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 .
Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 11. The pending claims are claims 1-20.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/5/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al., CN 116598572.
Regarding claim 1, Guo et al., teaches a lithium ion battery (abstract), comprising:
a negative electrode (n0003);
a separator (n0063; n0089) disposed on one side of the negative electrode (n0052);
a positive electrode (n0009) disposed on one side of the separator (n0063; n0089) facing away from the negative electrode (n0063), wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive active layer (n0013) and a positive current collector layer (n0015), the positive active layer (n0017-n0022) is disposed on a surface of the positive current collector layer (n0015), and the positive active layer comprises a plurality of lithium supplement particles (n0019; n0071); the lithium supplement particle comprises a matrix (interface film) (n0013) and a coating layer (n0012; n0017-n0019; n0052-n0056), the coating layer is disposed on an outer surface of the matrix (n0013; n0052; n0071; n0075) and an electrolyte (n0013; n0064), wherein at least part of the positive electrode and at least part of the negative electrode are immersed in the electrolyte (n0064), the electrolyte comprises a borate-based additive (n0010; n0040), and a mass fraction w1 of the borate-based additive in the electrolyte satisfies 0.1% to 5% (n0025), wherein a chemical formula of the matrix is LigCoOa (n0020-0021).
Guo et al., does not teach 0.4 < axw3/w1 <0.85a mass fraction of the lithium supplement particles in the positive active layer is w3, and a claimed plane shrinkage rate of the matrix; an area defined by an inner contour of the coating layer in a cross-section of the positive electrode is S'1, and after the lithium supplement particles release lithium ions, an area defined by an outer contour of the matrix is S2, wherein the plane shrinkage rate a of the matrix satisfies a = (S1-S2)/S1< 100%.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 2, Guo et al., does not teach wherein the plane shrinkage rate a of the matrix satisfies the equation in claim 2.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 3, Guo et al., does not teach wherein the lithium ion battery satisfies 20 < a/w1 < 100.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 4, Guo et al., does not teach wherein the mass fraction w3 of the lithium supplement particles in the positive active layer satisfies equation.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 5, Guo et al., does not teach wherein a plurality of lithium supplement particles are in a cross-section of the positive electrode under a 5K magnification and within a rectangular area of 22um x 15um; a sum of areas defined by inner contours of a plurality of coating layers is S3, and after the lithium supplement particles release lithium ions, a sum of areas defined by outer contours of a plurality of matrices is S4, wherein a shrinkage area S of the plurality of lithium supplement particles during a lithium supplement process satisfies S = S3-S4, and S satisfies 1.5mS < S/w1 < 8umS.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 6, Guo et al., does not teach wherein the shrinkage area S' of the plurality of lithium supplement particles during the lithium supplement process satisfies 0.1mS < S < 6umS.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 7, Guo et al., teaches wherein the electrolyte further comprises a sulfur- containing additive, vinyl sulfate (n0010), methylene disulfonate (n0010).
Guo et al., does not teach wherein a mass fraction w2 of the sulfur-containing additive in the electrolyte satisfies the equation in claim 7.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 8, Guo et al., does not teach wherein in the electrolyte, a ratio of the mass fraction w2 of the sulfur-containing additive to the mass fraction w1 of the borate-based additive satisfies the equation in claim 8.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 9, Guo et al., teaches wherein the borate-based additive is selected from a group consisting of lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (n0010), lithium bis(oxalate)borate (n0040), lithium tetrafluoroborate (n0040), lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (n0010), and any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 10, Guo et al., teaches wherein the sulfur-containing additive is selected from a group consisting of vinyl sulfate (n0010), methylene disulfonate (n0010), and any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Guo et al., teaches an electricity-consumption device (lithium ion battery cells) (n0011; n0014), comprising: a device body and a lithium ion battery (n0014), wherein the battery is configured to supply power to the device body (n0077); and the lithium ion battery (n0111-n0113) comprises a negative electrode (n0052-n0064), a separator (n0063-n0064) disposed on one side of the negative electrode (n0052-n0064), a positive electrode (n0012-n0031) disposed on one side of the separator facing away from the negative electrode (n0063-n0064), and an electrolyte (n0013-n0014; n0088); wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive active layer (n0019-n0022) and a positive current collector layer (n0015-n0016), the positive active layer (n0053-n0055) is disposed on a surface of the positive current collector layer (n0071), and the positive active layer (n0017-n0022) comprises a plurality of lithium supplement particles (n0009; n0019; n0025-n0026); the lithium supplement particle comprises a matrix (interface film) (n0013; n0052) and a coating layer (n0009; n0052-0056), the coating layer is disposed on an outer surface of the matrix (n0013; n0052).
Guo et al., does not teach a mass fraction of the lithium supplement particles in the positive active layer is w3, and a plane shrinkage rate of the matrix is a and an area defined by an inner contour of the coating layer in a cross-section of the positive electrode is 1, and after the lithium supplement particles release lithium ions, an area defined by an outer contour of the matrix is 2, wherein the plane shrinkage rate a of the matrix satisfies a = (S1-S2)/S1x 100%; and at least part of the positive electrode and at least part of the negative electrode are immersed in the electrolyte, the electrolyte comprises a borate-based additive, and a mass fraction w1 of the borate-based additive in the electrolyte satisfies the equation in claim 11.
However, Guo et al., teaches the same active material electrodes with the same additives. Therefore, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 12, Guo et al., does not teach wherein the plane shrinkage rate alpha of the matrix satisfies the equation in claim 12.
However, Guo et al., teaches the same active material electrodes with the same additives. Therefore, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 13, Guo et al., does not teach wherein the lithium ion battery satisfies the equation in claim 13.
However, Guo et al., teaches the same active material electrodes with the same additives. Therefore, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 14, Guo et al., teaches wherein the mass fraction w3 of the lithium supplement particles (n0009; n0019); in the positive active layer satisfies 0.1% to 5% (n0025-n0026).
Regarding claim 15, Guo et al., does not teach wherein a plurality of lithium supplement particles are in a cross-section of the positive electrode under a 5K magnification and within a rectangular area of 22um x 15um; a sum of areas defined by inner contours of a plurality of coating layers is S3, and after the lithium supplement particles release lithium ions, a sum of areas defined by outer contours of a plurality of matrices is S4, wherein a shrinkage area S' of the plurality of lithium supplement particles during a lithium supplement process satisfies S = S3-S4, and S satisfies 1.5um2 < S/w1 < 8um2.
However, Guo et al., teaches the same active material electrodes with the same additives. Therefore, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 16, “wherein the shrinkage area S of the plurality of lithium supplement particles during the lithium supplement process” is a product-by-process.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 17, Guo et al., teaches wherein the electrolyte (n0010; n0013) further comprises a sulfur-containing additive (n0010; n0040), wherein a mass fraction w2 of the sulfur-containing additive in the electrolyte satisfies 2% (n0025).
Regarding claim 18, Guo et al., does not teach wherein in the electrolyte, a ratio of the mass fraction w2 of the sulfur-containing additive to the mass fraction w1 of the borate-based additive satisfies equation in claim 18.
However, Guo et al., teaches the same active material electrodes with the same additives. Therefore, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 19, Guo et al., teaches wherein the borate-based additive is selected from a group consisting of lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (n0010), lithium bis(oxalate)borate (n0040), lithium tetrafluoroborate (n0040), lithium difluoro(oxalato)borate (n0010), and any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 20, Guo et al., teaches wherein the sulfur-containing additive is selected from a group consisting of vinyl sulfate (n0010), methylene disulfonate (n0010), and any combination thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights