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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed in Japan on 01/31/2023 and 02/16/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-186806 application or the JP2023-024499 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, it is stated that a mass ratio of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution to the positive electrode mixture satisfies a formula. This wording implies that the ratio should be a mass of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution divided by a mass of positive electrode mixture, or W1/W2. The formula (2) given, however, does the opposite and flips it to be the mass of positive electrode mixture divided by the mass of the non-aqueous electrolytic solution, or W2/W1, as described by defining W1 and W2. It is shown by the experimental examples in table 6 of the instant application, however, that the initial wording is used for the experimental data and, given the definitions of W1 and W2, the formula (2) should be W1/W2 instead. Clarity on which formula should be used is requested. For the purposes of examination the formula is being interpreted as following the experimental examples given in the instant specification and the formula is instead W1/W2.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugioka et al. (US 20180309139 A1) in view of Matsui et al. (US 20130029225 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugioka teaches a flat-type nonaqueous electrolyte primary battery (0107) comprising a positive electrode where the primary electrode comprises manganese dioxide, a conductive additive, and a binder (0089 0112). The manganese dioxide can have a structure of a β type, γ type, or combination of β and γ types (0078) and is present in an amount between 80-98 mass %, the conductive additive can be a combination of materials such as graphite flakes (natural graphite) and Ketjen black and is present in an amount between 1.5-10 mass % (0084), and lastly the binder can be polyvinylidene fluoride, PVDF, and is present in an amount between 0.5-10 mass % (0085 0089). The components are then all dispersed in an organic solvent such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, NMP, and then dried to obtain the positive electrode (0088). This combination of mass % ranges allow for the creation of a positive electrode comprising, for example, 92% β-type manganese dioxide, 1% polyvinylidene fluoride, 6% graphite flakes (natural graphite) and 1% Ketjen black. Following the method of Sugioka, the components are dispersed in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and then dried on a current collector. Sugioka further teaches that the battery comprises a negative electrode including a lithium element (0067), as well as a non-aqueous electrolytic solution (0045). Sugioka is silent to the exact drying method used for the positive electrode active material prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art for methods of drying.
In a similar field of endeavor Matsui et al. teaches a cathode active material for a non-aqueous battery where a spray drying method is used at a high temperature in order to instantly evaporate the positive electrode solvent and help aggregate the primary particles to form secondary active material particles which can then be further manipulated as desired, such as being fired for a specific crystal structure (Matsui 0078 0088 0089). The range of temperatures is not specified but an example of a high spray drying temperature of 200oC was given which forms a prima facie case of obviousness for similar temperatures, such as 205oC (Matsui 0216). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of making a particle as described in Sugioka and simply replace the generic drying method with the spray drying method at a high temperature as described in Matsui as doing so allows for further manipulation of the positive electrode active material as desired. This combination of references allows for the creation of the composition of 92% β-type manganese dioxide, 1% polyvinylidene fluoride, 6% graphite flakes (natural graphite) and 1% Ketjen black as well as the method of making that composition which is identical to the stated composition and method of making as experiment 1-5 in the instant application and necessarily meets all the conditions set forth.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02. While the prior art does not explicitly teach a peak intensity ratio, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the positive electrode mixture disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the positive electrode mixture of Sugioka has the same composition made in the same way by mixing with the same solvent as described regarding the instant applications example 1-5, Sugioka inherently teaches the peak intensity ratio as claimed. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above which teaches the method of making the composition of 92% β-type manganese dioxide, 1% polyvinylidene fluoride, 6% graphite flakes (natural graphite) and 1% Ketjen black which is identical the composition and method of making experiment 1-5 as described in the instant application which necessarily meets the stated criteria. Further, as the diffraction peak appears to be based on the structure or method of forming the composition, It necessarily meets all of the conditions set forth. when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02. While the prior art does not explicitly teach a diffraction peak of a (200) plane shift, these properties are considered inherent in the prior art barring any differences shown by objective evidence between the positive electrode mixture disclosed in the prior art and the applicant. As the positive electrode mixture of Sugioka has the same composition mixed with the same solvent as described regarding the instant applications example 1-5, Sugioka inherently teaches the diffraction peak of a (200) plane shift as claimed. 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 4, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above and Sugioka further teaches that the positive electrode binder is polyvinylidene fluoride (0085).
Regarding claim 5, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above and Sugioka further teaches that the electrolytic solution includes a solvent of propylene carbonate (0038)
Regarding claim 6, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 5 as described above and Sugioka further teaches that the electrolytic solution can further include diglyme, triglyme, or tetraglyme (0038).
Regarding claim 7, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above and Sugioka further teaches that lithium perchlorate, LiClO4, can be used as an electrolyte and is present in amount between 0.5-7 mass% which is range of values within the range claimed by the instant application and therefore renders it prima facie obvious, See MPEP 2144.05 (0035).
