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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation "the second layer" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In line 2, replace “5” with –6--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Izumi et al. (JP 2016186886A).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Izumi et al. disclose an electrochemical device comprising:
a positive electrode (11);
a negative electrode (12); and
an electrolyte [0050]-[0051] having lithium ion conductivity, wherein:
the positive electrode (11) includes a positive current collector (111) and a positive electrode mixture layer (112) supported on the positive current collector (111),
the positive electrode (111) mixture layer contains a positive electrode active material reversibly doped with an anion [0085],
the negative electrode (12) includes a negative current collector (121) and a negative electrode mixture layer (122) supported on the negative current collector (121),
the negative electrode mixture layer (122) contains a negative electrode active material reversibly doped with lithium ions [0086],
the negative electrode active material contains non-graphitizable carbon [0086], and
a ratio Mp/Mn of a mass Mp of the positive electrode active material supported on a unit area of the positive electrode (91 % of 6.92 mg/cm2 – [0085]) to a mass Mn of the negative electrode active material supported on a unit area of the negative electrode (93% of 4.0 mg/cm2) is in a range from 1.1 to 2.5 (6.2972 / 3.72 = 1.693), inclusive.
Regarding claim 2, Izumi et al. disclose the ratio Mp/Mn is in a range from 1.4 to 1.8, inclusive (1.693 – see above).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi et al. (JP 2016186886A) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0140322).
Regarding claim 3, Izumi et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a specific surface area of the negative electrode mixture layer is in a range from 10 m2/g to 70 m2/g, inclusive.
Chen et al. disclose an electrochemical device (title) comprising a negative electrode mixture (abstract), wherein the negative electrode mixture has a specific surface area in a range from 10 m2/g to 70 m2/g, inclusive [0051].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the electrochemical device are to form the electrochemical device of Izumi et al. so that the negative electrode mixture has a specific surface area in a range from 10 m2/g to 70 m2/g, inclusive, since such a modification would form an electrochemical device having high cycle performance.
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. teach that the specific surface area of the negative electrode mixture layer is in a range from 25 m2/g to 50 m2/g, inclusive [0051].
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi et al. (JP 2016186886A) in view of Yagi et al. (JP 2005166469A).
Regarding claim 5, Izumi et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a surface layer of the negative electrode mixture has a first layer containing lithium carbonate.
Yagi et al. disclose an electrochemical element (title) having a negative electrode, wherein the negative electrode has a lithium carbonate layer [0009].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of Izumi et al. so that the negative electrode layer comprises a thin lithium carbonate layer, since such a modification would improve the charge-discharge cycle characteristics.
Regarding claim 8, Izumi et al. disclose the first layer has a thickness of 15 nm [0027].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi et al. (JP 2016186886A) in view of Hamon et al. (US 2015/0372274).
Regarding claim 10, Izumi et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the electrolyte having lithium ion conductivity includes lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide: LiN(SO2F)2.
Hamon et al. disclose an electrochemical device using a lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide electrolyte.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the electrochemical device art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of Izumi et al. using a bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide electrolyte, since electrolyte materials are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost and electrochemical properties.
Bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide is a known electrolyte that demonstrates outstanding chemical and thermal stability.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-7, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with the other claim limitations, the prior art does not teach or suggest an electrochemical device:
wherein the surface layer part of the negative electrode mixture layer has a second layer containing a solid electrolyte (claim 6); and
wherein the second layer is measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a substantially F1s peak attributed to a LiF bond is observed (claim 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20060028121
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 PM.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached at 571-272-2229. 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.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2848