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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 9; canceled claim 2; added new claims 10-14. The pending claims are claims 1, 3-14.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takami et al., WO 2017135323 (US 2017/0222272 as translation).
Regarding claim 1, Takami et al., teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery (0110) comprising: a positive electrode (0023; 0027) which a lithium ion is to be inserted into and extracted from (0031); a negative electrode including a negative electrode active material (0023; 0026) which the lithium ion is to be inserted into and extracted from (0055; 0065); and an electrolytic solution including an aqueous solvent (0027; 0031), wherein the negative electrode active material includes a titanium-containing compound (0023; 0027; 0031), the electrolytic solution has a pH that is higher than or equal to 11 (0043; “not more than pH 12”); (0192) (“pH of an electrolytic solution is preferably 0 or more and 13 or less”).
Takami does not teach “based on a surface analysis of the negative electrode by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a proportion of a sum of respective detectable amounts of lithium and titanium to a sum of respective detectable amounts of all of metal elements is greater than or equal to 99 atomic percent.”
However, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Additionally, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, subsection II.A.4.(c).
Regarding claim 3, Takami et al., teaches wherein the negative electrode further includes a carbon material (0074), and a proportion of a weight of the carbon material to a weight of the negative electrode is less than 0.1 weight percent (0076; 0088).
Regarding claim 4, Takami et al., teaches wherein a concentration of the electrolytic solution is greater than or equal to 0.2 moles per kilogram and less than or equal to 4 moles per kilogram (“range of 2 mol/L or more and 10 mol/L or less”) (0039; 0252).
Regarding claim 5, Takami et al., teaches wherein the titanium-containing compound (0023) includes at least one selected from the group of a titanium oxide (0023; 0036; 0058-0065) represented by Formula (1) and respective lithium-titanium composite oxides represented by Formulae (2) to (4), TiOW......(1)
PNG
media_image1.png
11
199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li[LiXM1(1-3x)/2Ti(3+x)2]O4......(2) where M1 is at least one of Mg, Ca, Cu, Zn, or Sr, and
PNG
media_image2.png
37
179
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where M2 is at least one of Al, Sc, Cr, Mn, Fe, Ge, or Y, and
PNG
media_image3.png
12
130
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li[Lii/3M3zTi(5/3)-z]O4......(4) where M3 is at least one of V, Zr, or Nb, and
PNG
media_image4.png
10
127
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(0023; 0058-0065).
Regarding claim 6, Takami et al., teaches wherein the titanium oxide includes titanium oxide of an anatase type (0061; 0064-0065).
Regarding claim 7, Takami et al., teaches wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material layer (0023; 0027) including the negative electrode active material (0027; 0066), and a surface of the negative electrode active material layer (0128) is analyzed by the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (0170).
Regarding claim 8, Takami et al., teaches wherein the negative electrode further includes a negative electrode current collector (0027; 0044-0045) that supports the negative electrode active material layer (0027), and the surface of the negative electrode active material layer (0023; 0027) and a surface of the negative electrode current collector (00027; 0044-0045) are each analyzed by the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (0170).
Regarding claim 9, Takami et al., teaches lithium-ion secondary battery (0127) comprising: a partition that is disposed between a positive electrode space and a negative electrode space (0228), thereby allowing a lithium ion to pass therethrough (0031; 0055); a positive electrode that is disposed in the positive electrode space (0023; 0027; 0037) and which the lithium ion is to be inserted into and extracted from (0031; 0055); a negative electrode that is disposed in the negative electrode space (0023; 0027) and includes a negative electrode active material (0035; 0038) which the lithium ion is to be inserted into and extracted from (0031; 0055); a positive electrode electrolytic solution (0023; 0027; 0031) that is contained in the positive electrode space (0015; 0027) and includes an aqueous solvent (0027; 0039); and a negative electrode electrolytic solution (0064) that is contained in the negative electrode space and includes the aqueous solvent (0031), wherein the negative electrode active material includes a titanium-containing compound (0027; 0031), the positive electrode electrolytic solution (0031; 0037) has a pH that is lower than 11 (0043; 0192), the negative electrode electrolytic solution has a pH that is higher than or equal to 11 (“pH of an electrolytic solution is preferably 0 or more and 13 or less”) (0192).
Takami does not teach “based on a surface analysis of the negative electrode by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a proportion of a sum of respective detectable amounts of lithium and titanium, to a sum of respective detectable amounts of all of metal elements is greater than or equal to 99 atomic percent.”
However, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Additionally, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, subsection II.A.4.(c)
Regarding claim 10, Takami teaches wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current electrode (0023; 0027), and wherein the negative electrode current electrode is a titanium foil (0133; 0319; 0324).
Regarding claim 11, Takami teaches wherein the pH of the electrolytic solution is higher than or equal to 12 (0043; “not more than pH 12”); (0192) (“pH of an electrolytic solution is preferably 0 or more and 13 or less”).
Regarding claim 12, Takami teaches wherein the titanium-containing compound includes titanium oxide of an anatase type (0061; 0064-0065).
Regarding claim 13, Takami teaches lithium-ion secondary battery (0023; 0027) comprising: a positive electrode (0023; 0027) which a lithium ion is to be inserted into and extracted from (0032); a negative electrode (0023; 0027) comprises a negative electrode current collector (0044) and a negative electrode active material layer (0027), and the negative electrode active material layer is provided on the negative electrode current collector (0044-0045), wherein the negative electrode active material layer (0027) includes a negative electrode active material (0027; 0031) which the lithium ion is to be inserted into and extracted from (0059; 0064); and an electrolytic solution including an aqueous solvent (0027), wherein the negative electrode active material includes a titanium-containing compound (0023; 0031), the electrolytic solution has a pH that is higher than or equal to 11 (0043; “not more than pH 12”); (0192) (“pH of an electrolytic solution is preferably 0 or more and 13 or less”), and based on a surface analysis (0170) of the negative electrode active material layer by X- ray photoelectron spectroscopy (0170).
Takami does not teach a proportion of a sum of respective detectable amounts of lithium and titanium to a sum of respective detectable amounts of all of metal elements is greater than or equal to 99 atomic percent, wherein based on a surface analysis of the negative electrode current collector by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a proportion of a sum of respective detectable amounts of lithium and titanium to a sum of the respective detectable amounts of all of the metal elements is greater than or equal to 99 atomic percent.”
However, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Additionally, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, subsection II.A.4.(c).
Regarding Claim 14, Takami teaches wherein a proportion of a weight of a carbon material (0074) to a weight of the negative electrode is less than 0.1 wt %.(0076; 0088).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “Applicant submits that the cited art is distinguished from the claimed invention. For example, Takami " does not teach based on a surface analysis of the negative electrode by X- ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a proportion of a sum of respective detectable amounts of lithium and titanium to a sum of respective detectable amounts of all of metal elements is greater than or equal to 99 atomic percent " as even admitted by the Patent Office.”
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussed below and in MPEP § 2144) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, subsection II.A.4.(c).
Additionally, the data in Table 1 of the Application is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims are broader than the data in the Examples. For example, there is titanium oxide in the negative electrode active material in Table I of the Application, but there are no unexpected results of the claimed amounts of titanium oxide in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights