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 .
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, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi et al. US20110129734A1, hereinafter Konishi.
Regarding Claim 1 and Claim 4-
Konishi discloses non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [Konishi 0117 and throughout, Fig. 2], comprising:
a positive electrode having a positive electrode mixture layer [Konishi 0061-0062, 0118, Fig. 2 and throughout, cathode 11];
a negative electrode[Konishi 0118, Fig. 2 and throughout, anode 12]; and
a non-aqueous electrolyte [Konishi 0018 and throughout],
wherein the positive electrode mixture layer includes:
a first lithium-transition metal composite oxide represented by the general formula
LixNi1- y-zCoyMzO2, wherein 0.8≤x≤1.2, 0≤ y ≤0.2, 0 <z≤ 0.5, and M represents at least one metal element excluding Li, Ni, and Co [Konishi 0013, 0024 and throughout, compositional formula: Lix1Nia1Mnb1Coc1O2 (in which 0.2≦x1≦1.2, 0.6≦a1≦0.9, 0.05≦b1≦0.3, 0.05≦c1≦0.3, and a1+b1+c1=1.0); or compositional formula: Lix2Nia2Mnb2COc2MdO2 (in which 0.2≦x2≦1.2, 0.7≦a2≦0.9, 0.05≦b2≦0.3, 0.05≦c2≦0.3, M=Mo, W, 0≦d≦0.06, and a2+b2+c2+d=1.0), Either of the formulas for the first cathode active substance or the second cathode active substance overlap and obviate the claimed composition. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.]; and
a second lithium-transition metal composite oxide represented by the general formula LiaNi2-a-bMebO2, wherein 0 <a≤0.5, 0≤b≤ 0.5, and Me represents at least one metal element excluding Li and Ni [Konishi 0013, 0024 and throughout, compositional formula: Lix1Nia1Mnb1Coc1O2 (in which 0.2≦x1≦1.2, 0.6≦a1≦0.9, 0.05≦b1≦0.3, 0.05≦c1≦0.3, and a1+b1+c1=1.0) or compositional formula: Lix2Nia2Mnb2COc2MdO2 (in which 0.2≦x2≦1.2, 0.7≦a2≦0.9, 0.05≦b2≦0.3, 0.05≦c2≦0.3, M=Mo, W, 0≦d≦0.06, and a2+b2+c2+d=1.0), Either of the formulas for the first cathode active substance or the second cathode active substance overlap and obviate the claimed composition and ranges and are merely close to the claimed range for Ni. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.], and
the non-aqueous electrolyte includes a sulfonylimide salt [Konishi 0069, LiN(CF3SO2)2 , meets the requirements of Claim 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the instantly claimed composition and ranges from the compositions and ranges taught by Konishi and to apply minor adjustments to the compositional range of Ni that would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan for the predicted result of a lithium ion secondary battery excellent in capacity, output, and heat stability and to provide the lithium ion secondary battery having excellent properties [Konishi 0012].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Konishi discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Since Konishi teaches the composite oxide as described above, without evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect Konishi’s x-ray diffraction pattern performed with the conditions of claim 3 would inherently be the same as instantly claimed. Any difference between the x-ray diffraction patterns of Konishi’s composite oxide and the instantly claimed composite oxide would be expected to be minimal and obvious. Further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). Further, see MPEP 2112 I, II regarding inherency. Thus, Konishi meets the requirements of claim 3.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi, as provided in claim 1, and further in view of Miura US20180019500A1.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Konishi discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1 including the sulfonylimide salt in the non-aqueous electrolyte as described above but is silent to the concentration of the salt. Miura discloses a sulfonylimide salt lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and lithium bis(trifluoromethane sulfonyl) imide as a supporting salt in a total amount of 0.6 to 1.4 (mol/L) [Miura abstract and throughout]. The range taught by Miura overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Miura’s teachings about the concentration of salt in modified Konishi’s battery for the predictable result of a battery with an electrolyte with good conductivity that is able to suppress a voltage drop after initial discharging and for sufficient discharge capacity for a broad temperature range [Miura 0092].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi, as provided in claim 1, and further in view of Azami US20190280284A1.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Konishi discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1 but is silent to the composition of the negative electrodes. Azami discloses a negative electrode includes, as a negative electrode active material a carbon-based active material [Azami 0041-0044, Azami discloses graphite, amorphous carbon, graphene, diamond-like carbon, carbon nanotubes.] and a second active material that is at least metal element selected from the group of Si, Sn, Sb, Mg, and Ge or a compound containing the metal element [Azami 0041-0043, Azami discloses Si, Sn, metal alloys, and metal oxides such as silicon oxide and tin oxides, preferably silicon oxides represented by the composition formula SiOx (0<x≤2). ], and a content of the second active material is greater than or equal to 1 mass % and less than or equal to 15 mass% relative to a total mass of the negative electrode active material [Azami 0068, Azami teaches an example of negative electrode active material with 90 mass % of graphite and 5 mass % of SiO. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the content of the carbon-based and second active materials of modified Konishi’s battery from the teachings of Azami for the predictable result of a battery with a negative electrode that is stable with a lessening of volume expansion [Azami 0043-0044].
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuu US20180254482A1 in view of Azami US20190280284A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 4, and Claim 5-
Matsuu discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [Matsuu 0014, 0079, and throughout], comprising:
a positive electrode having a positive electrode mixture layer [Matsuu 0057 and throughout, Fig. 1];
a negative electrode [Matsuu 0057 and throughout, Fig. 1];
and a non-aqueous electrolyte [Matsuu 0057, 0079],
wherein the positive electrode mixture layer includes:
a first lithium-transition metal composite oxide represented by the general formula LixNi1- y-zCoyMzO2, wherein 0.8≤x≤1.2, 0≤ y ≤0.2, 0 <z≤ 0.5, and M represents at least one metal element excluding Li, Ni, and Co [Matsuu 0045, general formula A overlaps and obviates the claim composition and ranges; 0075 Examples 1-9 with LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 anticipate the claimed composition]; and
a second lithium-transition metal composite oxide represented by the general formula LiaNi2-a-bMebO2, wherein 0 <a≤0.5, 0≤b≤ 0.5, and Me represents at least one metal element excluding Li and Ni [Matsuu 0045, positive electrode active material particle B , expressed by General Formula (B1) : LiβNiaCobAl(1-a-b)O2 (where 0<β≤1.15, 0.7≤a≤0.9, 0<b≤0.2, and 0<(1-a-b)), Matsuu formula B1 overlaps the claimed second oxide composition except for the range of Ni, which the skilled artisan would considered merely close. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" or are “merely close” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the instant composition and ranges from the compositions and ranges taught by Matsuu and to apply minor adjustments to the compositional range of Ni that would be within the ambit of the skilled artisan for the predictable result of a lithium-ion secondary battery having improved life characteristics, and a lithium-ion secondary battery which has sufficient energy density and has improved life characteristics [Matsuu 0014].
Matsuu teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte [Matsuu 0057, 0079] but does not disclose the non-aqueous electrolyte includes a sulfonylimide salt. Azami discloses sulfonylimide salts LiN(FSO2)2 and LiN(CF3SO2)2 [Azami 0053, which meets the requirements of claim 1 and claim 4] in a total amount of 0.5 to 1.5 (mol/L) [Azami 0054, The range taught by Azami overlaps and obviates the claimed range of claim 5. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Azami’s teachings about the concentration of salt in modified Matsuu’s battery for the predictable result of a battery with an electrolyte with sufficient conductivity, viscosity, and density [Azami 0054].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Matsuu disclose the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein a content of the second lithium-transition metal composite oxide is greater than or equal to 0.1 mass% and less than or equal to 10 mass% relative to the total mass of the positive electrode mixture layer [Matsuu 0035, Matsuu discloses active material particles B have a preferable range of be 3 to 30 mass %, which overlaps and obviates the claimed range. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been obvious to select the narrower claimed range from the range taught by Matsuu, especially since Matsuu describes the motivation of suppressing cracked gas during charging and discharging [Matsuu 0035].].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Matsuu discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Since Matsuu teaches the composite oxide as described above, without evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect Matsuu’s x-ray diffraction pattern performed with the conditions of claim 3 would inherently be the same as instantly claimed. Any difference between the x-ray diffraction patterns of Matsuu’s composite oxide and the instantly claimed composite oxide would be expected to be minimal and obvious. Further, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). Further, see MPEP 2112 I, II regarding inherency. Thus, Matsuu meets the requirements of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Matsuu discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1 wherein the negative electrode includes, as a negative electrode active material a carbon-based active material [Matsuu 0064, Matsuu discloses graphite, amorphous carbon, diamond-like carbon, fullerene, carbon nanotube, and carbon nanohorn] and a second active material that is at least metal element selected from the group of Si, Sn, Sb, Mg, and Ge or a compound containing the metal element [Matsuu 0063, Matsuu also discloses a Si-based material such as Si, SiO2, SiOx (,0<x≤2), where the negative electrode active material can be a composite of the carbon-based material and the Si-based material, which meets the claimed negative electrode active material], and a content of the second active material is greater than or equal to 1 mass % and less than or equal to 15 mass% relative to a total mass of the negative electrode active material [Azami 0068, Azami teaches an example of negative electrode active material with 90 mass % of graphite and 5 mass % of SiO. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the content of the carbon-based and second active materials of modified Matsuu’s battery from the teachings of Azami for the predictable result of a battery with a negative electrode that is stable with a lessening of volume expansion [Azami 0043-0044].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. T. LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1681. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/M. T. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724