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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US-20240079555-A1) and further in view of Numata (JP-2019145448-A) and Murase (US-20190097235-A1).
Claim 1: Yoon ‘555 teaches a secondary battery “The battery can be charged or re-energized at any time by connecting an external power source to the lithium-ion battery to reverse the electrochemical reactions that occur during battery discharge” [0049], a positive electrode (24), a negative electrode (22), a nonaqueous electrolyte (30), a positive electrode current collector (218), a positive electrode active material layer (214), and that the battery can contain carbon nanotubes “Carbon-based materials may include…carbon nanofibers and nanotubes” [0062]. Yoon ‘555 further teaches that the nonaqueous electrolyte can contain a supporting electrolyte and a nonaqueous solvent having a carboxylate ester with 6 or less carbon atoms, such as methyl acetate [0053]. Yoon ‘555 further teaches the electrolyte may be present in the positive electrode [0045].
Yoon ‘555 further teaches that the conductive material may independently be carbon nanotubes [0011], and that the carbon nanotubes may be multilayered carbon nanotubes “Carbon-based materials may include…carbon nanofibers and nanotubes (e.g., single wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNT), multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWCNT))” [0062]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Claimed term ‘multilayer carbon nanotubes’ to refer to the known term in the Art, ‘multiwalled carbon nanotubes’.
Yoon ‘555 does not teach the carboxylate ester present in 3 to 8 volume%, nor does it explicitly teach that the electrode active material layer contains a lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide.
Numata ‘448 teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (10), a positive electrode (11), a negative electrode (12), a “positive electrode current collector” [0019], a “positive electrode active material layer” [0019], and a nonaqueous electrolyte with a supporting electrolyte and a nonaqueous solvent wherein said nonaqueous solvent contains a carboxylate ester [0023]. Numata ‘448 further teaches a preferred range of carboxylate ester of 3-5% in said nonaqueous solvent [0023].
Numata ‘448 details that they chose a carboxylate ester with a low carbon count to limit fluorination, which can impact battery performance, “By using this non-aqueous electrolyte, reaction products derived from hydrogen fluoride are suppressed…and an increase in the resistance of the battery is suppressed. Furthermore, by suppressing in the resistance of the battery, for example, the decrease in the output of the battery is also suppressed.” [0023], and that the selected range was chosen because having a carboxylate ester present in solution at greater than 5 volume% would lead to fluorination “a non-aqueous solvent containing more than 5% by volume of methyl acetate has a lower viscosity than a non-aqueous solvent containing 5% by volume of methyl acetate. However…when the content of methyl acetate exceeds 5% by volume, the reaction products derived from hydrogen fluoride are not suppressed” [0053]. Claim 1 details the presence of a fluorine atom in the carboxylate ester is optional, which means the substitution does not have patentable weight. Numata ‘448 further teaches carboxylate esters being known to be low-viscosity solvents [0024].
Numata ‘448 further teaches the positive electrode active material layer includes a lithium transition metal composite oxide [0033] and that some embodiments of this lithium transition metal composite oxide can include LiCo-Oxide, LiMn-Oxide, LiNi-Oxide, LiNiMn-Oxide, and LiNiCo-Oxide.
Numata ‘448 does not explicitly teach LiNiCoMn-Oxide.
Murase ‘235 teaches a binder for a non-aqueous secondary battery [0031], that the positive electrode active material for said non-aqueous secondary battery may be LiNiCoMn-Oxide [0107], and that the conductive material for said non-aqueous secondary battery may be multi-walled carbon nanotubes [0110].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify the disclosure of Yoon ‘555 to incorporate the low viscosity carboxylate ester – due to its low number of carbons – and constraints of volume% therein to produce a better performing battery by increasing the penetration of the nonaqueous electrolyte through the electrode active material, as suggested by Numata. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify the teachings of Numata ‘448 to include the positive electrode active material, LiNiCoMn-Oxide, from Murase ‘235 because LiNiCoMn-Oxide is a lithium transition metal composite oxide, as suggested by Numata.
Claims 3 and 8: Yoon ‘555 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the carboxylate ester can be methyl acetate [0053].
Claim 5: Yoon ‘555 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches that the invented device can be used to power a hybrid electric vehicle “Advanced energy storage devices and systems are in demand to satisfy energy and/or power requirements for a variety of products, including automotive products such as…hybrid electric vehicles (“HEVs”)” [0002].
Claim 10: Yoon ‘555 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the nonaqueous solvent containing a carbonate [0053].
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US-20240079555-A1), Numata (JP-2019145448-A), and Murase (US-20190097235-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US-20200243848-A1).
Claim 6: Yoon ‘555 and Numata ‘448 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. They are silent on an average diameter of the multilayer carbon nanotubes being 2.0 nm or more and 50 nm or less.
Kim ‘848 teaches a negative electrode [¶ 0031], a negative electrode current collector (10) [¶ 0031], a first negative electrode active material layer (30) [¶ 0031], that said first active material layer comprises a carbon-based material [¶ 0031], and that an average diameter of the carbon nanotubes is 10-120 nm [¶ 0046], and that when the carbon nanotubes have said diameter it is possible to retain conductivity which improves cycle characteristics of the battery [¶ 0047].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify Yoon ‘555 as modified with Numata ‘448 prior to the filing date to have the carbon nanotube diameter of Kim ‘848 in order to improve battery cycle characteristics by retaining conductivity, as suggested by Kim.
