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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al (WO 2017/158724, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a non-aqueous battery having charge/discharge cycles (e.g. non-aqueous secondary battery) (para 0001, 0013, and 0204), wherein the battery comprises: an “electrode group” (i.e. claimed “electrode assembly”) comprising positive and negative electrodes with a separator therebetween (para 0072), wherein the electrode assembly is “wound in a spiral shape” (e.g. claimed “rolled”) (para 0073), thereby forming a rolled electrode assembly; a non-aqueous electrolytic solution (para 0074); and a rectangular container (e.g. claimed “quadrangular battery case”) for accommodating the rolled electrode assembly and non-aqueous electrolytic solution (para 0103-0108). Yamamoto further discloses the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active layer containing a positive electrode active material and carbon nanotubes (para 0077-0079), and the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material layer containing a negative electrode active material (para 0077 and 0082-0084), wherein a ratio [Pn]/[Pp] of porosity per 1 mm thickness (e.g. interpreted as substantially equivalent to claimed ratio of “void volume per unit area”) of the negative electrode active material [Pn] to the positive electrode active material [Pp] is 0.55-0.8 (para 0007), preferably 0.6-0.78 or more preferably 0.63-0.77 (para 0042).
With respect to claim 4, Yamamoto further discloses the carbon nanotubes as a conductive agent in the positive electrode active material layer (para 0078-0079), wherein the conductive agent (and thus carbon nanotubes) is contained preferably in 1-10% by weight, or more preferably 2-8% by weight, to a total weight of the positive electrode active material layer (para 0081).
With respect to claim 5, Yamamoto further discloses a vehicle having a “second battery unit” (i.e. claimed “assembled battery”) [100] comprising a battery pack of the non-aqueous secondary batteries aligned in a direction (para 0178), wherein the non-aqueous secondary batteries are restrained so as to be supplied with a load in a direction when the vehicle is braking in which the non-aqueous secondary batteries are aligned (para 0179).
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.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (WO 2017/158724, machine translation cited below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asako et al (US 9,735,420).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 1. Yamamoto further discloses the separator is a “microporous membrane” (para 0085), and the ratio [Pn]/[Pp] is preferably 0.6-0.78 or more preferably 0.63-0.77 (para 0042).
However Yamamoto is limited in that specific pore volumes in cm3/cm2 for each of the separator, positive electrode active material layer, and negative electrode active material layer are not suggested.
Asako teaches a non-aqueous electrolytic secondary battery comprising a wound electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode including a positive electrode active material layer and negative electrode including a negative electrode active material layer, a porous separator between the positive and negative electrodes, and a non-aqueous electrolytic solution (Abstract; col. 2, lines 10-32; col. 6, lines 48-65; col. 7, lines 22-30 and 56-67; col. 8, lines 1-8), similar to the non-aqueous electrolytic secondary battery of Yamamoto. Asako further teaches that the positive electrode active material layer has a “voids with a volume” (i.e. void volume) of 0.82x10-3 cm3/cm2 to 7.87x10-3 cm3/cm2 (Abstract; col. 2, lines 10-28), which overlaps with the claimed “0.0009 cm3/cm2 to 0.0016 cm3/cm2”; it has been held 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 (MPEP 2144.05, I). Asako cites the advantages of the positive electrode active material layer having the void volume of 0.82x10-3 cm3/cm2 to 7.87x10-3 cm3/cm2 as to avoiding or reducing precipitates that interrupt lithium migration to improve cycle characteristics in addition to improving conductive paths, rate characteristics, and battery energy density (col. 4, lines 27-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the positive electrode active material of Yamamoto have the void volume taught by Asako to gain the advantages of improving cycle characteristics, rate characteristics, and battery energy density.
In summary, the combination of references Yamamoto and Asako has: Asako teaching the positive electrode active material layer of Yamamoto has the void volume of 0.82x10-3 cm3/cm2 to 7.87x10-3 cm3/cm2; Yamamoto also teaches the ratio [Pn]/[Pp] for the void volume between the negative electrode active material layer to the positive electrode active material layer is 0.6-.078 (or 0.63-0.77), and when the ratio [Pn]/[Pp] is taken with the void volume of 0.82x10-3 cm3/cm2 to 7.87x10-3 cm3/cm2 for the positive electrode active material layer, results in a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed ranges of the void volume for the negative active material layer “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05, I). In addition both Yamamoto and Asako teach the separator is porous, and thus has a void volume. Although neither Yamamoto nor Asako specify a particular void volume, it has been held that a particular parameter (i.e. void volume for the separator) must first be recognized as a result-effect variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, II, B). Therefore the void volume of the separator (and thus ratio of void volume of the separator to the void volume of the negative electrode active material) is characterized as obvious workable ranges from routine experimentation since both Yamamoto and Asako teach that a general void volume for the separator is functional so long as the separator is porous.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights