DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4, and 10-14 are presented for examination, wherein claims 1 and 12 are currently amended. Claims 2-3, 5-9 and 15-25 are cancelled.
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn, as a result of an amendment to said claim.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 4-6, and 12-14 is withdrawn as a result of amendments to claim 1, from which the other claims depend or incorporate by reference, plus cancellation of claims 5-6.
The 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and (d) rejections of claim 12 are withdrawn as a result of amendments to said claim, cancellation of former intervening claims 5-6, and clarifying remarks provided in the October 29, 2025 filed Remarks, see e.g. pp. 6-7.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-6, and 12-14 Nozoe/Nozoe as modified is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments to claim 1, from which the other claims depend, and cancellation of claims 5-6. However, the art is/are reapplied, as provided infra.
The applicants’ Request for participation in the Patent Protection Highway on July 11, 2022 was granted on September 9, 2022.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe et al (US 2020/0251718); alternatively, Nozoe et al (Id) in view of Sasakawa et al (US 2019/0288330).
Regarding newly amended independent claim 1, Nozoe teaches a positive electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery with a non-aqueous electrolyte (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 05-13, and 103-109), reading on “positive electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery,” said positive electrode comprising:
(1) an electrode current collector and a positive electrode mixture layer that is formed on a main surface of said electrode current collector, wherein said electrode current collector may be an aluminum foil (e.g. ¶¶ 0009, 86-88, 100, and 129),
wherein said taught “main surface” of said aluminum foil electrode current collector corresponding with the claimed “main body,”
reading on “a positive electrode current collector comprising a positive electrode current collector main body formed of a metal material;” and,
(2) said positive electrode mixture layer formed on said main surface of said electrode current collector (e.g. supra), reading on the limitation “a positive electrode active material layer provided on the positive electrode current collector;”
wherein said positive electrode mixture layer comprising a binder, a conductive agent, and a positive electrode material,
said positive electrode material comprises agglomerated/granules of primary particles of carbon-coated positive electrode active material (primary particles), said carbon that coats said positive electrode active material (primary particles) is a carbon film (also “pyrolytic carbon film”) coating a surface of said primary particles to improve electron conductivity (e.g. ¶¶ 0005-16, 23, 25, 33, 51-55, 74, and 77),
wherein said taught primary particles corresponding with the claimed “positive electrode active material particles;”
wherein said taught carbon film (also “pyrolytic carbon film”) corresponding with the claimed “coated section” and newly amended claimed “first conducting carbon;” and,
wherein said taught conductive agent corresponding with the newly amended claimed “second conducting agent” (see e.g. infra),
reading on the newly amended limitation “the positive electrode active material layer comprising positive electrode active material particles having a coated section comprising a first conductive carbon;” plus, the newly amended, previously added limitation “the positive electrode active material particles optionally includes a second conductive carbon other than the first conductive carbon present in the positive electrode active material particles (emphasis added); alternatively, the newly amended, previously added limitation is optional “the positive electrode active material particles optionally includes a second conductive carbon other than the first conductive carbon present in the positive electrode active material particles (emphasis added), and therefore does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art,
wherein said pyrolytic carbon film coating is preferably 80% or more coating ratio of said primary particles, more preferably 90% or more; and, said pyrolytic carbon film coating may have a thickness of e.g. 0.8-5.0 nm (e.g. ¶¶ 0035-41), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on the previously added limitation “the coated section covers 70 % or more of a total area of entire outer surfaces of the positive electrode active material particles, and has a thickness of 1 nm to 100 nm;”
