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 .
Claim Status
Claims 2-4 have been canceled.
Claim 7 is newly added; support for this claim can be found in [0025] of the original specification.
Claim 1 is amended; support for the amendment can be found in [0041] of the original specification.
Claims 1 and 5-7 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Yamamoto is now relied on to teach the range of concentration of compound B.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument for criticality (pg. 6, para. 2-3, pg. 7, para. 1), the examiner notes that whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 716.02(d)). In the instant case, applicant has not provided evidence that the lower limit of the range of concentration of compound B is critical. Therefore, the criticality of the range has not been demonstrated.
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotado (JP2012182130A, machine translation used for rejection below) in view of Inagaki (US 20120244414 A1), Fujita (US 20070231690 A1) and Yamamoto (US-20110151338-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kotado discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([001]), comprising:
an electrode assembly ([00196]) in which a positive electrode ([00196]) and a negative electrode ([00196]) are stacked with a separator ([00196]) interposed therebetween ([0189]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0012]), wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte ([0012]) includes a lithium salt (A) (“LIFSI”; [0012] or the lithium fluorosulfonate or lithium trifluoromethansulfonate recited in [0060]) and a compound (B) (“compound having at least two isocyanate groups in the molecule”; [0012]) containing an isocyanate group ([0012])
wherein a concentration of the lithium salt (A) ([0012]; [0060]) is 0.01 mass% to 2.5 mass% (1 to 5% per [0068]) and a concentration ([0058] teaches the concentration may be arbitrary as long as the effect of the invention is not impaired) of the compound (B) ([0012]) based on a mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte ([0058]), wherein the negative electrode ([00196]) includes a negative electrode core (“current collector”; [00141]) and a negative electrode mixture layer (dried slurry applied to current collector taught in [00141]) formed on a surface ([00141] surface of current collector) of the negative electrode core ([00141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed a concentration of the lithium salt (A) of 0.01 mass% to 2.5 mass% in Kotado because that range is within the range disclosed by Kotado ([0068]).
Kotado fails to disclose 4 mass% to 8 mass% and a porosity of the negative electrode mixture layer is 35% to 50%.
Inagaki discloses a porosity ([0052]) of a negative electrode mixture layer (“except for the current collector”; [0052] indicates a mixture layer) is 35% to 50% ([0052] teaches 20% to 35%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kotado by adding the porosity taught by Inagaki to the negative electrode mixture layer of Kotado, such that a porosity of the negative electrode mixture layer is 35% to 50%, in order to achieve an excellent affinity between the negative electrode and electrolyte and achieve a negative electrode with a high density as taught by Kotado ([0052]).
Kotado in view of Inagaki still fails to disclose wherein the negative electrode mixture layer has a median pore diameter measured with mercury porosimetry of 1.3 microns or greater and 1.75 microns or smaller.
Fujita discloses that a negative electrode active material layer ([0164-0166] teaches that it is the active material layer measured) has a median pore diameter measured with mercury porosimetry ([0060]) of 1.3 micron or greater and 1.75 microns or smaller ([0062] teaches 1 to 3 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kotado in view of Inagaki by adding a median pore diameter, measured by mercury porosimetry, of 1.3 micron to 1.75 microns, to Kotado in view of Inagaki’s negative electrode mixture layer in order to improve the impregnation capability and mechanical strength of the layer as Fujita teaches ([0062]).
Kotado in view of Inagaki and Fujita still fails to disclose 4 mass% to 8 mass%.
Yamamoto discloses a compound (B) (“1,6-diisocyanate hexane”; [0043]) containing an isocyanate group (“diisocyanate compound”; [0023]), wherein a concentration of the compound (B) ([0023]) is 4 mass% to 8 mass% (mass percents ranging from 0.1 to 10 are tested per Table 1; [0076]) based on a mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kotado in view of Inagaki and Fujita by substituting the range of the concentration of the compound (B) taught by Yamamoto for the range of the concentration of the compound (B) taught by Kotado, such that a concentration of the compound (B) is 4 mass% to 8 mass% based on a mass of the non-aqueous electrolyte. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to improve the cycle life of the battery under high temperature as taught by Yamamoto ([0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Kotado in view of Inagaki, Fujita and Yamamoto discloses wherein the lithium salt (A) is LIFSI ([0012]).
Regarding claim 6, Kotado in view of Inagaki, Fujita and Yamamoto discloses wherein the compound (B) is HDI (“1,6-diisocyanatohexane”; [0044]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotado (JP2012182130A, machine translation used for rejection below) in view of Inagaki (US 20120244414 A1), Fujita (US 20070231690 A1) and Yamamoto (US-20110151338-A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Minami (US-20170214041-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kotado in view of Inagaki, Fujita and Yamamoto discloses wherein the negative electrode mixture layer ([00141]) includes a Si-based active material ([0107]) but fails to disclose the Si-based active material corresponds to a compound having a structure in which silicon particles are dispersed in a lithium silicate phase.
Minami discloses a negative electrode mixture layer ([0026]) that includes a Si-based active material ([0028]), and the Si-based active material ([0028]) corresponds to a compound (“particles 10”; [0028]; Fig. 1; 10) having a structure (Fig. 1; 10; [0028]) in which silicon particles (Fig. 1; 12; [0028]) are dispersed (Fig. 1) in a lithium silicate phase (Fig. 1; 11; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kotado in view of Inagaki, Fujita and Yamamoto by substituting the active material of Minami for the active material taught by Kotado in view of Inagaki, Fujita and Yamamoto such that the Si-based active material corresponds to a compound having a structure in which silicon particles are dispersed in a lithium silicate phase. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to improve the initial charge-discharge efficiency of the battery as taught by Minami ([0009]).
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 GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723