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 § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuyoshi et al. (US 8,221,509 B2) in view of Yamaura et al. (US 4658498 A) and Yoshima et al. (US 2020/0091499 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Masuyoshi teaches a battery with a winding body formed by winding (1) a layered electrode with sheet-shaped mixture layers on both sides of a current collector and (2) a layered counter electrode with (3) a separator between (Col. 3, Paragraph 2).
Masuyoshi teaches a positive electrode with a layered structure containing manganese dioxide as an active material (Col. 6, Paragraphs 2, 6, 7).
Masuyoshi teaches a range of manganese dioxide content per unit area that fully encompasses and thus renders obvious the claimed range (see Calculation Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Calculation Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Masuyoshi does not teach the negative electrode with a current collector and two lithium layers that are disposed on one surface of the current collector and spaced 6 to 12 mm apart in a longitudinal direction.
Yamaura teaches an anode alloy and a lithium metal plate on the same side of a current collector with a central exposed portion of the current collector which is bent and used as the winding core region (Col. 8, Paragraph 11). Yamaura does not teach a spacing of 6 to 12 mm apart in the longitudinal direction. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Masuyoshi and Yamaura to create an anode with a current collector and two longitudinally-spaced lithium layers, and then to optimize the distance between two lithium active material layers on the same side of the current collector since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed parameter is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the exposed region of the current collector between the two active material layers with the desire to begin winding on solely the exposed current collector, as taught by Yamaura.
Alternatively, the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is a matter of dimension. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Masuyoshi and Yamaura do not teach the areal loading of the lithium content in the lithium layers. Yoshima teaches a negative electrode active material of Li particles as 94 wt % of a negative electrode slurry mix used to form a coating with the active material-containing layer, which has a density of 2.2 g/cm3 and a thickness of 59 μm (Paragraph [0242]). The resulting areal loading of Li is 0.0122 g/cm2, which is close to the claimed range and a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the amount of Li in Yoshima in the Masuyoshi electrode because Yoshima teaches it to be a suitable amount in a substantially similar device.
Masuyoshi teaches winding the body in a manner which begins with only the negative electrode components on a section bare of the active materials on long and short parts 4a and 4b where the exposed current collector may fold back on itself in the core region for the lithium-containing active material sections to be outside of the core region (Col. 8, Paragraph 7; Col. 9, Paragraph 1; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Masuyoshi teaches the winding method on a core region of exposed current collector away from the active material layer, but does not teach an offset position within 1.5 mm from the negative electrode fold to one of the active material layers, or a distance on the current collector of 2 mm or more from the winding center where no active material layer is present.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the exposed region of the current collector about the winding core and away from the active material layers since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed parameter is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the exposed region of the current collector about the winding core and away from the active material layers by the desire to begin winding on solely the exposed current collector, as taught by Masuyoshi and Yamaura, while staying within a reasonable amount of current collector length in interest of can volume consumption and material costs.
Regarding Claim 5, Masuyoshi, Yamaura, and Yoshima teach the battery of Claim 1. Masuyoshi teaches a range of MnO2 areal loading content in the cathode to be 0.199 g/cm2 to 0.276 g/cm2 as in Calculation Table 1 above. Yoshima teaches Li areal loading content in the anode to be 0.0122 g/cm2 as calculated above in regards to Claim 1. The ratio of Li to MnO2 from the combination of prior art sources can be calculated to 0.061, which is close to the claimed range and a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP § 2144.05. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the amount of Li in Yoshima and the MnO2 in Masuyoshi because both references teach the amounts as suitable.
Regarding Claim 6, Masuyoshi, Yamaura, and Yoshima teach the battery of Claim 1. The instant application does not define the area as longitudinal and an area can be any of the 3-dimensional areal views including a cross-sectional area. Masayoshi teaches that the active material can be a lithium-aluminum alloy (Col. 8, Paragraph 6), of which the cross-sectional area would be 100% lithium-aluminum, which is more specific than the claimed range. “If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.” UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). See MPEP § 2131.03. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lithium-aluminum alloy taught in Masayoshi to 100% of its cross-sectional area in the battery taught by Masuyoshi, Yamaura, and Yoshima in Claim 1 due to Masuyoshi teaching the lithium-aluminum alloy as a suitable example material in the negative electrode.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuyoshi et al. (US 8,221,509 B2) in view of Yamaura et al. (US 4658498 A) and Yoshima et al. (US 2020/0091499 A1) as applied to Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 above, further in view of Huang et al. (US 2011/0117407 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Masuyoshi, Yamaura, and Yoshima teach the battery of claim 1. None teach the percent coverage of the anode current collector by the lithium layers.
Huang teaches a current collector that may extend beyond the portion of a cathode containing a cathode coating mixture, wherein the extending portion of the current collector can provide a convenient area for making contact with an electrical lead (Paragraph [0064]). Huang does not teach an anode current collector extension beyond an anode mixture. However, the instant application identifies an anode lead (Fig. 1, Item 16) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to recognize the similar utility and necessity of a cathode and anode lead.
Huang does not teach the coverage of 83% or more of the anode lithium active material layers on its current collector. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the percent coverage of active material on the current collector since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed parameter is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the anode material coverage on the current collector motivated by the desire to invent an effective anode while providing a lead contact.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuyoshi et al. (US 8,221,509 B2) in view of Yamaura et al. (US 4658498 A) and Yoshima et al. (US 2020/0091499 A1) as applied to Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 above, further in view of Jang et al. (US 2020/0358090 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Masuyoshi, Yamaura, and Yoshima teach the battery of Claim 1. None teach the weight ratio of aluminum to lithium in the lithium-aluminum alloy.
Jang teaches an anode active material layer containing lithium or lithium alloy having greater than 70% by weight of lithium metal in the lithium alloy (Paragraph [0054]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lithium-aluminum alloy as taught in Masuyoshi with a lithium fraction as taught by Jang since Jang teaches that battery cycle-life is improved using such a configuration.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights