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
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2 recites “the base comprises…”. While it is understood that “the base” is referring to the base of the “base-treated Mo6S8” recited in Claim 1, the examiner suggest amending the limitation to read “the base of the base-treated Mo6S8 comprises…”, in order to provide further clarity to the claim.
Claim 4 recites the range “1 to 10% by weight” in line 3. For enhanced clarity, the examiner suggests amending to recite the unit behind both the lower bound and the upper bound of the range. For example, the range of Claim 4 should be amended to read “1% to 10% by weight”.
Claim 5, lines 2-6, recites the limitation “the positive electrode active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of elemental sulfur (S8), Li2Sn (n≥1, n is an integer), organic sulfur compound and carbon-sulfur polymer [(C2Sx)n, 2.5≤x≤50, n≥2, x and n are integers]” which appears to be improper alternative limitation claiming (see MPEP 2173.05(h)) since it is neither in Markush form (e.g. “…group consisting of A, B, and C”) nor is it in proper alternative form (e.g. “…is A, B, or C”). This causes the scope of the claim to be unclear as to whether the last species is supposed to be organic sulfur compound/carbon-sulfur polymer composite, or if all of the listed species are individually in the alternative. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been taken as “the positive electrode active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of elemental sulfur (S8), Li2Sn (n≥1, n is an integer), organic sulfur compound, and carbon-sulfur polymer [(C2Sx)n, 2.5≤x≤50, n≥2, x and n are integers]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites in lines 2-5 “the additive is contained in an amount of 1 to 10% by weight based on the total weight 100% by weight of the base solids included in the positive electrode active material layer”. The examiner notes that the limitation will be considered to require that the additive is contained in an amount between 1% by weight and 10% by weight based on the total weight of solid material in the positive electrode active material layer, as is consistent with page 8, para. 5 of the instant specification. The examiner notes that the term “the base solids” will not be considered as referring to only the solids of the base of the base-treated Mo6S8, as the instant specification does not use such terminology when discussing the mass amount of the additive.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 102117909 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 06/30/2023) (citations herein are made in reference to the English machine translation attached to this office action).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a positive electrode (positive electrode sheet) for a lithium secondary battery (test battery) comprising a current collector (aluminum foil), a positive electrode active material layer (mixture) disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (aluminum foil) [0069, 0071]. Li further discloses that the positive electrode active material layer (mixture) comprises a positive electrode active material (nickel-based material) and an additive (Mo6S8), and wherein the additive (Mo6S8) is base-treated with the inclusion of lithium hydroxide [0031]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 2, Li further discloses that the base of the base-treated Mo6S8 is lithium hydroxide [0031]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Li does not explicitly disclose the pH of the positive electrode active material layer (mixture).
However, the instant application teaches that base-treating Mo6S8 with lithium hydroxide can alter the pH of the positive electrode active material layer from between 1 and 4 to between 7 and 9, as the base neutralizes the acidic atmosphere of the Mo6S8 (p.8, para. 2-4).
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that as lithium hydroxide is mixed with Mo6S8 in the positive electrode active material layer (mixture) of Li, the pH would be expected to be between 7 and 9. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Li further discloses that the positive electrode active material layer (mixture) further comprises a binder (PVDF) [0069]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Regarding Claim 8, Li further discloses a lithium secondary battery (test battery) comprising the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet) of Claim 1, a negative electrode (negative electrode sheet); a separator (polypropylene separator) interposed between the positive electrode positive electrode sheet) and the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet); and an electrolyte [0069-0071]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 102117909 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 06/30/2023) (citations herein are made in reference to the English machine translation attached to this office action), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamo et al. (US 2019/0148728 A1).
In Regards to Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Li discloses the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1 as set forth above.
Li is deficient in disclosing that the additive is contained in an amount of 1% to 10% by weight based on the total weight of 100% by weight of the base solids included in the positive electrode active material layer.
Kamo discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (30) (Figure 6, [0154]). Kamo further discloses that the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode active material (lithium nickel cobalt composite oxide), a positive electrode conductive additive, and a positive electrode binder, which are mixed to form a positive electrode active material layer (slurry) [0155]. Kamo further discloses that the positive electrode active material layer (slurry) is applied to a positive electrode current collector [0155]. Kamo further discloses that the positive electrode conductive additive is included in the positive electrode active material layer (slurry) in an amount of 2.5% by mass based on the total mass of the positive electrode active material layer (slurry) [0155].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the amount of additive in the positive electrode active material layer of Li, an amount of 2.5% by weight based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer, as such an amount is known in the art as suitable amount of an additive within a positive electrode active material layer in a lithium secondary battery, as taught by Kamo. Furthermore, the selection of a known composition based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 102117909 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 06/30/2023) (citations herein are made in reference to the English machine translation attached to this office action), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sung et al. (US 2020/0321598 A1).
In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Li discloses the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1 as set forth above. Li further discloses that the positive electrode active material (nickel-based material) may be LiNi0.8Co0.2O2 [0031].
Li is deficient in disclosing that the positive electrode active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of elemental sulfur (S8), Li2Sn (n≥1, n is an integer), organic sulfur compound, and carbon-sulfur polymer [(C2Sx)n, 2.5≤x≤50, n≥2, x and n are integers].
Sung discloses a positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery [0029]. Sung further discloses that the positive electrode active material may be selected from a group which includes lithium nickel oxides, an organic sulfur compound, a carbon-sulfur composite material, and combinations thereof [0029].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the positive electrode active material of Li to include an organic sulfur compound and a carbon-sulfur composite material, as the combination of a lithium nickel oxide, an organic sulfur compound, and a carbon-sulfur composite material is known in the art as a suitable combination for use as a positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery, as taught by Sung. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
In Regards to Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 5):
Li as modified by Sung discloses the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to Claim 5 as set forth above. Upon the modification detailed above in the rejection of Claim 5, modified Li discloses that the positive electrode active material (nickel-based material) comprises a carbon-sulfur composite material. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 102117909 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 06/30/2023) (citations herein are made in reference to the English machine translation attached to this office action), as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Picard et al. (US 2021/0296699 A1).
In Regards to Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 8):
Li discloses the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to Claim 8 as set forth above. Li further discloses that the lithium secondary battery (test battery) is a lithium-ion battery [0071]. Li further discloses that the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet) is comprised of primarily graphite [0070].
Li is deficient in disclosing that the lithium secondary battery is a lithium-sulfur battery.
Picard discloses an electrochemical system which may be selected from a group which includes a lithium secondary battery and a lithium-sulfur battery (lithium-sulfur accumulator) [0259]. Picard further discloses that the negative electrode of the electrochemical system may have an electrochemically active material which is selected from a group which includes graphite and lithium metal [0267].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the negative electrode active material of Li, lithium metal, as it is known in the art as a recognized alternative to graphite for use as a negative electrode active material, as taught by Picard. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.
Upon the above modification, it would be further obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the lithium secondary battery of Li to be a lithium-sulfur battery, as it is known in the art that a lithium secondary battery and a lithium-sulfur battery are art recognized equivalents to one another, as taught by Picard. The substitution of known equivalent structures involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Fout 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Susi 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958). When a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. By doing so, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724