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 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.
Hying (US-20100279173-A1) is newly applied to modify Wakita to teach the ceramic particles provided in the separator. Wakita is applied to the amendment of “the ceramic particles enter the positive electrode active material and the separator.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 claims the limitation “the ceramic particles enter the positive electrode active material and the separator.” The term “enter” in the context of the particles and layer is not defined and parameters of “enter” are not provided, and the instant specification does not provide one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the term as claimed.
Claims 2-4 depend on independent claim 1 and are therefore rejected.
In the prior art rejection, Wakita discloses wherein the cathode layer is compression-molded by a roll press machine (see e.g., Wakita; [0067]). Therefore, modified Wakita having the ceramic particles compression molded with the layer results in contact between the active material and the ceramic particles, which may correspond to the ceramic particles entering as claimed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakita (US-20080160415-A1), and further in view of Konno (US-20180006309-A1), Morimoto (US-20060222937-A1), and Hying (US-20100279173-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wakita teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: an electrode assembly in which a positive electrode 11 and a negative electrode 12 are flatly wound (see e.g., [0025], fig. 1) with a separator 15 (see e.g., [0023]) interposed therebetween, the positive electrode having a positive electrode mixture layer including a positive electrode active material (see e.g., [0016]); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (see e.g., [0060]), wherein ceramic particles, Al2O3, are added into the positive electrode mixture layer in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight of 10% in example 2-2 (see e.g., [0108], table 2), which overlaps with the claimed 0.10 to 0.30 mass%.
Wakita further teaches that the ceramic material may include Al2O3, SiO2, ZrO2, and MgO, which are electrically insulating materials. Wakita also teaches that the ceramic particles forms in an SEI film which is formed on a surface of the cathode active material (see e.g., Wakita; [0031]) and therefore present on a surface of the positive electrode active material. Wakita teaches that this ceramic material on the surface of the cathode active material enables lithium ions to transfer on the surface of the ceramic having high ion diffusibility in the surface part of the cathode active material layer having high charge transfer resistance (see e.g., Wakita; [0031]).
Wakita discloses that the ceramic particles enter the positive electrode active material (see e.g., Wakita; [0067], regarding wherein the cathode layer is compression-molded, which results in the ceramic particles contacting the positive electrode active material layer).
Wakita does not explicitly disclose wherein the ceramic particles enter the separator. However, Hying discloses a battery separator specifically provided with aluminum oxide (see e.g., Wakita; [0103]-[0105], [0023], [0030]). Hying is further analogous art because Hying discloses that the separator comprises of polymer materials such as polyolefin (see e.g., Hying; [0105]), which is the same separator material disclosed by Wakita. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the separator disclosed by Wakita with the ceramic oxide particles as disclosed by Hying in order to improve stability, particularly with the occurrence of a bend or crack (see e.g., Hying; [0022]).
Wakita discloses the ceramic particles have a median diameter of 25 nm (see e.g., [0108], table 2) measured with a laser diffraction type grain distribution measuring device (see e.g., [0051]) which overlaps with the embodiment of the instant specification (D50) of 0.5 µm or smaller. Wakita does not explicitly disclose the ceramic particles have a median diameter on a volumetric basis (D50) of 0.05 μm to 0.5 μm. However, Konno discloses ceramic particles with a median diameter of 0.1 μm to 50 μm on a volume average basis (see e.g., [0069], regarding carbon coated Al2O3), which overlaps with the claimed 0.05 μm to 0.5 μm. Konno is equivalent analogous art because Konno similarly discloses the same ceramic particle of aluminum oxide, similarly measured by laser diffraction method (see e.g., [0071]), the particle is provided in the positive electrode layer, the content of the ceramic particle provided in the positive mixture layer is similarly 0.1% to 10% by mass (see e.g., [0072]), and the electrolyte may be provided with LiPF6 in a nonaqueous solvent (see e.g., [0124]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ceramic particle disclosed by Wakita by providing a particle with median diameter of 0.1 μm to 50 μm on a volume average basis disclosed by Konno. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a particle wherein the viscosity of slurry tends to be suppressed from increasing during the production of a cathode mixture, and workability tends to be favorably maintained, and streaks tend to be inhibited from being generated during the production (coating) of a cathode mixture (see e.g., [0069]).
Wakita also teaches a separator 15: by using a porous film made of a ceramic nonwoven fabric, polyolefin type material that is most preferably polypropylene or polyethylene which overlaps with the instant specifications most preferred material, may include multiple stacked layers (see e.g., [0063]), is stacked and wound into a coil of many turns between a cathode and an anode (see e.g., [0078], [0092]), wherein the thickness is most preferably 7 µm or more and 30 µm or less (see e.g., [0064]) which overlaps with the separator thickness of 18 µm provided in the instant specification.
Wakita does not specifically teach that the wound assembly with the separator is wound to provide a flat assembly and then press-formed. However, Morimoto teaches press-forming a flat electrode body with a separator wound inside (see e.g., [0022]). Morimoto is equivalent analogous art and combinable to Wakita because Morimoto similarly teaches a wound electrode body wherein the separator 3 is laminated between a positive and negative electrode (see e.g., [0004]) and is made wider than the width of the neighboring electrodes (see e.g., [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery manufacturing process disclosed by Wakita by wrapping the components to provide a flat body and then compressing the body as disclosed by Morimoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve a desired thickness of the body (see e.g., [0022]).
Combined with the elements that Wakita teaches above, forming a flat body and compressing the flat body as taught by Morimoto overlaps with the instant specification description of press-forming the assembly with the separator such that the air permeance of flat portion of the separator is changed. Moreover, Morimoto also teaches rounded edge regions 12 wherein the edge regions are not subject to direct compression (see e.g., [0022], fig. 5), which overlaps with the instant specification of curved surface portions 11b not subjected to compression.
The combination of Wakita, Morimoto, Hying, and Konno provides all of the positively recited structure, and provides a flat body assembly and compression process that includes all of the recited process steps as the instant specification. As such, it is the examiners position that the properties resulting from such a structure, specifically a separator having an air permeance of 165 to 310 sec/100-ml, and an air permeance of a flat portion of the separator to an air permeance of a curved surface portion of the separator of 120 to 140%, would be inherent.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 2, modified Wakita teach the elements of claim 1 as described above. Wakita also teaches in example 3-5 where the median diameter of the ceramic Al2O3 particles are changed to 85 nm or 0.085 μm (see e.g., [0126], table 3), which is still less than 0.5 μm, wherein the cathode active material has a particle diameter of 15 μm (see e.g., [0086], [0126]), such that a ratio of the positive electrode active material D50 to the ceramic particle D50 is approximately 176.5, which overlaps with the claimed ratio of a D50 of the positive electrode active material is 10 to 200, where the D50 of the ceramic particles is 1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wakita teach the elements of claim 1 and 2 as described above. Wakita also teaches that the positive electrode active material may be lithium nickel-cobalt-manganate, LixNiz(1-v-w)CovMnwO4, wherein 0.05<x<1.10, z<1, and v+w<1 (see e.g.,[0034]-[0036]). This formula includes examples such as LiNi0.2Co0.3Mn0.3O4 which has 37.5 mol% of manganese based on a total amount of transition metal elements, which overlaps with the claimed 10 to 40 mol% of manganese based on a total amount of transition metal elements.
Regarding claim 4, modified Wakita teach the elements of claim 1 as described above. Wakita also teaches that the ceramic particles include at least one oxide selected from titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, and zirconium dioxide (see e.g., table 1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728