DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 14 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claim 1; claims 1-9 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
All prior art rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are directed to Takahashi; Takahashi is no longer relied upon for any teaching in the new ground of rejection. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takami et al. (JP 2004-296108) and Ryu et al. (US 2010/0015523, of record), hereinafter Takami and Ryu.
Regarding Claims 1-5, Takami suggests a lithium secondary battery ([0001,0009, 0018-0020, 0029-0032, Example 1]) comprising an anode active material (see e.g., negative electrode, [0029-0036, 0090]) comprising: an anode active material powder (i.e., metal compound, which is a powder, see e.g., [0032, 0071]) comprising a lithium metal oxide (i.e., lithium titanate, Li4Ti5O12, [0032, 0090]), thereby satisfying claimed Formula 1, 2 and 3 (i.e., Li4Ti5O12 is equivalent to Li1.33Ti1.67O4). Takami further suggests metal oxide particles (e.g., aluminum oxide, Al2O3), include hexamethyldisilazane on the surface thereof to increase wettability of the electrode (see e.g., [0017]), dispersed on the surface of the active material particles (see e.g., [0023, 0036]), thereby suggesting a compound coated on a surface of the anode active material powder comprising hexamethyldisilazane.
Takami suggests the content of the metal oxide particles in the electrode is 0.1 to 10 wt %, which does not clarify a silicon content of the compound is 0.05% by weight, based on the total amount of the anode active material powder. However, Ryu describes the use of hydrophobic particles (e.g., HMDS (a hydrophobic silane based compound), metal oxide particles (i.e., Al2O3) coated with HMDS) in battery electrodes, wherein a content of the hydrophobic particles is 0.1 w% to 5 wt% based on a total weight of the active (cathode or anode) material with the expectation of exerting a water inhibition effect and moisture proof property without increasing the electric resistance (which blocks the flow of electricity), thereby allowing the battery rate characteristics to be maintained, see e.g., [0011-0017, 0052]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for Takami to utilize HMDS in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on a weight of the active material from the standpoint of achieving a water inhibition effect and moisture proof property without increasing the electrical resistance (which blocks the flow of electricity), as suggested by Ryu.
The amount of HMDS suggested by Ryu (i.e., 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% HMDS based on the weight of the active material) achieves the following Si wt% with respect to the weight of the active material:
0.001
g
H
M
D
S
1
g
a
c
t
i
v
e
*
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
161.39
g
H
M
D
S
*
2
m
o
l
S
i
1
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
*
28.09
g
S
i
m
o
l
S
i
*
100
%
=
0.0348
%
0.05
g
H
M
D
S
1
g
a
c
t
i
v
e
*
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
161.39
g
H
M
D
S
*
2
m
o
l
S
i
1
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
*
28.09
g
S
i
m
o
l
S
i
*
100
%
=
1.74
%
That is, 0.1 wt % HMDS based on a weight of the active material particles suggests 0.0348 % Si by weight based on the weight of the active material, and 5 wt% HMDS based on a weight of the active material suggests 1.74 % Si by weight based on the weight of the active material. In view of the foregoing, the Si content suggested by Ryu (i.e., 0.0348-1.74 % Si by weight based on the total amount of anode active material powder) overlaps with that claimed (i.e., 0.05 % Si by weight based on the total amount of anode active material powder), or is close. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP 2144.05. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. Takami would be motivated to explore the range suggested by Ryu through routine experimentation to determine where in the range is the optimum or workable range for HMDS (hence obtaining the claimed Si value), see e.g., MPEP 2144.05, II., A. Moreover, Ryu appears to suggest the amount of hydrophobic particles (that is, amount HMDS, hence amount of Si) is a results effective variable, see e.g., Table 1, where water content decrease as the amount of hydrophobic compound increases (e.g., an electrode with no hydrophobic compound includes a water content of 520 ppm, while an electrode including 0.1 wt% hydrophobic compound is reduced to 180 ppm). Hence, Ryu provides motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process, with the expectation of controlling the amount of water adsorbed on the surface of the active material powder, hence controlling adverse effects. Finally, Ryu suggests increasing the amount of HMDS can increase electric resistance, hence blocking the flow of electricity, thereby suggesting the amount of HMDS (hence amount of Si) is a result effective variable for electric resistance (hence flow of electricity), see e.g., [0017, 0052]. The presence of this known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment through routine experimentation to reach the optimum or workable amount of HMDS (hence claimed Si wt% value) to obtain a sufficient flow of electricity. MPEP 2144.05, II. B.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami and Ryu, in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0015524, of record), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claims 6-9, Takami does not discuss a battery module, a battery pack, a device comprising the battery pack, wherein the device is an electric vehicle, etc. However, such features and applications are very well known in the art of secondary batteries as disclosed by Kim. Kim discloses a battery module comprising the secondary battery as a unit battery; a battery pack comprises the battery module, especially in a device such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle, see e.g. para. [0049]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate the batteries of of Takami into a battery module and devices disclosed by Kim as doing so is taught by prior art and within the design choice of the practitioner in the art. Furthermore, such practices allow one skilled in the art to achieve the desired current and voltage for a specific application and decreases pollution through the use of alternative energy systems.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ning Xu (CN 101378119) in view of Kono (US 2012/0196185), and Suzuki (JP 2002-100354), hereinafter Ning, Kono, and Suzuki II.
