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 .
Claims 1-8 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations is: “a center part configured to allow insertion and extraction of an electrode reactant” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 recites “the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material” is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 1 states “the negative electrode includes an inorganic metal salt and an organic fiber.” It is unclear in claim 3 if the negative electrode further comprises a negative electrode active material, thus making the negative electrode comprise an inorganic metal salt, an organic fiber and a negative electrode material, OR if claim 3 is claiming that the negative electrode only comprises a negative electrode active material. If the negative electrode only comprises a negative electrode active material it would fail to further limit claim 1.
The limitation “the negative electrode active material includes … the inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber compound” in claim 3 is also unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. Again, claim 1 states “the negative electrode includes an inorganic metal salt and an organic fiber.” It is unclear if the inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber compound of the active material is the same inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber compound of the negative electrode OR if it a second inorganic metal salt and second organic fiber compound. In other words, is claim 3 claiming that the negative electrode which further includes a negative electrode active material layer, wherein the negative electrode active material layer includes a negative electrode active material, the inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber compound?
Claim 4 recites, “the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material” is unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. Claim 1 states “the negative electrode includes an inorganic metal salt and an organic fiber.” It is unclear in claim 4 if the negative electrode further comprises a negative electrode active material, thus making the negative electrode comprise an inorganic metal salt, an organic fiber and a negative electrode active material, OR if claim 4 is claiming that the negative electrode only comprises a negative electrode active material. If the negative electrode only comprises a negative electrode active material it would fail to further limit claim 1.
The limitation “the negative electrode active material includes … a covering part … including the inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber compound” in claim 4 is also unclear and renders the claim vague and indefinite. Again, claim 1 states “the negative electrode includes an inorganic metal salt and an organic fiber.” It is unclear if the inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber compound of the active material is the same inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber compound of the negative electrode OR if it a second inorganic metal salt and second organic fiber compound. In other words, is claim 4 claiming that the negative electrode which further includes a negative electrode active material layer, the negative electrode active material layer includes … a covering part … wherein the covering part includes the inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber compound?
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo et al. (US 2017/0040599) in view of Takami et al. (WO2019/058841). For purpose of prior art discussion refer to English language translation document US PG Pub 20190198876 for WO2019/058841.
Regarding claim 1, Kamo et al. discloses a secondary battery (laminate film secondary battery, ref. #30, figure 3, para. 0154) comprising of a positive electrode (para. 0125), negative electrode (para. 0125) and an electrolytic solution (para. 0138). Kamo et al. further discloses the negative electrode includes an inorganic metal salt (lithium compound, para. 0028, 0036) .
Kamo et al. fails to disclose the negative electrode also includes an organic fiber.
Takami et al. discloses a secondary battery (figure 1, para.0125) with a positive electrode (ref. #3, figure 1, para. 0127), negative electrode (ref. #4, figure 1, para. 0127) and an electrolytic solution (electrolyte containing layer, ref. #5, figure 1, para. 0127). Takami et al. further discloses negative electrode includes an organic fiber compound (abstract, para. 0017, 0245) in example 30 (para. 0230). The organic fiber compound would reduce the interface resistance of the electrode/electrolyte which would improve the cycle life and discharge rate performance of the secondary battery (para. 0182, 0245).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamo et al. with the teaching of Takami et al. to include an organic fiber to negative electrode in the secondary battery. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the negative electrode with organic fiber in order to reduce the interfacial resistance, thereby improving the charge-discharge cycle life of the electrode.
Regarding claim 2, Kamo et al. further discloses the negative electrode includes an inorganic metal salt Li2CO3 or LiF (para. 0028, 0036, 0089). Takami et al. further discloses the organic fiber compound is cellulose fibers (para. 0024, 0052, 0230).
Regarding claim 3, Kamo et al. further discloses the negative electrode contains negative electrode active material (particles, para. 0073 - 0074). Thus, the combination of Kamo et al. and Takami et al. disclose that the negative electrode active material layer includes a negative electrode active material (Kamo et al., para. 0073 - 0074), an inorganic metal salt (Kamo et al., para. 0028, 0036) and an organic fiber compound (Takami et al., para. 0017, 0245).
Regarding claim 4, Kamo et al. discloses the negative electrode further includes a negative electrode active material (particles, para. 0073 - 0074). The negative electrode active material includes a center part and a covering part covering a surface of the center part.
The center part comprises particles which contain a silicon compound, i.e. a metalloid element, which can occlude and emit lithium ions (para. 0074). Thus, the center part is configured to allow insertion and extraction of an electrode reactant.
Kamo et al. further discloses that the surface of the silicon compound is covered with an inorganic metal salt, such as lithium fluoride and/or lithium carbonate (para. 0036). Takami et al. further discloses that the cellulose fibers are attached to the surface of the electrode active material (para. 0024).
Thus, the combination of Kamo et al. and Takami et al. discloses that covering part included the inorganic metal salt and the organic fiber compound.
Regarding claim 7, Kamo et al. discloses a secondary battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, para. 0027, 0124).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Kamo et al. and Takami et al. discloses a negative electrode for a secondary battery, where the negative electrode comprises an inorganic metal salt and an organic fiber compound as described above.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo et al. (US 2017/0040599) in view of Takami et al. (WO2019/058841). For purpose of prior art discussion refer to English language translation document US PG Pub 20190198876 for WO2019/058841 as applied to claims 1-4, 7, and 8 above, and further in view of Miyagi et al. (US 20100015514-A1).
Kamo et al. and Takami et al. are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 5, Kamo et al. and Takami et al. fails to teach a secondary battery wherein the electrolytic solution includes lithium monofluorophosphate, lithium difluorophosphate or both. Miyagi et al. discloses a secondary battery (lithium secondary battery) with a positive electrode and a negative electrode (para. 0033) and a nonaqueous electrolyte which contains monofluorophosphoric acid salt, difluorophosphoric acid salt (abstract). Miyagi et al. further discloses lithium difluorophosphate included in the electrolytic solution (para. 1145, 1321, 1333).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified secondary battery of Kamo et al. and Takami et al. to include lithium difluorophosphate in the electrolytic solution. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the secondary battery to include lithium difluorophosphate in electrolytic solution to improve balance among cycle characteristics, low-temperature discharge characteristics, high-temperature storability (in particular, residual capacity and high-load discharge capacity after high-temperature storage), and the inhibition of gas evolution (Miyagi et al. para. 1168).
Regarding claim 6, Miyagi et al. further discloses the electrolytic solution includes a chain carboxylic acid ester (para. 1103, 1117). The inclusion of chain carboxylic acid ester in the electrolytic solution of the secondary battery would improve the low-temperature characteristics of the battery (para. 1127, 1176).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISWARYA MATHEW whose telephone number is (571)272-9515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, ALICIA CHEVALIER can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/I.M./
Iswarya Mathew Examiner, Art Unit 1788
02/27/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788