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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 9/10/2025 is acknowledged. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the restriction requirement based on the submission that claim 8, which includes subject matter of claim 1, is generic to Species 1A and 1B. Thus, the restriction requirement of claim 11 is withdrawn. Claims 1-11 are now pending review in this action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-063967, filed on 4/8/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11 are 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 1 recites, “the film is configured to include a glass network forming element and oxygen,” in line 7. It is unclear whether the film is present as a glass network or whether it merely includes such elements capable of forming a glass network, for example, by further processing. The instant specification defines, “glass network forming element” as referring to an element having glass-forming ability, where “glass-forming ability” indicates that an element of interest can form an oxide glass having a network structure by bonding with oxygen.” For examination purposes, as long as the conductive material of the prior art includes an element that forms, or can form, an oxide glass having a network structure by bonding with oxygen, the prior art will be considered to have met the requirement of the instant limitation.
Claims 2-11 are similarly rejected for including subject matter of base claim 1.
Claim 6 recites, “wherein: the conductive material has a coverage rate of 20% or more; and the coverage rate is measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy.” It is unclear as to what is meant by the conductive material having a coverage rate. For example, it is unclear whether: (1) the conductive material is dispersed in a positive electrode of a battery at the recited coverage rate; or (2) whether the film covers the surface of the substrate at the recited coverage rate. For examination purposes, and in light of the instant specification, the instant claim is interpreted to have recited, “wherein the film covers the surface of the substrate at a coverage rate of 20% or more.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Desalegn (US20210202951A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Desalegn discloses a conductive material 10 used for a positive electrode of a battery, the conductive material comprising:
a substrate 1; and
a film 2, wherein:
the film is configured to cover at least a portion of a surface of the substrate,
the substrate is configured to include a conductive carbon material (e.g., carbon material), and
the film is configured to include a glass network forming element (e.g., phosphorous) and oxygen (i.e., the film is formed of conductive particles 2 including lithium phosphate compounds which includes phosphorous, and optionally, boron or aluminum, as a glass network forming elements listed as an option in dependent claim 1 and as described the instant specification) [pars. 0024-36; Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 2, Desalegn discloses wherein the glass network forming element includes at least one selected from phosphorus, and optionally, boron or aluminum [pars. 0034-36].
Regarding Claim 3, Desalegn discloses wherein the film includes at least a phosphate framework [pars. 0034-36].
Regarding Claim 4, Desalegn discloses wherein the conductive carbon material includes at least one selected from carbon fiber, carbon nanotube, carbon black, and graphene flake [pars. 0028-31].
Regarding Claim 8, Desalegn discloses a battery comprising a positive electrode, wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material and the conductive material according to claim 1 [par. 0010].
Regarding Claim 11, Desalegn discloses the battery further comprising electrolytic solution [par. 0067].
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shindo (US20160079602A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shindo discloses a conductive material used for a positive electrode of a battery [par. 0025; Fig. 2], the conductive material comprising:
a substrate 1; and
a film 2, wherein:
the film is configured to cover at least a portion of a surface of the substrate;
the substrate is configured to include a conductive carbon material [par. 0031]; and
the film is configured to include a glass network forming element (e.g., phosphorous) and oxygen [par. 0025] {Examiner also notes that the coating layer 2 is an amorphous layer formed of at least P and O, which would certainly form a glass network of a phosphate framework}.
Regarding Claim 2, Shindo discloses wherein the glass network forming element includes phosphorous [par. 0025].
Regarding Claim 3, Shindo discloses wherein the film includes a phosphorous network [par. 0025].
Regarding Claim 4, Shindo discloses wherein the conductive carbon material includes at least one selected from vapor-grown carbon fiber, a carbon nanotube, carbon black [par. 0031].
Regarding Claim 5, Shindo discloses wherein the film has a thickness of between 0.1 nm to 5 nm, or in particularly, 1 nm [par. 0052].
Regarding Claim 6, Shindo discloses wherein the film covers the surface of the substrate at a coverage rate of 20% or more [par. 0028; Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 8, Shindo discloses a battery 10 comprising a positive electrode 12, wherein
the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material and the conductive material according to claim 1 [pars. 0021,0025; Fig. 1].
Regarding Claim 9, Shindo discloses wherein a positive electrode potential when the battery is fully charged is 4.5 V vs. Li/Li+ to 5.0 V vs. Li/Li+ [par. 0025].
Regarding Claim 11, Shindo discloses wherein the battery further comprises electrolytic solution [par. 0046].
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US20240258497A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Shindo discloses wherein the conductive carbon material comprises vapor-grown carbon fiber, a carbon nanotube, carbon black [par. 0031], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the conductive carbon material has an R value of 0.1 to 1.8; and the R value indicates a ratio of a D-band to a G-band in a Raman spectrum of the conductive carbon material. However, it is well-known in the art that surface morphology of conductive carbon material determines electrical conductivity performance of the conductive carbon material in the electrode layer, and that the D/G band ratio in Rama spectroscopy indicates the structural morphology of the conductive carbon material, establishing the D/G band ratio of the conductive carbon material, and hence, its morphology, as a result-effective variable for controlling electrical conductivity. In this regard, Yamazaki, from the same field of endeavor, teaches graphene as a conductive material for a positive electrode, wherein when the intensity ratio of a D-band to a G-band of the Raman spectrum is controlled to be less than 1, high electrical conductivity can be achieved with even a small amount of conductive material [Yamazaki – Abstract; pars. 0266-268]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Yamazaki to have controlled the surface morphology of the conductive carbon material such that the conductive carbon material has an R value of 0.1 to 1.8 in order to achieve optimal electrical conductivity performance with less amount of conductive carbon material in the positive electrode, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success [MPEP 2144.05(II)].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kato (US201503723454A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Shindo discloses wherein the battery comprises an electrolytic solution [par. 0046], but fails to disclose wherein the battery and the positive electrode further include a sulfide solid electrolyte. However, it is well-known in the art that the non-aqueous electrolytes and solid-state electrolytes are alternatives to one another in lithium batteries comprising similar positive and anode materials. For example, both Shindo and Kato, from the same field of endeavor, disclose similar positive electrode active materials and negative electrode active materials [Shindo – pars. 0041,0050; Kato – pars. 0067,0070]. Kato further teaches that the battery may comprise either a liquid electrolyte, which has the advantage of providing a higher-output battery, or a solid electrolyte layer, which has the advantage of providing the battery with higher safety [Kato – pars. 0064-65]. Moreover, Kato teaches that in either case, the positive electrode may comprise a sulfide solid electrolyte material to allow the positive electrode with high ion conductivity [pars. 0065-67]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have employed the teachings of Kato to have modified the electrolyte, and/or the positive electrode, of Kato to have further included a sulfide solid electrolyte in order to allow the positive electrode with high ion conductivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751