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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed April 1, 2026. The follow rejections/objections are overcome:
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2.
Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 7-9 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.
Claim(s) 5-6 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).
Claims 1-8 are newly rejected as necessitated by amendment as follows:
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 神頭 et al. JP-6615431-B2.
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 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); a ratio of the binder in the negative electrode mixture layer is 1.0 weight% to 5.0 weight% (2 to 10 weight%; claim 1); the cyano group is polyacrylonitrile(claim 2); wherein the ratio of polyacrylonitrile is 2.0 weight% to 3.0 weight% (claim 3).
神頭 teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: negative electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery with a binder containing a cyano group (organic binder whose main skeleton is polyacrylonitrile is preferable because of its excellent adhesion, and the heat treatment temperature during the preparation of the negative electrode is low, and the flexibility of the electrode is excellent; See “<Anode for lithium ion secondary battery>”, paragraph 3; claim 1); the cyano group is polyacrylonitrile (n organic binder whose main skeleton is polyacrylonitrile is more preferable; See “<Anode for lithium ion secondary battery>”, paragraph 3; claim 2); wherein the ratio of polyacrylonitrile is 2.0 weight% to 3.0 weight% (organic binder in the negative electrode material layer of the lithium ion secondary battery negative electrode is 0.3 mass%-15 mass%; See “<Anode for lithium ion secondary battery>”, paragraph 4; claim 3).
Matsuno and 神頭 are analogous art from the same field endeavor, namely fabricated binder containing negative electrodes in lithium batteries.
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 神頭, as the binder in the negative electrode of Matsuno, as polyacrylonitrile is preferable because of its excellent adhesion, and the heat treatment temperature during the preparation of the negative electrode is low, and the flexibility of the electrode is excellent as taught by 神頭. See “<Anode for lithium ion secondary battery>”, paragraph 3. Furthermore, 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).
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 神頭, as 神頭 teaches binder in the amount of 0.3 mass%-15 mass%. See “<Anode for lithium ion secondary battery>”, paragraph 4. 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 神頭 et al. JP-6615431-B2, and further in view of Matsuno US Pub. 2007/0054189 (hereinafter referred to as Matsuno ‘189).
Matsuno in view of 神頭 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 view of 神頭, in order to provide a negative electrode having a long cycle life. See Matsuno ‘189 at [0011].
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 PHAM et al. TW-I430501-B.
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 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); a ratio of the binder in the negative electrode mixture layer is 1.0 weight% to 5.0 weight% (2 to 10 weight%; claim 1); the cyano group is polyacrylonitrile(claim 2); wherein the ratio of polyacrylonitrile is 2.0 weight% to 3.0 weight% (claim 3).
PHAM teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: negative electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery (negative electrode active materials forming an alloy with Ni, Fe, Co & Mn; See MODE-FOR-INVENTION, paragraph 2) with a binder containing a cyano group (a polyacrylonitrile-based binder for an alloy negative electrode composition is provided. Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) is known to react in air at a temperature of from 200 ° C to 300 ° C to form a banded polymeric carbon called "black orlon".; See MODE-FOR-INVENTION, paragraph 2; claim 1); the cyano group is polyacrylonitrile (a polyacrylonitrile-based binder for an alloy negative electrode composition is provided. Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) is known to react in air at a temperature of from 200 ° C to 300 ° C to form a banded polymeric carbon called "black orlon".; See MODE-FOR-INVENTION, paragraph 2; claim 2).
Matsuno and PHAM are analogous art from the same field endeavor, namely fabricated binder containing negative electrodes in lithium batteries.
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 PHAM, as the binder in the negative electrode of Matsuno, as polyacrylonitrile forms a banded polymeric carbon called "black orlon", as taught by PHAM. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect said binder to increase conductive of the anodic material. Furthermore, 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).
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 PHAM, as PHAM teaches binder in the amount of 8%. See Examples 26-27. 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 PHAM et al. TW-I430501-B, and further in view of Matsuno US Pub. 2007/0054189 (hereinafter referred to as Matsuno ‘189).
Matsuno in view of PHAM 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 view of PHAM, in order to provide a negative electrode having a long cycle life. See Matsuno ‘189 at [0011].
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that Ogino US Pub. 2017/0018761 does not teach that the binder contains cyano group and the negative electrode mixture layer is free of a binder which contains no cyano group. Specifically, although Ogino teaches polyacrylonitrile the reference:
lists more than 20 materials covering most materials usable as the binder, and polyacrylonitrile (PAN) is merely one of these examples. Further, Ogino describes that it is preferable to use polyimide as a binder. As such, even if Matsuno and Ogino are combined, there is no motivation to select polyacrylonitrile (PAN) as the binder.
Applicant further asserts that PVDF binders commonly used with the instant M3Me2X7 used as the anodic material becomes gelation and difficult to use. The cyano group improves dispersibility. This argument is partially persuasive. PAN binders are well known as evidence by Ogino. 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). Therefore, the skilled artisan is motivated to use common binders that form the best slurries with materials, and it appears that picking from well known binders does not require undue experimentation. However for the purposes of completeness considering claim 1 has been amended to specifically exclude any other binders, the reference has been withdrawn. The newly applied references show that it is well known in the art to employ cyano group binders only in negative electrodes of lithium ion batteries to achieve specific properties. Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided any data beyond the assertion that gelation occurs with PVDF and spreadability can be improved with polyacrylonitrile. However, the degree to which these characteristics are achieve has not been shown. Therefore, it is unclear that unexpected results have been substantiated. The applicant asserts laundry lists of binders to overcome references, but no data showing results of why PAN is unexpectantly superior. The applied references show preference for PAN.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights