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 12 and 13 are cancelled.
Claims 1-11, 14-18 are rejected.
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 1-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuasa et al. (US 20100261061 A1, “Yuasa”) in view of Seol et al. (US 20180159131 A1, “Seol”).
Regarding claim 1, Yuasa discloses a positive electrode sheet for a secondary battery (see [0039] “positive electrode plate 10” & “lithium secondary battery”) comprising a positive current collector and a positive active material layer (see [0047] “slurry was regularly coated on the aluminum charge collector foil” & foil describes pos. current collector & slurry reads on pos. active material layer; see abstract “positive electrode active material”), wherein the positive active material layer comprises a positive active material (see abstract “positive electrode active material containing lithium oxide and a carbon composite obtained by dispersing carbon fiber”; see [0023] “positive electrode active material 1 containing lithium oxide with a carbon composite obtained by dispersing carbon fiber 2”), a carbon-based conductive agent (see abstract “a conductive network between primary particles is formed by the carbon composite” & see [0023] “carbon fiber 2 electrically interconnects neighboring primary particle”; see [0027] “carbon fiber 2 is preferably hollow carbon fiber having an opening on its side wall”), and carbon nanotubes (see [0025] “a carbon nanotube”; see FIG. 1 describes multiple carbon nanotubes); an average length of the carbon nanotubes is L2 µm and satisfies 0.1≤L2≤5 (see [0025] “a fiber length of 1 to 8 µm”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 1 to 8 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1≤L2≤5 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 the limitation and an outer diameter of the carbon nanotubes is Φ2 nm and satisfies 3≤ Φ2≤20, Yuasa discloses diameter (see [0025] “carbon nanotube” & “the diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3≤ Φ2≤20 nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 the limitation and wherein the carbon-based conductive agent comprises carbon tubes, each carbon tube comprises a tube wall and a hollow region enclosed by the tube wall, at least one of the tube walls comprises pores, Yuasa discloses (see abstract “a conductive network between primary particles is formed by the carbon composite” & see [0023] “carbon fiber 2 electrically interconnects neighboring primary particles”; see [0027] “carbon fiber 2 is preferably hollow carbon fiber having an opening on its side wall”; see [0025] “conductive network” & “carbon fiber 2”); and an average length of the carbon tubes is L1 µm and 2.5 ≤ L1≤20 (see [0014] “length” & “carbon fiber is preferably set to 1 to 8 µm” which lies within the claimed range).
Regarding the limitation wherein the carbon nanotubes are disposed on a surface of particles of a positive active material, Yuasa does not explicitly disclose.
Seol teaches in [0043] “since the fibrous conductive agent may also be disposed on a contact portion between the positive electrode active material particles, the conductivity may be further improved. As a result, since electrical conductivity of the positive electrode material mixture is increased and resistance is reduced, an effect of improving rate capability and capacity retention of the battery may be obtained” & in [0044] “Specifically, the fibrous conductive agent may include carbon nanorods, carbon nanotubes”.
Yuasa and Seol are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active materials (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “carbon nanotubes” (see [0044]) “disposed on a contact portion between the positive electrode active material particles” (see [0043]), as suggested by Seol into the positive electrode sheet of Yuasa because doing so improves the conductivity as suggested by Seol (see [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Yuasa discloses the positive electrode sheet of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a number of the pores is n, and n is greater than or equal to 3 (see [0029] “pores are provided in the inside of the carbon particles” and see FIG. 1 describes more than 3 of “3”,”2”, and “1” which reads on greater than 3 pores).
Regarding claim 3, Yuasa discloses the positive electrode sheet of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the carbon tubes satisfy (1) an outer diameter of the carbon tubes is Φ1 µm and 0.1 ≤ Φ1 ≤ 2 (see [0026] “diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less” and 100 nm is equivalent to 0.1 µm).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 2 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 claim 4, Yuasa discloses the positive electrode sheet of claim 1 and further discloses wherein an outer diameter of the carbon tubes is Φ1 and satisfies 0.1 ≤ Φ1 ≤ 1.5 (see [0026] “diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less” and 100 nm is equivalent to 0.1 µm).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.5 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 claim 5, Yuasa discloses the positive electrode sheet of claim 1 and further discloses wherein an area ratio of a pore region to the tube wall is 5% to 30% (see [0025] “carbon nanotube” & “high aspect ratio” & “fiber length of 1 to 8 µm” & see [0027] “opening on its side wall” & “diameter of the opening is preferably 10 to 50 nm” which together reads on area ratio of a pore region to the tube wall).