Regarding Claims 1-5, Ning suggests a lithium secondary battery (i.e., lithium ion battery, coin cell, the secondary nature is evidence by the fact that the cell is cycled, see e.g., Fig. 5) comprising an anode active material (i.e., Li4Ti5O12:SP:PVDF, see [0002, 0005, 0033, 0052]) comprising an anode active material powder following the claimed formula 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., lithium titanate particles having a formula of Li4Ti5O12, which is equivalent to Li1.33Ti1.67O4, see e.g., paras. [0005], [0052]).
Ning forms a carbon coating on the surface of the lithium titanate powder particles (see e.g., [0012, 0023, 0039, 0045], etc.), but does not teach a surface of the anode active material powder is coated with a compound comprising hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS), wherein a silicon content of the compound is 0.05 % by weight based on the total amount of anode active material powder. However, Kono suggests active material particles whose surface is coated by carbon have poor compatibility with binder resin, resulting in high viscosity, thereby causing the active material to be deteriorated in packing property (i.e., packing density) in the electrode, see e.g., [0011]. In order to exhibit good compatibility with a resin and excellent packing property (i.e., high packing density) and dispersibility in the resin, the carbon coated active particles are coated with a lipophilic treatment agent, i.e., HMDS, see e.g., para. [0012, 0026, 0046, 0048-0049, 0055, 0060, 0065]. The amount of the lipophilic treatment agent (i.e., HMDS) is between 0.1 to 10 wt% based on the weight of the active material and selected so that a sufficient lipophilic treatment layer is formed to obtain the aforementioned advantages while avoiding the bonding force between the active material particles from becoming too strong, see e.g., [0062]. Further, Suzuki II suggests a lithium titanate active material would appreciate an increased packing density from the standpoint of obtaining a high discharge capacity, see e.g., [0008, 0013]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to coat the carbon coated active material of Ning with HMDS (the lipophilic treatment agent) in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% based on the weight of the active material from the standpoint of forming a sufficient coating layer on the surface of the carbon coated active material particle, thereby enabling good compatibility with a resin and excellent packing property (i.e., high packing density) and dispersibility in the resin, thereby enabling a high discharge capacity to be obtained, without forming a bonding force between the active material particles that is too strong, as suggested by Kono and Suzuki II.
The amount of HMDS suggested by Kono (i.e., 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% HMDS based on the weight of the active material particles) achieves the following Si wt% with respect to the weight of the active material particles:
0.001
g
H
M
D
S
1
g
a
c
t
i
v
e
*
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
161.39
g
H
M
D
S
*
2
m
o
l
S
i
1
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
*
28.09
g
S
i
m
o
l
S
i
*
100
%
=
0.0348
%
0.10
g
H
M
D
S
1
g
a
c
t
i
v
e
*
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
161.39
g
H
M
D
S
*
2
m
o
l
S
i
1
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
*
28.09
g
S
i
m
o
l
S
i
*
100
%
=
3.48
%
That is, 0.1 wt % HMDS based on a weight of the active material particles suggests 0.0348 % Si by weight based on the weight of the active material particles, and 10 wt% HMDS based on a weight of the active material particles suggests 3.48 % Si by weight based on the weight of the active material particles.
