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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is drawn to a method of producing a lithium-ion secondary battery, however, the method steps are written with numerous typographical errors including:
“ positive-electrode-paste producing of producing positive electrode paste by mixing positive active material particles with solvent”,
“positive-electrode-plate producing of applying the positive electrode paste on the surface of the positive current collecting foil and drying the applied positive electrode paste to produce the positive electrode plate having the positive active material layer on the surface of the positive current collecting foil”,
“electrode-body producing of producing an electrode body provided with the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate”, and
“wherein the positive-electrode-paste producing is to produce the positive electrode paste in which hydroxide particles are further mixed”.
The italicized portions of the claim are not written in a proper method form, and appear to be using words in the wrong order (perhaps due to submitting directly translated claims).
It appears as though the first cited portion should read “producing a positive electrode paste by mixing positive active particles with a solvent”,
the second should read “applying the positive electrode paste on the surface of the positive current collecting foil and drying the applied positive electrode paste to produce the positive electrode plate having the positive active material layer on the surface of the positive current collecting foil to form an electrode plate,
the third should read “providing the positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate to produce an electrode body”, and
the fourth should read “wherein the positive electrode paste further includes hydroxide particles.”
These are suggestions, but the method steps as presented repeat words and are not a clear and proper method.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification appears to be a direct translation and contains errors such as those described in claim 1 above (see specification [0007], [0008]).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Claims 3 and 4 recite “mixing ratio of solid content of the positive electrode paste exclusive of the hydroxide particles of the hydroxide particles”, which is not consistent with the language in the specification which reads “mixing ratio of the hydroxide particles relative to the solid contents of the positive electrode paste exclusive of the hydroxide particles” ([0042], [0043]). The claim language appears to intend that the mixing ratio is the particles to the paste (larger portion of the paste/ composition) as in the specification, and will be interpreted as such for purposes of examination.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mukai et al (JP 2001-283849 and its machine translation).
Mukai et al disclose a lithium-ion nonaqueous battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a nonaqueous electrolyte, wherein the positive electrode comprises a positive active material, LiOH ([0028]; instant claim 2), a binder, and a conductive material.
The battery is prepared by a method including forming an electrode paste by mixing the additives with a solvent, applying the paste to an aluminum foil current collector and drying to form the electrode, combining the positive electrode plate with a negative electrode plate and forming an “electrode body” with the two electrode plates and a separator between them, forming the battery by winding the electrode body (reference power generating element) around a center axis and placing in a unit cell case, and injecting the electrolyte comprising LiPF6, and the battery is initially charged to be ready for use ([0004], [0025], [0028]-[0032], [0036],[0039]; instant claim 1).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shindo (10,026,955).
Shindo discloses a method of producing a positive electrode and battery wherein the method includes preparing a past/ slurry comprising the active material, a first lithium salt, a second lithium salt (LiOH particles; instant claim 2), and a solvent, coating onto a substrate (aluminum, silver, copper, gold, nickel, iron , stainless steel, titanium foil current collector; column 4, lines 27-33) and drying, combining the positive electrode plate with a separator an a negative electrode plate in a cell case (column 7, lines 3-26), and impregnated with electrolyte (preferably LiPF6; column 6, lines 6-30; instant claim 1). Regarding the amount of addition of the second salt (LiOH), the reference teaches the first salt is added in an amount respective to the active material 0.5 to 10 wt %, and the second salt in an amount of 17 to 50 mol% respective to the first salt based on the total number of lithium atoms.
The resultant method of Shindo would meet the limitations of the instant claims 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii et al (JP 2014-082050 and its machine translation).
Fujii et al disclose a secondary lithium-ion battery and method of preparing it, wherein the positive electrode slurry is formed by mixing an active material, a conductive aide, a solvent, and LiOH particles in an amount of 0.05 to 2 wt % ([0057]) coating onto a metal foil current collector ([0040], [0043], [0065]), combining with a separator and negative electrode (and current collector[ 0080]-[0083]), placing them into a battery casing ([0084]), and adding the electrolyte comprising LiPF6 ([0088]-[0090], [0093]-[0096]; instant claim 1).
The method of Fujii et al meets the limitations of the instant claims 1-4.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai et al.
Mukai et al has been discussed above. The reference discloses that the amount of LiOH filtrate (powder/ particles) included is 0.001 to 1 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to 5 wt% ([0012], [0016]; instant claims 3 and 4).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Mukai et al wherein the LiOH particles are present in an amount falling within the scope of the instant claims 3 and 4.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shindo.
Shindo has been discussed above. Regarding the amount of addition of the second salt (LiOH), the reference teaches the first salt is added in an amount respective to the active material 0.5 to 10 wt %, and the second salt in an amount of 17 to 50 mol% respective to the first salt based on the total number of lithium atoms.
While the reference does not specifically disclose the claimed range of LiOH, given the broad teachings of the range for the first and second salt, and given the amount of second salt affects the durability and inhibits oxidative decomposition of the active particles due to exposure to the electrolyte (column 3, lines 26-67), one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to arrive at that claimed range of LiOH as set forth in the instant claims 3 and 4 in the slurry/ paste through routine experimentation and optimization of the electrode properties.
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Shindo wherein the LiOH particles are present in an amount falling within the scope of the instant claims 3 and 4.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al.
Fujii et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches that the LiOH particles in an amount of 0.05 to 2 wt % ([0057]; instant claims 3 and 4)).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Fujii et al wherein the LiOH particles are present in an amount falling within the scope of the instant claims 3 and 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Han et al (CN 113921755) is cited for a teach of a similar composite positive electrode material comprising boron lithium hydroxide in a solid-state battery (no non-aqueous electrolyte).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722