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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word count is over 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 appears to contain more than one sentence. (see “…represented by General Formula (G1)…. In the formula,…” & “…composed of two or more selected from C, O, Si, N, S, and P atoms. Moreover,…”) . However, each claim must be the object of a sentence and each claim must begin with a capital letter and end with a period (i.e. one sentence). Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2016/0028081).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising a cathode having an electrochemically active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material) (Para. [0057]) and an electrolyte (Para. [0072]) wherein a lithium transition metal oxide which may be a cathodically active material (Para. [0056]) wherein the particle has the coated LiCoO2 shell (Para. [0033]) (i.e. lithium cobalt oxide that is a surface portion of the positive electrode active material) having an O3 phase (i.e. has an O3 structure) (Para. [0084]), wherein the electrolyte comprises organic cations including imidazolium salts (Para. [0074]) (i.e. wherein the electrolyte comprises an imidazolium cation).
Regarding the claimed limitation of a constant charging performed in an environment at 60 degrees Celsius with a current value of 0.5 C until a voltage reaches 4.5 V, a charging process of performing constant voltage charging until a current value reaches 0.2 C and a discharging process of performing constant current discharging with a current value of 0.5 C until a voltage reaches 3 V are alternately repeated 150 or more times, and then discharging is performed, this limitation a product by process limitation that does not further limit the structure claimed. Product by process limitations do not impart structural features to the claim and thus as long as the structure is the same as that claimed, the claimed structure is met.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2016/0028081) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0351201).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. further teaches an anode (Para. [0097]) (i.e. further comprising a negative electrode) and preparing an electrode by casting electrochemically active powder slurry onto the surface of a current collector (Para. [0003]) (i.e. wherein the negative electrode comprises a current collector and a negative electrode active material layer over the current collector).
Zhang et al. does not teach the negative electrode comprises graphite nor a proportion of the graphite to total weight of the negative electrode active material layer is 50 weight% or more.
However, Zhamu et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery (i.e. a secondary battery) comprising graphite particles as anode active material (Para. [0036] and claim 18) (i.e. the negative electrode comprises graphite, the negative electrode comprises a current collector and a negative electrode active material layer over the current collector), wherein .
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of graphite particle active material as taught by Zhamu et al. as it would provide significantly higher energy densities and power densities (Para. [0200], [0201]).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the negative electrode comprises graphite.
However, Zhamu et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery (i.e. a secondary battery) comprising graphite particles as anode active material (Para. [0036]) (i.e. the negative electrode comprises graphite) wherein the instant method uses no binder resin and 85 wt% active material to 7 wt% acetylene black to form the anode layer (Para. [0196]) (i.e. reading on a proportion of the graphite to total weight of the negative electrode active material is 50 weight % or more, as the proportion taught by Zhamu et al. is about 92 weight %).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of graphite particle active material as taught by Zhamu at 50 weight% or more et al. as it would provide significantly higher energy densities and power densities due to reduced proportion of non-active components (Para. [0200], [0201]).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprises one or more selected from a 1-butyl-3- propylimidazolium cation, a 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation, a 1-butyl-3- methylimidazolium cation, a 1-hexyl-3-methylimidazolium cation, and a 1-methyl-3-(2- propoxyethyl)imidazolium cation.
However, Zhamu et al. teaches an electrolyte containing ionic liquid (Para. [0101]) comprising 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation (Para. [0147]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the ionic liquid containing 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation, as such an ionic liquid containing 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium provides low volatility and non-flammability and hence a much safer electrolyte for batteries (Para. [0147]).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprises one or more selected from a 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation,
However, Zhamu et al. teaches an electrolyte containing ionic liquid (Para. [0101]) comprising 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation (Para. [0147]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Zhang et al. to incorporate the teaching of the ionic liquid containing 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium, as such an ionic liquid containing 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium provides low volatility and non-flammability and hence a much safer electrolyte for batteries (Para. [0147]).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0156032) in view of Zhamu et al. (US 2018/0351201).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0010]) including a positive electrode including positive active material (Para. [0011]), and an electrolyte (Para. [0105]), wherein the positive active material is a lithium cobalt oxide (Para. [0011]) wherein the O3 phase is present as the main phase (Para. [0065]) (i.e. the positive electrode active material is lithium cobalt oxide that has an O3 structure) after charging and discharging are repeated (Fig. 17) wherein the electrolyte comprises a non-aqueous electrolytic solution (Para. [0116]).
Lee et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprises a compound represented by General Formula 1 (G1) of the instant claim.
However, Zhamu et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0019]) comprising lithium cobalt oxide as cathode (i.e. positive) active material Para. [0127], [0128]) wherein the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid (Para. [0043], [0141]) which may be a 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation and an N,N-bis(trifluoromethane)sulphonamide anion (Para. [0147]) (i.e. a compound represented by G1 of the instant claim as R1 is represented by an alkyl group comprising 1 carbon atom, R2, R3, and R4, are represented by a hydrogen atom, R5, is represented by an alkyl group, and A- is represented by an amide-based anion represented by (CF3SO2)2N-, wherein n is 1, i.e. greater than 0 and less than or equal to 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Lee et al. to incorporate the teaching of a 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation and an N,N-bis(trifluoromethane)sulphonamide anion ionic liquid as taught by Zhamu et al., as the ionic liquid provides an electrolyte solution with low volatility and non-flammability, and hence, a much safer electrolyte for batteries (Para. [0147]).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 4 as explained above.
Lee et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprises a compound represented by General Formula 1 (G1) of the instant claim.
However, Zhamu et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0019]) comprising lithium cobalt oxide as cathode (i.e. positive) active material Para. [0127], [0128]) wherein the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid (Para. [0043], [0141]) which may be a 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation and an N,N-bis(trifluoromethane)sulphonamide anion (Para. [0147]) (i.e. a compound represented by G1 of the instant claim as R1 is represented by a methyl group, R2, R3, and R4, are all represented by a hydrogen atom, R5, is represented by an alkyl group, and A- is represented by (CF3SO2)2N-).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Lee et al. to incorporate the teaching of a 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation and an N,N-bis(trifluoromethane)sulphonamide anion ionic liquid as taught by Zhamu et al., as the ionic liquid provides an electrolyte solution with low volatility and non-flammability, and hence, a much safer electrolyte for batteries (Para. [0147]).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 4 as explained above.
Lee et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprises a compound represented by General Formula 1 (G1) of the instant claim.
However, Zhamu et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0019]) comprising lithium cobalt oxide as cathode (i.e. positive) active material Para. [0127], [0128]) wherein the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid (Para. [0043], [0141]) which may be a 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation and an N,N-bis(trifluoromethane)sulphonamide anion (Para. [0147]) (i.e. a compound represented by G1 of the instant claim wherein the sum of the number of carbon atoms of R1 [1], the number of carbon atoms of R5 [2] and the number of oxygen atoms of R5 [0] is 3, which reads on 7 or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Lee et al. to incorporate the teaching of a 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation and an N,N-bis(trifluoromethane)sulphonamide anion ionic liquid as taught by Zhamu et al., as the ionic liquid provides an electrolyte solution with low volatility and non-flammability, and hence, a much safer electrolyte for batteries (Para. [0147]).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee et al. as modified by Zhamu et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 4 as explained above.
Lee et al. does not teach the electrolyte comprises a compound represented by General Formula 1 (G1) of the instant claim.
However, Zhamu et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0019]) comprising lithium cobalt oxide as cathode (i.e. positive) active material Para. [0127], [0128]) wherein the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid (Para. [0043], [0141]) which may be a 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation and an N,N-bis(trifluoromethane)sulphonamide anion (Para. [0147]) (i.e. a compound represented by G1 of the instant claim as R1 is represented by a methyl group, R2 represents a hydrogen atom, and the sum of the numbers of carbon atoms and oxygen atoms of R5 is 2, reading on 6 or less).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrolyte of Lee et al. to incorporate the teaching of a 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium cation and an N,N-bis(trifluoromethane)sulphonamide anion ionic liquid as taught by Zhamu et al., as the ionic liquid provides an electrolyte solution with low volatility and non-flammability, and hence, a much safer electrolyte for batteries (Para. [0147]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2016/0028081) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ikenuma et al. (US 2016/0064726).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the secondary battery according to claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach an electronic device comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1, a display portion and a sensor.
However, Ikenuma et al. teaches a power storage device including a secondary battery such as a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0126]) the power storage battery can be used for power supply to electronic devices (Para. [0188]) such as a portable information terminal (i.e. electronic device) (Para. [0203]) comprising a display (i.e. display portion) and a sensor (Para. [0208]).
The combination of the secondary battery of Zhang et al. with an electronic device comprising a secondary battery, a display portion and a sensor, as taught by Ikenuma et al., would yield the predictable result of providing the electronic device equipped with battery providing power supply, wherein the battery is a lithium ion secondary battery (Ikenuma et al. -- Para. [0126], [0217] and Zhang et al. – Para. [0082]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the secondary battery of Zhang et al. with an electronic device comprising a secondary battery, a display portion and a sensor, as taught by Ikenuma et al., as the combination would yield the predictable result of the electronic device equipped with battery providing power supply, wherein the battery is a lithium ion secondary battery (Ikenuma et al. -- Para. [0126], [0217] and Zhang et al. – Para. [0082]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang et al. teaches all of the elements of the secondary battery according to claim 1 as explained above.
Zhang et al. does not teach a vehicle comprising the secondary battery according to claim 1, an electric motor and a control device, wherein the control device is configured to supply electric power from the secondary battery to the electric motor.
However, Ikenuma et al. teaches a power storage device including a secondary battery such as a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0126]) the power storage battery can be used for power supply to electronic devices (Para. [0188]) such as an electric vehicle (Para. [0220]) wherein the output of the electric power of battery is adjusted by a control circuit (Para. [0220]) wherein the driving device includes a DC motor or an AC motor, wherein the control circuit adjusts energy supplied from the battery to control the output of the driving device (Para. [0221]) (i.e. a vehicle comprising a secondary battery, an electric motor and a control device, wherein the control device is configured to supply electric power from the secondary battery to the electric motor).
The combination of the secondary battery of Zhang et al. with a vehicle comprising a secondary battery, an electric motor and a control device configured to supply electric power from the secondary battery to the electric motor, as taught by Ikenuma et al., would yield the predictable result of providing a vehicle equipped with battery providing power supply, wherein the battery is a lithium ion secondary battery (Ikenuma et al. -- Para. [0126], [0221] and Zhang et al. – Para. [0082]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the secondary battery of Zhang et al. with a vehicle comprising a secondary battery, an electric motor and a control device configured to supply electric power from the secondary battery to the electric motor, as taught by Ikenuma et al., as the combination would yield the predictable result of the vehicle equipped with battery providing power supply, wherein the battery is a lithium ion secondary battery (Ikenuma et al. -- Para. [0126], [0221] and Zhang et al. – Para. [0082]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729