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) 1-7, 10 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.
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended to now require that “the coating layer comprises a component shown by a general formula LnFx, Ln is two or more elements elected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Y, and Sc”. Examiner notes that while the open ended “at least one element” language used in original claim 1 and the specification ([0019]) encompasses the case where there are two elements selected from said group, all examples provided in the specification are directed towards a rare earth metal fluoride composed of a single rare earth metal ([0096]-[0126] Examples 1-9). Further the specification teaches that the coating layer is preferably LaF3 which falls outside the limitations of claim 1 ([0022]).
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 contains the limitation “wherein the coating layer comprises LaF3”. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 which requires that “the coating layer comprises a component shown by a general formula LnFx, Ln is two or more elements elected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Y, and Sc” (emphasis added). It is not possible to derive LaF3 from the limitations of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suda (JPH09302478A) in view of Imoto et al. (JP 3545209 B2) hereinafter "Imoto" in further view of Wu et al. (US 20200024735 A1) hereinafter “Wu”.
Regarding claim 1, Suda teaches a negative electrode material, comprising a hydrogen storage alloy and a coating layer on the surface of particles of the hydrogen storage alloy ([0008]-[0009]; [0022]-[0023]); and the coating layer comprises a component shown by a general formula LnFx, Ln is at least one element selected as La ([0022]-[0023] LaF3). Suda teaches wherein a coating layer thickness should be selected within the range of 0.01-1µm (10-1000nm), for example 0.02 µm ([0025] 20nm), because if it is too thick the initial activation characteristics, hydrogen storage capacity, electrochemical characteristics, reaction rate, etc. of the hydrogen storage alloy will be reduced ([0014]). Conversely, if an insufficient thickness if formed the stabilizing effect will be insufficient ([0011]). Further, Suda especially provides the coating layer, thus teaching that the weight percent of metal fluoride coating must be greater than zero ([0013]).
Suda does not teach wherein based on the mass of the negative electrode active material, the content of the coating layer is no less than 2 wt%.
However, Imoto teaches a negative electrode material, comprising a hydrogen storage alloy and a metal coating layer on the surface of particles of the hydrogen storage alloy ([0008]; [0014]). Imoto teaches a cobalt fluoride coating and teaches that cobalt fluoride should be added at 0.01 to 5.0 weight percent of the hydrogen storage alloy to ensure sufficient, but not excessive, coating ([0044]-[0046]; [0017]; [0011]; [0039]). Imoto teaches that the cobalt fluoride added precipitates on the surface of the hydrogen storage alloy ([0017]). Imoto further teaches wherein the thickness of the final coating layer should be less than 150nm to improve discharge capacity during high-rate discharge ([0044]-[0046]).
The cobalt fluoride coating taught by Imoto is considered analogous to the lanthanum fluoride coating taught by Suda because both are metal fluoride coatings, used in a similar thickness, to stabilize, suppress common defects, and improve performance of a hydrogen storage alloy having a CaCu5 type crystal structure when used as a negative electrode material in a secondary battery (Suda [0008]; [0022]; Imoto [0003]-[0007]; [0029]; [0016])
Suda teaches selecting a thickness of a surface coating layer within a range that yields sufficient stabilizing effect with avoiding a reduction in initial activation characteristics, hydrogen storage capacity, electrochemical characteristics, reaction rate, etc. of the hydrogen storage alloy. Imoto teaches adding a fluoride compound at 0.01wt%-5wt%, based on the mass of the hydrogen storage alloy, to generate hydrogen storage alloy with a coating layer less than 150nm to improve discharge capacity during high-rate discharge.
Therefore, in view of Suda and Imoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hydrogen storage allow taught by Suda such that the content of the coating layer is no less than 2 wt% based on the mass of the negative electrode active material.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the hydrogen storage allow taught by Suda such that the content of the coating layer is no less than 2 wt% based on the mass of the negative electrode active material to allow sufficient stabilizing effect, good electrochemical characteristics, good hydrogen storage capacity, and good discharge capacity (Suda [0011], [0014]; Imoto [0017], [0044]-[0046]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Suda does not teach where Ln is two or more elements selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Y, and Sc.
However, Wu teaches rare earth metal containing coatings ([0020]-[0023]). Wu teaches coatings with a formula of M1xM2yFz where M1 and M2 may be selected as a rare earth metal ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the coating taught by Suda to include an additional metal component, such as a rare earth metal, as taught by Wu.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the coating taught by Suda to include an additional metal component, such as a rare earth metal, as taught by Wu with a reasonable expectation of success because rare earth metal fluoride compounds with a formula of M1xM2yFz, i.e. doped metal fluoride compounds, are known in the art ([0020]-[0023]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, for example, a LaF3 coating could be doped to include additional rare earth metal compounds. Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, modified Suda teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 1.
Modified Suda does not teach wherein the content of the coating layer is 2 wt%-4wt% based on the mass of the negative electrode active material.
However, Suda teaches selecting a thickness of a surface coating layer within a range that yields sufficient stabilizing effect while avoiding a reduction in initial activation characteristics, hydrogen storage capacity, electrochemical characteristics, reaction rate, etc. of the hydrogen storage alloy. Imoto teaches adding a fluoride compound at 0.01wt%-5wt%, based on the mass of the hydrogen storage alloy, to generate hydrogen storage alloy with a coating layer less than 150nm to improve discharge capacity during high-rate discharge.
