Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akagawa (US 20160099481 A1) in view of Stottlemyer (US 20140247016 A1) in view of Yoshida (US 20170271667 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Akagawa teaches a method of producing a secondary battery (see [0030]), comprising: preparing a battery architecture (1, figs. 1 and 2, see [0030]), comprising a positive electrode (2, fig. 2, see [0030]), a negative electrode (3, fig. 2, see [0030]), and an electrolyte (5, fig. 2, see [0030]), providing a potential adjusted state (see [0086]), and adjusting a negative electrode potential of the negative electrode (potential range between 0.8 V and 1.4 V, see [0086]) based on oxidation-reduction potential of lithium (see [0086]); and holding the battery architecture in the potential adjusted state (see in [0086]), wherein the positive electrode comprises a nickel-containing oxide represented by a general formula LixMlO2 (see “LixNiO2” in [0032]), in which M1 is a metal element including at least Ni in an elemental ratio of 500 or more and 0 < x < 1 (see “LixNiO2” in [0032], where Ni is in an elemental ratio of 100%), the electrolyte (5, fig. 2, see [0030]) comprises a sulfur-containing compound (“1,3-propanesultone”, see [0077]). Akagawa does not teach adjusting the positive electrode potential of the positive electrode to a range of 4.3 V or more and 4.8 V or less based on the oxidation-reduction potential of lithium, and the negative electrode comprises a monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide selected from the group consisting of a compound represented be LiaTi1-bM1bNb2-cM2cO7+δ, wherein M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, Si, and Sn, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of V, Ta, and Bi, 0 < a < 5, 0 < b < 1, 0 < c < 2, and - 0.3 < δ < 0.3, and a compound represented by LiaTi1-bM3b+cNb2-cO7 – δ, wherein M3 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Me, Fe, Ni, Co, W, Ta, and Mo, 0 < a < 5, 0 < b < 1, 0 < c < 2, and -0.3 < δ < 0.3.
However, Stottlemyer teaches providing a potential adjusted state (see [0034]-[0036]) by adjusting a positive electrode potential (see [0012] and [0036]) of the positive electrode to a range of 4.3 V or more and 4.8 V or less (see [0036]) based on oxidation-reduction potential of lithium (see [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method for preparing a secondary battery taught by Akagawa through adjusting the potential of the positive electrode to be between 4.3 V and 4.8 V as taught by Stottlemyer (see [0034]-[0036]) in order to improve battery cycle life (see [0011]). Further, Akagawa teaches that modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the invention (see [0209]).
Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer does not teach and the negative electrode comprises a monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide selected from the group consisting of a compound represented be LiaTi1-bM1bNb2-cM2cO7+δ, wherein M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, Si, and Sn, M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of V, Ta, and Bi, 0 < a < 5, 0 < b < 1, 0 < c < 2, and - 0.3 < δ < 0.3, and a compound represented by LiaTi1-bM3b+cNb2-cO7 – δ, wherein M3 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Me, Fe, Ni, Co, W, Ta, and Mo, 0 < a < 5, 0 < b < 1, 0 < c < 2, and -0.3 < δ < 0.3.
However, Yoshida teaches a negative electrode (3, fig. 7) comprising a monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide (101, fig. 1, “Nb2TiO7”, see [0035]) selected from the group consisting of a compound represented by LiaTi1-bM1bNb2-cM2cO7+δ (see [0034]-[0036]), wherein M1 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Zr, Si, and Sn (examiner notes that b = 0 in Yoshida [0035], so there is no M1 metal present), M2 is at least one selected from the group consisting of V, Ta, and Bi (examiner notes that c = 0 in Yoshida [0035], so there is no M2 metal present), 0 < a < 5 (a = 0 in Nb2TiO7), 0 < b < 1 (b = 0 in Nb2TiO7), 0 < c < 2 (c = 0 in Nb2TiO7), and - 0.3 < δ < 0.3 (δ = 0 in Nb2TiO7), and a compound represented by LiaTi1-bM3b+cNb2-cO7 – δ, wherein M3 is at least one selected from the group consisting of Me, Fe, Ni, Co, W, Ta, and Mo, 0 < a < 5, 0 < b < 1, 0 < c < 2, and -0.3 < δ < 0.3.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the negative electrode taught by Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer to comprise the monoclinic niobium-titanium composite oxide taught by Yoshida (101, fig. 1, “Nb2TiO7”, see [0035]) in order to increase the electrode capacity and battery rate performance (see [0037]). Further, Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer teaches that modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the invention (see [0209]).
Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida teaches wherein the providing of the potential adjusted state (see Akagawa [0100]), but does not specifically teach subjecting the battery architecture to a 0.2C constant current charge at 25 °C. However, Akagawa teaches that the battery can be subjected to a constant current of 1C or less (see Akagawa [0103]) at a temperature of 20 to 45 °C (see Akagawa [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida such that the battery architecture is subjected to 0.2 C constant at a temp of 25 °C as taught by Akagawa for the reduction of gas generation (see Akagawa [0103]). Further, Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida teaches that embodiments can undergo modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention (see Akagawa [0209]).
Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida does not teach wherein the providing of the potential adjusted state further comprises, prior to the 0.2C constant current charge: charging the battery architecture at a constant current of 0.2C to a battery voltage of 3 V at 25 °C then charging at a constant voltage of 3 V; and discharging the battery architecture at a constant current of 0.2C to a battery voltage of 1.5 V at 25 °C, thereafter.
However, Yoshida teaches wherein the providing of the potential adjusted state (see Yoshida [0070]) further comprises, prior to the 0.2C constant current charge (see Yoshida [0163]): charging the battery architecture at a constant current (see Yoshida [0070]) at 25 °C (see Yoshida [0164]) then charging at a constant voltage (see Yoshida [0070]); and discharging the battery architecture at a constant current of 0.2C (see Yoshida [0163]) to a battery voltage of 1.5 V (see Yoshida [0163]) at 25 °C (see Yoshida [0164]), thereafter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method for producing a secondary battery taught by Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida by charging at a fixed current (see range of 0.1C to 5C in Yoshida [0070]) in order to increase electrode capacity and rate characteristics (see Yoshida [0070]).
Regarding claim 2, Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida teaches wherein the battery architecture is held in the potential adjusted state for 3 hours or more and 72 hours or less (see Akagawa [0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida teaches wherein the battery architecture is held in the potential adjusted state at a temperature of 60 °C or less (see Akagawa [0104]).
Regarding claim 6, Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida teaches wherein the sulfur-containing compound comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a sultone (“1,3-propanesultone”, see Akagawa [0077]) compound and an imide compound containing a sulfur atom.
Regarding claim 7, Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida teaches wherein the sulfur-containing compound comprises at least the sultone compound (see Akagawa [0077]), and the sultone compound comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of 1,3-propane sultone (see 1,3-propanesultone in Akagawa [0077]), 1,3-propene sultone, 1,4-butane sultone, and 2,4-butane sultone.
Regarding claim 8, Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida teaches wherein the sulfur-containing compound (see Akagawa [0077]) comprises at least the imide compound, and the imide compound comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide and lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (see “lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide” in Akagawa [0061]).
Regarding claim 9, Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida teaches wherein a concentration of the sulfur-containing compound in the electrolyte (see Akagawa [0077]) is 0.1% by mass or more with respect to the electrolyte (see Akagawa [0082]).
Regarding claim 11, Akagawa in view of Stottlemyer in view of Yoshida teaches a secondary battery produced by the production method according to claim 1 (see Akagawa [0086], and claim 1 rejection above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the references teaches three processes for arriving at the potential adjusted state. The argument is unconvincing because it does not address the combination of references. Yoshida was cited for teach an initial (see header of [0163]) charge/discharge cycle before the charging to the storage state of Akagawa (see first full paragraph of p. 7 of the non-final action mailed 5/29/25). This is consonant with the teachings of Akagawa [0099], which explicitly contemplate charging and discharging the batteries several times before charging to the final storage (i.e., three, five, or more processes).
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 MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached on 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712