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 § 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 6 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.
New claim 6 recites the limitation "the negative electrode active material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 4-5, and 7 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 “conductive binder agent” (para 0077 and 0082-0084), and the conductive binder agent comprises acetylene black (carbon-containing) and graphite (para 0186), thus the negative electrode active material layer includes carbon; and 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).
With respect to claim 7, Yamamoto further discloses the positive electrode active material comprises carbon nanotubes (para 0077-0079), which encompasses single-walled and/or multi-walled carbon nanotubes.
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 2-3 and 6 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.
With respect to claim 6, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 1. However Yamamoto is limited in that while the negative electrode active material layer includes carbon (such as acetylene black, graphite, “kechen black”, furnace black, and carbon nanotubes) with lithium titanate (Li4+ITi5O12, with I between 0 to 3) (para 0066, 0079-0081, and 0186), the carbon comprising the claimed “amorphous-coated graphite” is not specifically 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 of Li4Ti5O12, 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 negative electrode active material layer in the non-aqueous electrolytic secondary battery of Yamamoto. Asako further teaches for the negative electrode active material layer to comprise graphite coated with amorphous carbon due to “a potential close to the oxidation-reduction potential of lithium, and can be used to make a high-energy density battery” (col. 6, lines 48-67; col. 7, lines 1-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the carbon of the negative electrode active material layer of Yamamoto be graphite coated with amorphous carbon as taught by Asako to gain the advantages of a potential close to the oxidation-reduction potential of lithium, and can be used to make a high-energy density battery.
Claim 8 is 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 Ishii (US 10,014,514).
With respect to claim 8, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 1. However Yamamoto is limited in that while a general thickness for the negative electrode active material layer is suggested (para 0140), a specific thickness is not.
Ishii teaches a negative electrode active material layer for a nonaqueous secondary battery (Abstract; col. 2, lines 34-42), similar to the nonaqueous secondary battery of Yamamoto. Ishii further teaches a “thickness of the negative electrode active material layer per single surface may be, for example, 40 mm or more (typically 50 mm or more) and may be, for example, 100 mm or less (typically 80 mm or less” to gain the advantages of “high battery characteristics (for example, low resistance) can be realized during normal use” and “during overcharge, hydrogen ions produced from the positive electrode can be suitably reduced, and a large amount of gas can be rapidly produced” (col. 14, lines 44-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the thickness taught by Ishii for the specific thickness for the negative electrode active material layer of Yamamoto to gain the advantages of low resistance during normal use and reducing hydrogen ions produced from positive electrode while rapidly producing a large amount of gas during overcharge.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al (WO 2017/158724, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Yamamoto further discloses the negative electrode active material layer “is preferably 1.8 g/cm3 or higher” and “2.3 g/cm3 or less” (para 0070), with a specific density of 1.8 g/cm3 in Example 4 (para 0227); it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges (i.e. 1-1.5 g/cm3) and prior art ranges (i.e. 1.8 g/cm3) do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05, I). Yamamoto also discloses the positive electrode active material layer “is preferably 2.9 g/cm3 or higher” and “3.4 g/cm3 or less” (para 0063), with a specific density 2.7 g/cm3 in Example 4 (para 0226); it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges (i.e. 1.5-2.75 g/cm3) “overlap or lie inside ranges (i.e. 2.7 g/cm3) disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim 11 is 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 Umeyama et al (US 10,211,440).
With respect to claim 11, the reference is cited as discussed for claim 1. However Yamamoto is limited in that while the separator is “not particularly limited” and is formed of laminates (multi-layer structure) of different materials such as polyethylene and polypropylene (para 0085), the separator specifically being a three-layer structure of polypropylene, polyethylene, polypropylene is not suggested.
Umeyama teaches a separator in nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Abstract), similar to the nonaqueous secondary battery of Yamamoto. Umeyama further teaches the separator is a single layer structure or a multilayer structure, such as “a double layer structure” or “a triple layer structure”, wherein the triple layer structure is a polypropylene (PP) layer laminated on both surfaces with a polyethylene (PE) layer to form the triple layer structure consisting of a 1st PP layer/PE layer/2nd PP layer (col. 13, lines 41-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the separator having triple layer structure of 1st PP layer/PE layer/2nd PP layer taught by Umeyama as the separator of Yamamoto to yield the predictable result of a functional separator in a nonaqueous secondary battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 5-7 filed 12/22/2025 are addressed below.
102 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 5, Applicant argues that Yamamoto does not teach the new limitation “a negative electrode active material layer containing a carbon material” as recited by amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since Yamamoto teaches the negative electrode active material layer includes the conductive binder agent (para 0083-0084), wherein the conductive binder agent comprises carbon in the form of acetylene black and graphite (para 0186); thus the negative electrode active material layer includes carbon.
On p. 5, Applicant argues the claimed ratio “B/A” defining porosity is different than the ratio [Pn]/[Pp] defining porosity of Yamamoto.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees since the ratio [Pn]/[Pp] of porosity per 1 mm thickness of the negative and positive electrode active material layers [Pn],[Pp] of Yamamoto is considered as substantially equivalent to the claimed B/A of void volume per unit area of the negative and positive electrode active material layers B,A, and Applicant’s Specification para 0040-0042 (see p. 5 Remarks 12/22/2025) do not appear to contradict this consideration. In addition Yamamoto teaches a method of forming the positive and negative electrode active material layers at para 0184-0187 similar to a method of Applicant’s Specification para 0054-0055; therefore a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established that, since Yamamoto teaches the claim requirements of claim 1 which is formed by a similar method as Applicant, Yamamoto also teaches the resulting negative and positive electrode active material layers having a property of “0.6 ≤ B/A ≤ 1.2” (MPEP 2112.01, I).
103 Rejections
All other arguments on p. 6-7 to claims 2 and 3 are directed towards the subject matter addressed in the 102 Rejections above and therefore have been addressed accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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