Therefore, in view of Suda and Imoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the content of the coating layer on the hydrogen storage alloy taught by Suda such that the content of the coating layer is 2 wt%-4wt%.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the content of the coating layer on the hydrogen storage alloy taught by Suda to allow sufficient stabilizing effect, good electrochemical characteristics, good hydrogen storage capacity, and good discharge capacity (Suda [0011], [0014]; Imoto [0017], [0044]-[0046]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In regards to claim 3, modified Suda teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 1. Suda further teaches wherein, the coating layer comprises LaF3 (0017]; [0022]-[0023]).
In regards to claim 4, modified Suda teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 1. Suda further teaches wherein, the hydrogen storage alloy is AB5 type ([0003]; [0022] “LaNi4.7Al0.3”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Suda teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 4.
Imoto further teaches wherein, in a crystal structure of the hydrogen storage alloy, A site thereof contains X element, and B site thereof contains Ni element and Y element, X is selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, and Y is at least one element selected as Mn, Co, Al ([0024]-[0025]; [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the base hydrogen storage alloy taught by Suda with the base hydrogen storage alloy taught by Imoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the base hydrogen storage alloy taught by Suda with the base hydrogen storage alloy taught by Imoto with a reasonable expectation of producing a negative electrode active material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, modified Suda teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 1. Suda further teaches wherein, a thickness of the coating layer is 0.1-1000 nm ([0014] 0.01-1µm which equals 10-1000nm; [0022]-[0023]; [0025])
Regarding claim 10, modified Suda teaches negative electrode contains the negative electrode material according to claim 1.
Imoto further teaches a nickel-metal hydride secondary battery, comprising a container, and an electrode assembly contained in the container together with an alkaline electrolyte in a sealed state ([0030]-[0031]; [0054]), wherein the electrode assembly is composed of a positive electrode and a negative electrode separated by a separator ([0028]-[0029]; [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the hydrogen storage alloy taught by modified Suda in a nickel-metal hydride secondary battery as taught by Imoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have used the hydrogen storage alloy taught by modified Suda in a nickel-metal hydride secondary battery as taught by Imoto with a reasonable expectation of producing a nickel-metal hydride battery because using a hydrogen storage alloy as a negative electrode in a nickel-metal hydride storage battery is conventionally done in the prior art ([0028]-[0031]; [0054]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suda (JPH09302478A) in view of Imoto (JP 3545209 B2) in further view of Wu (US 20200024735 A1), as applied above, in further view of Kagei et al. (JP 2014198907 A) hereinafter “Kagei” and Tan et al. (A Nb-doped metal hydride electrode with overcharge resistance and wide tempera performance for aqueous rechargeable batteries, Scripta Materialia, vol. 218) hereinafter “Tan”.
Regarding claim 6, modified Suda teaches the negative electrode material according to claim 5. Imoto teaches wherein the crystal structure of the hydrogen alloy is CaCu5 ([0016]).
Modified Suda does not teach wherein, the hydrogen storage alloy is La9.2Ce6.0Pr0.2Nd0.7Zr0.3Ni73.0Mn5.9Al4.6.
However, Kagei teaches an AB5 hydrogen storage alloy having a CaCu5 type crystal structure ([0001]; [0004]). Kagei teaches that many hydrogen storage alloys contain Nd and Pr which are expensive ([0009]) and it is beneficial to reduce their contents in an alloy ([0010]). Hagei teaches where in the hydrogen storage alloy, Mm (misch metal) is a metal that constitutes the A site of the AB5 type hydrogen storage alloy, and contains one or more elements selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Nd and Pr and the metal in the B site include Ni, Al, Mn, Co, Fe, Ti, V, and Zr, or a combination of two or more of these ([0017]). Kagei teaches varying compositions of hydrogen storage alloy ([0018]-[0025]). Kagei teaches the importance of maintaining low-temperature characteristics ([0059]).
Kagei does not teach wherein, the hydrogen storage alloy is specifically La9.2Ce6.0Pr0.2Nd0.7Zr0.3Ni73.0Mn5.9Al4.6.
However, Tan teaches a hydrogen storage alloy with the formula La0.46Ce0.42- xPr0.03Nd0.08Zr0.02NbxNi4.41Mn0.36Al0.28 (x = 0, 0.05 or 0.1) for use as electrode material that has excellent overcharge resistance and good capacity retention at a wide range of temperatures (abstract).
Kagei teaches a hydrogen storage material where the A site of the AB5 type hydrogen storage alloy contains one or more elements selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Nd and Pr and the metal in the B site include Ni, Al, Mn, Co, Fe, Ti, V, and Zr, or a combination of two or more of these ([0017]). Tan teaches a hydrogen storage alloy with the formula La0.46Ce0.42- xPr0.03Nd0.08Zr0.02NbxNi4.41Mn0.36Al0.28 (x = 0, 0.05 or 0.1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the base hydrogen storage material taught by modified Suda with a hydrogen storage material including La, Ce, Nd, Pr, Ni, Al, Mn, and Zr as taught by Kagei and Tan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the base hydrogen storage material taught by modified Suda with a hydrogen storage material including La, Ce, Nd, Pr, Ni, Al, Mn, and Zr as taught by Kagei and Tan to improve performance at a wide range of temperatures (Kagei [0059]; Tan [abstract]). Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the precise proportion and ratios of each element in the hydrogen storage alloy taught by Kagei and Tan.
One of ordinary skill in the art, looking to minimize cost and maintain good capacity retention at a wide range of temperatures, could arrive at the claimed range via routine optimization of the compositions taught by Kagei and Tan. In reKulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SUDA SEIJIROJP (JP3718238 B2) teaches a hydrogen storage alloy having a fluoride-based coating layer of 0.01-1µm wherein the fluoride-based coating comprises CaF2, LaF , MgF2, NH4F ([0010]; [0011]-[0014]; [0017]).
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728