wherein said positive electrode active material is formed of a compound represented by Formula LixAyDzPO4, such as LiFePO4, where A represents at least one selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Ni, Fe, Cu, and Cr, D represents at least one selected from the group consisting of Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Ti, Zn, B, Al, Ga, In, Si, Ge, Sc, and Y, 0.9<x<1.1, 0<y≤1, 0≤z<1, and 0.9<y+z<1.1 (e.g. ¶¶ 0047-49, 57-58, 111-117, and 120), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on the previously added limitation incorporating the subject matter of former claim 3, “a positive electrode active material in the positive electrode active material particles composed of a compound represented by a formula LiFeXM(1-x)PO4, wherein 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, M is Co, Ni, Mn, Al, Ti, or Zr;” and,
wherein said positive electrode mixture layer comprising:
(2a) said binder in an amount of 1-10 mass% of the total mass of said positive electrode mixture layer, preferably 2-6 mass%;
(2b) said conductive agent in an amount of 1-15 mass% of the total mass of said positive electrode mixture layer, preferably 3-10 mass%; and,
(2c) said positive electrode material, which are primary particles composed of a compound represented by said formula LiFeXM(1-x)PO4 and said pyrolytic carbon film, are a balance of the total mass of said positive electrode mixture layer,
wherein a carbon content of said pyrolytic carbon film coating said primary particles is preferably 0.5-2.5% by mass and more preferably 0.8-1.2% by mass of said positive electrode material
(e.g. ¶¶ 0032-34 and 85-101),
wherein said positive electrode material—as a balance of the total mass of said positive electrode mixture layer—may be calculated to be e.g. 75-98 mass%, preferably 84-95 mass%; and, said carbon content of said pyrolytic carbon film coating said primary particles is preferably 0.5-2.5% by mass and more preferably 0.8-1.2% by mass of said positive electrode material—may be calculated to be e.g. 0.375-2.45 mass%, preferably 0.672-1.14 mass% of positive electrode mixture layer;
wherein said primary particles are composed of said compound represented by said formula LiFeXM(1-x)PO4—i.e. not including carbon within said primary particles; and,
said teachings severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I),
reading on the newly amended, previously amended, previously added limitation “the positive electrode active material layer: a) has a conductive carbon content of 0.7 to 3.0 % by mass, which is a total amount of the first conductive carbon and the second conductive carbon present in the positive electrode active material layer, based on a total mass of the positive electrode active material layer” (see also e.g. supra); and,
reading on the previously added limitation “the positive electrode active material layer…b) comprises the positive electrode active material particles in an amount of 90 % by mass or more based on the total mass of the positive electrode active material layer;” and,
reading on the previously added limitation incorporating the subject matter of former claim 25, “an amount of the compound represented by the formula LiFexMn(1-x)PO4 is 80 % by mass or more based on a total mass of the positive electrode active material.”
The Following Table is Provided Merely for Illustrative Purposes:
Claim 1
Claim 12
Art
Overlap w claim 1
Overlap w claim 12
Positive Electrode active material
90% or more mass% of a total mass of positive electrode active material layer
75-98 mass%, preferably 84-95 mass% of positive electrode mixture layer
(see supra)
90-98 mass%, preferably 90-95 mass% of positive electrode mixture layer
First conductive carbon of “coated section”
First conductive carbon & Second conductive carbon: 0.7-3.0 mass%
First conductive carbon, Second conductive carbon & Current collector coating layer: 1.0-3.5 mass%
0.375-2.45 mass%
(see supra)
1.375-3.0 mass%
1.375-3.5 mass%
Second conductive carbon
1-15 mass%
(see supra)
Current collector coating layer
Nozoe teaches said positive electrode mixture layer, wherein said positive electrode material, in the form of said granulated body, may be calculated to be e.g. 75-98 mass% of the total mass of said positive electrode mixture layer, preferably 84-95 mass%; wherein said binder may be in said amount of 1-10 mass% of the total mass of said positive electrode mixture layer, preferably 2-6 mass%; and, wherein said conductive agent, such as carbon nanotubes, may be in said amount of 1-15 mass%, of the total mass of said positive electrode mixture layer preferably 3-10 mass%, wherein an average particle diameter of said granulated body of said positive electrode mixture layer may be 60 µm or less (e.g. supra) that may be applied as a uniform slurry then dried (e.g. ¶¶ 0111-126), but does not expressly teach the previously added limitation “the positive electrode active material layer…e) has a thickness of 30 to 500 µm.”
However, Nozoe teaches a substantially identical positive electrode mixture layer (e.g. supra, incorporated herein by reference) formed by a substantially identical process (e.g. slurry coating followed by drying, see instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0092-107 and 332-326), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the previously added limitation, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01; and/or,
since said positive electrode mixture layer is a layer of at least one granulated body thick (e.g. 60 µm), said positive electrode mixture layer also may have a thickness of at least 60 µm (i.e. at least one particle diameter thick), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on the previously added limitation; and/or,
a difference in size/proportion does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, since there does not appear to be patentable significance to the claimed relative dimensions, see e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), further noting a thickness of the instant positive electrode layer of 10 µm is within the scope of the instant invention, which is outside of the claimed range, and further while a range of 30-500µm is more preferred, there does not appear to be evidence of patentable significance associated with this preferred range, see instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0020, 168, 262, 271, 302, and 367.
Nozoe teaches said positive electrode mixture layer, wherein said positive electrode material as said balance, calculated to be e.g. 75-98 mass% of the total mass of said positive electrode mixture layer, preferably 84-95 mass%; wherein said average particle diameter of said granulated body particles of said positive electrode material may be 60 µm or less; wherein said positive electrode mixture layer will be said layer of at least one primary particle thick (e.g. 60 µm); wherein said binder may be in said amount of 1-10 mass% of the total mass of said positive electrode mixture layer, preferably 2-6 mass%; and, wherein said conductive agent, such as carbon nanotubes, may be in said amount of 1-15 mass%, of the total mass of said positive electrode mixture layer preferably 3-10 mass%, as provided supra, but severably does not expressly teach the previously added limitations “the positive electrode active material layer…c) has a pore specific surface area of 5.0 to 10.0 m2/g and a central pore diameter of 0.06 to 0.15 µm;” and, “the positive electrode active material layer…d) has a volume density of 2.05 to 2.80 g/cm3.”
However, Nose teaches a substantially identical positive electrode mixture layer (see supra, including e.g. said balance of positive electrode material, positive electrode average particle diameter, positive electrode mixture layer thickness, said binder in said amount, and said carbon nanotube conductive agent in said amount—compared within instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0136 and 145 plus e.g. ¶¶ 0020, 54, 68, 74-76, 78-79, 81, 129-145, 168, 208, 215, 262, 271, 302, and 367, further noting while said claimed properties may be related to the thickness of said instant positive electrode layer, said thickness being 10 µm is within the scope of the instant invention, but outside of the claimed thickness range).
In the alternative, Sasakawa teaches a positive electrode (e.g. item 5) for a non-aqueous electrolyte lithium-ion secondary battery (e.g. item 100) used in a battery module (e.g. item 200), a battery pack (e.g. item 300) and a vehicle (e.g. item 400) thereof (e.g. ¶¶ 0002, 32, 89, 160, 180, 208, 225-226, 231-232, 236-237, 240, 242, 244, and 250-253 plus e.g. Figures 11-9), said positive electrode comprising:
(1) a positive electrode current collector (e.g. item 5a) composed of e.g. an aluminum foil or an aluminum alloy foil including at least one element selected from Mg, Ti, Zn, Ni, Cr, Mn, Fe, Cu, and Si, said current collector includes a main body and further a current collector tab (e.g. ¶¶ 0033, 52-54, and 146 plus e.g. Figures 2 and 4); and,
(2) a positive electrode active material-containing layer (e.g. items 5a) carried on opposite major surfaces of said main body of said current collector, wherein said positive electrode active material-containing layer may contain:
(2a) active material particles comprising lithium phosphorus oxide with an olivine structure, such as LiXFePO4; 0<x≤1, LiXFe1−YMnYPO4; 0<x≤1, 0<y<1, and LiXCoPO4; 0<x≤1,
wherein said active material particles may have a carbon coating on surfaces of said active material particles; and,
(2b) a conductive agent mixed with said active material particles, said conductive agent composed of e.g. vapor grown carbon fiber (VGCF), carbon black such as acetylene black, graphite, carbon nanofiber, carbon nanotube; alternatively, carbon-coating on said active material particles, said conductive agent preferably present in an amount of 3-18 mass% of said positive electrode active material-containing layer
(e.g. ¶¶ 0022, 24, 33-38, 48, 51, 92, 100, 137, 144, and 146 plus e.g. Figures 2 and 4),
wherein said positive electrode active material-containing layer has pores therein, said pores including a pore size distribution wherein when the pore specific surface area (“S”) is sufficiently large, the reaction area between the active material and the electrolyte is large,
noting when said pore specific surface area is excessively large, the side reaction with the electrolyte on the surface of the active material increases, and there is a possibility that battery life characteristics will deteriorate; and, when said pore specific surface area is excessively small, there is a possibility that the reaction area between the active material and the electrolyte will decrease and the output characteristics will become inferior,
said pore specific surface area is preferably within the range of 3.5-15 m2/g (e.g. ¶¶ 0015, 20, 27, 29, 57-62, 77-78, and 83-85);
wherein said positive electrode active material-containing layer has pores therein, said pores including said pore size distribution wherein when the pore median diameter (“D” or “d50”) is sufficiently small, an electron conduction path between the active materials is sufficiently formed,
noting when said pore median diameter D is excessively large, there is a possibility that the output characteristics will deteriorate because the number of portions where the electron conduction path between the active materials is divided increase; and, when said pore median diameter is excessively small, the ion conductivity in the active material-containing layer may decrease,
said pore median diameter is preferably within a range of 0.05 μm to 0.2 μm (e.g. ¶¶ 0015, 20, 27, 30-31, 57-62, 77-78, and 83-85); and,
the density of the positive electrode active material-containing layer is for example in the range of 2.5-3.8 g/cc, preferably in the range of 2.8-3.6 g/cc, since such density results in excellent energy density and retention performance of electrolyte (e.g. ¶0055).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the said positive electrode mixture layer of Nozoe so that it has said specific surface area (3.5-15 m2/g) and said pore median diameter (0.05 μm to 0.2 μm) taught by Sasakawa, since Sasakawa teaches said specific surface and pore median diameter in a positive electrode active material-containing layer is preferred to e.g. provide a sufficient electron conduction path between active materials, ion conductivity in the layer, and/or minimize side reactions with electrolyte on the surface of active material, severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the positive electrode active material layer…c) has a pore specific surface area of 5.0 to 10.0 m2/g and a central pore diameter of 0.06 to 0.15 µm.”
Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the said positive electrode mixture layer of Nozoe so that it has said density (2.5-3.8 g/cc, preferably in the range of 2.8-3.6 g/cc) taught by Sasakawa, since Sasakawa teaches such density results in excellent energy density and retention performance of electrolyte, wherein the “cc” is understood to be a volume measurement, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “the positive electrode active material layer…d) has a volume density of 2.05 to 2.80 g/cm3.”
The examiner respectfully clarifies for the record that the claimed ranges of active material in the previously added limitation “b) comprises the positive electrode active material particles in an amount of 90 % by mass or more based on the total mass of the positive electrode active material layer” and previously added limitation incorporating the subject matter of former claim 25, “an amount of the compound represented by the formula LiFexMn(1-x)PO4 is 80 % by mass or more based on a total mass of the positive electrode active material” are not inconsistent, since the instant specification provides express support that the active material may be a single type or two or more types used in combination.
[0064] With respect to the other positive electrode active materials, a single type thereof may be used individually or two or more types thereof may be used in combination.
(Instant specification, at e.g. ¶0064, emphasis added.)
Regarding claim 4, Nozoe or Nozoe as modified teaches the electrode of claim 1, wherein said positive electrode active material is formed of said compound represented by Formula LixAyDzPO4, such as LiFePO4 (e.g. supra), reading on “the positive electrode active material is lithium iron phosphate represented by LiFePO4.”
Regarding newly amended, previously amended claim 12, Nozoe or Nozoe as modified teaches the electrode of claim 1, wherein said positive electrode mixture layer comprises said conductive auxiliary agent, such as acetylene black, Ketjen black, or carbon nanotube,
wherein said taught conductive agent provided in an amount of 1-15 mass%, preferably 3-10 mass% of positive electrode mixture layer; and/or, said taught carbon film provided in an amount of that may be calculated to be 0.375-2.45 mass%, preferably 0.672-1.14 mass% of positive electrode mixture layer (see e.g. supra),
wherein said taught carbon film (also “pyrolytic carbon film”) corresponding with the claimed “coated section” and newly amended claimed “first conducting carbon;” and,
wherein said taught conductive agent corresponding with the newly amended claimed “second conducting agent,”
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on the newly amended, previously amended limitation “which has a conductive carbon content of 1.0 to 3.5% by mass based on a mass of the positive electrode excluding the positive electrode current collector main body.”
Regarding claims 13-14, Nozoe or Nozoe in view of Sasakawa is/are applied as provided supra, with the following modifications.
Still regarding independent claim 13, Nozoe or Nozoe as modified teaches said lithium-ion secondary battery, wherein Nozoe teaches said battery including said positive electrode and said non-aqueous electrolyte (e.g. supra); a negative electrode; and, a porous separator between said electrodes (e.g. ¶¶ 0103-108 and 128-133), wherein it is further understood that at least some of said electrolyte is incorporated within said porous separator, in order to facilitate ion movement between said electrodes, reading on “a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.”
Still regarding independent claim 14, Nozoe or Nozoe as modified teaches said lithium-ion secondary battery (e.g. supra), wherein Nozoe teaches said battery may be used in an electric vehicle or a high-output power supply for an electric tool (e.g. ¶0002), but does not expressly teach “battery module or a battery system comprising a plurality of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to Claim 13.”
However, the examiner takes notice that a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that a plurality of said batteries may be connected together in series (e.g. to increase voltage) and/or parallel (e.g. to increase capacity).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a plurality of said batteries in series (e.g. to increase voltage) and/or parallel (e.g. to increase capacity) in order to increase the voltage and/or capacity for use in a device, such as said electric vehicle and/or electric tool.
In the alternative, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe et al (US 2020/0251718), as provided supra, in view of Sasakawa et al (US 2019/0288330).
Regarding claim 14, Nozoe is applied as provided supra, with the following modifications.
Still regarding independent claim 14, Nozoe teaches said lithium-ion secondary battery (e.g. supra), which may be used in an electric vehicle or a high-output power supply for an electric tool (e.g. ¶0002), but does not expressly teach “battery module or a battery system comprising a plurality of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to Claim 13.”
However, Sasakawa teaches a battery module, a battery pack, and a vehicle, wherein said battery module incorporates a plurality of said batteries; said battery pack incorporates a plurality of said battery modules each containing said plurality of said batteries; and, said vehicle incorporates a plurality of said battery packs, each containing said plurality of said battery modules and said plurality of said batteries (e.g. ¶¶ 0002, 147-163, 175, 182, and 186 plus e.g. Figures 5-7 and 9),
wherein said plural battery cells may alternatively be electrically connected in parallel, or connected in a combination of in-series connection and in-parallel, wherein connection in parallel increases battery capacity (e.g. ¶0162).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a plurality of said batteries of Nozoe in parallel to increase capacity, as taught by Sasakawa.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozoe et al (US 2020/0251718), as provided supra, in view of Zhang et al (CN 111211323); alternatively, Nozoe et al (Id) in view of Sasakawa et al (US 2019/0288330), as provided supra, and further in view of Zhang et al (CN 111211323).
Regarding claims 10-12, Nozoe teaches said positive electrode comprising said electrode current collector may be said aluminum foil, as provided supra, but does not expressly teach the limitations “which further comprises a current collector coating layer is present on a surface of the positive electrode current collector on a side of the positive electrode active material layer” (claim 10) and “the current collector coating layer comprises carbon” (claim 11); plus, alternatively “which has a conductive carbon content of 1.0 to 3.5% by mass based on a mass of the positive electrode excluding the positive electrode current collector main body” (claim 12).
However, Zhang teaches a non-aqueous lithium-ion battery including a positive electrode with a lithium iron phosphate active material coated onto a positive electrode current collector, said positive electrode current collector being an aluminum foil coated with conductive carbon layers on both sides (e.g. ¶¶ 0002, 08-12, 20-22, 54-55, 68, and 79).