Regarding claim 6, Yuasa discloses a secondary battery (see [0039] “lithium secondary battery”), comprising a positive electrode sheet (see [0039] “positive electrode plate 10”), wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive current collector and a positive active material layer (see [0047] “slurry was regularly coated on the aluminum charge collector foil” & foil reads on pos. current collector & “slurry” reads on pos. active material layer; see abstract “positive electrode active material”), and the positive active material layer comprising a positive active material and the carbon-based conductive agent (see abstract “positive electrode active material containing lithium oxide and a carbon composite obtained by dispersing carbon fiber” & see [0023] “positive electrode active material 1 containing lithium oxide with a carbon composite obtained by dispersing carbon fiber 2”), the carbon-based conductive agent comprising carbon tubes, wherein each carbon tube comprises a tube wall and a hollow region enclosed by the tube wall, at least one of the tube walls comprises pores (see abstract “a conductive network between primary particles is formed by the carbon composite” & [0023] “carbon fiber 2 electrically interconnects neighboring primary particles”; see [0027] “carbon fiber 2 is preferably hollow carbon fiber having an opening on its side wall” & see [0025] “conductive network” & “carbon fiber 2” & “carbon nanotube”), and an average length of the carbon tubes is L1 µm and satisfies 2.5 ≤ L1≤20 (see [0014] “length” & “carbon fiber is preferably set to 1 to 8 µm”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 1 to 8 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.5 to 20 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 the limitations and wherein the positive active material layer further comprises carbon nanotubes, Yuasa discloses (see [0024] & [0025] “a carbon nanotube”; see FIG. 1 describes multiple carbon nanotubes). Yuasa discloses an average length of the carbon nanotubes is L2 µm and satisfies 0.1≤L2≤5 (see [0025] “a fiber length of 1 to 8 µm”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 1 to 8 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1≤L2≤5 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 the limitation and an outer diameter of the carbon nanotubes is Φ2 nm and satisfies 3≤ Φ2≤20, Yuasa discloses diameter (see [0025] “carbon nanotube” & “the diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3≤ Φ2≤20 nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 the limitation wherein the carbon nanotubes are disposed on a surface of particles of a positive active material, Yuasa does not explicitly disclose.
Seol teaches in [0043] “since the fibrous conductive agent may also be disposed on a contact portion between the positive electrode active material particles, the conductivity may be further improved. As a result, since electrical conductivity of the positive electrode material mixture is increased and resistance is reduced, an effect of improving rate capability and capacity retention of the battery may be obtained” & in [0044] “Specifically, the fibrous conductive agent may include carbon nanorods, carbon nanotubes”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “carbon nanotubes” (see [0044]) “disposed on a contact portion between the positive electrode active material particles” (see [0043]), as suggested by Seol into the positive electrode sheet of Yuasa because doing so improves the conductivity as suggested by Seol (see [0043]).
Regarding claim 7, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses wherein a number of the pores is n, and n is greater than or equal to 3 (see [0029] “pores are provided in the inside of the carbon particles” and see FIG. 1 describes more than 3 of “3”, ”2”, and “1” which reads on greater than 3 pores).