The Si content suggested by the prior art (i.e., 0.0348-3.48 % Si by weight based on the total amount of anode active material powder) overlaps with that claimed, or is close. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP 2144.05
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ning, Kono, and Suzuki II in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0015524, of record), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claims 6-9, Ning does not discuss a battery module, a battery pack, a device comprising the battery pack, wherein the device is an electric vehicle, etc. However, such features and applications are very well known in the art of secondary batteries as disclosed by Kim. Kim discloses a battery module comprising the secondary battery as a unit battery; a battery pack comprises the battery module, especially in a device such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle, see e.g. para. [0049]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate the batteries of Suzuki into a battery module and devices disclosed by Kim as doing so is taught by prior art and within the design choice of the practitioner in the art. Furthermore, such practices allow one skilled in the art to achieve the desired current and voltage for a specific application and decreases pollution through the use of alternative energy systems.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboto et al. (JP 2002-324551), and Kono (US 2012/0196185), hereinafter Kuboto, and Kono.
Regarding Claims 1-5, Kuboto suggests a lithium secondary battery (i.e., [0001]) comprising an anode active material (see e.g., [0003]) comprising an anode active material powder following the claimed formula 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., lithium titanate particles having a formula of Li4Ti5O12, which is equivalent to Li1.33Ti1.67O4, see e.g., paras. [0005], [0052]).
Kuboto does not teach a surface of the anode active material powder is coated with a compound comprising hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS), wherein a silicon content of the compound is 0.05 % by weight based on the total amount of anode active material powder. However, Kuboto coats the surface of the lithium titanate (i.e., Li4Ti5O12) powder with a coupling agent (i.e., silane coupling agents, titanium coupling agents, aluminum coupling agents, etc.) to improve the characteristics of the lithium secondary battery, [0005, 0007, 0021]. Specifically, the coupling agent added in a range of 0.2 to 2.0 % by wt based on the lithium titanate powder enables improved tap density, and lowers the viscosity of the paint when the electrode mix is kneaded, enabling the formation of a coating material with high concentration, which improves packing density on the current collector; as a result, a high-performance battery is obtained (i.e., increased electric capacity, high rate discharge, excellent charge/discharge characteristics, see e.g., [abstract, 0006, 0012, 0021, 0024, 0037]. In short, the coupling agent coated on the surface of the lithium titanate powder improves packing density, thereby improving battery performance. Further, Kono suggests high viscosity coating materials lead to a deterioration in packing property (i.e., packing density) of an electrode sheet, see e.g., [0011]; to improve the packing density of active materials and provide good coatability onto a sheet, Kono suggests coating active material particles with a lipophilic/coupling agent (i.e., aluminum based coupled agents, titanium based coupling agents, silane coupling agents, etc.,), see e.g., [0012, 0014, 0018-0019, 0026, 0047-0048, 0055-0060]. Specifically, the coupling compound comprises hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) and is present on the active material particles in an amount between 0.1 to 10 wt% based on the weight of the active material so that a sufficient layer is formed to obtain the aforementioned advantages while avoiding the bonding force between the active material particles from becoming too strong, see e.g., [0055, 0060, 0062]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to coat the lithium titanate active material powder of Kuboto with a coupling agent comprising HMDS in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt% (or 0.2 to 2.0 wt%) based on the weight of the active material powder from the standpoint of forming a sufficient coating layer on the surface of the active material powder, and to improve the packing property (i.e., improved packing density), thereby enabling improved battery characteristics, as suggested by Kuboto and Kono. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to coat the lithium titanate active material powder of Kuboto with a coupling agent comprising HMDS in a range of 0.1 to 10 wt% based on the weight of the active material to achieve good coatability onto a sheet, while avoiding the bonding force between the active material particles from becoming too strong, as suggested by Kono, see e.g., [0012, 0060, 0062].
The amount of HMDS suggested by Kono (i.e., 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% HMDS based on the weight of the active material particles) achieves the following Si wt% with respect to the weight of the active material particles:
0.001
g
H
M
D
S
1
g
a
c
t
i
v
e
*
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
161.39
g
H
M
D
S
*
2
m
o
l
S
i
1
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
*
28.09
g
S
i
m
o
l
S
i
*
100
%
=
0.0348
%
0.10
g
H
M
D
S
1
g
a
c
t
i
v
e
*
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
161.39
g
H
M
D
S
*
2
m
o
l
S
i
1
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
*
28.09
g
S
i
m
o
l
S
i
*
100
%
=
3.48
%
That is, 0.1 wt % HMDS based on a weight of the active material particles suggests 0.0348 % Si by weight based on the weight of the active material particles, and 10 wt% HMDS based on a weight of the active material particles suggests 3.48 % Si by weight based on the weight of the active material particles.