Regarding claim 9, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above and Sugioka further teaches that the positive electrode can include carbon black, such as Ketjen black (0084), and the total content of the conductive additives is 1.5-10 mass% (0089) which overlaps with the instant application’s range of 0.5-4 mass% and renders it prima facie obvious in view of overlapping ranges, See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above and Sugioka further teaches that a separator is present between the positive and negative electrodes (fig. 1, 0093) with the negative electrode having a negative electrode conductive layer present between the negative electrode and the separator which is a lithium-aluminum alloy (0119, the lithium-aluminum layer is a conductive layer formed on the surface of the negative electrode layer between the negative electrode and the separator).
Regarding claim 13, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above in which modified Sugioka teaches that manganese dioxide can have a structure of a β type, γ type, or combination of β and γ types (Sugioka 0078) and is present in an amount between 80-98 mass % which significantly overlaps with the instant application’s range of 80-94 mass% and renders it prima facie obvious in view of overlapping ranges, See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above and Sugioka further teaches that the battery comprises a battery can that houses the positive electrode, negative electrode, and electrolyte with both a positive and negative container (fig. 1, 0019 0120).
PNG
media_image1.png
275
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above and Sugioka further teaches that the positive electrode can include carbon black, such as Ketjen black (0084), and the total content of the conductive additives is 1.5-10 mass% (0089) which overlaps with the instant application’s range of greater than 4 mass% and renders it prima facie obvious in view of overlapping ranges, See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugioka et al. (US 20180309139 A1) in view of Matsui et al. (US 20130029225 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al (US 20110189550 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to the electrolytic solution containing a dicarboxylic anhydride according to general formula 1, prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
PNG
media_image2.png
52
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
General formula 1
In the same field of endeavor as modified Sugioka, Zhao teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte battery (Zhao 0046) where the nonaqueous electrolyte solution comprises an anhydride such as mellitic anhydride so as to improve the high temperature characteristics of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Zhao 0091-0093). Mellitic anhydride meets the criteria of general formula 1 and is consistent with the instant specification where examples include pyromellitic anhydride and mellitic anhydride (instant 0091). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery as described in modified Sugioka and simply add mellitic anhydride to the nonaqueous electrolyte solution as described in Zhao as doing so improves the high temperature characteristics of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugioka et al. (US 20180309139 A1) in view of Matsui et al. (US 20130029225 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yabushita et al. (US 20080248384 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above and Sugioka further teaches that there is a positive electrode container that houses the positive electrode mixture and a gasket that abuts against the positive electrode mixture and seals it which prevents swelling of the battery (fig. 1, 0154). Modified Sugioka is silent, however, to specifically a positive electrode ring prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yabushita teaches a flat-type nonaqueous battery with a gasket that seals the electrodes inside. Yabushita further teaches a positive electrode ring connected to the sides and bottom of the positive electrode in order to provide structure during the production of the battery as well as prevent the battery from swelling outwards (fig. 2, 0036 0039). Fig. 2 of Yabushita shows that the positive electrode ring has an L shape in a sectional view and that it is joined to the inner bottom surface of the positive electrode container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery of Sugioka and simply add the positive electrode ring as shown in Yabushita in order to provide structure and prevent the battery from swelling outwards.
PNG
media_image1.png
275
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sugioka fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
254
744
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yabushita fig. 2
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugioka et al. (US 20180309139 A1) in view of Matsui et al. (US 20130029225 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20200203709 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above and Sugioka further teaches that the battery comprises a gasket comprising polyphenylene sulfide (0109). Modified Sugioka is silent, however, to a mass ratio of the electrolytic solution to the positive electrode mixture prompting one of ordinary skill to look for related art.
In a similar field of endeavor Watanabe teaches a non-aqueous battery comprising at least a positive electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte where the mass ratio of the electrolyte to the positive electrode mixture is between 0.22 and 0.40 in order to properly absorb the appropriate amount without unevenness or overflowing (Watanabe 0033 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the battery of modified Sugioka and have the electrolyte and positive electrode mixture be at a mass ratio of 0.22-0.40 as described by Watanabe in order to not have an uneven absorption or production overflow. As the mass ratio overlaps with the claimed range at 0.22-0.23 it forms a prima facie case of obviousness in view of overlapping ranges, See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugioka et al. (US 20180309139 A1) in view of Matsui et al. (US 20130029225 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morigaki (US 20110027652 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sugioka in view of Matsui teaches claim 1 as described above but is silent to a specific surface area of the positive electrode mixture prompting one of ordinary skill to look at related art.
In a similar field of endeavor, Morigaki teaches a non-aqueous battery comprising a positive electrode have manganese dioxide as a component where the specific surface area of the manganese dioxide is between 8 m2/g and 28 m2/g in order to prevent unwanted reactions at high temperatures (Morigaki 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take modified Sugioka and have the manganese dioxide particles have a specific surface area in the range of 8 m2/g-28 m2/g as described in Morigaki as doing so prevents unwanted reactions with the electrolyte at high temperatures. As the range of Morigaki overlaps with the claimed range of 10.3 m2/g-28 m2/g, it renders the claim prima facie obvious in view of overlapping ranges, See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights