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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10, as filed 3 July 2023, are examined herein. No new matter is included.
Claim Interpretation
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. Claim 9 contains the limitation: “wherein the battery is for use in a high radiation environment.” The specification does not provide a special definition for this term. Paragraph [0029] of the instant specification states in part “The layered metal sulfide is also characterized by being stable in radiation environments. Thus, the use of the layered metal sulfide makes it possible to provide batteries with high environmental resistance. In contrast, binder resins used as binders in the conventional art have low heat stability. Binder resins also undergo polymerization reaction in radiation environments, and thus their properties are prone to deterioration.”
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 contains the limitation: “wherein the battery is for use in a high radiation environment.” The specification does not provide a special definition for this term. Paragraph [0029] of the instant specification states in part: “The layered metal sulfide is also characterized by being stable in radiation environments. Thus, the use of the layered metal sulfide makes it possible to provide batteries with high environmental resistance. In contrast, binder resins used as binders in the conventional art have low heat stability. Binder resins also undergo polymerization reaction in radiation environments, and thus their properties are prone to deterioration.” It can be deduced that presence of a layered metal sulfide is good for use in a radiation environment, and presence of an organic binder is unfavorable for use in a radiation environment. However, “for use in a high radiation environment” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “for use in a high radiation environment ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is determined to include “having presence of a layered metal sulfide.”
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(s) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawase (JP 2007317461 A), with paragraph numbering to the provided English translation.
Regarding claims 1 -3, Kawase teaches an electrode for use in a primary or secondary battery,
the electrode comprising: a current collector ([0083] copper foil); and
an active material layer provided on a surface of the current collector ([0083]), the active material layer comprising: a plurality of active material particles ([0083] silicon powder); and
a layered metal sulfide that fills a space between the plurality of the active material particles. ([0083] molybdenum material, [0089] the molybdenum material is molybdenum disulfide. At [0083] the silicon powder and fine particle powder (molybdenum material) … were dispersed in an NMP solution of 3% by mass of polyamic acid (a precursor of polyimide, which is a binder) to form a slurry … applied to a current collector, dried, and then roll-pressed. Therefore, the layered metal sulfide fills a space between the plurality of active material particles.)
This also renders obvious limitation of claim 2, where molybdenum disulfide is an example of a transition metal dichalcogenide intercalation compound, which is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives. This also renders obvious limitation of claim 3, where molybdenum disulfide is a candidate within the scope of the claimed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 4, Kawase teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches wherein the active material layer contains the layered metal sulfide in an amount of 5.0 mass% or more and 50.0 mass% or less. (Table 1, examples 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8, showing molybdenum disulfide at 5% to 20% by mass)
Regarding claim 5, Kawase teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches wherein the active material layer contains the layered metal sulfide in an amount of 10.0 mass% or more and 50.0 mass% or less. (Table 1, examples 1-7, and 1-8, showing molybdenum disulfide at 5% to 20% by mass)
Regarding claim 6, Kawase teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Kawase does not explicitly teach wherein the active material layer has a surface with a coefficient of sliding friction of 0.01 to 0.60. The instant specification at [0038] discloses that a layered metal sulfide functions as a solid lubricant, and that the electrodes of the instant claim 1 have a coefficient of sliding friction between 0.05 and 0.4. (Falls within the claimed range.) Therefore, the electrode of Kawase as set forth in claim 1 meets the instant claim limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Kawase teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches primary or secondary battery comprising at least: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte, at least one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode being the electrode according to claim 1. ([0014])
Regarding claim 9, Kawase teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however does not explicitly teach the limitation of claim 8, wherein the battery is for use in a high radiation environment. Referring to the broadest reasonable interpretation above, Kawase teaches (Table 1, examples 1-7, and 1-8, showing molybdenum disulfide at 5% to 20% by mass), therefore Kawase meets the limitation of having the presence of a layered metal sulfide.
Regarding claim 10, Kawase teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches method for producing the electrode according to claim 1. ([0070])
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase (JP 2007317461 A), with paragraph numbering to the provided English translation, as set forth in claim 1, and in further view of Kitaura (US 20120216394 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kawase teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and further teaches [0041] that a binder such as polyimide or polyvinylidene fluoride may be used as needed. At [0083] Kawase discloses the slurry comprising 3% by mass of polyamic acid, which is a precursor of polyimide, a binder. (This is above the claimed range.) However, Kawase does not put any particular limitation on the amount of binder. Kawase does not explicitly teach wherein the content of any component other than the active material particles and the layered metal sulfide in the active material layer is 0.1 mass% or less.
Kitaura, in the field of (abstract) solid electrolyte batteries, discloses [0044] the use of electrode active materials including titanium sulfide (TiS2). Examiner notes that TiS2 is a type of layered metal sulfide. At [0050] Kitaura discloses the use of a binder at 0.01 to 10 wt% and a conductive additive at 0.01 to 10wt%. At [0048] the conductive additive may be carbonaceous. A person of ordinary skill would understand that layered metal sulfides are electrically conductive and therefore there is reduced need for a conductive additive. At [0005] Kitaura discloses that the use of a binder can provide the desirable feature of flexibility of the electrode layer. At [0002] Kitaura discloses the motivation of a secondary battery having high energy density. At [0036] Kitaura discloses “Especially in the case of using a sulfide-based solid electrolyte …, since sulfide-based solid electrolytes are highly reactive, the solid electrolyte may be reacted with a binder or the like by the heating of the sealing step, thereby increasing battery resistance. A person of ordinary skill would understand that reducing the amount of binder would reduce the occurrence of undesirable sulfide reactions with the binder. The person of ordinary skill would further understand that any additive to the electrode layer (conductive additive, binder) reduces the amount of material to intercalate and deintercalated electrons, therefore reducing energy density. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to not use a conductive additive.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to optimize the amount of binder in the electrode of Kawase, in order to balance electrode flexibility with reduced sulfide-based reactions with the binder, with a reasonable expectation of selecting a value in the overlapping part of the range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
CLAIRE A. RUTISER
Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/C.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights