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 .
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 .
Status
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn. Claim 8 is cancelled. Claims 1, 4 and 5 are amended. The rejection under 35USC112b has been withdrawn as necessitated by amendment. The rejection under 35USC102 has been withdrawn as necessitated by amendment. Rejections under 35USC103 have been modified as necessitated by amendment.
Terminal Disclaimer
Terminal disclaimer dated 9/30/25 is approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7, 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeuchi (JP 2018/063912 A, received in the information disclosure statement on 5/11/2022, see machine translation for citations) and Zhuravlev (The surface chemistry of amorphous silica. Zhuravlev model, Colloids and Surfaces, 2000).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeuchi teaches an electrode used in a non-aqueous electrolyte power storage device [0097] containing a sulfur-based material [0128], the non- aqueous electrolyte power storage device including a positive electrode [0099], a negative electrode [0099], and an electrolyte [0098], the sulfur-based material being contained in at least any of the positive electrode [0128], the negative electrode, and the electrolyte, the electrode comprising: a current collector [0140]; an electrode active material layer [0128]; and
a coating material (skeleton forming agent, [0180]), wherein the coating material has at least one of a silicate containing a siloxane bond as a component [0064] and/or a silica fine particle aggregate containing a siloxane bond as a component, the coating material is present on at least a surface of the electrode active material layer [0097], and the electrode active material layer contains an active material capable of being alloyed with a metal element identical to an ion species responsible for electrical conduction or an electrode active material capable of absorbing ions responsible for electrical conduction [0146], and a resin-based binder [0114].
Ikeuchi does not explicitly disclose the sulfur-based material generates hydrogen sulfide gas by contact with moisture in a cell. However, Ikeuchi teaches gas generation causes expansion of the active material layer [0183], and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this gas to be hydrogen sulfide when the active material is sulfur-based. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference, see M.P.E.P. § 2112 II. Therefore, the sulfur-based material would generate hydrogen sulfide gas by contact with moisture in a cell. Additionally, this claim is directed to an electrode and not a cell; the material in Ikeuchi is therefore capable of interacting with moisture in the claimed manner and reads on the claimed invention.
Ikeuchi does not explicitly disclose the silicate containing a siloxane bond or the silica fine particle aggregate containing a siloxane bond has a silanol group. However, Zhuravlev discloses silanol groups are inherently present on the surface of silicates and silicas (Introduction, pg. 2). There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference, see M.P.E.P. § 2112 II. Therefore, the silicate containing a siloxane bond or the silica fine particle aggregate containing a siloxane bond would have a silanol group.
Ikeuchi does not disclose an amount of the silanol group in the coating material as measured by a method of determining the amount of the silanol group from attribution of a spectrum obtained by dipolar decoupling and/or a magic angle rotation method in Si-NMR measurement is 100 ppm or more. While Ikeuchi is silent to teach the amount of silanol groups present and the means of measurement, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process, see M.P.E.P § 2113 I. In this case, the means of measurement from attribution of a spectrum obtained by dipolar decoupling and/or a magic angle rotation method in Si-NMR does not materially affect the product. Furthermore, Zhuravlev teaches the amount of silanol groups is a result effective variable where the surface properties are dependent on the presence of silanol groups (Introduction, pg. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of the silanol group to be 100ppm or more in Ikeuchi to alter the surface properties as taught by Zhuravlev, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 II. In light of the instant specification the silanol groups of modified Ikeuchi necessarily trap hydrogen sulfide gas such that when generated the coating material will perform the claimed function and is therefore configured to do so due to its chemical composition and location.
Regarding claim 2, Ikeuchi further teaches the coating material is present in the electrode active material layer [0074].
Regarding claim 3, Ikeuchi further teaches the electrode active material layer is a porous body having voids (gaps, [0143]), all of the voids in the electrode active material layer are not filled with the coating material (gaps not completely filled, [0143]), and
the voids exist in the electrode active material layer [0143].
Regarding claim 4, Ikeuchi further teaches the electrode active material layer is a porous body (gaps, [0143]), and a surface of the voids is coated with the coating material (gaps not completely filled, [0143]).
Ikeuchi does not disclose the electrode active material layer has a porosity of 5% or more and 70% or less. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the porosity of the electrode active material layer. Ikeuchi teaches that the porosity is a result effective variable where the gaps in the active material layer allow for expansion and contraction of the active material during charge and discharge, to suppress the occurrence of defects in the current collector of the electrode [0143] and the pores between particles allow for good lyophilicity with the electrolytic solution [0090]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the porosity of the electrode active material layer to be 5% or more and 70% or less; in order to allow for expansion and contraction of the active material during charge and discharge, suppress the occurrence of defects in the current collector, and promote lyophilicity with the electrolytic solution, as taught by Ikeuchi, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 5, Ikeuchi does not disclose a thickness of the coating material present on a surface of the voids is 10 nm or more and 5,000 nm or less. However, Ikeuchi teaches a thickness of the coating material present on a surface of the voids (forming skeleton, [0081]) is 2 micron (2,000 nm) or less [0081]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Ikeuchi further teaches the sulfur-based material is contained in the electrode [0128].