Claim 7: Yoon ‘555 and Numata ‘448 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. They are silent on an average length of the multilayer carbon nanotubes being 0.1 µm or more and 15 µm or less
Kim ‘848 teaches a negative electrode [¶ 0031], a negative electrode current collector (10) [¶ 0031], a first negative electrode active material layer (30) [¶ 0031], that said first active material layer comprises a carbon-based material [¶ 0031], and that an average length of the carbon nanotubes being 0.5 µm to 20 µm [¶ 0046], and that when the carbon nanotubes have said length crosslinking of the nanotubes occurs which improves cycle characteristics of the battery [¶ 0049].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify Yoon ‘555 as modified with Numata ‘448 prior to the filing date to have the carbon nanotube length of Kim ‘848 in order to improve battery cycle characteristics, as suggested by Kim.
Claim 9: Yoon ‘555 and Numata ‘448 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. They are silent on a content of the multilayer carbon nanotubes in the positive electrode active material layer being 0.1 mass% or more and 3.0 mass% or less.
Kim ‘848 teaches a negative electrode [¶ 0031], a negative electrode current collector (10) [¶ 0031], a first negative electrode active material layer (30) [¶ 0031], that said first active material layer comprises a carbon-based material [¶ 0031], and that the content of carbon nanotubes may be between 0.1-2 wt% [0052], and that when the carbon nanotubes have said content it improves binding ability of the active material and thus improves cycle characteristics of the battery [¶ 0054].
It is understood that the terms mass% and wt% are interchangeable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify Yoon ‘555 as modified with Numata ‘448 prior to the filing date to have the carbon nanotube content of Kim ‘848 in order to improve battery cycle characteristics, as suggested by Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the positive electrode active material layer being LiNiCoMn-Oxide is not taught by Yoon ‘555 or Numata ‘448 “either alone or in combination”. However, this is suggested by Numata, as outlined above. Applicant has identified in their argument that they are aware of paragraph [0033] of Numata ‘448.
Applicant has stated that Yoon ‘555 does not teach only MWCNTs. This is incorrect, as indicated above.
Applicant has stated that neither Yoon ‘555 nor Numata ‘448 teach a combination of MWCNTs and carboxylate ester in the positive electrode active material layer. This is incorrect, as indicated above. Yoon ‘555 explicitly teaches both present in the positive electrode active material layer.
Applicant has identified that Numata does not teach wettability. However, the reason for combination does not have to be identical to Applicant’s for a person of ordinary skill in the Art to have combined prior Art prior to the filing date of the present application. Furthermore, the claims do not indicate wettability. This argument is not relevant.
Applicant has identified that Numata ‘448 teaches action at the negative electrode rather than the positive electrode and that as a result it would be unreasonable to combine the teachings of Numata and Yoon. However, as indicated by Applicant, Numata teaches the suppression of hydrogen fluoride derived reaction products. Fluorination is based on the chemical reactants, not the identity of electrode (cathode vs. anode). Therefore, Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to combine the teachings of Yoon ‘555 and Numata ‘448 in order to prevent fluorination in the positive electrode, which Numata identifies can impact battery performance [0021], because fluorination could occur at either the positive or negative electrode.
Applicant states that a person of ordinary skill in the Art would not have been motivated to combine Yoon ‘555 and Numata ‘448. However, rationale has already been provided to Applicant regarding reasons for combination, namely performance improvement due to the introduction of a lower viscosity electrolyte.
Applicant has argued unexpected results and indicated Tables 1 and 2 within the specifications. However, the Tables are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Tables 1 and 2 discuss the volume% of methyl acetate and methyl propionate respectively. These instances are far narrower than the claimed language. In Claim 1, line 12, the phrase “carboxylate ester” covers more than Applicant’s argument of unexpected results can support. Furthermore, in Claim 1, lines 7-8, Applicant’s amendment claims a LiNiCoMn-Oxide, but the Examples in Tables 1 and 2 reference explicitly LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 [0062]. There are other ratios of transition metals the composite oxide could consist of. Furthermore, the claims indicate any anode can be used, but the Tables reference examples using one specific configuration of graphite, CMC-Na, and SBR. The Examples are also dependent on the ratio of the carboxylate ester volume relative to the volume of EMC. There is no indication if a volume change in DMC or EC or if EC, DMC, or EMC were replaced with a similar substance would produce similar unexpected results.
The examples listed above are not an exhaustive list of the reasons the Tables referenced are not commensurate with the claims as written and are presented as evidence for why the rejections are maintained. As it cannot be determined if the unexpected results are shared by all embodiments of the claimed invention or if they are limited to the tested configurations, Examiner does not find the argument of unexpected results persuasive.
Examiner rejects Claims 1-5, 8 and 10 under the reasons identified above in view of Yoon ‘555, Numata ‘448, and Murase ‘235 and further rejects claims 6, 7, and 9 in view of Yoon ‘555, Numata ‘448, Murase ‘235, and Kim ‘848, as indicated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chris Gagnon whose telephone number is (571)270-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm (ET) and Friday 8:00am-12:00pm (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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L GAGNON/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights