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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozaki et al. (“Isozaki”, US 2012/02700093 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, Isozaki discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte battery including a negative electrode and positive electrode (abstract).
Isozaki teaches a layered lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide and an example represented by formula LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2([0038]), which reads on the formula for the positive electrode claimed in claim 1.
Isozaki teaches a negative electrode active material which is capable of absorbing lithium at 0.4V (vs. Li/Li+) or more and 3V or less ([0067]), which substantially overlaps the range claimed. Isozaki also teaches the active material may be a lithium titanium oxide having a spinel structure or a ramsdellite structure ([0069]), which is identical to Applicant’s negative electrode active material (see PGPub [0043]).
Isozaki teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0091]) and teaches diethyl carbonate ([0094]) as an example.
As to the claimed formula (1), Isozaki teaches the positive electrode active material may preferably have an average particle diameter of 4-15 microns ([0042]), and the negative electrode active material may have an average particle diameter of 1 micron or less ([0074]). Isozaki ‘s ratio of 4-15 (A) : 1 or less (B) substantially overlaps the claimed range for A/B of 3-15.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claimed formula (2), Isozaki teaches a positive electrode pore diameter in the range of 0.01-1.0 microns detected by mercury intrusion ([0056]).
Isozaki does not expressly teach the negative electrode pore median diameter, which is part of formula (2) and claimed in claims 3 and 4.
However, Isozaki teaches the negative electrode active material may be a lithium titanium oxide having a spinel structure or a ramsdellite structure ([0069]), which is identical to Applicant’s negative electrode active material (see PGPub [0043]). Further, Isozaki teaches the importance of optimizing pore volume/diameter to avoid risk of deterioration of cycle property and output property ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the optimal range for pore diameter distribution of the negative electrode active material through routine experimentation to reduce risk of deterioration of cycle and output property, as discussed in [0054]-[0057]. There would also be a reasonable expectation that the pore diameter of the negative electrode active material would be substantially similar since identical negative electrode active materials are taught by Isozaki and Applicant (see PgPub [0043]).
As to claim 12, Isozaki teaches a battery pack with one or more of the non-aqueous electrolyte battery ([0107]).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozaki as applied to claims 1-4 and 12 above, and further in view of Hagiwara et al. (“Hagiwara”, US 2019/006659 A1).
Regarding claims 8-10, Isozaki teaches diethyl carbonate [0094]) as a nonaqueous electrolyte but does not teach difluorophosphate.
However, Hagiwara also discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte battery and teaches adding difluorophosphate as an additive to suppress moisture ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add difluorophosphate as an additive to Isozaki to suppress moisture, as taught by Hagiwara ([0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Isozaki does not teach the ratio of peak intensity claimed.
However, Hagiwara teaches a peak ratio of (P2/P1) between 0.1 to 0.4, which overlaps the claimed ratio of 20% or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the ratio claimed in Hagiwara so that moisture is sufficiently removed ([0028]), as taught by Hagiwara.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 5-7, the closest prior art is considered to be US 2021/0143397 A1 (“Uchida”).
Uchida teaches an integrated intensity ratio of 0.05-0.90 ([0013]) for similar peak ranges.
However, the prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the half width of a diffraction peak in the range claimed is 0.06 to 0.14 degrees and C/D (integrated intensity ratio) is greater than or equal to 1.3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746