 vol% and the alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) at 40 vol% (in addition to the cyclic carbonate EC at 30 vol%) (Table 1, Examples 3-5).
Given Song’s teaching that the alkyl acetate (“linear carboxylate”) may be a mixture of MA and EA, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include MA and EA together at 40 vol%.
Assuming equal concentrations of MA and EA, the composition would be 30 vol% DMC, 20 vol% MA, 20 vol% EA and 30 vol% EC.
Using the densities of the solvents, it can be calculated that DMC would be present at 30 wt% and MA and EA together would be present at 34 wt%.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0223916, hereinafter Zhang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0117520, hereinafter Huang, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto and alternatively over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416331, hereinafter Dong, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0393246, hereinafter Yun and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,445, hereinafter Schmidt as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0162501, hereinafter Shin.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the pressure relief mechanism (31) comprises a weak portion. The weak portion is formed by reducing the thickness of the cap (30, “end cover”) (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0190]).
Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the cap (30, “end cover”) is formed of metal (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0188]).
Zhang as modified by Hwangbo fails to specify that the metal is steel and to specify the value of the thickness of the weak portion.
Given that the can (20, “housing”) is formed of steel, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select steel as the metal used for the cap (30, “end cover”) without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Shin reference is commonly owned with Hwangbo and directed to an analogous cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell (100) (figures 1 and 2). The cylindrical battery cell (100) includes a case (110, “housing”) and a cap plate (170, “end cover”) sealing the opening of the case (110, “housing”) (paragraph [0039]). The cap plate (170, “end cover”) includes the same pressure relief mechanism (175) as does Hwangbo’s assembly. The pressure relief mechanism (175) comprises a weak portion formed by reducing the thickness of the cap plate (70, “end cover”) (paragraphs [0074, 0075]). Shin teaches that a thickness of the weak portion is in the range 0.05 mm to 0.35 mm (paragraph [0075]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the weak portion of Zhang as modified by Hwangbo with a thickness in the range 0.05 mm to 0.35 mm for the purpose of ensuring that the weak portion ruptures appropriately in response to building pressure inside the shell (20 and 30).
The optimum range of Zhang as modified by Hwangbo and Shin for the thickness of the weak portion overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.01 mm to 0.3 mm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the cap (30, “end cover”) is provided with a notch (“recess”). A bottom wall of the notch (“recess”) is the weak portion (Hwangbo’s paragraph [0190] and figures 13 and 14).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0223916, hereinafter Zhang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0117520, hereinafter Huang, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto and alternatively over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416331, hereinafter Dong, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0393246, hereinafter Yun and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,445, hereinafter Schmidt as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. 101882696, hereinafter Li. (A machine translation of Li was provided with a prior office action).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang teaches that the electrolyte solvent may include a variety of linear carbonates such as DMC, DEC, EMC (paragraph [0034]).
Zhang fails to teach the instantly claimed fluorinated linear carbonates.
Li teaches an electrolyte comprising a sulfonyl imide as an electrolytic salt and a variety of solvents, which include the same linear carbonates taught by Zhang, as well as their fluorinated counterparts (abstract and paragraph [0032]). Specifically, Li teaches fluorinated dimethyl carbonate (DMC-f) and fluorinated diethyl carbonate (DEC-f) in various examples (Table 1). DMC-f is represented by instantly claimed formula I-4 and DEC-f is represented by instantly claimed formula I-6.
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fluorinated linear carbonate solvents taught by Li without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success as they are known variants in the art used for the same purpose.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0223916, hereinafter Zhang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0117520, hereinafter Huang, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto and alternatively over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416331, hereinafter Dong, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0393246, hereinafter Yun and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,445, hereinafter Schmidt and U.S. Patent No. 6,541,162, hereinafter Song as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. 101882696, hereinafter Li. (A machine translation of Li was provided with a prior office action).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang as modified by Song teaches that the electrolyte solvent may include a variety of linear carboxylates such as MA and EA (Zhang’s paragraph [0035] and Song’s col. 3, lines 62-65).
Zhang as modified by Song fails to teach the instantly claimed fluorinated linear carboxylates.
Li teaches an electrolyte comprising a sulfonyl imide as an electrolytic salt and a variety of solvents, which include the same linear carboxylates taught by Zhang and Song, as well as their fluorinated counterparts (abstract and paragraph [0042]). Specifically, Li teaches in various examples fluorinated methyl acetate (MA-f) and fluorinated ethyl acetate (EA-f) (Table 1). MA-f is represented by instantly claimed formula II-5 and EA-f is represented by instantly claimed formula II-6.
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fluorinated linear carboxylate solvents taught by Li without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success as they are known variants in the art used for the same purpose.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0223916, hereinafter Zhang in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0117520, hereinafter Huang, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto and alternatively over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416331, hereinafter Dong, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0393246, hereinafter Yun and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,445, hereinafter Schmidt as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2025/0329895, hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 28, Zhang as modified by Hwangbo teaches that the shell (20 and 30) includes a body formed of steel and a nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) formed on a surface thereof (Hwangbo’s paragraphs [0047, 0052, 0053])
Zhang as modified by Hwangbo fails to teach that a matrix material of the body is aluminum, copper or aluminum alloy.
Chen teaches a nickel-plated battery casing (110) that can be made of copper, aluminum, aluminum alloy or steel (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select copper, aluminum or aluminum alloy as a matrix material of the body as these are well-known alternatives in the art used for the same purpose.
Claims 1-4, 9-12, 15, 20, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0117520, hereinafter Huang, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0181311, hereinafter Iwanaga, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto and alternatively over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416331, hereinafter Dong, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0393246, hereinafter Yun and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,445, hereinafter Schmidt.
Regarding claim 1, Hwangbo teaches a lithium-ion battery cell (1). The battery cell (1) comprises a shell (20 and 30), an electrode assembly (10) and an electrolyte (paragraph [0161] and figure 5).
The electrode assembly (10) and the electrolyte are accommodated in the shell (20 and 30) (paragraph [0179]).
The shell (20 and 30) is a cylindrical structure having a specified form factor. The form factor is defined as the ratio of the diameter to the height of the battery cell and has a preferred value of greater than 0.4 (paragraphs [0040, 0300]). Specific examples have form factors of 0.418, 0.436, 0.575, 0.6 and 0.640 (paragraphs [0301-0305]).
Hwangbo’s form factor is the inverse of the instantly claimed ratio. Thus, Hwangbo’s preferred examples have ratios of the axial direction dimension (height) to the radial direction dimension (diameter) of 2.39, 2.29, 1.74, 1.67 and 1.56 (paragraphs [0301-0305]) – all well within the instantly claimed range. Further, all of the examples have axial direction dimensions (heights) and radial direction dimensions (diameters) within the instantly claimed ranges as detailed below:
The example with a ratio of 2.39 has an axial direction dimension (height) of 110 mm and a radial direction dimension (diameter) of 46 mm (paragraph [0301]).
The example with a ratio of 2.29 has an axial direction dimension (height) of 110 mm and a radial direction dimension (diameter) of 48 mm (paragraph [0303]).
The example with a ratio of 1.74 has an axial direction dimension (height) of 80 mm and a radial direction dimension (diameter) of 46 mm (paragraph [0305]).
The example with a ratio of 1.67 has an axial direction dimension (height) of 80 mm and a radial direction dimension (diameter) of 48 mm (paragraph [0304]).
The example with a ratio of 1.56 has an axial direction dimension (height) of 75 mm and a radial direction dimension (diameter) of 48 mm (paragraph [0302]).
Hwangbo teaches that the shell (20 and 30) includes a body formed of steel and a nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) formed on a surface thereof (paragraphs [0047, 0052, 0053]).
Hwangbo teaches that the electrolyte comprises various linear ester solvents, such as ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) (paragraph [0178]).
Hwangbo teaches that the electrolyte comprises an electrolytic salt, which may be a hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) and a sulfonylimide (paragraph [0177]).
Hwangbo teaches that the electrode assembly (10) comprises a positive electrode comprising a lithium transition metal oxide including Ni, Co and Mn (paragraph [0169]).
Hwangbo fails to: 1) teach the stoichiometry of the lithium transition metal oxide; 2) specify the concentration of the linear ester solvents, the molar concentration of LiPF6 and the ratio of a molar concentration of the sulfonylimide to LiPF6 in the electrolyte and 3) teach the mass percentage of Ni, Fe and carbon in the nickel-plated layer.
Regarding 1), lithium transition metal oxides including Ni, Co and Mn (NCMs) are well-known positive active materials – see, e.g. Huang (paragraph [0076]).
One typical example is LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 (paragraph [0076]). This compound satisfies the instantly claimed formula with a = 1, b = 0.6, c = 0.2, M = Mn, d = 0.2, e = 2 and f = 0.
Another typical example is LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (paragraph [0076]). This compound satisfies the instantly claimed formula with a = 1, b = 0.8, c = 0.1, M = Mn, d = 0.1, e = 2 and f = 0.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the stoichiometries taught by Huang without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding 2), Iwanaga teaches an electrolyte for a lithium-ion battery comprising the same linear ester solvents taught by Hwangbo and some of the same lithium salts taught by Hwangbo (paragraphs [0105, 0106]). Iwanaga’s lithium-ion battery also has the same classes of active materials as taught by Hwangbo (paragraphs [0039-0042]).
Iwanaga teaches a multitude of examples, which meet the instantly claimed concentration requirement for the linear ester solvent (paragraphs [0045, 0048-0060, 0076, 0091]).
In the interest of brevity, the remainder of the present grounds of rejection will address just one example – Example 14, paragraph [0060]. In Example 14, Iwanaga teaches a mixture of electrolyte solvents including the linear ester solvents EMC and DEC. EMC and DEC are present at 41.4 wt% and 26.8 wt%, respectively. Together, the two linear ester solvents account for approximately 68 wt% of the electrolyte.
Iwanaga further teaches that the electrolyte includes LiPF6 and the sulfonylimide LITFSI or LiBETI (paragraph [0032]). In Example 14, paragraph [0060], Iwanaga teaches that the electrolyte comprises LiPF6 (“the hexafluorophosphate”) and LiBETI (“the sulfonylimide”). The molar concentration of LiPF6 is 0.5M (paragraph [0060]). The ratio of a molar concentration of LiBETI (“a sulfonylimide”) to LiPF6 (“a hexafluorophosphate”) is 1 (paragraph [0060]).
The ordinarily skilled artist would have to select concentrations when forming an electrolyte for Hwangbo’s battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the electrolyte with the concentrations taught by Iwanaga as they are used in the art for a battery of the same chemistry and are shown to result in good performance.
Regarding 3), Goto teaches a nickel-plated steel sheet for a battery container (paragraphs [0002, 0040]). The nickel plating (“film”) is disposed on both surfaces of the steel sheet (paragraph [0042]). Goto teaches that the average composition of the entire nickel plating is 50% to 95% by mass Ni and 5% to 50% by mass Fe (paragraph [0043]).
Goto teaches that the preparation process of the material causes a diffusion of carbon from the steel into the nickel plating (“film layer”) (paragraphs [0032, 0034, 0048]). Specifically, Goto teaches that this diffusion causes a carbon concentration equal to or more than twice of the carbon concentration in the base steel (paragraph [0048]). Goto teaches that this increased carbon concentration improves the adhesion between the base steel sheet and the nickel plating (“film layer”).
Goto teaches a carbon concentration in the base steel sheet of 0.057 wt% (Table 1). Thus, the carbon concentration found in the nickel plating (“film layer”) is understood to be greater than 0.114 wt%.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Hwangbo’s nickel-plated layer, such that it includes a Ni alloy layer (“film”) including 90% or more by mass of Ni, 5% or less by mass of Fe and greater than 0.114 wt% C, and such that the nickel-plated layer faces the electrolyte for the purpose of providing corrosion resistance to the shell (20 and 30).
The optimum range of Hwangbo as modified by Goto for the composition of the nickel plating (“film layer”) overlaps the instant application's optimum ranges of 70 wt% or more Ni, 1 wt% to 5 wt% Fe, and 4 wt% to 12 wt% C. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Alternatively, it is known in the art to add carbon black to battery housings that are intended to be electrically conductive for the purpose of enhancing their electrical conductivity – see, e.g. Dong (paragraph [0092]). It is also known to surface-treat steel with carbon and nickel to form electrically conductive battery elements – see, e.g. Yun (paragraph [0048]). Further, Schmidt teaches a battery housing comprising a steel sheet electroplated with nickel and including carbon black in the electroplated coating at a concentration of 0.7 wt% to 15 wt% (col. 2, lines 1-17; col. 3, lines 45-49). In a specific example, Schmidt teaches 9 wt% (col. 4, lines 49-54).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include carbon in the nickel plating (“film layer”) at a concentration of 9 wt% for the purpose of enhancing the electrical conductivity of the housing (“shell”).
Regarding claim 2, Hwangbo as modified by Iwanaga teaches that the linear ester solvent is a mixture of the linear carbonates EMC and DEC (Iwanaga’s paragraph [0060]). The mass percentage of the mixture of EMC and DEC in the electrolyte is approximately 68%.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Hwangbo as modified by Iwanaga teaches the linear carbonates EMC and DEC (Iwanaga’s paragraph [0060]). EMC is represented by instantly claimed formula I-2. DEC is represented by instantly claimed formula I-3.
Regarding claim 9, Hwangbo teaches that the shell (20 and 30) comprises a can (20, “housing”) and a cap (30, “end cover”) (figure 6).
The can (20, “housing”) comprises a side wall and an end wall (20a) connected to the side wall (paragraph [0179]. The can (20, “housing”) has an opening (paragraph [0179]). The cap (30, “end cover”) is connected to the side wall via an intermediate member and seals the opening (paragraph [0188] and figure 13).
The end wall (20a) and the cap (30, “end cover”) are opposite each other along the axial direction (z-direction) of the “shell” (figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Hwangbo teaches that the side wall is formed of steel (paragraph [0179]). A thickness of the side wall is in the range 0.3 mm to 0.8 mm (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 11, Hwangbo teaches that the side wall and the end wall (20a) are integrally formed (paragraph [0179]).
