DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged.
It is noted that claim 19 also depends from claim 1 and so should have been included in Group I that was elected and so will be examined as part of that group.
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application, claims 12-18 are withdrawn and claims 1-11 and 19 are pending examination as discussed below.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by US 20130216908 (Tsujikawa) .
Regarding claim 1, 7, 8, Tsujikawa teaches a secondary battery with positive and negative electrodes and the first layer contains a flame-retardant material with a halogen atom, carbon nanotubes and a second layer with carbon nanotubes. The third layer is the flame retardant layer and is disposed on the surface of the second layer (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0006, 0007]).
Regarding claim 5, the positive electrode material to flame-retardant material ratio is 0 to 7% ([0018]).
Regarding claim 6, the first layer contains acetylene black and positive active material to acetylene black ratio is 85:2, which meets the claimed ratio ([0017]).
Regarding claim 9, the carbon nanotube in the second layer is 10 mass% or less ([0017])
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.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130216908 (Tsujikawa).
The teachings of Tsujikawa as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 2, a simple structure of the taught phosphazene compound is hexacholorocyclotriphosphazene, which has a halogen atom of chlorine at 60 mass%. It would be obvious to envision this compound for the flame-retardant material since it is known for this purpose and a simple species of the taught genus.
Regarding claim 3, the phosphazene compounds chosen release the halogen atom at a temperature of 180C or higher.
Regarding claim 10, the thickness of the third layer is not explicitly taught. However, the thickness of the third layer is taught to be less than 20% the thickness of the positive active material layer ([0018]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose and adapt the thickness of the third layer based on design requirements of the battery to meet or overlap the claimed thicknesses.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. (MPEP 2144.05) Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. (MPEP 2144.05). Use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141 III).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, while the amount of flame-retardant material is not explicitly stated, in the flame-retardant layer, the amount of carbon can be less than 25 wt% and the pore forming material is taught as being variable and based on design ([0007, 0018], Examples). Based on the amounts of other materials included in the flame-retardant layer, it would be obvious that in the third layer, the amount of flame-retardant layer is comprised of 50 mass% or more. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05). Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130216908 (Tsujikawa) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JPH 10172615 (Arai).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Tsujikawa is silent to the claimed flame-retardant materials as listed in claim 4.
Arai also teaches a secondary battery with a flame-retardant material (Abstract). The flame-retardant material can be tetrabromobisphenol A ([0015]). Use of this type material is endothermic and can lower the temperature of the battery when combating the flames. This material releases the halogen atom at a temperature of 180C or higher.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the tetrabromobisphenol A material in the battery of Tsujikawa because substituting a known material for a known purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the material would allow for a lower of the internal battery temperature due to the endothermic properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-3458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights