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 objected to because of the following informalities: nanoparticles is misspelled “nannoparticles”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deguchi et al. (Scientific reports 3.1 (2013): 2094).
Regarding Claim 6, Deguchi discloses:
An anode active material for a metal secondary battery comprising crystalline face-centered cubic (fcc) C60 nannoparticles (“particles are nano-sized crystals of C60 having a face-centered cubic (fcc) structure,” see Pg2/C(right)/2nd paragraph)
Because Claim 6 recognizes fcc C60 nanoparticles as a material that can be used as an anode material for a metal secondary battery, it is reasonable to conclude the nano-sized crystals of C60 having a face-centered cubic (fcc) structure of Deguchi is structurally capable of being an anode active material for a metal secondary battery.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 7-8, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi et al. (Scientific reports 3.1 (2013): 2094) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Scaravonati et al.(Carbon, 130 (2018): 11-18).
Regarding Claim 7 and 8, Deguchi notes that the C60 material of his invention can suitable be used in energy storage devices (see Pg1/2nd paragraph), however, Deguchi is silent toward:
(per Claim 7)comprising the anode active material for a metal secondary battery according to claim 6, an anode electrically conductive material, and a binder.
(per Claim 8) wherein the anode electrically conductive material is carbon black.
To solve the same problem of providing an application for fullerene materials, Scaravonati teaches preparing an anode active material of C60 into and anode for a sodium ion battery, see Abstract and Pg12/C(right)/Section 2/1st paragraph. Scaravonati further teaches fcc C60 is uniquely advantageous towards being an anode active material due to the high ratio of Na+ intercalation per C60 molecule, Pg12/C(left)/3rd paragraph.
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to prepared an anode with the C60 material Deguchi via the steps taught by Scaravonati to provide an anode for a sodium ion battery with the ability to have high ratio of Na+ intercalation per C60 molecule.
Deguchi in view of Scaravonati teaches:
comprising the anode active material for a metal secondary battery according to claim 6, an anode electrically conductive material, and a binder.
(per Claim 8) wherein the anode electrically conductive material is carbon black.
Scaravonati teaches fullerene C60 was mixed with polyvinylidene fluoride binder and carbon-black (i.e., anode electrically conductive material), see Pg12/C(right)/Section 2/1st paragraph.
Regarding Claim 10, Deguchi in view of Scaravonati teaches:
wherein the anode active material for a metal secondary battery is not chemically bonded with the anode electrically conductive material and the binder.
Scaravonati describes the following steps (see Pg12/C(right)/Section 2/1st paragraph):
C60 was mixed fullerene with carbon black and polyvinylidene fluoride binder in a mortar for a few minutes,
Dropwise addition of N-methyl-pyrrolidone to obtain a thick slurry.
After 20 h stirring, the mixture was transferred onto aluminum or copper foil to form the anode
Similarly, the instant specification performs the steps of mixing the C60 material with binder and electrically conductive material in a solvent followed by spreading the slurry on copper foil to form an anode electrode, see instant spec.-Pg12/L7-15.
Scaravonati does not describe any steps that would lead one of ordinary skill to conclude that the electrically conductive material and/or the binder undergo a chemical reaction with the fullerene particles. Additionally, the steps of Scaravonati and the instant specification are substantially similar and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that Deguchi in view of Scaravonati teaches the limitation of :
wherein the anode active material for a metal secondary battery is not chemically bonded with the anode electrically conductive material and the binder.
Regarding Claim 13, Deguchi in view of Scaravonati teaches:
(per claim 13) wherein the metal secondary battery comprises an electrolyte which is liquid or solid.
Scaravonati teaches the production of a half cell with a solid electrolyte (see), however, it is the Examiner’s position that the half-cell could be function as a battery. Scaravonati’s half-cell has the requisite structure for a battery with a C60-based anode, a sodium metal (i.e., cathode) and solid electrolyte disposed between.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deguchi et al. (Scientific reports 3.1 (2013): 2094) in view of Scaravonati et al.(Carbon, 130 (2018): 11-18 as applied to claim 6 and 7 above, and further view of Xu et al. (US-20170214035-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Deguchi in view of Scaravonati teaches the use of polyvinylidene fluoride binder as binder and, therefore, does not teach:
wherein the binder is methyl cellulose, styrene butadiene rubber, or a combination thereof.
Since the prior art of Xu recognizes the equivalency of styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) and polyvinylidene fluoride in the field of binders for carbon based anodes for sodium ion batteries (see [0006] and [0068]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the polyvinylidene fluoride of Scaravonati with the styrene butadiene rubber of Xu as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent binder recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6-10 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/K.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