Regarding claim 12, Hwangbo teaches that the cap (30, “end cover”) is provided with a pressure relief mechanism (31) (paragraph [0190]).
Regarding claim 15, Hwangbo teaches an electrode terminal (40) disposed on the end wall (20a) (paragraph [0161] and figure 5).
The electrode assembly (10) is accommodated in the can (20, “housing”) (figure 6). The electrode assembly (10) comprises a first current collector (80, “tab”) and a second current collector (60, “tab”) (paragraph [0161]).
The first current collector (80, “tab”) is electrically connected to the end wall (20a) (paragraph [0213, 0253] and figure 13). The second current collector (60, “tab”) is electrically connected to the electrode terminal (40) (paragraphs [0195, 0197] and figure 7).
Regarding claim 20, Hwangbo’s battery cell (1) is itself a battery. Further, Hwangbo teaches a battery (3) comprising multiple battery cells (1) (paragraph [0308] and figure 24).
Regarding claim 23, Hwangbo teaches a sulfonylimide comprising the anions represented by instantly claimed formulas A-1, A-2 and A-4 (paragraph [0177]).
Hwangbo as modified by Iwanaga teaches the sulfonylimide LiBETI (paragraph [0060]). LiBETI includes the anion represented by instantly claimed formula A-4.
Regarding claim 27, Hwangbo as modified by Huang teaches the compound LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 (paragraph [0076]). This compound satisfies the instantly claimed formula with a = 1, b = 0.8, c = 0.1, M = Mn, d = 0.1, e = 2 and f = 0.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0117520, hereinafter Huang, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0181311, hereinafter Iwanaga, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto and alternatively over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416331, hereinafter Dong, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0393246, hereinafter Yun and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,445, hereinafter Schmidt as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0162501, hereinafter Shin.
Regarding claim 13, Hwangbo teaches that the pressure relief mechanism (31) comprises a weak portion. The weak portion is formed by reducing the thickness of the cap (30, “end cover”) (paragraph [0190]).
Hwangbo teaches that the cap (30, “end cover”) is formed of metal (paragraph [0188]).
Hwangbo fails to specify that the metal is steel and to specify the value of the thickness of the weak portion.
Given that the can (20, “housing”) is formed of steel, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select steel as the metal used for the cap (30, “end cover”) without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Shin reference is commonly owned with Hwangbo and directed to an analogous cylindrical lithium-ion battery cell (100) (figures 1 and 2). The cylindrical battery cell (100) includes a case (110, “housing”) and a cap plate (170, “end cover”) sealing the opening of the case (110, “housing”) (paragraph [0039]). The cap plate (170, “end cover”) includes the same pressure relief mechanism (175) as does Hwangbo’s assembly. The pressure relief mechanism (175) comprises a weak portion formed by reducing the thickness of the cap plate (70, “end cover”) (paragraphs [0074, 0075]). Shin teaches that a thickness of the weak portion is in the range 0.05 mm to 0.35 mm (paragraph [0075]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Hwangbo’s weak portion with a thickness in the range 0.05 mm to 0.35 mm for the purpose of ensuring that the weak portion ruptures appropriately in response to building pressure inside the shell (20 and 30).
The optimum range of Hwangbo as modified by Shin for the thickness of the weak portion overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 0.01 mm to 0.3 mm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Hwangbo teaches that the cap (30, “end cover”) is provided with a notch (“recess”). A bottom wall of the notch (“recess”) is the weak portion (paragraph [0190] and figures 13 and 14).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0231345, hereinafter Hwangbo in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0117520, hereinafter Huang, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2009/0181311, hereinafter Iwanaga, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0403539, hereinafter Goto and alternatively over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0416331, hereinafter Dong, U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0393246, hereinafter Yun and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,445, hereinafter Schmidt as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2025/0329895, hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 28, Hwangbo teaches that the shell (20 and 30) includes a body formed of steel and a nickel-plated layer (“film layer”) formed on a surface thereof (paragraphs [0047, 0052, 0053])
Hwangbo fails to teach that a matrix material of the body is aluminum, copper or aluminum alloy.
Chen teaches a nickel-plated battery casing (110) that can be made of copper, aluminum, aluminum alloy or steel (paragraph [0053]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select copper, aluminum or aluminum alloy as a matrix material of the body as these are well-known alternatives in the art used for the same purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s newly added limitations have been considered. However, after further search and consideration, the combination of the Zhang, Huang, Hwangbo, Goto and alternatively Dong, Yun and Schmidt references and the combination of the Hwangbo, Huang, Iwanaga, Goto and alternatively Dong, Yun and Schmidt references have been provided, as recited above, to address the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
LILIA V. NEDIALKOVA
Examiner
Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights