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 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 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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazawa et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0386341 A1 as cited in IDS), hereinafter Kazawa.
Regarding claim 1, Kazawa discloses an electrode mixture for a battery, including:
an active material that is able to occlude and release lithium ions (i.e., at least graphite as negative electrode active material as disclosed in [0050], such that the negative electrode active material may include a non-carbon active material that can intercalate and deintercalate lithium ions as disclosed in [0033], etc., also see [0008], [0011], [0026]-[0027], [0030]-[0033], [0049], etc., lacking any further distinction thereof as to said active material); and
a binder (i.e., at least styrene/butadiene copolymer (SBR) as disclosed in [0050], [0026], [0029], [0031], [0045], [0049]), wherein
the electrode mixture further includes a layered silicate salt compound (i.e., at least Laponite-RD as layered silicate as disclosed in [0050], lacking any further distinction thereof as to said layered silicate salt, also see [0034] with regards to montmorillonite as an example of a layered silicate salt material commensurate in scope with claims 4-5 as discussed below, etc., also see [0031], [0035]-[0037], [0039], [0043]), and
a content of the layered silicate salt compound is greater than 0.1 mass% relative to the mass of the active material (i.e., at least 0.2 mass % of Laponite-RD layered silicate as disclosed in [0050], which is a value within the claimed range of a content of the layered silicate salt compound is greater than 0.1 mass% relative to the mass of the active material, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.), also see [0043] with regards to the content of layered silicate of more preferably 0.1 mass% or more and 1 mass % or less, based on the total amount of the negative electrode active material, etc.).
Furthermore, since Kazawa discloses an active material that is identical and/or substantially identical to the product as claimed, properties and/or functions such as able to occlude and release lithium ions are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II., In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)), lacking any further distinction thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Kazawa discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1. Kazawa further discloses in [0050] at least 0.2 mass % of Laponite-RD layered silicate, which is a value within the claimed range of the content of the layered silicate salt compound is less than 0.9 mass% relative to the mass of the active material, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.), also see [0043] with regards to the content of layered silicate of more preferably 0.1 mass% or more and 1 mass % or less, based on the total amount of the negative electrode active material, etc.)
Regarding claims 4-5, Kazawa discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1. Kazawa further discloses in [0034] the layered silicate particle specific examples thereof include montmorillonite, etc., which at least provides the layered silicate salt compound includes at least one type of smectite (with regards to claim 4), and further provides the smectite includes montmorillonite (with regards to claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, Kazawa discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1 including the production of the negative electrode as disclosed in [0050]. Kazawa further discloses in [0013] a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery includes a positive electrode, negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte, etc., which at least provides a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein at least one of mixture layers of the positive electrode and the negative electrode is constituted with the electrode mixture according to claim 1 (i.e., at least negative electrode as discussed above and in [0050], etc.).
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2008/0063939 A1 as cited in IDS), hereinafter Ryu.
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses an electrode mixture for a battery, including:
an active material that is able to occlude and release lithium ions (i.e., at least electrode active material as disclosed in [0016], also see [0031] as with regards to lithium manganese composite oxides of Formula LiMn2-xMxO2 (M = Co, Ni, etc.), and LiNi1-xMxO2 (M=Co, Mn, Al, etc.) commensurate in scope with claim 6 discussed below); and
a binder (i.e., at least binder as disclosed in [0038], etc., also see [0020], [0029]-[0030], [0038], [0052]), wherein
the electrode mixture further includes a layered silicate salt compound (i.e., at least clay mineral such as smectite, montmorillonite, etc., as disclosed in [0023], which is commensurate in scope with claims 4-5 as discussed below, also see [0015]-[0023], Table 1, etc.), and
a content of the layered silicate salt compound is greater than 0.1 mass% relative to the mass of the active material (i.e., 5% by weight of montmorillonite was added to the cathode as disclosed in Example 4 ([0057]), also see Example 1 ([0052]) with regards to weight of montmorillonite based on the total weight of the cathode active material, etc., which is an amount that is within the claimed range of a content of the layered silicate salt compound is greater than 0.1 mass% relative to the mass of the active material, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Furthermore, since Ryu discloses an active material that is identical and/or substantially identical to the product as claimed, properties and/or functions such as able to occlude and release lithium ions are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II., In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)), lacking any further distinction thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Ryu discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1. Ryu further discloses the layered silicate salt compound includes at least one type of smectite (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0023] clay mineral examples include smectite, montmorillonite (MMT), etc., also see Examples 1 and 4, [0052], [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 4. Ryu further discloses the smectite includes montmorillonite (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0023] clay mineral examples include one or two or more selected from the group consisting of smectite, montmorillonite (MMT), etc., also see Examples 1 and 4, [0052], [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1. Ryu further discloses the active material includes a lithium-containing transition metal composite oxide (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0031] such as lithium manganese composite oxides of Formula LiMn2-xMxO2 (M = Co, Ni, etc.), and LiNi1-xMxO2 (M=Co, Mn, Al, etc.)), lacking any further distinction thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Ryu discloses the electrode mixtures as discussed above in claim 1. Ryu further discloses in [0057] a lithium secondary battery was prepared in the same manner as Example 1 (see Example 4), such that a porous polyethylene separator, etc., was disposed between the cathode and anode , etc., and a solution of 1M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate (EC) and ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) as an electrolyte was injected into the separator to prepare a lithium secondary battery, etc. (see Fabrication of battery in [0054], also see Table 1, [0037], [0040]-[0041], [0044]-[0049]), which at least provides a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein at least one of mixture layers of the positive electrode and the negative electrode is constituted with the electrode mixture according to claim 1.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazawa as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Waki et al. (U.S. Patent US 10,388,955 B2), hereinafter Waki.
Regarding claim 2, Kazawa discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1. Kazawa further discloses in [0028] examples of the electrical conductor include carbon powders such as carbon black, acetylene black, graphite, etc.
However, Kazawa is silent as to the electrode mixture further includes carbon nanotube.
Waki teaches a negative electrode for lithium ion secondary battery and lithium ion secondary battery (Title). Waki further teaches in C2:L50-57 the negative electrode active material layer is formed by applying on the negative electrode current collector, a mixture containing a negative electrode active material, a binder, and if necessary, a conductive agent, etc., whereby as disclosed in C5:L28-36 the negative electrode active material may contain a conductive agent, whereby examples include carbon black, carbon nanotube, etc., which at least provides the electrode mixture further includes carbon nanotube. Waki further teaches in C4:L5-22 the conductive agent ref. 103 exists to fill the space between the particles of the negative electrode active material ref. 102 to promote the transfer of the electrons, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kazawa with the teachings of Waki, whereby the electrode mixture including the active material, binder, layered silicate salt, and electrical conductor(s) such as carbon black, acetylene black, graphite, etc., as disclosed by Kazawa further includes the electrode mixture further includes carbon nanotube (conductive agent) as taught by Waki so that the conductive agent exists to fill the space between the particles of the negative electrode active material to promote the transfer of the electrons, etc.
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate simply substituting one known electrical conductor such as carbon black, acetylene black, graphite, etc., for another known conductive material such as carbon nanotube(s) so that the conductive agent exists to fill the space between the particles of the negative electrode active material to promote the transfer of the electrons, etc., as taught by Waki.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Ryu discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1. Ryu further discloses in [0021] clay mineral preferably has a content in the range of 0.05 to 5% by weight, which is a range that overlaps the claimed range of the content of the layered silicate salt compound is less than 0.9 mass% relative to the mass of the active material, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lin et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0267664 A1), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 2, Ryu discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 1. Ryu further discloses in [0027] examples of conductive materials include graphite, carbon blacks, conductive fibers, etc.
However, Ryu is silent as to the electrode mixture further includes carbon nanotube.
Lin teaches an electrode and lithium-ion battery (Title). Lin further teaches in Example 1 [0045] a slurry including conductive carbon black, and Lin further teaches in [0032] since the positive electrode active material in the positive electrode generally has a relatively common conductivity, the active material layer also contains a certain amount of a conductive agent, such as carbon black, carbon nanotubes (CNT), etc., and the conductive agent increases its electrical conductivity, which at least provides in one or more embodiments an electrode mixture including carbon nanotube(s), lacking any further distinction thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Ryu with the teachings of Lin, whereby the electrode mixture including the active material, binder, layered silicate salt, and conductive material(s) such as carbon black(s), conductive fiber(s), etc., as disclosed by Ryu further includes the electrode mixture further includes carbon nanotube as taught by Lin so that the conductive agent increases the electrical conductivity.
Furthermore, the skilled artisan would appreciate simply substituting one known conductive material such as graphite, carbon blacks, conductive fibers, etc., for another known conductive material such as carbon nanotube(s) so that the conductive agent increases the electrical conductivity as taught by Lin.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hong et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0067689 A1), hereinafter Hong.
Regarding claim 7, Ryu discloses the electrode mixture as discussed above in claim 6. Ryu further discloses in [0031] LiNi1-xMxO2 (M=Co, Mn, Al, etc., wherein 0.01≤x≤0.3)), which at least provides the lithium-containing transition metal composite oxide has a layered structure, and includes a composite oxide represented by the general formula: LiNi1-xMxO2, wherein M represents at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mn, and Co, such that 0.01≤x≤0.3 provides a range of stoichiometric values for LiNi1-xMxO2 that overlap and/or encompass the claimed range of stoichiometric values of LiNixM1-xO2 (wherein M represents at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mn, and Co, and 0.3≤x<1.0, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
However, Ryu is silent as to a layered rock-salt crystal structure.
Hong teaches a composite cathode active material, method of preparing the same, and cathode and lithium battery including the composite cathode active material (Title). Hong further teaches in [0041] the lithium transition metal oxide having a layered crystal structure may have a rock-salt layered crystal structure, etc., such that when the oxides have these crystal structures, cycle characteristics and thermal stability of a lithium battery including the composite cathode active material may be improved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Ryu with the teachings of Hong, whereby the electrode mixture including the active material, lithium-containing transition metal composite oxide, etc., as disclosed by Ryu further includes a layered rock-salt crystal structure as taught by Hong so that cycle characteristics and thermal stability of a lithium battery including the composite cathode active material may be improved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Trainer et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2008/0038640 A1) discloses an alkaline cell with nickel oxyhydroxide cathode and zinc anode, whereby as taught in [0021] although the synthetic hectorite, such as laponite clay, is preferred, it is believed that other clays, from other clay classes which are ionically conductive such as kaolins, pyrophyllites, smectites (montmorillonites), hectorites, illites, glauconites, chlorite and vermiculites, and palygorskite and sepiolites can be a desirable additive to the nickel oxyhydroxide cathode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727