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 .
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the remarks filed 2/4/26
The applicant argues that the previous rejection is improper as a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Ogawa with the electrode material mixture of Kitayoshi. Mainly, the applicant argues that Ogawa teaches exclusively using a nonionic surfactant in a non-aqueous solvent.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ogawa does not exclusively teach surfactants used in non-aqueous mixtures. Ogawa teaches ionic surfactants [pg. 2 para. 10] which are soluble in aqueous solutions such as those in Kitayoshi. Then, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply the teachings of Ogawa to the structures of Kitayoshi.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4 – 9, and 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiko, JP2013134884A (IDS dated 11/28/24), Kitayoshi, JP2010251047A, and Ogawa, JP2008021415A (IDS dated 3/30/22) (see attached translations for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Daiko teaches a positive electrode [pg. 1 para. 1] comprising
a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer that is supported on the positive electrode current collector [pg. 1 para. 2], wherein the positive electrode active material layer contains a positive electrode active material and a surfactant [pg. 2 para. 5] the positive electrode active material includes a lithium composite oxide that has a nickel content of at least 70 mol % with respect to the metal atoms other than lithium [pg. 3 para. 2]
and wherein the positive electrode current collector is a sheet or foil of a metal [pg. 10 para. 7]
the mass percentage of the surfactant in a layer that has a smaller mass percentage of surfactant, of the layers present in the multilayer structure is not less than 0.2 mass% and not more than 0.5 mass% (0.01 – 5%)[pg. 8 para. 2]. 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, MPEP 2144.
Daiko does not teach the positive electrode active material layer has a multilayer structure that includes at least two layers having different mass percentages of the surfactant with respect to the total of the positive electrode active material and the surfactant and the mass percentage of the surfactant in a layer that has a larger mass percentage of surfactant, of the layers present in the multilayer structure is not less than 1.0 mass % and not more than 10 mass %,
Kitayoshi teaches a positive electrode [pg. 1 para. 1] comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode active material layer that is supported on the positive electrode current collector [pg. 1 para. 3], wherein: the positive electrode active material layer contains a positive electrode active material and a surfactant [pg. 2 para. 3]; the positive electrode active material layer has a multilayer structure that includes at least two layers (first (34) and second (36) layer) having different mass percentages of the surfactant with respect to the total of the positive electrode active material and the surfactant (first (34) active material layer and second (36) active material layer containing a surfactant)[fig. 3][pg. 6 para. 4][pg. 4 para. 5]. Further, Kitayoshi teaches the multilayered cathode structure to have excellent conductivity and adhesive strength [pg. 2 para. 2]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the filing date to combine the multilayer positive electrode having different amounts of surfactant as in Kitayoshi into the battery of Daiko to improve conductivity and adhesion.
Ogawa teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode material layer that comprises a positive electrode material and a surfactant [pg. 1 para. 2] wherein the positive electrode active material layer contains a surface coating comprising the surfactant [pg. 2 para. 1] wherein the mass% of surfactant with respect to the active material is 0.5 – 50% [pg. 4 para. 4]. 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 reWertheim, MPEP 2144. Further, Ogawa teaches the surfactant disposed on a surface of the positive electrode material increases ion conductivity at the surface of the positive electrode material [pg. 4 para. 5]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the mass % of surfactant in Ogawa into the surface layer of the multilayer positive electrode of combined Daiko to increase the ion conductivity at the surface.
Regarding claim 4, combined Daiko teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1.
Further, Ogawa teaches wherein the mass percentage of the surfactant in a layer having a larger mass percentage of surfactant is not less than 1.0 mass % and not more than 5.0 mass % (0.5 – 50%)[pg. 4 para. 4]. 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 reWertheim, MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 5, combined Daiko teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1,
Further, Daiko teaches wherein the surfactant is a nonionic surfactant [pg. 2 para. 6].
Regarding claim 6, combined Daiko teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1.
Further, Ogawa teaches wherein the coverage ratio of the positive electrode active material by the surfactant in a layer having a larger mass percentage of surfactant is not less than 5% and not more than 50% (1 – 30 %)[pg. 4 para. 5]. 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 reWertheim, MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 7, combined Daiko teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1,
Further, Ogawa teaches wherein a layer having a larger mass percentage of surfactant contains a positive electrode active material in the form of single particles (primary particles)[pg. 1 para. 6].
Regarding claim 8, Daiko teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode according to claim 1; a negative electrode; and a nonaqueous electrolyte solution [pg. 9 para. 4].
Regarding claim 9, combined Daiko teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1.
Further, Ogawa teaches wherein the layer having a larger mass percentage of surfactant or the layer having a smaller mass percentage of surfactant contacts with a separator (surface coating comprising the surfactant)[pg. 2 para. 1].
Regarding claim 11, combined Daiko teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1.
Further, Ogawa teaches wherein the layer having a larger mass percentage of surfactant is located to the surface layer side of the positive electrode active material layer (surface coating comprising the surfactant)[pg. 2 para. 1]
Regarding claim 12, combined Daiko teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1.
Further, Ogawa teaches wherein the positive electrode active material layer further comprises a binder, and the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride [pg. 5 para. 5].
Regarding claim 13, combined Daiko teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 8.
Further, Ogawa teaches wherein the positive electrode active material layer further comprises a binder, and the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride [pg. 5 para. 5].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiko, JP2013134884A, Kitayoshi, JP2010251047A, and Ogawa, JP2008021415A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hua, CN108461710A(IDS dated 11/28/24).
Regarding claim 3, combined Daiko teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1.
Combined Daiko does not teach wherein the ratio of the thickness of a layer having a larger mass percentage of surfactant to the thickness of a layer having a smaller mass percentage of surfactant is not less than 0.1 and not more than 0.5
However, Ogawa teaches that the thickness of the active material layer is optimally between 10 – 100 μm wherein below the range there is insufficient battery capacity and above the range there is increased resistance [pg. 5 para. 8].
Hua teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode material layer that comprises a positive electrode material and a surfactant [pg. 1 para. 3][pg. 2 para. 3] wherein the positive electrode comprises a multilayer structure [pg. 2 para. 4] wherein the layer closest to the current collector comprising the surfactant has a thickness of 0.1 – 20 μm [pg. 4 para. 5]. Hua, similar to Daiko, teaches that the layer closest to the current collector in the positive electrode increases the conductivity and adhesion between the positive electrode active material and the collector [pg. 2 para. 18]. Then, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the thickness of the positive electrode layer of Hua into the battery of combined Daiko to promote adhesion to the current collector while not reducing battery capacity wherein the combined thickness overlaps the claimed ratio. 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 reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights