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 § 102 / 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 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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ota et al. (“XAFS and TOF-SIMS analysis of SEI layers on electrodes”).
Regarding claim 1, Ota et al. discloses a secondary battery (P567-568/§2) comprising: a positive electrode (P567-568/§2/L4); a negative electrode (P567/§2/L1-4); and an electrolytic solution (P568/§2/L2-4), wherein the negative electrode (P567/§2/L1-4) includes a negative electrode active material layer (P567/§2/L1-4) and a film (P568/§3.1/L3-5), the film covering a surface (P568/§3.1/L3-5) of the negative electrode active material layer (P567/§2/L1-4), the film (P568/§3.1/L3-5) includes sulfur and oxygen (P570/§3.4/L1-12), a first peak derived from SO2- (P570/§3.4/L1-12, Fig 4(a)) and a second peak derived from S- (P570/§3.4/L1-12, Fig 4(a)) are detectable (P570/§3.4/L1-12) based on a negative ion analysis of the film by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (P570/§3.4/L1-12). Further, Ota et al. discloses a number of peak intensities in Fig 4a on P570 that appears to disclose a ratio of an intensity of the second peak to an intensity of the first peak is greater than or equal to 0.100 and less than or equal to 0.250 (see “S” peak below, and “SO” peak below). More succinctly, peak “SO” appears approximately to have 0.250 intensity (about ¼ of peak size) of that of peak “S”.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(P570/§3.4/Column 2)
Even assuming, arguendo, that Ota et al. does not anticipate claim 1, claim 1 is still obvious over Ota et al. because Ota et al. states the measurement utilizing the time-of-flight mass spectrometer has varying sensitivity and resolution (P570/§3.4/L1-6, P570/§4/L1-10). This varying sensitivity and resolution will ultimately skew the intensity of the peaks relative to one another (P570/§3.4/L1-6, P570/§4/L1-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that Ota et al. discloses a ratio of SO peak to S peak intensities on the order of ¼ (0.250), depending on the sensitivity and resolution of the time-of-flight mass spectrometer measuring capabilities.
Regarding claim 5, Ota et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses an outer package member having flexibility (P568/§2/L1-8) and containing the positive electrode (P567-568/§2/L4), the negative electrode (P567/§2/L1-4), and the electrolytic solution (P568/§2/L2-4).
Regarding claim 6, Ota et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the secondary battery (P567-568/§2) comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery (P567§2/L4 – P568/§2/L1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Instant dependent claims 2 and 4 disclose the electrolytic solution includes first and second sulfur containing compounds of the type of species as specifically set forth in the claim and the film includes third and fourth sulfur containing compounds of the specific species set forth in the claim, respectively. While Ota et al. discloses its battery includes a number of different sulfide and organic sulfide species (see P570/§3.4, Fig 4(a)) within its electrolyte and film coating, it does not explicitly disclose the combination of distinct sulfide and organic sulfide species as stated in the instant dependent claims. As such, Ota et al. is considered to be the prior art reference of record closest to the aforementioned limitations of the instant claims. No prior art references have been found that alleviate the deficiencies of the applied Ota et al. reference. Further, claim 3 is objected to since it depends from claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xu et al. (US 2020/0243905) discloses a lithium ion battery (Abstract) including anode and cathode surface SEI films formed of organic sulfite compounds ([0170]).
Hwang et al. (US 2004/0029016) discloses in Figs 1-3, a lithium battery (Abstract) including an electrode with a SEI film thereon composed of organic sulfite compounds ([0029]).
Yu et al. (US 2018/0013168) discloses in Figs 1-3, a lithium secondary battery (Abstract) including electrolyte additive comprising organic sulfite compounds that form a SEI layer on electrodes ([0047]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725