REMARKS CONCERNING REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103
`
`II.
`
`REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-4 AND 6-9 UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE
`
`OVER FUSAJI, IN VIEW OF SCOTT
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to further recite that “the ratio of the capacity of the
`
`negative active material to the capacity of the positive active material is at a range from 1.2 to
`
`1.4”.
`
`In the office action (pp. 4-5), the Examiner argued as follows (highlighted by the
`
`Applicant):
`
`:5: If: s-zxap'lceotthias .~~-
`
`.\ ¢. "‘1.
`>
`A
`u .
`231:, iatizsig‘é
`
`
`~
`\
`. Kn...
`-...c C.
`(.leuhkbhw: we :1
`
`:hs positive asciéwz‘oai:c«r1¢‘i;
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`First, it is impractical to cut the negative and positive current collector into different
`
`sizes in order to achieve the claimed ratio between the ratio of the capacity of the negative
`
`active material to the capacity of the positive active material because such approach defeats
`
`the ultimate goal of any lithium-ion battery design, i.e., maximizing the capacity of the
`
`battery. Moreover, the present application assumes that the positive conductive membrane
`
`and the negative conductive membrane have uniform thickness. Therefore, it is impossible
`
`for one skilled in the art to achieve the ratio capacity by taking into consideration variables
`
`such as “a thickness of the coating, surfaces coated (one or both), size of the coated current
`
`collector, and coating conditions” as proposed by the Examiner.
`
`Second, as depicted in Table l of the present application (reproduced below),
`
`Applicant of the present application has conducted many experiments with different cell
`
`balances (CB) and different compacted densities and coating weights for positive electrode
`
`and negative electrode to arrive at the claimed invention with no or slight lithium
`
`precipitation (see the highlighted experiments below). This process is by no means obvious to
`
`those skilled in the art. Instead, it requires innovative efforts by the Applicant to find the best
`
`024607 -02-5014-US
`
`5
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action
`
`
`
`recipe for achieving the desired result, i.e., preventing the precipitation of lithium on the
`
`negative electrode while maintaining a high discharge capacity retention after a significant
`
`number of charge/discharge cycles (which is essentially the life of a lithium-ion battery.
`‘lf’:‘si%i..li Leoniimzex}
`
`. Y:S:t¥)n’}:‘.l'<WS 355:? result}; of Nyiimmwm‘. this; iimfiswle S m {Ex-smelt
`
`i5
`
`
`
`Caps»: :'\
`wi'~‘33&§<.r$:
` pwciy
`{If .
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E:(:mk§l~:‘
`
`mm
`
`A
`
`32-5
`
`3.6-5
`
`355
`
`Emmet: ’5
`
`(3):?
`
`<1
`
`3235
`
`$55
`
`§5f€
`
`“2%
`
`83H
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.lixrm’sgilt R
`
`Example
`
`5.15
`
`L33?
`
`3.3135
`
`4‘3
`
`353:}
`
`3:90
`
`34-1}
`
`in
`
`315
`
`'S 135
`
`
`
`medium
`
`pmfipita
`
`slig,
`prom}:
`idium
`
`mu
`
`$55
`
`355
`
`'i t..\
`
`ptc‘rlfi'
`
`madluuz
`
`‘TS'Z'E.
`
`3.3334.
`
`
`
`In the office action (pp. 5-6), the Examiner argued as follows:
`
`active: matesieé‘:
`
`divided bx: 332‘ a fis§2jg§s 13 which
`
`
`
`Applicant does not dispute that Scott provides the same definition of cell balance. But
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that Scott teaches away from the present application because
`
`the value of cell balance of a lithium-ion battery according to Scott should be less than 1
`
`whereas claim 1 of the present application requires that the ratio is at a range from 1.2 to
`
`1.4. For reference, claim 1 of Scott is reproduced below.
`
`A method for producing a battery comprising: providing a
`1.
`battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an
`electrolyte comprising a solvent and a salt, wherein the capacity of
`
`024607 -02-5014-US
`
`6
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action
`
`
`
`the negative electrode is less than that of the positive electrode
`and the negative electrode comprises an active material having an
`average potential versus a lithium reference electrode of greater
`than approximately 0.2 volts; and applying an initial charge to the
`battery at a voltage that is greater than a fully charged voltage of the
`battery for a sufficient amount of time to cause at least a portion of
`the solvent to undergo a reduction reaction; wherein the step of
`applying an initial charge to the battery acts to increase the
`irreversible capacity loss of the battery during the initial charge and
`provides the battery with enhanced tolerance to deep discharge
`conditions.
`
`As highlighted above, Scott teaches that the cell balance, i.e., the ratio of the capacity
`
`of the negative active material to the capacity of the positive active material, should be less
`
`than 1. For example, paragraph [0052] of Scott provides further teaching about the value of
`
`the cell balance as follows:
`
`[0052] According to an exemplary embodiment in which a battery
`utilizes a negative electrode active material such as a lithium
`titanate material or another material having an average potential that
`is greater or equal to approximately 0.2 volts versus a lithium
`reference electrode, the battery may be fabricated with a negative-
`limited design in which the capacity of the negative electrode is less
`than that of the positive electrode. For example, for a lithium
`titanate active material having a potential plateau of approximately
`1.55 volts, a cell balance of between approximately 0.80 to 0.90
`may be used (i.e., the nominal capacity of the negative electrode
`may be between 80 and 90 percent of the nominal capacity of the
`positive electrode). According to another exemplary embodiment,
`the cell balance may be less than approximately 0.8 (e.g., 0.78).
`
`Although Scott uses “the specific capacity of the negative active material may be 165
`
`mAh/g and the specific capacity of the positive active material may be 150 mAh/g” to
`
`provide a definition for cell balance, Scott, overall, does not provide one skilled in the art
`
`with the suggestion or motivation of designing a lithium-ion battery with a cell balance
`
`higher than 1. If there is any, Scott teaches against such implementation.
`
`Therefore, claim 1 as amended as well as it dependent claims 2-3 and 6-9 are
`
`patentable over a combination of Fusaji and Scott.
`
`111.
`
`REJECTION OF CLAIM 5 UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER
`
`FUSAJI, IN VIEW OF SCOTT, AS APPLIED TO CLAIM 1 ABOVE, AND FURTHER IN VIEW
`OF HIROYASU
`
`Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Because Hiroyasu fails to teach or suggest the
`
`capacity ratio as required by claim 1, claim 5 is also patentable over a combination of Fusaji
`
`and Scott and Hiroyasu for the same reasons above.
`
`024607-02-5014-US
`
`7
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action
`
`
`
`CONCLUDING REMARKS
`
`By responding in the foregoing remarks only to particular positions asserted by the
`
`examiner, the Applicant does not necessarily acquiesce in other positions that have not been
`
`explicitly addressed.
`
`In addition, the Applicant’s arguments for the patentability of a claim
`
`should not be understood as implying that no other reasons for the patentability of that claim
`
`exist.
`
`In light of the above amendments and remarks, the Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Examiner reconsider this application with a view towards allowance. The Examiner
`
`is invited to call the undersigned attorney at (650) 843-4000, if a telephone call could help
`
`resolve any remaining items.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date:
`
`
`January 31, 2020
`/Yalei Sun/
`57,765
`Yalei Sun
`(Reg. No.)
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: (650) 843-4000
`
`024607-02-5014-US
`
`8
`
`Response to Non-Final Office Action
`
`