Regarding claim 8, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the carbon tubes satisfy (1) an outside diameter of the carbon tubes is Φ1 µm and 0.1 ≤ Φ1 ≤ 2 (see [0026] “diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less” and 100 nm is equivalent to 0.1 µm).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 2 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 claim 9, Yuasa discloses a secondary battery (see [0039] “lithium secondary battery”), comprising a positive electrode sheet (see [0039] “positive electrode plate 10”), wherein the positive electrode sheet comprises a positive current collector and a positive active material layer (see [0047] “slurry was regularly coated on the aluminum charge collector foil” & foil reads on pos. current collector & “slurry” reads on pos. active material layer; see abstract “positive electrode active material”), and the positive active material layer comprising a positive active material and the carbon-based conductive agent comprising carbon tubes (see abstract “positive electrode active material containing lithium oxide and a carbon composite obtained by dispersing carbon fiber” & see [0023] “positive electrode active material 1 containing lithium oxide with a carbon composite obtained by dispersing carbon fiber 2”), wherein each carbon tube comprises a tube wall and a hollow region enclosed by the tube wall, at least one of the tube walls comprises pores (see abstract “a conductive network between primary particles is formed by the carbon composite” & [0023] “carbon fiber 2 electrically interconnects neighboring primary particles”; see [0027] “carbon fiber 2 is preferably hollow carbon fiber having an opening on its side wall” & see [0025] “conductive network” & “carbon fiber 2” & “carbon nanotube”), and wherein an outside diameter of the carbon tubes is Φ1 and satisfies 0.1 ≤ Φ1 ≤ 1.5 (see [0026] “diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less” and 100 nm is equivalent to 0.1 µm).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm (equivalent to 0.1 µm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.5 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 the limitation and wherein the positive active material layer further comprises carbon nanotubes, Yuasa discloses (see [0024] & [0025] “a carbon nanotube”; see FIG. 1 describes multiple carbon nanotubes). Yuasa discloses an average length of the carbon nanotubes is L2 µm and satisfies 0.1≤L2≤5 (see [0025] “a fiber length of 1 to 8 µm”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 1 to 8 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1≤L2≤5 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 the limitation and an outer diameter of the carbon nanotubes is Φ2 nm and satisfies 3≤ Φ2≤20, Yuasa discloses diameter (see [0025] “carbon nanotube” & “the diameter of the carbon fiber 2 is preferably 100 nm or less”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 100 nm or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of 3≤ Φ2≤20 nm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 the limitation, the carbon nanotubes are disposed on a surface of particles of a positive active material, Yuasa does not explicitly disclose.
Seol teaches in [0043] “since the fibrous conductive agent may also be disposed on a contact portion between the positive electrode active material particles, the conductivity may be further improved. As a result, since electrical conductivity of the positive electrode material mixture is increased and resistance is reduced, an effect of improving rate capability and capacity retention of the battery may be obtained” & in [0044] “Specifically, the fibrous conductive agent may include carbon nanorods, carbon nanotubes”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “carbon nanotubes” (see [0044]) “disposed on a contact portion between the positive electrode active material particles” (see [0043]), as suggested by Seol into the positive electrode sheet of Yuasa because doing so improves the conductivity as suggested by Seol (see [0043]).
Regarding claim 10, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 9 and further discloses wherein an area ratio of a pore region to the tube wall is 5% to 30% (see [0025] “carbon nanotube” & “high aspect ratio” & “fiber length of 1 to 8 µm” & see [0027] “opening on its side wall” & “diameter of the opening is preferably 10 to 50 nm” which together reads on area ratio of a pore region to the tube wall).
Regarding claim 11, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses “carbon fiber 2 in the carbon composite preferably has a weight percentage of 50 wt.% or more in order to provide a conductive network” (see [0033]). Yuasa does not explicitly disclose wherein, based on a total mass of the positive active material layer, a mass percentage of the carbon tubes in the positive active material layer is 0.1% to 1.0%.
Seol teaches “about 1 wt% of carbon nanotubes” (see [0127]).
Seol teaches a range of about 1 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.0 %. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 claim 14, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses wherein an average length of the carbon nanotubes is L2 µm and satisfies 1 ≤ L2 ≤ 4 (see [0014] “length” & “carbon fiber is preferably set to 1 to 8 µm”).
Yuasa discloses a range of 1 to 8 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 4 µm. MPEP 2144.05 I states 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 claim 15, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses wherein the positive active material layer satisfies (8) a specific surface area of the positive active material layer is S m2/g and satisfies 0.1 ≤ S ≤ 15 (see [0037] “positive electrode active material 1” & “specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more”).
Regarding claim 16, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses a specific surface area of the positive active material layer is S m2/g and satisfies 0.17 ≤ S ≤ 11 (see [0037] “positive electrode active material 1” & “specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more”).
Regarding claim 17, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses wherein a specific surface area of the positive active material layer is S m2/g (see [0037] “positive electrode active material 1” & “specific surface area of 1 m2/g or more”, for example S = 2) and the average length of the carbon tubes is L1 µm, satisfying L1 ≥ 0.5 S (see [0014] “length” & “carbon fiber is preferably set to 1 to 8 µm” & when S = 2, L1 is satisfied since 0.5*(2) = 1).
Regarding claim 18, Yuasa discloses the secondary battery of claim 6 and further discloses an electrical device (see [0041] “various industrial devices” & “electrical vehicle”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights