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 Amendment
Claims 1-2 and 5-9, and 11-18 are pending in the current applications. Claim 10 has been canceled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 12-18 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2, 5-9, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (US 2013/0101900) as evidenced by Garcia, Juan C., et al. "Surface structure, morphology, and stability of Li (Ni1/3Mn1/3Co1/3) O2 cathode material." The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 121.15 (2017): 8290-8299.
Regarding claim 1, Nagai teaches a porous body comprising an electrode material and having a framework having a body, wherein the electrode material is comprised within the body, (P9-10.23.46), the framework having a body including nickel, cobalt, a first element and a second element as constituent elements, the cobalt having a proportion in mass of about 0.02 to about 0.45, overlapping the claimed range of 0.2 or more and 0.8 or less relative to a total mass of the nickel and the cobalt, calculated based on molar ratio (P25- 26)
the first element consisting of at least one element can be calcium, the second element can be sodium,
the first element, or Ca, having a proportion in mass of 50 ppm to 1000 ppm relative to the mass of the body of the framework (P32; Table 2), overlapping the claimed range of 4 ppm or more and 40,000 ppm or less.
the second element, Na, has a proportion in mass of 300 ppm to 500 ppm relative to the mass of the body of the framework (P32; Table 2), overlapping the claimed range of 1 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05- I The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07
While Nagai is silent in explicitly teaching the framework having a polyhedral network structure, Nagai teaches the body comprising the NMC which is a well-known inherently layered crystal structure, or hexagonal crystal structure. This is further evidenced and supported by Garcia (pg. 8291.8294.8296).
Regarding claim 2, Nagai teaches the cobalt has a proportion in mass of 0.2 or more and 0.45 or less or 0.6 or more and 0.8 or less relative to the total mass of the nickel and the cobalt, derived from molar amounts (P25-26.34).
Regarding claim 5, Nagai teaches oxygen as a constituent element, within the oxide (P25-26; examples).
Regarding claim 6, Nagai teaches oxygen in an amount of 23.8 weight%, based on Sample 1 (Li1.15Ni.33Co.34Mn.33O2), wherein oxygen comprises 94.9 wt% of an active material, which is at least 50 wt% of the active material, or at least 50 wt% of the porous framework, thus about 25 wt% of the framework (P40.43.61) falling within the claimed range of 0.1% by mass or more and 35% by mass or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 7, Nagai teaches the body of the framework includes a spinel-type oxide (P25-26)
Regarding claim 8, Nagai is silent in teaching the claimed functional limitation -that when the body of the framework is observed in cross section at a magnification of 3,000 times to obtain an observed image the observed image presents in any area 10 µm square thereof five or less voids each having a longer diameter of 1 µm or more; however, Nagai teaches all of the structural features of the porous body, a structure with a porous, (oxide that allows ion transport( 3 dimensional structure, and is uniformly mixed, thus Nagai inherently discloses the claimed feature as indicated above. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 9, Nagai is silent in teaching the framework is hollow; however, Nagai teaches the framework is made of an oxide used as a positive electrode, and thus it must be hollow, or have open pores to allow ion deposition (P25-26).
Regarding claim 12, Nagai teaches the first element, or Ca with a proportion of 40 ppm, falling within the claimed proportion in mass of 4 ppm or more and 400 ppm or less in total relative to a mass of the body of the framework, and wherein the second element, or Mg, has a proportion in mass of 60 ppm, falling within the claimed range of 1 ppm or more and 77 ppm or less relative to the mass of the body of the framework (P89; Table 2).
Regarding claim 13, Nagai teaches the first and second elements together have a proportion in mass of 350 ppm, falling within the claimed range of 55 ppm or more and 477 ppm or less, relative to the mass of the body of the framework.
Regarding claim 14, Nagai teaches the Nagai teaches oxygen in an amount of 23.8 weight%, based on Sample 1 (Li1.15Ni.33Co.34Mn.33O2), wherein oxygen comprises 94.9 wt% of an active material, which is at least 50 wt% of the active material, or at least 50 wt% of the porous framework, thus about 25 wt% of the framework (P40.43.61) falling within the claimed range of 0.1% by mass or more and 28% by mass or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 15, Nagai teaches the first and second elements together have a proportion in mass of 350 ppm, falling within the claimed range of 55 ppm or more and 477 ppm or less, relative to the mass of the body of the framework.
Regarding claim 16, Nagai teaches the Nagai teaches oxygen in an amount of 23.8 weight%, based on Sample 1 (Li1.15Ni.33Co.34Mn.33O2), wherein oxygen comprises 94.9 wt% of an active material, which is at least 50 wt% of the active material, or at least 50 wt% of the porous framework, thus about 25 wt% of the framework (P40.43.61) falling within the claimed range of 0.1% by mass or more and 28% by mass or less. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 17, Nagai teaches the cobalt has a proportion in mass of 0.6 or more and 0.8 or less relative to the total mass of the nickel and the cobalt, derived from molar amounts (P25-26.34). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05- I
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, alone, or in combination, appears to teach, suggest, or render obvious the inventions of claim 11 in light of claim 1, and claim 18 in light of claims 12 and 1.
Claims 11 and 18 recite a fuel cell comprising a current collector for an air electrode and a current collector for a hydrogen electrode, wherein at least one of the current collector for the air electrode or the current collector for the hydrogen electrode includes the porous body according to claim 1 with an electrode material and having a framework having a polyhedral network structure, the framework having a body including nickel, cobalt, a first element, and a second element as constituent elements, the cobalt having a proportion in mass of 0.2 or more and 0.8 or less relative to a total mass of the nickel and the cobalt, the first element consisting of at least one element selected from the group consisting of boron, iron and calcium, the second element consisting of at least one element selected from the group consisting of sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, potassium, titanium, chromium, copper, zinc and tin, wherein the first element has a proportion in mass of 4 ppm or more and 40,000 ppm or less in total relative to a mass of the body of the framework, and wherein the second element has a proportion in mass of 1 ppm or more and 10,000 ppm or less relative to the mass of the body of the framework.
The closest prior art includes:
Hiraiwa et al (US 2017/0133699) teaches teaches a porous body, or anode 2 comprising a framework having a three-dimensional network structure (P37.78; Fig. 4), the framework having a body including nickel and cobalt (P42.52), the cobalt having a proportion in mass of 0.2 or more and 0.8 or less relative to a total mass of the nickel and the cobalt, via an example with cobalt having a mass proportion of 0.25 relative to the total Co and Ni plating (P92- calculated from at%). The porous body may also be caused to hold a catalytic component such as Fe to promote catalysis and electron conductivity (P39-43.50.52-53)
Hiraiwa is silent in teaching a first element and a second element as constituent elements, the first element consisting of at least one element selected from the group consisting of boron, iron and calcium, the second element consisting of at least one element selected from the group consisting of sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, potassium, titanium, chromium, copper, zinc and tin, the first and second elements together having a proportion in mass of 5 ppm or more and 50,000 ppm or less in total relative to a mass of the body of the framework,
Hiraiwa’06 (US 2013/0089806) teaches a porous framework structure comprising at least Ni and/or Co for a fuel cell (P12.19-25.101-103.111.130-131). The porous body comprises catalytic components of a first element, Fe, and a second element Ti to promote catalysis and improve electron conductivity (P100—107). A trace amount, as defined by Hiraiwa’06, is about 2 ppm to about 10000 ppm, and both the first and second element, or Fe and Ti are contained in a trace amount, or about 2 ppm to about 10000 ppm, or a total proportion of about 4 ppm to about 20000 ppm, falling within the claimed total proportion of 5 ppm to 50000 ppm (P100-102). However, when incorporated within the previous structure, such ppm cannot be determined.
Okuno et al. (US 20180030607) teaches a nickel-cobalt alloy porous mesh body with a polyhedral form for a fuel cell that may include the chromium, magnesium, tin, aluminum or iron (P71.96-98.102.113; Fig. 2)
Okuno et al. (US20180219232) teaches a nickel porous body that may include chromium, tin, aluminum, copper, iron, tungsten, titanium, cobalt, phosphorus, boron, manganese, silver, gold, and the like intentionally or inevitably without impairing the advantageous effects of the present invention. It is preferable to limit the content of tin and tungsten in the porous metal body to be less than 5% by mass, because a porous metal body that contains tin or tungsten has a brittle skeleton and is likely to fracture during rolling (P59.63-65). The chromium may be contained in a mass of 10,000 ppm to about 500,000 ppm (P65-66) and tin in an amount of less than 50,000 ppm (P59). However, no specific amount is taught with respect to the first element.
Ruffini et al. (US 2013/0032137) teaches a porous body with Ni, Co, and elements (P24-28; Claims 1-5). However, the porous body is not related to a fuel cell.
Miura et al. (US 20150194692 A1) teaches the claimed amounts of the first and second component within a fuel cell; however, the body relates to that of the active material as oppose to the collector (P6.24-30).
Therefore, the references fail to teach or suggest the particulars of claim 1 in light of claim 11 and claim 1 in light of claims 12 and 18, and it’s not obvious to modify these teachings to give the instant claimed invention. Thus, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination appear to teach, suggest or render obvious the invention of independent claim 1 with the inclusion of claims 11 and or 12 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the new claim limitations overcome the previous showing of obviousness. The amendments overcome the previous rejections. New and amended grounds of rejection are above set forth. New and amended grounds of rejection are necessitated by the claim amendments.
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 Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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 A. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752