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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 35 § 102/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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koenig (WO 2019089926 A1, US 20200321604 A1 is used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Koenig discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0014] discloses a chargeable lithium battery) comprising:
a positive electrode layer composed of a lithium complex oxide sintered body ([0185] discloses a LCO (lithium cobalt oxide, a lithium complex oxide) sintered cathode) having a thickness of 70 µm or more [0250];
a negative electrode layer composed of a titanium-containing sintered body ([0188] discloses a sintered LTO (lithium titanate) anode) and having a thickness of 70 µm or more [0228];
a separator interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (abstract);
an electrolyte layer with which at least the separator is impregnated [0055]; and
an outer package comprising a closed space, the closed space accommodating the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, the separator, and the electrolyte ([0054] discloses that a cap, base, can, case, or the like may be provided to enclose the device, reading on an outer package comprising a closed space to accommodate the lithium secondary battery, see fig. 16).
Koenig does not explicitly disclose resistance values of the lithium secondary battery at given states of charge (SOC) between 10 and 80%, or that as the SOC increases from 10 to 80% the resistance value decreases. However, applicant has indicated ([0013] of the instant application) that the claimed relationship between SOC and resistance is dependent upon the use of, for example, using an LTO electrode as one of the electrodes, both electrodes having a large thickness, and both electrodes being ceramic sintered plate electrodes that do not use any conductive additives. To this end, examiner notes that Koenig discloses an LTO electrode [0194] having a large thickness within the claimed range [0228], wherein both electrodes are sintered ceramic electrodes [0003], as well as additionally disclosing that no conductive additives are used ([0007], [0184]). As a result, it can be said that the invention of Koenig uses the same electrode materials as the instant application, while also having every element the instant application discloses is needed to obtain the claimed relationship between resistance and SOC.
As a result, it would be expected and a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the invention of Koenig would be expected to possess the claimed relationship between resistance and SOC. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 2, Koenig discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the relationships 0.30 ≤ R50/R10 ≤ 0.85, 0.30 ≤ R80/R50 ≤ 0.85, and 0.20 ≤ R80/R10 ≤ 0.70, wherein R10, R50, and R80 represent the resistance values of the lithium secondary battery at an SOC of 10, 50, and 80%, respectively. However, applicant has indicated ([0013] of the instant application) that the claimed relationship between SOC and resistance is dependent upon the use of, for example, using an LTO electrode as one of the electrodes, both electrodes having a large thickness, and both electrodes being ceramic sintered plate electrodes that do not use any conductive additives. To this end, examiner notes that Koenig discloses an LTO electrode [0194] having a large thickness within the claimed range [0228], wherein both electrodes are sintered ceramic electrodes [0003], as well as additionally disclosing that no conductive additives are used ([0007], [0184]). As a result, it can be said that the invention of Koenig uses the same electrode materials as the instant application, while also having every element the instant application discloses is needed to obtain the claimed relationship between resistance and SOC.
As a result, it would be expected and a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that the invention of Koenig would be expected to possess resistance values that fall within or overlap the claimed relationships between resistance and SOC. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
Regarding claim 4, Koenig discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the lithium complex oxide constituting the positive electrode layer is lithium cobaltate [0081].
Regarding claim 5, Koenig discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode layer has a thickness of 70 to 800 µm [0250].
Regarding claim 6, Koenig discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode layer has a porosity of 20 to 60% ([0008] discloses that the sintered positive electrode is porous, with [0101] disclosing that the cathode material is around for example, 40 to 80% solid by volume fraction, which would leave the volume of the non-solid portions (voids, pores) to be from 20-60%, matching the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8, Koenig discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode layer has a thickness of 70 to 800 µm [0228].
Regarding claim 9, Koenig disclose the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the titanium-containing sintered body comprises a lithium titanate ([0175], [0194]).
Regarding claim 10, Koenig discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode layer has a porosity of 20 to 60% ([0008] discloses that the sintered negative electrode is porous, with [0100] disclosing that the negative material is around for example, 40 to 80% solid by volume fraction, which would leave the volume of the non-solid portions (voids, pores) to be from 20-60%, matching the claimed range).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig (WO 2019089926 A1, US 20200321604 A1 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Takeuchi (WO 2018088522 A1, US 20190252682 A1 is used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 3, Koenig discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but does not disclose that a ratio C/A of the capacity C of the positive electrode layer to the capacity A of the negative electrode layer is 1.1 or more. [0194] of Koenig does however disclose that the rate capability limitations of the LTO/LCO cells were not the subject of the invention of Koenig, and that is it possible that the cell of Koenig was either cathode limited in capacity or anode limited in capacity. Further, constructing battery cells to be anode limited in capacity such that the ratio C/A of the capacity C of the positive electrode layer to the capacity A of the negative electrode layer is a known choice in the art would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the battery of Koenig.
For example, Takeuchi discloses a lithium secondary battery [0023], wherein the positive electrode plate is preferably a sintered plate [0027] and is selected from materials including particularly preferably lithium cobaltite (LCO) [0026], the same material Koenig uses. Takeuchi additionally discloses that the negative electrode plate is preferably a sintered plate [0040], and that the preferred active material is lithium titanate (LTO) [0039], the same material is Koenig. Finally, Takeuchi discloses in [0044] that the ratio C/A where C is the capacity of the positive electrode plate and A is the capacity of the negative plate is preferably particularly preferably 1.005<C/A<1.500, overlapping the claimed range. Takeuchi discloses that while within this range, the expansion and contraction of the positive electrode plate during charge and discharge can be reduced [0044].
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a C/A ratio within this range. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to reduce the expansion and contraction of the positive electrode plate during charge and discharge, as taught by Takeuchi. After having done this, it would have been obvious to routinely select a C/A ratio within the claimed range of 1.1 or more because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Regarding claim 7, Koenig discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 containing a plurality of primary grains composed of a lithium complex oxide ([0183] and [0185] disclose the cathode is formed from LCO, but does not disclose that the positive electrode layer is an oriented positive electrode layer ([0183] and [0185] disclose the cathode is formed from LCO particles, which are lithium complex oxide particles and can be considered as the primary grains), but does not disclose that the plurality of primary grains are oriented at an average orientation angle of over 0° and 30° or less with respect to the layer surface of the positive electrode. However, this is a known feature in the art and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include.
For example, Takeuchi discloses a lithium secondary battery [0023], wherein the positive electrode plate is preferably a sintered plate [0027] and is selected from materials including particularly preferably lithium cobaltite (LCO) [0026], the same material Koenig uses. Takeuchi additionally discloses that the negative electrode plate is preferably a sintered plate [0040], and that the preferred active material is lithium titanate (LTO) [0039], the same material is Koenig. Finally, Takeuchi discloses that the sintered positive electrode plate of lithium composite oxide is preferably an oriented positive electrode plate comprising primary particles which are composed of a lithium composite oxide oriented at an average orientation angle of between 0 and 30° compared to the plate of the positive electrode plate [0028]. [0030] discloses that when the orientation angle is within this range, this helps to further reduce degradation of the battery when operated under a high temperature condition, enhance adhesion between the primary particles, and improve ion conductivity, rate characteristics, and cycle characteristics.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the positive electrode plate comprising primary particles which are composed of a lithium composite oxide oriented at an average orientation angle of between 0 and 30° compared to the plate of the positive electrode plate as disclosed by Takeuchi in the invention of Koenig. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this to obtain the benefits disclosed by Takeuchi, including helping to further reduce degradation of the battery when operated under a high temperature condition, enhance adhesion between the primary particles, and improve ion conductivity, rate characteristics, and cycle characteristics.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig (WO 2019089926 A1, US 20200321604 A1 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Yura (JP 6392493 B1, US 20200075933 A1 is used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 11, Koenig discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the separator is one of the claimed materials. However, such separators are known in the art, and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include.
For example, Yura discloses a lithium titanate sintered plate (title) used as a negative electrode plate [0035] and a positive electrode plate which most preferably comprises a sintered lithium cobaltate plate [0035], just like the invention of Koenig. Yura further discloses in the case where both the positive and negative electrode are made out of ceramic, the separator may also be made out of ceramic and the three parts may be integrated into one part [0038]. [0038] further discloses that preferred materials for the ceramic separator include Al2O3, ZrO2, MgO. SiC, and Si3N4. As a result of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the ceramic separator of Yura as the separator for the invention of Koenig. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to obtain a separator that can be bonded to the positive and negative ceramic plates as one integrated piece, as disclosed by Yura, which a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to do because they would recognize this comes with inherent benefits, such as for example improved mechanical adhesion between the layers.
Regarding claim 12, Koenig discloses the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but does not disclose that the separator is a ceramic separator bonded together with the positive and negative electrode layers to form one integrated sintered plate as a whole. However, such an arrangement is known in the art, and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include.
For example, Yura discloses a lithium titanate sintered plate (title) used as a negative electrode plate [0035] and a positive electrode plate which most preferably comprises a sintered lithium cobaltate plate [0035], just like the invention of Koenig. Yura further discloses in the case where both the positive and negative electrode are made out of ceramic, the separator may also be made out of ceramic and the three parts may be integrated into one part [0038]. [0038] further discloses that preferred materials for the ceramic separator include Al2O3, ZrO2, MgO. SiC, and Si3N4. As a result of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the ceramic separator of Yura as the separator for the invention of Koenig. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to obtain a separator that can be bonded to the positive and negative ceramic plates as one integrated piece, as disclosed by Yura, which a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to do because they would recognize this comes with inherent benefits, such as for example improved mechanical adhesion between the layers.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig (WO 2019089926 A1, US 20200321604 A1 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Mitsuyama (JP 2012189373 A, a machine translation from PE2E is used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 13, Koenig the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but does not disclose a method comprising measuring the resistance values and applying said measurement to the correlation between the resistance value and the state of charge measured in advance for the same type of lithium secondary battery to determine the state of charge corresponding to the resistance value, however such methods are known in the art.
For example, abstract of Mitsuyama discloses a method of determining the SOC in a secondary battery by employing a detection means for detecting the internal resistance of the battery, and then comparing that resistance value to previously stored information showing the correspondence between an internal resistance of the battery and a relative SOC associated with a given resistance value. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the known method of Mitsuyama in the invention of Koenig, and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this to obtain a method for determining SOC with only a resistance measurement.
Conclusion
The following references are not relied upon; however they are made of record for being pertinent to the claimed invention:
US 20160069963 A1 discusses the disclosure of Mitsuyama (JP 2012189373 A), explaining shortcomings in the method and showing that temperature also needs to be taken into account to obtain the most accurate results.
US 20150253204 A1 provides a method for determining temperature using both Resistance and state of charge values. Logically, any two of these values could be utilized to determine the third.
US 20180261893 A1 further discusses the known relationship between SOC, resistance, and temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752