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 .
Request for Continued Examination
The request filed on December 16, 2025 for a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 based on parent Application No. 17/794076 is acceptable and a RCE has been established. An action on the RCE follows.
The following rejections are overcome:
-Claim(s) 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita et al. U.S. Pub. 20200020931 in view of Akaho et. al. JP 2019179668 A.
Clams 1-4 and newly added claims 5-9 are rejected as follows:
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 necessitates wherein the negative electrode mixture layer comprises, as a negative active material, a compound represented by the general formula M3Me2X7. However, claim 1 requires a negative electrode mixture layer including M3Me2X7. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. An appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno et al. US. Pub. 2005/0214643 in view of Ogino US Pub. 2017/0018761.
With respect to claim 1, Matsuno teaches a lithium-ion battery (lithium ionic conductivity electrolyte [0090]; lithium transition metal oxide cathode [0082]), comprising a positive electrode with a positive electrode mixture layer (positive electrode is made from a slurry of positive electrode active material, an electrically conductive agent, and a binder in a suitable solvent; [0081]; Examiners Note: Reasonable to expect mixing to form the slurry) containing a positive electrode active material (positive electrode active material; [0082]), and a negative electrode with a negative electrode mixture layer (negative electrode is made from a slurry of negative electrode active material, an electrically conductive agent, and a binder in a suitable solvent; [0069]; Examiners Note: Reasonable to expect mixing to form the slurry) containing a negative electrode active material, charging and discharging is caused by lithium-ions moving between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (charging and discharging [0126], Examiners Note: lithium batteries function by transfer of lithium ions between electrodes), wherein the negative electrode mixture layer comprises the negative electrode active material represented by a general formula M3Me2X7 (La3Ni2Sn7, Table 1, Example 5), where M includes at least one of La and Ga (La3Ni2Sn7, M includes at least one of La; Table 1, Example 5); Me includes at least one of Mn, Ni, Fe, and Co (La3Ni2Sn7, Me includes at least one of Ni; Table 1, Example 5); and X includes at least one of Ge, Si, Sn, and Al (La3Ni2Sn7, X includes at least one of Sn; Table 1, Example 5); and a ratio of the binder in the negative electrode mixture layer is 1.0 weight% to 5.0 weight% (2 to 10 weight%; [0075]; 7% binder Example 1 in par. [0109]), and a particle diameter of the negative electrode active material represented by the general formula M3Me2X7is 2 µm to 10 µm ( particle diameter of about 1 µm to 30 µm; Example 1 in par. [0106]). Matsuno teaches a polytetrafluoroethylene binder [0074]. With respect to claim 4, the negative electrode active material represented by the general formula M3Me2X7 is La3Ni2Sn7 (La3Ni2Sn7, Table 1, Example 5). With respect to claim 7, the negative active material represented by the general formula M3Me2X7is La3Co2Sn7 or La3Mn2Sn7 (La3Co2Sn7 type crystal structure [0040]; Ln3M1xM2y Ln denotes at least one kind of the element selected from the elements having the atomic radius falling within a range of from 1.6x10-10 m to 2.2 x10-10 m, M1 is Co, M2 is Sn [0041]; Examiners Note: La3Co2Sn7 type crystal structure [0040]; with a generic formula embracing the La3Co2Sn7, suggests La3Co2Sn7). With respect to claim 8, the negative electrode mixture layer comprises, as a negative active material, a compound represented by the general formula M3Me2X7 (La3Ni2Sn7, Table 1, Example 5; negative electrode is made from a slurry of negative electrode active material, an electrically conductive agent, and a binder in a suitable solvent; [0069]; Examiners Note: Reasonable to expect mixing to form the slurry).
Matsuno does not teach or suggest: a binder containing a cyano group (claim 1); the cyano group is polyacrylonitrile(claim 2); wherein the ratio of polyacrylonitrile is 2.0 weight% to 3.0 weight% (claim 3); includes only polyacrylonitrile as the binder (claim 9).
Ogino teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: La3Co2Sn7 negative electrode [0112] with a binder containing a cyano group (polyacrylonitrile; [0120]; claim 1); the cyano group is polyacrylonitrile (polyacrylonitrile; [0120]; claim 2); includes only polyacrylonitrile as the binder (polyacrylonitrile; [0120]; claim 9). Ogino teaches the equivalence of polyacrylonitrile and polytetrafluoroethylene as binders for negative electrodes in lithium secondary batteries. See paragraph [0120].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a binder containing a cyano group, such as polyacrylonitrile of Ogino, as the binder in the negative electrode of Matsuno, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Furthermore, Ogino teaches La3Co2Sn7 [0112] and the equivalence of polyacrylonitrile and polytetrafluoroethylene as binders for negative electrodes in lithium secondary batteries. See paragraph [0120]. Therefore, it would be obvious to substitute the polytetrafluoroethylene binder of Matsuno [0074] with the polyacrylonitrile of Ogino [0120]. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). MPEP 2144.06.
With respect to the ratio of polyacrylonitrile being 2.0 weight% to 3.0 weight% (claim 3); it would have been obvious in the negative electrode of Matsuno in view of Ogino, as Matsuno teaches binder in the amount of 2 to 10 weight%. See paragraph [0075]. Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno et al. US. Pub. 2005/0214643 in view of Ogino US Pub. 2017/0018761, and further in view of Matsuno US Pub. 2007/0054189 (hereinafter referred to as Matsuno ‘189).
Matsuno in view of Ogino teach a lithium io battery as described in the rejection recited hereinabove.
Matsuno does not teach or suggest: in the general formula M3Me2X7, M includes both La and Ca. (claim 5); the general formula M3Me2X7, M includes both La and Ca, and a molar ratio of Ca to La is less than or equal to 1.0 (claim 6).
Matsuno ‘189 teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: in the general formula M3Me2X7, M includes both La and Ca ((Ca0.25 La0.75)3Ni2Sn7 Table 1, Example 4; claim 5); the general formula M3Me2X7, M includes both La and Ca, and a molar ratio of Ca to La is less than or equal to 1.0 ((Ca0.25 La0.75)3Ni2Sn7 Table 1, Example 4; claim 6).
Matsuno and Matsuno ‘189 are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating La3Co2Sn7 type crystal structure for negative electrodes. See the Abstract of both references.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the general formula M3Me2X7, M includes both La and Ca of Matsuno ‘189, as the La3Co2Sn7 type crystal structure for negative electrodes of Matsuno, in order to provide a negative electrode having a long cycle life. See Matsuno ‘189 at [0011].
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that Kurita et al. U.S. Pub. 20200020931 does not teach or suggest a particle diameter of the negative electrode active material represented by the general formula M3Me2X7is 2 to 10 microns. This assertion is correct, and all previously pending rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723