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 Status
Claim 11 has been amended. Claims 11-26 are pending and have been rejected to. Claims 1-10 are cancelled.
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.
Claims 11, 16-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Patent CN112201791A (English Translation of IDS dated 07/18/2023), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 11, Zhou teaches a method for producing an electrical energy store (‘button battery’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 4), the method comprising: Providing a housing (‘the obtained positive electrode material was assembled into a button battery’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 4); Introducing at least one positive electrode, including a first active material, into the housing (‘the solution is freeze-dried washed with ethanol, filtered, and vacuum dried to obtain a coated lithium ion battery ternary positive electrode material’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 1); Metering a gas mixture into an empty volume of the housing (‘oxygen was introduced into the solution for 30mins at a rate of 10ml/min’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 1); and Sealing the housing in a gastight manner without being sealed under vacuum or generating a vacuum in the housing (‘the obtained positive electrode material was assembled into a button battery’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 4); Wherein the gas mixture comprises at least one gas component which is reacted at least partially with at least one of the first active material and second active material after the housing has been sealed (‘the present invention proposes an oxygen-absorbing self-healing organic film-coated lithium ion battery ternary positive electrode material’ (pg 1, summary of the invention, paragraph 1).
However, Zhou fails to explicitly teach introducing at least one negative electrode, including a second active material, into the housing.
Zhou teaches that ‘obviously the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all the embodiments’ (pg 2, detailed ways, paragraph 1). It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in order to make and charge a button battery, one would need both a positive and negative electrode as well as their respective active materials.
Regarding claim 16, Zhou teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the at least one gas component is reacted at least partially to give a passivating layer on at least one of the first active material and the second active material (‘the present invention proposes an oxygen-absorbing self-healing organic film-coated lithium ion battery ternary positive electrode material’ (pg 1, summary of the invention, paragraph 1) (film-coated reads on passivating layer)).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the gas component is reacted with at least one of the first active material and the second active material during one charging cycle or multiple charging cycles of the electrical energy store, in that at least 90 mole percent of the at least one gas component is reacted with at least one of the first active material and the second active material within the first four charging cycles (‘the charge and discharge curves of the materials before and after coating are basically the same, which indicates that the self-healing film coating will not affect the electrochemical reaction process of the material. This shows that the interface stability of the positive electrode material after the treatment has been significantly improved, and the irreversible electrochemical reaction at the interface during the first discharge is effectively suppressed’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 5) One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the charge cycle is improved because the film is successfully absorbing oxygen and self healing).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the at least one gas component is oxygen (‘oxygen was introduced into the solution for 30mins at a rate of 10ml/min’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the at least one gas component is present in a fraction of at least 25 volume percent in the gas mixture (‘oxygen was introduced into the solution for 30mins at a rate of 10ml/min’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 1) Because pure oxygen was introduced to the solution, the oxygen is 100 volume percent of the gas mixture and therefore falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 20, Zhou teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein the at least one gas component is present in a fraction of at least 35 volume percent (‘oxygen was introduced into the solution for 30mins at a rate of 10ml/min’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 1) Because pure oxygen was introduced to the solution, the oxygen is 100 volume percent of the gas mixture and therefore falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 21, Zhou teaches the method according to claim 20, wherein the at least one gas component is present in a fraction of at least 55 volume percent (‘oxygen was introduced into the solution for 30mins at a rate of 10ml/min’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 1) Because pure oxygen was introduced to the solution, the oxygen is 100 volume percent of the gas mixture and therefore falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 22, Zhou teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the at least one gas component is present in a fraction of at least 75 volume percent (‘oxygen was introduced into the solution for 30mins at a rate of 10ml/min’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 1) Because pure oxygen was introduced to the solution, the oxygen is 100 volume percent of the gas mixture and therefore falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 23, Zhou teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the gas component is reacted with the second active material. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that because the gas component is present in the housing, it will react with the second active material as claimed.
Regarding claim 25, Zhou teaches an electrical energy store produced by a method according to claim 11 (‘button battery’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 26, Zhou teaches the electrical store according to claim 25, wherein the housing is a prismatic housing or a round housing (‘button battery’ (pg 3, example 1, paragraph 4) One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a button battery has round housing).
Claims 12-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Patent CN112201791A (English Translation of IDS dated 07/18/2023), hereinafter Zhou as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0175583 (IDS dated 07/18/2023), hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claims 12-15, Zhou teaches, as mentioned above, a method for producing an electrical energy store, the method comprising: Providing a housing; Introducing at least one positive electrode, including a first active material, into the housing; Metering a gas mixture into an empty volume of the housing; and Sealing the housing in a gastight manner without being sealed under vacuum or generating a vacuum in the housing (pg 3, example 1); Wherein the gas mixture comprises at least one gas component which is reacted at least partially with at least one of the first active material and second active material after the housing has been sealed (‘the present invention proposes an oxygen-absorbing self-healing organic film-coated lithium ion battery ternary positive electrode material’ (pg 1, summary of the invention, paragraph 1).
However, Zhou fails to teach that the reaction of the gas component within the empty volume of the housing generates a pressure of 700mbar, 500mbar, nor 300mbar, or less (instant claims 12-15).
Suzuki teaches a non-aqueous cell that is sealed then injected with a gas mixture [0007]. The value of reduced pressure is preferably lower than or equal to 0.09 MPa (900 mbar), and most preferably lower than or equal to 0.01 MPa (100 mbar) [0022]. After pressure is reduced, the internal pressure within the cells is preferably to be lower than or equal to the value of the outer pressure of the surrounding atmosphere (1000mbar) [0022]. This demonstrates an overlap in ranges taught i.e. less than 1000mbar. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a Prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the internal pressure of Suzuki within the battery of Zhou in order to ‘improve the efficiency of cell-production’ [0022].
Regarding claims 24, Zhou teaches, as mentioned above, a method for producing an electrical energy store, the method comprising: Providing a housing; Introducing at least one positive electrode, including a first active material, into the housing; Metering a gas mixture into an empty volume of the housing; and Sealing the housing in a gastight manner without being sealed under vacuum or generating a vacuum in the housing (pg 3, example 1); Wherein the gas mixture comprises at least one gas component which is reacted at least partially with at least one of the first active material and second active material after the housing has been sealed (‘the present invention proposes an oxygen-absorbing self-healing organic film-coated lithium ion battery ternary positive electrode material’ (pg 1, summary of the invention, paragraph 1).
However, Zhou fails to teach the second active material being selected from the group consisting of carbon-containing materials, silicon, silicon suboxide, silicon alloys, and mixtures thereof.
Suzuki teaches a non-aqueous cell that is sealed then injected with a gas mixture [0007]. The non-aqueous cell contains a negative electrode wherein the negative active material is the alloy of metallic lithium with Si [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the silicon negative active material of Suzuki in the negative active material of Zhou for the purpose of improving cycle performance (Zhou pg 1, summary of the invention, paragraph 1) and (Suzuki, [0010]) (MPEP 2144.06).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-26 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mia K Holbrook whose telephone number is (571)272-9253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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.
/M.K.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights