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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
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, 4, 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Tahara (WO2017199606A1).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of WO2017199606A1. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Tahara teaches a negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (title), comprising: composite particles containing a lithium aluminate phase (i.e., Li-containing oxide contains Al) (30) (page 3, line 18-20; page 5, lines 30-44) (see figure 1), and a silicon phase (i.e., silicon particles) (20) dispersed in the lithium aluminate phase (page 3, line 18-20; page 5, lines 30-44).
Regarding claim 4, Tahara teaches the lithium aluminate phase contains at least one selected from the group consisting of LiAl5, Li2A1407, LiAlO2, and Li5AlO4 (page 3, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 6, Tahara teaches wherein an A1203 phase is dispersed in the lithium aluminate phase (page 3, lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 8, Tahara teaches the lithium aluminate phase contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, zirconium, iron, boron, phosphorus, and lanthanum (page 3, lines 5-25).
Regarding claim 9, Tahara teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (page 6, line 15-17), comprising: a positive electrode (page 6, line 28); a negative electrode (page 5, line 49); and a non-aqueous electrolyte (page 6, line 42), wherein the negative electrode includes the negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1.
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) 2-3, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara (WO2017199606A1).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of WO2017199606A1. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 2-3, Tahara teaches a in the particles, a content proportion of MAl of Aluminum in in all elements other than oxygen is 28-98.7 mass% and a content proportion of Lithium in all elements other than oxygen is 1.3-72 mass% (see calculations below), a ratio MAl/MLi of the content proportion MAl of aluminum to the content proportion MLi of lithium is 0.1 or greater and 20 or less (page 3, lines 4-12).
Calculations:
r=Al/Li
Al=26.98 g/mol; Li=6.94 g/mol
Mass contributions: mAl=26.98r; mLi=6.94
M in all elements other than oxygen:;
%Al = (26.98r)/(26.98r + 6.94) x 100
%Li = (6.94)/(26.98r + 6.94) x 100
Tahara teaches a ratio of 0.1-20
At 0.1: Mass of Al=2.698 and Li=6.94; Total (Al+Li) = 9.638
Lower limit (0.1): Al = 27.99 mass%; Li=72.01 mass%
At 20: Mass of Al=539.6 and Li=6.94; Total (Al+Li) = 546.54
Upper limit (20): Al = 98.7 mass%; Li=1.3 mass%
Element Mass%
Al 28-98.7%
Li 1.3-72%
It is noted that Tahara differ in the exact same proportion range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range of Tahara overlap the instant claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Tahara teaches the negative electrode active material as described above in claim 1 which includes a lithium aluminate phase and a silicon phase dispersed in the lithium aluminate phase.
Tahara does not explicitly articulate the specifics of the X-ray diffraction measurements as recited in the instant claims. However, X-ray diffraction is a well-known analytical technique used to identify crystalline phases in electrode materials. Because Tahara teaches identical lithium aluminate including Al2O3, the same X-ray diffraction peaks associated with the corresponding phases would be expected. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform routine x-ray diffraction analysis of the composite particles disclosed in Tahara in order to confirm the presence of the lithium aluminate phase and AlsO3 and observe the corresponding peaks. Determining the diffraction pattern of a known crystalline material amounts to routine characterization and merely reveals an expected property of the material.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhamu et al. (U.S. Patent 10,559,811). Zhamu teaches a negative electrode active materials having silicon and lithium aluminate (claim 9).
Jang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0280054). Jang teaches a negative electrode active materials having silicon and lithium aluminate (paragraph [0043).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723