The Si content suggested by the prior art (i.e., 0.0348-3.48 % Si by weight based on the total amount of anode active material powder) overlaps with that claimed, or is close. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuboto, and Kono, in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0015524, of record), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claims 6-9, Kuboto does not discuss a battery module, a battery pack, a device comprising the battery pack, wherein the device is an electric vehicle, etc. However, such features and applications are very well known in the art of secondary batteries as disclosed by Kim. Kim discloses a battery module comprising the secondary battery as a unit battery; a battery pack comprises the battery module, especially in a device such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle, see e.g. para. [0049]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate batteries into a battery module and devices disclosed by Kim as doing so is taught by prior art and within the design choice of the practitioner in the art. Furthermore, such practices allow one skilled in the art to achieve the desired current and voltage for a specific application and decreases pollution through the use of alternative energy systems.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2008/0314482) in view of Scott et al. (US 2010/0279155), Kajiyama (US 6337132), and Ryu et al. (US 2010/0015523), hereinafter Suzuki, Scott, Kajiyama, and Ryu (all of record).
Regarding Claims 1-5, Suzuki teaches an anode active material powder following the claimed formula 1 (i.e., Li1.33Ti1.67O4), see e.g., paras. [0092]-[0100], Example 42, and paras. [0313]-[0314], and a secondary battery (i.e., a lithium ion secondary battery) comprising the anode active material, see e.g., Title.
Suzuki does not teach a compound coated on a surface of the anode active material powder comprising hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS). However, Scott teaches lithium titanate negative active materials such as LixTiyO4 (where x is between 1 and 3 and y is between 1.25 and 4), as taught by Suzuki, are sensitive to water (i.e., hygroscopic), which is undesirable since it leads to, among other things, gas formation and battery swelling, and side reactions with adverse effects, see e.g., paras. [0037], and [0052]. Kajiyama is concerned with reducing/minimizing the amount of water adsorbed on the surface of active material powder particles to avoid adverse effects adsorbed water has on charging/discharging capacities and cycle characteristics, thereby allowing high charging/discharging capacities, and less cycle deterioration, see e.g., col. 1, col. 5 (lines 13-23). To reduce the amount of water adsorbed on the surface of the active material powder, the surface of the active material powder is rendered hydrophobic by coating a silane coupling agent (see e.g., col. 4 line 62 - col. 5 line 5) to the surface of the active material powder, thereby reducing the amount of water absorbed thereon, which leads to less adverse effects caused by the adsorbed water, high capacities, and less cycle deterioration, see e.g., abstract, col. 5 (lines 13-23), col. 15 (lines 1-13), Table 1, Exs.1 and 4 versus Comparative Exs. 1-2, and the other examples shown in Table 1 and associated discussion. Further, Ryu suggests adding hydrophobic silane based particles to the cathode/anode active material to add hydrophobicity to the cathode/anode active material (for example, 0.1 wt% of a compound comprising HMDS was added to the cathode/anode active material, [0038-0039]), thereby inhibiting the absorption of water on the cathode/anode material such that side reactions due to water are inhibited and an improvement of high temperature storage characteristics and capacity characteristics is allowed, see e.g., [0012-0013, 0038-0039, 0051, 0053]. The hydrophobic organic particles (i.e., hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS), see e.g., [0014, 0016]), or hydrophobic surface coated inorganic particles (e.g., HMDS coated Al2O3, see e.g., [0014, 0015-0016]) are added to the active material in the amount of 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total weight of the active material to improve the high temperature storage characteristics via moisture proof properties while maintaining the rate characteristics of the battery, while avoiding an increase in the electrical resistance of the electrode which undesirably blocks the flow of electricity, see e.g., [0017, 0038-0039, 0051, 0052].
