DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1-9 are pending in the current application.
Examiner Note
3. It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published
application US 2024/0120493 A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, it is noted that italicized text in parentheses recited in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 indicates the element of the claimed invention to which the preceding prior art element corresponds and any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida et al. (US 2014/0220459 A1; “Iida”).
8. Regarding claim 1, Iida discloses a porous carbon material (an additive, the additive comprises a carbonaceous material) [0049], having a specific surface area (a specific surface area) of 400 m2/g or more as measured by a nitrogen BET method [0057], and a micropore diameter is less than 2 nm with a micropore volume (a micropore volume) of 0.1 cm3/g or more [0056, 0064]. Further, Iida exemplifies that the specific surface area may be, e.g. 1220 m2/g, and thereby reasonably teaches that the specific surface area of the porous carbon material may be over 1,000 m2/g.
9. The specific surface area range and micropore volume range, respectively, overlap with the claimed ranges, 1,000-2,000 m2/g, and less than 0.60 cm3/g, respectively, thereby rendering both ranges obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
10. The recitation of “for nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery positive electrodes” in the preamble of claim 1 constitutes a recitation of the intended use of the invention, and does not structurally or materially limit or define the additive set forth in the body of the claim. Therefore, the recitation is not considered a limitation of the additive, and is of no significance to the construction of the claim. Applicant is respectfully directed to MPEP 2111.02(II).
11. Furthermore, Iida discloses the porous carbon material is a plant-derived material, specifically from, inter alia straw, coffee beans, tea leaves, and fruit peels [0049], with a mesopore diameter of 2-50 nm and a mesopore volume of 0.2 cm3/g or more [0056, 0062]. The porous carbon material is prepared through subjecting to a carbonization heat treatment between 400-1,400 °C for up to a maximum of 10 hours under either a vacuum atmosphere or an atmosphere of inert gas [0053]. Thereafter, the material is pulverized with a jet mill to a desired size, of which Iida reasonably teaches a particle size of 4 μm [0053, 0087].
12. Iida is silent regarding the porous carbon material having an oxygen content of 0.5-1.3% by mass.
13. However, the disclosure of Iida encompasses embodiments of the porous carbon material, set forth above, which would have been substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed carbonaceous material additive in Applicant's Specification Example 1 in terms of comprising:
(i) a plant-derived carbonaceous precursor, of which is, inter alia char from coconut palm shells, straw, coffee beans, tea leaves, and fruit [0039-0040, 0043, 0125],
(ii) a micropore diameter less than 2 nm with a micropore volume of 0.52 cm3/g [Applicant’s Specification 0033, Table 1, Example 1], of which is within the range of 0.1 cm3/g or more disclosed by Iida [Iida, 0056, 0064],
(iii) a mesopore diameter of 2 nm or more with a claimed mesopore volume of 0.35 cm3/g or less [claim 4], and a disclosed mesopore volume of 0.35 cm3/g or less [Applicant’s Specification 0034], both of which overlap with the range of 0.2 cm3/g or more disclosed by Iida [Iida, 0056, 0062], and
(iv) a specific surface area of 1301 m2/g [Applicant’s Specification 0032, Table 1, Example 1], of which is within the range of 400 m2/g or more disclosed by Iida [Iida, 0057], wherein preparation of the carbonaceous material entails subjecting the plant-derived precursor to,
(v) a heat treatment at 900 °C for 1 hour under a nitrogen atmosphere [Applicant’s Specification 0043, 0060-0061, 0125], of which is within the range of 400-1,400 °C for up to a maximum of 10 hours under either a vacuum atmosphere or an atmosphere of inert gas as disclosed by Iida [Iida, 0053], and finally washed and pulverized to obtain
(vi) an average particle size as claimed of 2-20 μm [claim 3], and disclosed of 2-20 μm [Applicant’s Specification 0038], both of which encompass 4 μm as disclosed by Iida [Iida, 0053, 0087].
