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
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Here, the applicant asserts that the claims are not obvious over Sawada in view of Hotta and Kawakami. The applicant asserts that Kawakami is directed towards a lithium manganese composite oxide having a coating layer formed on a positive electrode active material, and in contrast, the carbon coating is formed on the negative electrode active material. Additionally, the applicant asserts that Kawakami is directed to a nonaqueous electrolytic solution battery in which an organic solvent is used. Accordingly, the applicant asserts that there is no rationale by which Kawakami would modify Sawada.
Here, this argument has been considered but has not been found to be persuasive. Kawakami is relied upon for a teaching of Li-F bonds, which increase the strength of an electrode. This structure is not exclusive to a category of electrode, but rather based on the disclosure of Kawakami can be understood as being applicable to a general electrode’s strength.
Accordingly, based on this disclosure it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to combine the art of Kawakami and Sawada as discussed in the rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (US 20190173087 A1), in view of Hotta (US 20180083321 A1) and in view of Kawakami (US 20180366726 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sawada is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a secondary battery (Paragraph 0022, “The electricity storage device according to the present invention is not especially limited, and examples thereof include nonaqueous electrolyte primary batteries, aqueous electrolyte primary batteries, nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries, aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries,”) which comprises a positive electrode and a negative electrode (Paragraph 0138, “A positive electrode and a negative electrode of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery may be a form in which the same electrodes are formed on both surfaces of a current collector,”) as well as an electrolyte liquid as indicated by their disclosure of nonaqueous and aqueous electrolytes(Paragraph 0135, “As described above, the electricity storage device according to the present invention is not especially limited, and examples thereof include nonaqueous electrolyte primary batteries, aqueous electrolyte primary batteries,”), which further indicates a disclosure of an electrolyte liquid comprising a solvent containing water, as per the disclosure of an aqueous electrolyte battery.
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the electrolyte liquid include a lithium salt, and in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the electrolyte solvent includes water, though Sawada discloses the use of an aqueous electrolyte, which includes water, they are silent in regards to the specific composition of their aqueous electrolyte. Accordingly, we look again to Hotta, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing structure which comprises a secondary battery containing a water-containing solvent (Abstract, “According to one embodiment, a secondary battery is provided. The secondary battery includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte. The electrolyte contains a water-containing solvent”), as well as a lithium salt (Paragraph 0027, “The electrolyte salt contained in the electrolyte is, for example, a lithium salt.”) and an organic solvent (Paragraph 0025, “The water-containing solvent may be pure water, or may be a mixed solution of water and a substance other than water and/or a mixed solvent. The substance other than water is, for example, an organic solvent.”).
Here, Hotta discloses that their water-containing solvent contains 50% by volume of water, and 50% by volume of organic solvent (Paragraph 0025, “The water-containing solvent contains, for example, 50% by volume or more of water.”), and discloses that the concentration of the lithium salt is 3M or more (Paragraph 0027, “The concentration (molar concentration) of lithium ions in the electrolyte solution is, for example, 3 M or more.”) and preferably from 6M to 10M (Paragraph 0028, “More preferably, the concentration is from 6 M to 10 M.”), which represents 6 to 10 moles of lithium salt per liter of solvent. Here, where the solvent is 50% by volume water, it would therefore comprise 500 ml of water, which is 500 grams of water or 500 grams / 18 grams/mol 27.77 moles of water. As discussed above, the liter of solvent which comprises 27.77 moles of water contains 6 to 10 moles of solvent, which represents 2.7-4.6 moles of water per mol of lithium salt. Here, Hotta further discloses that the purpose of the inclusion of the lithium salt is to solvate the water molecules, thereby reducing the number of free water molecules, which reduces the electrolysis reaction between the aqueous solvent and the negative electrode, which reduces the production of hydrogen gas within the battery (Paragraph 0028, “The ions and water molecules are solvated by setting the concentration of lithium ions in the electrolyte solution to 6 M or more. Thus, the number of free water molecules is decreased. Accordingly, the electrolysis reaction of the aqueous solvent in the negative electrode is suppressed, thereby reducing the generation of hydrogen from the negative electrode, which is thus preferred.”). Accordingly, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of the high end of the lithium salt range of Hotta, thereby resulting in structure which comprises 10 moles of solvent and 27.77 moles of water, which represents 2.7 moles of water based on one mole of the lithium salt. Additionally, as Hotta discloses that the purpose of the lithium salt additive content is to prevent electrolysis, which is a process that occurs when the battery is in an active charge/discharge cycle, which is an operational state. Accordingly, based on the disclosure of Hotta teaching a lithium salt, organic solvent, and water composition which minimizes the production of hydrogen gas, which is desirable in an aqueous secondary battery, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of the electrolyte composition of Hotta, thereby making obvious the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein an amount of water included I the electrolyte liquid is 0.5 to 3 mol based on 1 mol of the lithium salt in an operational state, as well as making obvious structure wherein the aqueous electrolyte comprises a lithium salt.
Additionally, Sawada discloses structure wherein the negative electrode has a negative electrode active material including a carbon material (Paragraph 0031, “The first carbon material to be used in the present invention has a graphite structure wherein graphite is partially exfoliated.”; Paragraph 0027, “Here, the electrode material for electricity storage devices according to the present invention may be used for a positive electrode of an electricity storage device, or may be used for a negative electrode thereof”).
Additionally, Sawada discloses that their carbon material has a peak intensity ratio of a D band to a G band (d/g value) of 0.6, in a Raman spectrum obtained by Raman Spectroscopy (Paragraph 0163, “The D/G ratio being a peak intensity ratio between the D band and the G band in a Raman spectrum of the obtained first carbon material was measured, and was 0.6. Here, the Raman spectrum of the first carbon material was measured by using a Raman spectrophotometer (manufactured by Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc, trade name: “Nicolet Almega XR”).”), as well as disclosing that the carbon material has a coating formed on a surface thereof, here a resin coating applied to the first carbon material (Paragraph 0033, “Such a first carbon material can be obtained by preparing a composition containing a graphite or a primary exfoliated graphite and a resin wherein the resin is fixed to the graphite or the primary exfoliated graphite by grafting or adsorption, and pyrolyzing the composition. Here, the resin contained in the composition may be removed or may partially remain.”).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires structure wherein in an XPS photoelectron spectroscopy, when an intensity of a peak appearing near a bond energy of 685 eV corresponding to a 1s electron orbital of a F atom is defined as P1, and an intensity of a peak appearing near a bond energy of 532 eV corresponding to a 1s electron orbital of an O atom is defined as P2, the coating has a ratio of the peak intensity P1 to the peak intensity P2 of 1.0 to 3.0, Sawada is silent in regards to disclosing a specific coating layer composition ratio. Here, it is noted that where the limitation requires a ratio of the F peak to the O peak of 1.0 to 3.0, this represents an atom ratio of F atoms to O atoms within the coating of 1.0 to 3.0.
Therefore, we look to Kawakami, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a power storage device comprising a coated electrode material (Abstract, “To increase capacity per weight of a power storage device, a particle includes a first region, a second region in contact with at least part of a surface of the first region and located on the outside of the first region, and a third region in contact with at least part of a surface of the second region and located on the outside of the second region.”; Paragraph 0111, “Next, a method for forming the “particle containing the lithium-manganese composite oxide” of one embodiment of the present invention will be described. In this embodiment, the lithium-manganese composite oxide is synthesized first. Then, a coating layer is formed on the lithium-manganese composite oxide, so that a particle including a first region, a second region, and a third region is obtained.”). Here, Kawakami discloses that their coating layer comprises fluorine (Paragraph 0164, “An element contained in the coating layer of the lithium-manganese composite oxide, e.g., the layer containing carbon, and fluorine may form a bond. In the case where the coating layer is the layer containing carbon, carbon fluoride may be formed. Here, the coating layer may include the third region included in the “particle containing the lithium-manganese composite oxide” or include the third region and a part of the first region or the second region.”), and further comprises oxygen (Paragraph 0134, “The coating layer may contain a graphene oxide or a graphene oxide subjected to reduction.”). Additionally, Kawakami discloses an overall atomic percentage ratio of their material X5 in their Table 5, which demonstrates a composition comprising 22.5 atomic percent fluorine and 17.5 atomic percent oxygen, which represents an atomic percentage ratio of approximately 1.3, compared to their materials X3 and X4, which have ratios of approximately 0.5 and 0.7 respectively, where said data is acquired via XPS analysis (Paragraph 0672, “XPS analysis was performed on the electrodes X3, X4, and X5. FIGS. 53A and 53B and FIGS. 54A and 54B show narrow spectra of Li1s, O1s, C1s, and F1s. Table 5 shows the proportions of Ni, Mn, Li, O, C, and F in the electrodes. In Table 5, numerical values were normalized so that the sum of the proportions of the six elements became 100 atomic %.”). Additionally, Kawakami discloses that in their material X5 which comprises a higher fluorine content, said fluorine content is expressed through the presence of LiF (Paragraph 0673, “It is shown from FIG. 53A that the intensity of a peak due to LiF or the like is increased in the electrode X5 as compared to the cases of the electrodes X3 and X4.”), and that the increase in LiF bonds contributes to an overall increase in strength of the electrode (Paragraph 0673, “There is a possibility that the formation of the Li—F bond increased the strength of the electrode.”), where an increased electrode strength is a desirable characteristic. Accordingly, based on this disclosure by Kawakami, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of a Fluorine/Oxygen atomic ratio of approximately 1.3 in the invention of Sawada, thereby making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Sawada makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, as discussed above, where Hotta makes obvious the composition of the electrolyte liquid of modified Sawada, Hotta further discloses that the solvent of their electrolyte liquid is a mixture of water and an organic solvent (Paragraph 0025, “The water-containing solvent may be pure water, or may be a mixed solution of water and a substance other than water and/or a mixed solvent. The substance other than water is, for example, an organic solvent. The water-containing solvent contains, for example, 50% by volume or more of water.”).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (US 20190173087 A1), in view of Hotta (US 20180083321 A1) and in view of Kawakami (US 20180366726 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in further view of Natsui (US 9979012 B2).
Regarding Claim 3, Sawada, Hotta, and Kawakami make obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, though Hotta discloses an organic solvent, as discussed above, the organic solvent of Hotta comprises an organic nitrogen-containing sulfur compound (Paragraph 0030, “As described above, the electrolyte contains an organic sulfur compound which includes a nitrogen atom as a constituent element.”) which is neither fluorodimethyl carbonate or a fluorinated carboxylate.
Accordingly, we look to Natsui, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing structure which comprises a lithium ion secondary battery (Abstract, “A lithium ion secondary battery includes a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator disposed between the positive electrode”). Additionally, Natsui discloses structure wherein their battery’s electrolyte comprises an organic fluorine solvent which may be methyl fluoropropionate (Column 3 lines 7-9, “The non-aqueous electrolyte may contain at least one fluorine solvent selected from the group consisting of fluoroethylene carbonate, methyl fluoropropionate”). Here, Natsui discloses that the presence of the methyl fluoropropionate provides an enhanced resistance against oxidation, which allows for stable operation of the battery even when the battery is charged at high voltage (Column 3 lines 11-17, “In the case where the non-aqueous electrolytic solution contains such a fluorine solvent, the non-aqueous electrolytic solution has enhanced resistance against oxidation. As a result, even in the case where the battery is charged at a high voltage, stable operation of the battery can be achieved.”). Accordingly, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to make use of methyl fluoropropionate in an electrolyte, so as to achieve the benefits of reducing oxidation and increasing stability, thereby making obvious structure wherein the organic solvent includes a fluorinated carboxylate.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sawada makes obvious the invention of Claim 3. Additionally, as discussed above, Natsui makes obvious structure wherein the organic solvent comprises methyl fluoropropionate (Column 3 lines 7-9, “The non-aqueous electrolyte may contain at least one fluorine solvent selected from the group consisting of fluoroethylene carbonate, methyl fluoropropionate”).
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 JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725