Considering Scott’s disclosure (i.e., that the lithium titanate negative active material powder of Suzuki is sensitive to water (i.e., hygroscopic), which is not desirable since it leads to, among other things, gas formation and battery swelling, and side reactions with adverse effects), Kajima’s suggestion that the amount of water adsorbed on the surface of active material powder particles is minimized/reduced by coating the surface of the active material powder with a silane agent, thereby rendering the surface of the active material powder hydrophobic, thereby leading to less adverse effects caused by the adsorbed water (i.e., less cycle deterioration), and Ryu’s suggestion that adding a hydrophobic silane based particles (i.e., HMDS) to the cathode/anode active material provides hydrophobicity to the cathode/anode active material, thereby inhibiting the absorption of water on the cathode/anode material such that side reactions due to water are inhibited and an improvement of high temperature storage characteristics and capacity characteristics is allowed, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to coat the lithium titanate powder particles of Suzuki with HMDS with the expectation of rendering the surface of the powder hydrophobic which would reducing the amount of water adsorbed on the surface of the active material powder particles, hence a reduction in adverse effects caused by the adsorbed water would be expected. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP 2143, I. (C).
As detailed above, Scott, Kajiyama, and Ryu suggest the use of hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) coupling agent on the active material particle powder of Suzuki to render the surface of the powder hydrophobic, thereby reducing water adsorption, hence reducing adverse effects. Ryu details the amount of hydrophobic organic particles (i.e., HMDS, [0016]) that should be used with the active material to inhibit absorption of water without increasing electric resistance, which can have a negative influence on battery characteristics especially considering the flow of electricity is blocked (see e.g., [0011-0017, 0052]). The amount of HMDS suggested by Ryu (i.e., 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% with respect to the total weight of the active material) results in the following Si wt% with respect to the weight of the active material:
0.001
g
H
M
D
S
1
g
a
c
t
i
v
e
*
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
161.39
g
H
M
D
S
*
2
m
o
l
S
i
1
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
*
28.09
g
S
i
m
o
l
S
i
*
100
%
=
0.0348
%
0.05
g
H
M
D
S
1
g
a
c
t
i
v
e
*
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
161.39
g
H
M
D
S
*
2
m
o
l
S
i
1
m
o
l
H
M
D
S
*
28.09
g
S
i
m
o
l
S
i
*
100
%
=
1.74
%
That is, 0.1 wt % HMDS based on a weight of the active material particles suggests 0.0348 % Si by weight based on the weight of the active material, and 5 wt% HMDS based on a weight of the active material suggests 1.74 % Si by weight based on the weight of the active material. In view of the foregoing, the Si content suggested by Ryu (i.e., 0.0348-1.74 % Si by weight based on the total amount of anode active material powder) overlaps with that claimed (i.e., 0.05 % Si by weight based on the total amount of anode active material powder), or is close. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP 2144.05
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages, Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. Based on Ryu’s disclosed range (i.e., 0.1 wt % to 5 wt % HMDS), one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed Si range through routine optimization in determining where in the disclosed range is the optimum or workable range for reducing the amount of absorbed water on the surface of the lithium titanate active material powder. MPEP 2144.05, II.
Moreover, Ryu appears to suggest the amount of hydrophobic particles (that is, amount HMDS, hence amount of Si) is a results effective variable, see e.g., Table 1, where water content decrease as the amount of hydrophobic compound increases (e.g., an electrode with no hydrophobic compound includes a water content of 520 ppm, while an electrode including 0.1 wt% hydrophobic compound is reduced to 180 ppm). Hence, Ryu provides motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process, with the expectation of controlling the amount of water adsorbed on the surface of the active material powder, hence controlling adverse effects. MPEP 2144.05, II. B.
Finally, Ryu suggests increasing the amount of HMDS can increase electric resistance, which blocks the flow of electricity, thereby suggesting the amount of HMDS (hence amount of Si) is a result effective variable for electric resistance (hence flow of electricity), see e.g., [0017, 0052]. The presence of this known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment through routine experimentation to reach the optimum or workable amount of HMDS (hence claimed Si wt% value) to obtain a sufficient flow of electricity. MPEP 2144.05, II. B.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Scott, Kajiyama, and Ryu, in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0015524, of record), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claims 6-9, Suzuki does not discuss a battery module, a battery pack, a device comprising the battery pack, wherein the device is an electric vehicle, etc. However, such features and applications are very well known in the art of secondary batteries as disclosed by Kim. Kim discloses a battery module comprising the secondary battery as a unit battery; a battery pack comprises the battery module, especially in a device such as an electric vehicle or a hybrid electric vehicle, see e.g. para. [0049]. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate the batteries of Suzuki into a battery module and devices disclosed by Kim as doing so is taught by prior art and within the design choice of the practitioner in the art. Furthermore, such practices allow one skilled in the art to achieve the desired current and voltage for a specific application and decreases pollution through the use of alternative energy systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729