As a result, it would have been obvious to incorporate the conductive carbon layers of Zhang on both major surfaces of said electrode current collector of Nozoe, since Zhang teaches said conductive carbon layers are suitable for use with a positive electrode using lithium iron phosphate active material, an aluminum foil current collector, a non-aqueous electrolyte, and/or a lithium-ion battery, and further wherein said carbon coating is conductive, suggesting that said conductive carbon coating layer provides conduction between the active material layer and the aluminum foil current collector.
Nozoe as modified reading on said limitations.
Still regarding newly amended, previously amended claim 12, wherein said taught conductive agent provided in an amount of 1-15 mass%; and, said taught carbon film provided in an amount of that may be calculated to be 0.375-2.45 mass% (e.g. supra), which amounts to e.g. 1.375-17.45 mass%.
Further, Zhang teaches said conductive carbon layers on both sides of said aluminum foil (e.g. supra), wherein “[i]ncreasing the content of active main materials lithium iron phosphate…in the positive…electrode coating layers can further effectively improve the mass energy density of the soft-pack battery” (e.g. ¶0045) such that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to minimize the content/mass% of non-active material components of said positive electrode—including said conductive carbon layers—in order to maximize the amount of lithium iron phosphate active material in the positive electrode, so that a total amount of the mass% of the taught conductive agent of Nozoe, see e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(II), so the mass% of taught carbon film of Nozoe, and the mass% of the conductive carbon layer of Zhang is within the claimed range of the newly amended, previously amended limitation “which has a conductive carbon content of 1.0 to 3.5% by mass based on a mass of the positive electrode excluding the positive electrode current collector main body.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As a preliminary matter, the examiner respectfully extends appreciation for clarifying the intended scope of the claims and with the cited supporting evidence, as provided e.g. in the October 29, 2025 Remarks.
First, the applicant alleges the following.
Applicant, however, respectfully submits that Nozoe discloses that
[i]n the positive electrode material for lithium-ion secondary batteries according to the embodiment, the average particle diameter of the granulated body formed of the primary particles of the carbon-coated positive electrode active material is 0.5 µm or more and 60 µm or less, preferably 1 µm or more and 20 µm or less, and more preferably 1 µm or more and 10 µm or less.
Here, the reason why the average particle diameter of the granulated body is in the above-described range is as follows. In a case where the average particle diameter of the granulated body is 0.5 µm or more, when the positive electrode material, a conductive auxiliary agent, a binder resin (binder), and a solvent are mixed with each other to prepare a positive electrode material paste for lithium-ion secondary batteries, the mixing amount of the conductive auxiliary agent and the binder can be reduced, and the battery capacity of the lithium-ion secondary battery per unit mass of the positive electrode mixture layer for lithium-ion secondary batteries can be increased.
Nozoe, paras. [0029] and [0030] (emphasis added). Nozoe also discloses that
[f]irst, the positive electrode material for lithium-ion secondary batteries according to the embodiment, a binder, a conductive auxiliary agent, and a solvent are mixed with each other to prepare a positive electrode material paste for lithium-ion secondary batteries.
Id., para. [0089] (emphasis added). From these descriptions of Nozoe, the skilled artisan would understand that, while the use of a conductive auxiliary agent is practically essential, Nozoe attempts to reduce the amount of conductive auxiliary agent used by controlling the average particle diameter of the granulated body. In this context, in the Examples of Nozoe, acetylene black (AB) is used at 5% by mass as a conductive auxiliary agent. In other words, the skilled artisan would understand that Nozoe achieved the 5% by mass amount as a result of reducing the amount of conductive auxiliary agent used.
Applicant understands that Nozoe generally teaches a broader range by stating that
[w]hen the total mass of the positive electrode material for lithium-ion secondary batteries according to the embodiment, the binder, and the conductive auxiliary agent is represented by 100% by mass, the content rate of the conductive auxiliary agent in the positive electrode material paste for lithium-ion secondary batteries is preferably 1% by mass or more and 15% by mass or less and more preferably 3% by mass or more and 10% by mass or less.
Nozoe, para. [0092]. The skilled artisan would, however, also understand that practical teaching derivable from Nozoe is that the lower limit of the amount of conductive auxiliary agent required to ensure necessary performance is around 5% by mass.
(Remarks, at e.g. 8:3-9:2, emphasis in the original.)
In response, the examiner respectfully notes that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Further, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See e.g. MPEP § 2123.
Here, the art teaches the disclosed ranges of said carbon film/pyrolytic carbon film and conductive agent in said positive electrode mixture layer, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, the rejection supra incorporated by reference herein.
Second, the applicant alleges the following.
In contrast to Nozoe, the present claims require a conductive carbon content of 0.7 to 3.0 % by mass, which differs from the practical teachings of Nozoe. See claim 1. The YOSHIKAWA Declaration submitted on February 1, 2024, specifically considers the importance of the conductive carbon content of 0.7 to 3.0 % by mass. See YOSHIKAWA Declaration. In this regard, the YOSHIKAWA Declaration summarized its experimental results together with the results of Table 2 of the Specification in the Table reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
577
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Id., page 3. As seen in Comparative Example 12 as well as Comparative Example 7, when the amount of conductive carbon exceeds the 3.0 % by mass limit, the 1000 cycle capacity retention is 81% or 82%, which is significantly lower than the inventive Examples 1-6. See id. That is, the YOSHIKAWA Declaration shows a direct nexus between exceeding the 3.0 % by mass limit and poor results related to the 1000 cycle capacity retention. The practical teachings of Nozoe, however, suggest using amounts that exceed the 3.0 % by mass limit. Thus, the improved cycling performance when the conductive carbon content is in the range of 0.7 to 3.0% by mass would truly have been an unexpected result from the teachings of Nozoe.
In considering evidence of secondary considerations (e.g., unexpected results), the MPEP provides that the evidence should be “based on the totality of the circumstances.” MPEP § 2145. Even if Nozoe provides generic teachings allowing for broad amounts of conductive carbon, Nozoe practically suggests using amounts that exceed the 3.0 % by mass limit. Nozoe also provides no suggestion whatsoever regarding the nexus between exceeding the 3.0 % by mass limit and poor results related to the 1000 cycle capacity retention, whereas the evidence provided by the YOSHIKAWA Declaration clearly shows the unexpected 1000 cycle capacity retention improvements. Thus, the total of the evidence supports the patentability of the claims over Nozoe.
(Remarks, at e.g. 8:3-9:2, emphasis in the original.)
In response, the examiner respectfully notes that an argument of counsel is insufficient to overcome a prima facie showing of obviousness. Since a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Rebuttal evidence and arguments can be presented by way of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132. However, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). See also MPEP § 2145.
The showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP § 716.02(d). Absent such showing, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” MPEP § 2144.05.
Further, the unexpected property or result must actually be unexpected and of statistical and practical significance. MPEP § 716.02(a). Here, unexpected results for a claimed range, as compared with the range disclosed in the prior art, must be shown by a demonstration of “a marked improvement, over the results achieved under other ratios, as to be classified as a difference in kind, rather than one of degree.” See MPEP § 716.02.
Here, the examiner respectfully notes that such a showing includes the applicant establishing the importance of each of the lower and upper endpoints of the claimed range.
Further, the examiner incorporates by reference the June 7, 2024 non-final office action discussion provided in response to the February 1, 2024 declaration.
Third, the applicant alleges the following regarding the alternative Rejection of Claim 14 over Nozoe as modified plus the rejection of claims 10-11 over Nozoe as modified.
Applicant incorporates the above comments herein by reference. In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection must be withdrawn.
…
Applicant incorporates the above comments herein by reference. In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection must be withdrawn.
(Remarks, at e.g. 11:2-11:5.)
In response, the examiner respectfully refers supra.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nakazawa et al (US 2021/0005863);
Lee et al (US 2018/0212237);
Hoshina et al (US 2016/0190586);
Takami et al (US 2014/0178767); and,
Matsushita et al (US 2013/0330623).
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 YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723