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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites ”(radiation energy)”. It is recommended to remove the parenthesis and replace with “at a radiation energy of 16 KeV “. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 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 7 recites the limitation "the metal element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0254482A1 (Matsuu) in view of US2019/0280284A1 (Azami) , which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 5, Matsuu teaches a positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material layer and a conductive assistant ([0043]), wherein the positive electrode active material layer contains:
a positive electrode active material particle A expressed by General Formula (A) LiαNixCoyMn(1-x-y)O2, where 0<α≤1.15, 0.7≤x≤0.9, 0<y≤0.2, and 0<(1-x-y) ([0045]), and exemplified as LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 ([0075]), which meets the claimed first metal composite, the claimed x, the claimed (1-y-z) (i.e., 0.3≤ (1-y-z)<1) and the claimed y and z ; and
a positive electrode active material particle B such as B1 expressed by General Formula (B1) Li βNiaCo bAl (1-a-b)O2 , where 0<β≤1.15, 0.7≤a≤0.9, 0<b≤0.2, and 0<(1-a-b) ([0045]), which renders the claimed second metal composite obvious since β encompasses the claimed a, a abuts the claimed (2-a-b) (i.e., the claimed 1≤ (2-a-b)<2), b+(1-a-b) is equal to or greater than 0.1 and equal to or less than 0.3, which meets the claimed b.
For the overlapped/encompassed range above, it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I; and for the abutted range above, it has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 Titanium Metals Corp of Am v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed Cir 1985).
Matsuu further teaches that the positive electrode active material layer may contain a conductive assistant such as carbon black, Ketjenblack, acetylene black, natural graphite, artificial graphite, and carbon fiber ([0048]).
Matsuu does not expressly disclose a carbon nanotube in the mixture layer, the amount of the carbon nanotube and the average diameter and fiber length of the carbon naotube.
Azami teaches that carbon nanotube has an elongated shape in addition to high conductivity and is useful as a conductive material together with carbon black in positive electrodes containing lithium nickel composite oxides, which can form a conductive path in the gap between the primary particles of the lithium nickel composite oxide, prevent the increase in electronic resistance and achieve high capacity retention rate ([0025] and [0031]), wherein the carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode mixture layer is preferably 0.5 mass % or more and 10 mass % or less ([0028]), and the average diameter of the carbon nanotubes is preferably 5 nm or more and more preferably 10 nm or more and preferably 30 nm or less, the average length of the carbon nanotubes is preferably 300 nm or more and 1000 nm or less ([0026]), which meets the claimed diameter range of less than 20 nm when the diameter is 5 or 10 nm, and length of equal to 1 µm when the length is 1000nm, respectively.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the carbon nanotube of Azami , the amount , diameter and length in the positive electrode active material layer of Matsuu. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Azami that to do so would predictably provide a conductive path while prevent the increase in electronic resistance and achieve high capacity retention rate ([0025] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuu teaches that in the mixture of the positive electrode active material particle A and the positive electrode active material particle B such as B1, the blending quantity of the positive electrode active material particle B such as B1 ranges of equal to or more than 3 parts by mass and equal to or lower than 30 parts by mass ([0035]), and exemplified as 3% and 10% (Table 1, examples 1-2), which meets the claimed range of the second metal composite oxide.
Regarding claim 3, since Matsuu teaches the same composite oxide as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable basis to expect the X-ray diffraction pattern of the Matsuu composite would inherently be the same as claimed. If there is any difference between the product of Matsuu and the product of the instant claims the difference would have been minor and obvious. "Products of identical chemical composition can not 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).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Matsuu teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery including a negative electrode, a nonaqueous electrolytic solution, and the positive electrode ([0017], [0043] and [0067]), wherein the negative electrode comprises a carbon material, and a Si-based material such as Si, SiO2, SiOx (,0<x≤2) or a composite of both ([0063]), which meets the claimed negative electrode active material.
Matsuu is silent on the content of the Si-based material.
Azami exemplifies a negative electrode active material comprise 90 mass % of artificial graphite and 5 mass % of SiO ([0068]), which provides stability and lessening volume expansion ([0043]-[0044]), which meets the claimed content.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize 5 mass% of SiO and 90 mass % of artificial graphite of Azami as the negative electrode active material of Matsuu and Azami. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Azami that to do so would predictably provide stability and lessening volume expansion of the negative electrode([0043]-[0044]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766