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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inuoe et al. (US20060188785A1) in view of Minami et al. (US20120015238A1) and Yamaguchi et al. (US20160056470A1).
Regarding claim 1, Inuoe discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery ([0135] non-aqueous secondary battery) comprising: a wound electrode body ([0135] electrodes spirally wound) configured such that a strip-shaped positive electrode ([0130] positive electrode plate) and a strip-shaped negative electrode ([0131] negative electrode plate) are wound with a strip-shaped separator ([0135] separator) interposed therebetween; a nonaqueous electrolytic solution ([0134] non-aqueous electrolyte); and a battery case that accommodates the wound electrode body and the nonaqueous electrolytic solution ([0135] cylindrical battery can), wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material layer ([0130] positive electrode active material), the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material layer ([0131] negative electrode active material), a length of the negative electrode active material layer in a winding axis direction of the wound electrode body is 200 mm or more ([0133] negative electrode 570mm in length), and a distance between an end portion of the positive electrode active material layer and an end portion of the negative electrode active material layer is more than 0 mm and 5 mm or less ([0135] thickness 16 µm separator that is wound with positive and negative electrodes) on at least one side in the winding axis direction.
Inuoe does not disclose that in a fully charged state, a ratio of a volume of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution to a total void volume of the positive electrode active layer and the negative electrode active layer in the wound electrode body is 130% or less or an infiltration speed of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution in the negative electrode active material layer is 0.02 μL/s or more and 0.05 μL/s or less.
Minami discloses a non-aqueous battery ([0022] non-aqueous secondary cell) in which in a fully charged state, a ratio of a volume of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution to a total void volume of the positive electrode active layer and the negative electrode active layer in the wound electrode body is 130% or less ([0022] volume of non-aqueous electrolyte solution per void volume is 70-85% in the outer body.). Note that the active layers form only a portion of the outer body and thus the void volume of the active layers in Minami would necessarily be less than 70-85% which would meet the limitation of 130% or less as claimed. Minami also discloses that cycle characteristics is deteriorated at too small of a ratio ([0024].) and production efficiency is reduced at too large of a ratio ([0025]).
Inuoe and Minami are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely non-aqueous batteries.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ratio of a volume of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution to a total void volume of Inuoe such that the ratio is 130% or less as taught by Minami in order to avoid cycle characteristics deteriorated at too small of a ratio and production efficiency reduced at too large of a ratio.
Yamaguchi discloses a nonaqueous battery ([0013]) in which a negative electrode active material layer has poor wettability when the infiltration speed ([0015] liquid absorption speed) is extremely fast.
Yamaguchi is analogous prior art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nonaqueous batteries.
As negative electrode active material layer wettability is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said infiltration speed, with said wettability decreasing as the infiltration speed is increased, as evidenced by Yamaguchi ([0015] poor wettability when liquid absorption speed is extremely fast), infiltration speed of said nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed infiltration speed cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the infiltration speed of Inuoe such that the infiltration speed of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution in the negative electrode active material layer is 0.02 μL/s or more and 0.05 μL/s or less in order to ensure wettability of the negative electrode active material layer. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, Minami discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein in the fully charged state, a ratio of the volume of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution to a volume of a space in the battery case is 65% or more and 80% or less. However, Minami does disclose that when the volume of the non-aqueous solution per void volume is too small, a sufficient amount of solution is not supplied during repeated charge and discharge cycles ([0024]), and when the volume of the non-aqueous solution per void volume is too large, there is a longer time required for injection and reduced production efficiency ([0025]).
As nonaqueous electrolyte battery efficiency (with regards to cycle characteristics and production efficiency) is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said ratio of the volume of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution to a volume of space in the battery case, with said battery efficiency decreasing at too small of a ratio and battery efficiency decreasing at too large of a ratio, as evidenced by Minami ([0024-0025]), the ratio of the volume of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution to a volume of space in the battery case would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of the volume of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution to a volume of space in the battery case of modified Inuoe such that a ratio of the volume of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution to a volume of a space in the battery case is 65% or more and 80% or less in order to prevent a sufficient amount of solution not supplied during repeated charge and discharge cycles at a very small ratio and avoid a longer time required for injection and reduced production efficiency at a very large ratio. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inuoe et al. (US20060188785A1), Minami et al. (US20120015238A1), and Yamaguchi et al. (US20160056470A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitsuhashi (US20170038435A1).
Regarding claim 3, Inuoe discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, but does not disclose that in the fully charged state, when it is assumed that a height of the wound electrode body is 100%, a liquid level height of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution is 10% or less.
Mitsuhashi discloses a nonaqueous battery ([0009]) in which an electrolytic solution could flow out and result in increased internal resistance caused by salt concentration unevenness ([0006]).
Inuoe and Mitsuhashi are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nonaqueous batteries.
As internal resistance caused by salt concentration unevenness is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said liquid level height, with said internal resistance increasing as the liquid level height is increased, as evidenced by Mitsuhashi ([0006] electrolytic solution flowing out can result in increased internal resistance), liquid level height of said nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed liquid level height cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the liquid level height of Inuoe such that a liquid level height of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution is 10% or less in order to decrease the internal resistance of the battery and avoid salt concentration unevenness. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 4, Inuoe discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, but does not disclose that in a state where a charging depth (SOC) is 20%, when it is assumed that a height of the wound electrode body is 100%, a liquid level height of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution is 7% or less.
Mitsuhashi discloses a nonaqueous battery ([0009]) in which an electrolytic solution could flow out and result in increased internal resistance caused by salt concentration unevenness ([0006]).
As internal resistance caused by salt concentration unevenness is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said liquid level height, with said internal resistance increasing as the liquid level height is increased, as evidenced by Mitsuhashi ([0006] electrolytic solution flowing out can result in increased internal resistance), liquid level height of said nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed liquid level height cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the liquid level height of Inuoe such that a liquid level height of the nonaqueous electrolytic solution is 7% or less in order to decrease the internal resistance of the battery and avoid salt concentration unevenness. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okochi et al. (US20020090545A1) discloses a non-aqueous secondary battery with a positive electrode of 520 mm in length and a negative electrode of 550 mm in length ([0018])
Lee et al. (US20200067049A1) discloses a non-aqueous secondary battery in which a wetting speed of the electrode is decreased to a level that does not affect battery performance ([0051])
Katayama et al. (US20110052987A1) discloses a non-aqueous secondary battery with a positive electrode of 300 mm in length, a negative electrode of 300 mm in length, and a separator of 16 µm in thickness ([0088, 0090, 0092])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAN N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30am-5pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 5702701487. 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.
/DAN NGUYEN TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights