DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/267323, “NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 12/17/21 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 12/23/20.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 11/14/25.
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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Munaoka (US 2018/0138511).
Regarding claim 1, Munaoka teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Fig. 1, 2; paragraph [0031]), comprising: an electrode assembly in which a band-shaped positive electrode and a band-shaped negative electrode are wound with a separator interposed therebetween (item 20); an electrolyte liquid (paragraph [0119]); and an exterior housing (item 11) the electrode assembly and the electrolyte liquid (see Fig. 1), wherein the negative electrode has a negative electrode current collector (item 22A) and a negative electrode mixture layer (item 2B) formed on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (see Fig. 2), and the negative electrode mixture layer contains a negative electrode active material and fibrous carbon (paragraph [0100]).
Munaoka does not appear to teach wherein an average fiber length of the fibrous carbon contained in a middle portion of the negative electrode mixture layer is larger than an average fiber length of the fibrous carbon contained in both edge portions in a width direction of the negative electrode mixture layer.
However, as described in MPEP 2141 III, the “The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations. However, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art… mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.”
Moreover, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA).
Here, applicant’s invention of claim 1 requires that the average length of the fibrous carbon of the middle portion is “larger” than that of those of the edge portions, but does not set forth any magnitude of difference in size required; therefore, the scope of the claimed invention allows that the carbon fibers of the edge portion may have a size which is nearly equal to that of the middle portion. In other words, in the context of claim 6, claim 1 only requires that the ratio of the average fiber length of the middle portion to an average fiber length of the edge portions is greater than or equal to 1.0.
Applicant’s Table 1 suggests that superior properties are provided when the aspect ratio is at least 1.2 (2.4/2.0), and that no advantage is achieved when the aspect ratio is 1.0, but does not provide any evidence of advantage when the aspect ratio is less than 1.2. Thus, a skilled artisan would not have expected any functional advantage to be associated with small ratios approaching 1.0
Therefore, the invention of claim 1 is found to be obvious over Munaoka because, even if Munaoka does not teach that the fibers of the middle portion should be made longer, there is no evidence to suggest that a functional difference is achieved, when the ratio difference is less than 1.2.
Regarding claim 2-3, Munaoka remains as applied to claim 1. The same reasoning applied to claim 1 applies to claims 2 and 3. The area ratio of the edge and middle portions is not associated with any functional consequence unless the length ratio difference is at least 1.2, but base claim 1 allows for a length ratio difference approaching 1.0.
Regarding claim 5, Munaoka remains as applied to claim 1. Munaoka further teaches wherein the average fiber length of the fibrous carbon contained in the edge portions is greater than or equal to 1 micron (paragraph [0007]).
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Munaoka (US 2018/0138511) in view of AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art, taken from paragraph [0002] of the publication of the instant application, US 2024/0014403).
Regarding claim 6, 6 remains as applied to claim 1. Munaoka teaches that the negative electrode mixture layer may include fibrous carbon (e.g. paragraph [0100]), but the sections describing the fibrous carbon of the negative electrode layer do not expressly teach that the carbon fiber may be in the form of a carbon nanotube.
However, Munaoka does more generally teach carbon nanotube as an embodiment of carbon material to be included in the battery (paragraph [0114]).
Moreover, AAPA teaches that it was known in the art at the time of invention to use carbon nanotube as a fibrous carbon conductive material in an electrode layer (AAPA at paragraph [0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize carbon nanotube as the fibrous carbon of Munaoka, since carbon nanotube was known as a suitable species of fibrous carbon, particularly for electrode conductive material applications in view of AAPA.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding dependent claim 4, the closest prior art includes Munaoka (US 2018/0138511) which are relevant to the claimed invention as described in the rejection of claim 1. As described, Munaoka teaches relevant features of claim 1, but does not teach “wherein a ratio of an average fiber length of the fibrous carbon contained in the middle portion to an average fiber length of the fibrous carbon contained in both the edge portions is greater than or equal to 1.2”as recited in claim 1. Applicant’s Table 1 suggests that such ratios provide a significant difference in performance compared to embodiments wherein the ratio is close to 1.0, as is expected for Munaoka. Therefore, this difference is found to be consequential and claim 4 is not rejected as obvious over Munaoka.
The closest prior art further includes the following references which have teachings relevant to carbon nanotube size:
Zahgib (US 2015/0162610) different length carbon nanotubes in a layer, but not spatially distinguished;
Yachi (US 2015/0372309) different length carbon nanotubes in a layer, but not spatially distinguished;
Munaoka (US 2018/0138511) different length carbon nanotubes in a layer, but not spatially distinguished;
Harutyunyan (US 2020/0083560) positive electrode comprising lower nanotube content in inner ban compared to outer bands (Fig. 4A);
Fukumoto (US 2021/0193991) negative electrode with layers of differing sized carbon fibers;
Zettsu (US 2021/0313559) different length carbon nanotubes in a layer, but not spatially distinguished;
Kishimoto (US 2023/0343922) [not prior art] positive electrode with layers having different length carbon nanotubes;
Ueda (JP 2021/0136045) negative electrode band with higher porosity edges to promote electrolyte solution insertion.
However, none of the reference are found to cure the deficiency of Munaoka or independently teach the invention of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 4 is not rejected, but is objected to for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723