14. Given that the porous carbon material of Iida is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed carbonaceous material additive in terms of the foregoing elements: (i)-(vi), it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the porous carbon material of Iida would have necessarily exhibited an oxygen content of 0.5-1.3% by mass, as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
15. Regarding claim 2, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, Iida is silent regarding the porous carbon material having a percentage of oxygen content in quinone groups as measured by Boehm titration of surface functional groups with respect to the oxygen content as measured by elemental analysis from 30% to 70%.
16. In view of the totality of the foregoing, the porous carbon material of Iida is substantially identical or identical to the claimed and disclosed carbonaceous material additive in terms of the foregoing elements: (i)-(vi), in ¶13 above. As such it stands to reason, and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the porous carbon material of Iida would have necessarily exhibited a percentage of oxygen content in quinone groups as measured by Boehm titration of surface functional groups with respect to the oxygen content as measured by elemental analysis from 30% to 70% as claimed, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
17. Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the additive defined by claim 3. That is, the porous carbon material of Iida is pulverized with a jet mill to a desired size, of which Iida reasonably teaches a particle size of 4 μm [0053, 0087]. The porous carbon material size meets the limitations of the claimed average particle size, 2-20 μm.
18. Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 above reads on the additive defined by claim 4. That is, the porous carbon material of Iida has a mesopore diameter of 2-50 nm and a mesopore volume (a mesopore volume) of 0.2 cm3/g or more [0056, 0062]. The mesopore volume range of Iida overlaps with the claimed mesopore volume range, 0.35 cm3/g or less, thereby rendering the range obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
19. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US
2019/0044186 A1; “Kim”), in view of Iida et al. (US 2014/0220459 A1; “Iida”).
20. Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses a lithium metal battery (nonaqueous secondary battery) [0150] comprising a positive electrode (a positive electrode) [0150], of which includes a current collector [0151-0152] and a positive active material composition (a positive electrode active material composition) [0151], of which further comprises a positive active material (a positive electrode active material) [0151], a binder (a binder) [0151-0152], and a conducting agent [0151, 0153], of which is, inter alia a carbonaceous material that does not cause chemical change in the battery and has conductivity [0153], and is in an amount of 1-10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the total weight of the positive active material [0154].
21. Additionally, Kim discloses that the lithium metal battery [0150] is suitable for use in small and medium/large-size devices including, inter alia plug-in hybrid electric vehicles [0167-0168], and is capable of charging/discharging [0166, 0221-0228]. The lithium metal battery comprises a non-aqueous liquid electrolyte [0161, 0164-0165]. The lithium metal battery of Kim reads on the claimed nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery.
22. Kim remains silent regarding the conducting agent has a specific surface area as determined by a BET method of from 1,000 m2/g to 2,000 m2/g, a micropore volume as determined by a DFT method of less than 0.60 cm3/g, and an oxygen content as measured by elemental analysis of 0.5% by mass or more and less than 1.3% by mass. i.e. a carbonaceous material conducting agent according to claim 1.
23. Iida is directed to a plant-derived porous carbon material [0049]. Iida teaches the claimed additive set forth above in the copending rejection of claim 1, of which is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference (not repeated). Additionally, Iida further teaches the additive set forth above in the copending rejections of claims 2-4.
24. Kim and Iida each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention – ------a carbonaceous material additive. In view of the combined teachings of the foregoing prior art, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium metal battery of Kim by having utilized the porous carbon material of Iida as the carbonaceous material conducting agent of the positive active material composition, in order to improve the current output of the positive electrode, and/or because the porous carbon material of Iida would have been readily recognized as suitable for use as a conducting agent in electrochemical devices/batteries. See MPEP 2144.07.
25. In accordance with the aforesaid modification, the positive active material composition of Kim [0151], would have comprised the positive active material [Kim, 0151], the binder [Kim, 0151-0152] and the plant-derived porous carbon material taught by Iida, and set forth above, as the carbonaceous material conducting agent [0151, 0153], thereby reading on the composition of claim 5, wherein the porous carbon material of Iida reads on the additive defined by claim 1. See MPEP 2144.07.
26. Regarding claims 1-5, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated herein by reference. The lithium metal battery of Kim as modified by Iida and set forth in the grounds of rejection of claim 8 reads on the additive defined by claims 1-4 and the positive electrode active material composition defined by claim 5.
27. Regarding claim 6, in view of the rejections of claim 8 and claim 5 above, Kim discloses that the conducting agent is in an amount of 1-10 parts by weight, relative to 100 parts of the positive active material, of the positive active material composition [0150-0156], where in accordance with the aforesaid modification, the conducting agent would have been formed from the porous carbon material of Iida.
28. The amount of 1-10 parts by weight, through calculation based on - as disclosed by Kim - the amount of binder (1-50 parts), solvent (100-2,000 parts), positive active material (100 parts), and conducting agent (1-10 parts) corresponds to about 0.047-4.74 wt.% conducting agent based on the total weight of the positive active material composition [0150-0156]. The range of about 0.047-4.74 wt.% is within, and thereby reads on the claimed range of 10 wt.% or less based on the total composition weight.
29. Regarding claim 7, in view of the rejection of claim 5 above, the rejection of claim 8 set forth above is incorporated herein and reads on the positive electrode defined by claim 7. That is, the positive electrode of the lithium metal battery of modified Kim – in addition to the positive active material layer formed from the positive active material composition – includes the current collector (collector) [Kim, 0150-0152], wherein the positive active material composition is coated on the current collector to form said layer [Kim, 0151]. The positive electrode inclusive of the positive electrode active material layer formed from the corresponding composition, and the current collector, reads on the positive electrode of claim 7.
30. Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 above is incorporated herein by reference. In view thereof, Kim further discloses that the lithium metal battery is capable of operating at 3-4.1 V [Kim, 0222-0223]. In view thereof, and given that the lithium metal battery of modified Kim is substantially identical to the claimed and disclosed nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery, it stands to reason and there is a strong and reasonable expectation, that the lithium metal battery of modified Kim would have necessarily been capable of operating at 3-4.1 V, of which is within the claimed range, 2-5 V, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I). "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Pertinent Prior Art
31. The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
32.
I. Janssen et al., US 2012/0251889 A1; is directed towards a cathode comprising at least one porous particulate carbon material [0030].
II. Zhamu et al., US 2009/0061312 A1; is directed towards carbon precursors for use in electrochemical capacitors [0075, 0081].
III. Costantino et al., US 2020/0020935 A1; is directed towards a porous carbon material comprising micropores and mesopores [0010].
IV. Feaver et al., US 2013/0157151 A1; is directed towards ultrapure synthetic carbon materials [0013].
V. Ikuta et al. JP 2004/296431 A; is directed towards a positive electrode for lithium secondary batteries that includes activated carbon derived from wood-materials or cellulosic-materials, of which is inter alia coconut shells [0035-0037] and teaches an amount of the activated carbon is 12.3 wt.% or less [0042].
VI. Ishida et al., WO 2018/207769 A1; teaches a modified activated carbon derived from coconut shells with an oxygen content of 0.9 mass% or less [Modified activated carbon section within Description of Embodiments section].
VII. Hirahara et al., US 2002/0114126 Al; is directed towards activated carbon derived from the carbonization of coconut shell adapted for electric double layer capacitors [0017] and teaches oxygen amount per 1 g of activated carbon is preferably 1-20 mg, more preferably 2-10 mg [0033].
VIII. Okuno et al., US 2016/0118199 A1; teaches a positive-electrode active material slurry comprising a conductive aid, of which is different from carbon materials used as the positive-electrode active material [0034-0035, 0077-0078, 0090, 0106, 0115].
IX. Iijima et al., US 2018/0069247 A1; is directed to a porous carbon material [0032] with quinone type oxygen [0070] for use on the cathode side [0065].
Conclusion
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA X. COLTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
34. 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.
35. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
36. 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.
/JENNA X. COLTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782