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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, and 4-7 are rejected.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
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 1-2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20100159337 A1, “Matsumoto”) in view of Ide et al. (US 20100062340 A1, “Ide”), Masanori et al. (JP 2019021510 A, “Masanori”) and Fujimaki et al. (CN 104769745 A, “Fujimaki”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1 and claim 7, Matsumoto discloses a lithium-ion battery (see [0096] “lithium ion secondary battery”; see abstract “secondary battery”), comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte, wherein: the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material; the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material and a specific metal (see abstract “cathode” & “anode” & “electrolytic solution” & “anode active material layer and a compound layer” & see [0106] “cathode active material layer” & see [0092] “anode active material particles 4 further have at least one metal element selected from the group consisting of iron, cobalt, nickel”); a plurality of voids is located inside the negative electrode active material (see [0081] “a void inside the anode active material particles 4 is preferably filled with the metal 6” which describes a void inside each particle which reads on plurality of voids); the specific metal adheres to an outside surface and an inside surface of the negative electrode active material (see [0081] “a void inside the anode active material particles 4 is preferably filled with the metal 6”); the specific metal includes at least one selected from the group consisting of iron; the specific metal adheres to an outside surface of the negative electrode active material, and to an inside surface of the negative electrode active material that is located within the voids (see [0092] “anode active material particles 4 further have at least one metal element selected from the group consisting of iron”); the specific metal is present at the interface between the negative electrode active material and the electrolyte (see [0053] “the anode active material preferably further has at least one metal element selected from the group consisting of iron” & “Thereby, expansion and shrinkage of the anode active material layer 2 are inhibited” & see abstract “electrolytic solution is impregnated into a separator provided between the cathode and the anode”). Regarding the limitation the specific metal includes a dissolution potential and a deposition potential, Matsumoto discloses in [0088] “metal 6 having the foregoing metal element is formed by liquid-phase deposition method or the like” which reads on deposition potential. Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the specific metal includes a dissolution potential and a deposition potential; the dissolution potential is lower than a potential at which the positive electrode active material releases lithium ions; the dissolution potential is lower than a potential at which the positive electrode active material releases lithium ions; the deposition potential is higher than a potential at which the negative electrode active material stores the lithium ions.
Masanori teaches deposition and dissolution potential (see [0030] “the pos. electrode potential becomes high and exceeds the dissolution potential of Fe, so that the metallic foreign matter is easily dissolved in the electrolytic solution 17 on the pos. electrode plate 21” & “since the neg. electrode potential does not become too low (remains higher than the deposition potential or iron ions), the metal derived from the metal foreign object is less likely to be deposited on the neg. electrode plate 31”; see [0033] “When the main charging step S8 is performed, the negative electrode potential decreases and becomes lower than the deposition potential of ferrous ions, so that metals derived from a metallic foreign matter such as ferrous are likely to be deposited on the negative electrode plate 31”).
Matsumoto and Masanori are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium ion batteries (see Masanori title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dissolution potential and deposition potential into the battery of Matsumoto because Masanori teaches “since the negative electrode potential does not become too low (remains higher than the deposition potential of iron ions), the metal derived from the metal foreign object is less likely to be deposited on the negative electrode plate” (see [0030]) and in the main charging step “the negative electrode potential decreases and becomes lower than the deposition potential of ferrous ions, so that metal derived from a metal foreign matter such as iron is easily deposited on the negative electrode plate” (see [0033]).
Regarding the limitation during charging and discharging of the lithium-ion battery, the specific metal is maintained in a state of adhering to the outside surface and the inside surface of the negative electrode active material, Matsumoto discloses “a void inside the anode active material particles 4 is preferably filled with the metal 6” (see [0081]), but does not explicitly disclose adhering to the outside surface of the neg. electrode active material.
Ide teaches “voids between the particles 12a coated with the metallic material 13” (see abstract).
Matsumoto and Ide are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries (see Ide Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “voids between the particles 12a coated with the metallic material” as suggested by Ide into the battery of Matsumoto because doing so “prevent[s] falling-off of the particles 12a having pulverized as a result of expansion and contraction accompanying charge/discharge cycles while improving the energy density” as suggested by Ide (see [0017]) and because “voids are formed between the particles 12a coated with the metallic material 13. The voids provide vacant spaces to serve to relax the stress resulting from volumetric changes of the active material particles 12a accompanying charge and discharge cycles” as suggested by Ide (see [0018]).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto discloses a method for manufacturing a lithium-ion battery (see [0215] “the secondary battery is manufactured, for example, by the following procedure”), the method comprising: preparing a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material (see [0216] “cathode 21 is formed” & “cathode active material”); preparing a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material (see [0217] “anode 22 is formed” & “anode active material”); assembling the lithium-ion battery including the positive electrode, the negative electrode, an electrolyte, and a specific metal (see [0219] “secondary battery is assembled” & “cathode” & “anode” & “electrolytic solution” & “impregnating in the separator 23”; see [0081] “metal 6”); performing first charging of the lithium-ion battery (see [0220] “charged”); and after the first charging, performing second charging of the lithium-ion battery (see [0259] “cycle characteristics for the secondary batteries of examples” which reads on performing a second charging), wherein: a void is located inside the negative electrode active material (see [0081] “a void inside the anode active material particles 4 is preferably filled with the metal 6”).
Regarding the limitation in the assembling the lithium-ion battery, the specific metal is placed so as to be electrically in contact with the positive electrode, Matsumoto discloses in [0088] “the metal 6 is injected into a portion between each layer of the anode active material particles 4 and a void inside the anode active material particles 4. In the result, the anode active material layer 2B is formed”; see [0019] “examples of cathode materials capable of inserting and extracting lithium”; see [0106] “cathode electrical conductor”; see [0112] “cathode electrical conductor may be a metal material” & “electric conductivity”; see [0113] “chargeable capacity in the anode material capable of inserting and extracting lithium is preferably larger than the discharge capacity of the cathode” which describes upon cycling the metal moves from the anode to the cathode).
Regarding the limitation the first charging includes performing constant voltage charging of the lithium-ion battery at such a battery voltage that a positive electrode potential becomes higher than the dissolution potential and a negative electrode potential becomes higher than the deposition potential, and in the second charging, the negative electrode potential becomes equal to or lower than the deposition potential, Matsumoto discloses “constant voltage charge was continuously performed at the constant voltage of 4.2 V until the current value reached 0.01 mA/cm2” (see [0260]), but does not explicitly disclose dissolution potential, nor neg. electrode potential becomes lower than the deposition potential.
Masanori teaches (see [0029]) “the first battery voltage V1 is a battery voltage at which the positive electrode potential is higher than a dissolution potential (3.2V vs. Li/Li+) at which Fe is dissolved and the negative electrode potential is higher than a deposition potential”; see [0030] “the positive electrode potential becomes high and exceeds the dissolution potential of Fe, so that the metallic foreign matter is easily dissolved in the electrolytic solution 17 on the positive electrode plate 21” & “since the negative electrode potential does not become too low (remains higher than the deposition potential of iron ions), the metal derived from the metal foreign object is less likely to be deposited on the negative electrode plate 31”. Masanori teaches in [0033] “when the main charging step S8 is performed, the neg. electrode potential decreases and becomes lower than the deposition potential of ferrous ions, so that metals derived from metallic foreign matter such as ferrous are likely to be deposited on the negative electrode plate 31”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dissolution potential & deposition potential & neg. electrode potential becomes lower than the deposition potential as required by the claim & incorporate “the pos. electrode potential becomes high and exceeds the dissolution potential of iron, and the metal foreign matter is easily dissolved in the electrolytic solution 17 on the pos. electrode plate” & “since the neg. electrode potential does not become too low (because it remains higher than the deposition potential of iron ions), the metal derived from the metal foreign matter hardly deposits on the neg. electrode plate” into the method of Matsumoto because doing so allows “the neg. electrode potential decreases and becomes lower than the deposition potential of iron ions, so that metal derived from a metal foreign matter such as iron is easily deposited on the neg. electrode plate”, as suggested by Masanori (see [0033], [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the specific metal includes nickel (see [0092] “anode active material particles 4 further have at least one metal element selected from the group consisting of” & “nickel”).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a ratio of mass of the specific metal to mass of the negative electrode active material (see [0274] “content ratio of nickel in the anode active material was 5 atomic %”). Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose ratio is 0.192 to 0.384.
Ide teaches ratio of 60% or less (equivalent to 0.6 or less), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.192 to 0.384. MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 5, Matsumoto discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose primary particles nor secondary particles.
Fujimaki teaches primary particles and secondary particles in the pores (voids) (see [0198] describes “mixing states of metal foreign matter representative particles” & “such as the embedding states of metal foreign matter representative particles in electrodes”). Fujimaki teaches pores (see [0101] describes “continuous pores may be formed by bonding a plurality of particles” & “metal materials” & plurality of particles reads on primary and secondary particles & [0101] describes the void is located between the primary particles). Further, Fujimaki teaches “porous metal body” can “ensure the strength” & “suppress the air permeation resistance” (see [0101]).
Matsumoto and Fujimaki are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries (see Fujimaki abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate primary and secondary particles into the lithium-ion battery of Matsumoto because Fujimaki teaches that “porous metal body” & “continuous pores may be formed by bonding a plurality of particles” & doing so improves the strength and suppresses air permeation resistance as suggested by Fujimaki (see [0101]).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose wherein in the negative electrode active material, the specific metal adheres to the inside surface up to a distance of one-fifth or more of a maximum diameter of the secondary particle from a surface of the secondary particle toward a center of the secondary particle on a line segment of the maximum diameter of the secondary particle.
Ide teaches voids and 15% to 40% by volume (see [0018] “voids are formed between the particles 12a coated with the metallic material” & “the proportion of the voids in the active material layer 12 is preferably 15% to 40% by volume, still preferably 20% to 35% by volume” & “the proportion of the voids can be controlled within the recited range by, for example, properly selecting the conditions for depositing the metallic material 13 between the particles 12a by electroplating”) and 15% reads on 0.15 which overlaps the claimed range of 1/5 (equivalent to 0.2).
Ide teaches a range of 15% to 40% (equivalent to 0.15 to 0.40), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1/5 or more (equivalent to 0.2 or more). MPEP 2144.05 I states that 'In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, and 4-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 04/17/2026
Prosecution Insights