Regarding claim 7, Ikeuchi further teaches the silicate has an amorphous structure represented by the general formula A2O-nSiO2, where A contains at least one alkali metal element selected from Li, Na, K, Rb, or Cs, a guanidine group, a triethanolammonium group, or a tetramethanolammonium group, and n is 0.5 or more and 5.0 or less [0065].
Regarding claim 9, Ikeuchi further teaches the coating material contains at least one transition metal element selected from Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, or Al ([0075], [0083]).
Ikeuchi does not disclose a content of the transition metal element is 1 mol% or more and 80 mol% or less when a total amount of the transition metal element and the silicon element is 100 mol%. However, Ikeuchi teaches a content of the transition metal element is 5 weight% or more and 80 weight% or less when a total amount of the transition metal element and the silicon element is 100 weight% [0077]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Ikeuchi teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte power storage device comprising the electrode as applied to claim 1 [0097].
Regarding claim 12, Ikeuchi further teaches the sulfur-based material is contained in the electrolyte ([0103], [0104]).
Regarding claim 13, Ikeuchi further teaches the electrolyte is a solid electrolyte [0103].
Regarding claim 14, Ikeuchi does not disclose when the electrolyte or the electrode comes into contact with moisture, the coating material traps hydrogen sulfide gas generated outside the electrode active material layer. However, Ikeuchi teaches gas generation causes expansion of the active material layer [0183], and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this gas to be hydrogen sulfide when the active material is sulfur-based. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference, see M.P.E.P. § 2112 II. In this case, the Ikeuchi’s active material layer is capable of reacting with moisture to generate hydrogen sulfide gas as it is the same composition as claimed. Therefore, when the electrolyte or the electrode comes into contact with moisture, the coating material would trap hydrogen sulfide gas generated outside the electrode active material layer.
Regarding claim 15, Ikeuchi further teaches the electrode active material layer contains an active material capable of being alloyed with lithium metal, an electrode active material capable of absorbing or adsorbing lithium metal ions, an active material capable of being alloyed with sodium metal, an electrode active material capable of absorbing or adsorbing sodium metal ions, an active material capable of being alloyed with potassium metal, an electrode active material capable of absorbing or adsorbing potassium metal ions, an active material capable of being alloyed with magnesium metal, an electrode active material capable of absorbing or adsorbing magnesium metal ions, an active material capable of being alloyed with calcium metal, an electrode active material capable of absorbing or adsorbing calcium metal ions, an active material capable of being alloyed with aluminum metal, or an electrode active material capable of absorbing or adsorbing aluminum metal ions [0099], and a resin-based binder [0114].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeuchi and Zhuravlev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Konishiike (US 2005/0191547 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ikeuchi does not disclose the coating material further contains A2CO3 where A is at least one alkali metal element selected from Li, Na, K, Rb, or Cs. However, Konishiike teaches a coating including lithium carbonate formed on at least a part of a surface of an anode active material layer to prevent an increase in impedance [0036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the coating material to further contain A2CO3 where A is at least one alkali metal element selected from Li, Na, K, Rb, or Cs; in order to prevent an increase in impedance as taught by Konishiike [0036].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35USC102 have been considered but are moot as a result of amendment. In response to applicant's argument that modified Ikeuchi does not discuss the claimed trapping function, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Applicant does not dispute that modified Ikeuchi teaches the coating layer in the claimed location with the claimed silanol groups which provide the claimed function as there are no structural differences between the prior art and the instant claimed invention the prior art is similarly configured to trap hydrogen sulfide gas generated by contact between the sulfur based material and the moisture. Moreover, Applicant has failed to demonstrate criticality to the claimed range. Applicant appears to argue Zhuravlev is nonanalogous art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ikeuchi teaches the presence of silanol groups as a result of the silicate present; Zhuravlev teaches the chemistry of such materials and their impact in general. One of ordinary skill would appreciate that understanding the material used including its behavior and properties is crucial to all devices relying on that composition/material and is therefore analogous. Moreover, 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. 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. MPEP 2144.05. In this case, silica and silanol is present and its amount/concentration known to impact properties therefore one would be motivated to optimize the concentration barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results.
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 MIRIAM STAGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724