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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed October 19, 2023, May 3, 2024, and April 9th, 2026 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to thein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received on October 19, 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hotta et al. in over by Hotta et al. (US 10461370 B2), herein after Hotta et al. in view of Jeong et al. (US 20140057172 A1) – herein after referred to as Jeong et al., and Yoshikawa et al. (US 20200411853 A1) – herein after referred to as Yoshikawa et al.
As to claim 1, Hotta et al. teaches a battery (column 3, lines 1-5) comprising:
a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material-containing layer (column 9, lines 59-64);
a negative electrode (column 6, lines 50-55) comprising a negative electrode active material-containing layer comprising a Ti-containing oxide (column 7, lines 3-10), and
a water-containing electrolyte (column 3, lines 15-21),
Hotta et al. do not teach (a) a nitrogen-containing compound present on at least a part of a surface of the negative electrode active material-containing layer and (b) wherein a pore volume of the positive electrode active material-containing layer according to a mercury intrusion method is represented by Vc(mL/g), a pore volume of the negative electrode active material-containing layer according to a mercury intrusion method is represented by Va(mL/g), the pore volume Va is 0.14mL/g or less, and the battery satisfies following expression (1): Vc>Va (1)
With respect to (a):
Jeong et al. teaches a method for preparing a negative electrode active layer; specifically, Ti-containing oxide and nitrogen-containing compound (TiN layer composed of a lithium oxide particles and a urea-based compound (paragraph [0141]). The motivation for selecting a negative electrode active material containing a nitrogen compound on a part of the surface is to improve charge-and-discharge rate characteristics (paragraph [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention effectively was filed to utilize an active material composed of a nitrogen-containing compound in order to improve the charge-and-discharge rate characteristics.
With respect to (b):
Yoshikawa et al. teaches the pore volume of the positive electrode that is preferably within the range of 0.1 to 0.18 mL/g, according to mercury intrusion porosimetry (paragraph [0042]). The motivation for having a pore volume of the positive electrode is to improve battery life cycle performance by having the resistance of the positive and negative electrode at the same level (paragraph [0100]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of claimed invention to utilize an active material with a set pore volume (Vc) within the range of 0.1 to 0.18 mL/g in order achieve improved energy density, diffusion of Li ions, and battery charge-and-discharge performance in the battery. Yoshikawa et al. also teaches the pore volume of the negative electrode is preferably within a range 0.1 to 0.15 mL/g, according to mercury intrusion method (paragraph [0121]). The motivation for having this specific pore diameter range in the negative electrodes active-material layer is also to improve battery life cycle performance by having the resistance of the positive and negative electrode at the same level (paragraph [0137]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to utilize an active-material layer with a pore volume (Va) less than 0.14 mL/g to yield an enhanced battery life cycle performance.
Accordingly, as set forth above via Yoshikawa et al. the battery satisfies following expression (1): Vc>Va (1).
As to Claim 2, Hotta et al. does not teach a battery wherein the pore volume Vc is 1.1 to 3.5 times the pore volume Va.
However, Yoshikawa et al. teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte Lithium battery with a positive electrode active material-layer (Vc) within the set range of 0.1 to 0.18 mL/g (paragraph [0024]). Yoshikawa et al. also teaches a negative electrode active material-layer (Va) within the set range of 0.1 to 0.15 mL/g, according to mercury intrusion method (paragraph [0121) The motivation for having utilizing a pore volume Vc that is 1.1 to 3.5 times the pore volume Va is so that both electrodes can exhibit a charge transfer resistance on the same level as each other; thus, yielding enhanced battery life performance (paragraph [0023] and [paragraph [0100]). Whether an aqueous or non-aqueous electrolyte is used; the same enhanced battery life can be achieved when using similar pore volume ranges. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was effectively filed to select pore volumes within these ranges to improve battery cycle performance.
As to Claim 3, Hotta et al. does not teach a battery wherein a pore diameter of the negative
electrode active material-containing layer according to a mercury intrusion method is 0.04 μm to 0.12 μm.
However, Yoshikawa et al. teaches an electrode containing an electrode active
material-containing layer with a pore diameter range of 0.04 μm to 0.1 μm, according to mercury
porosimetry (paragraph [0121]). Where the layer compromises a titanium-containing oxide,
similar to the claimed invention’s negative electrode active material containing layer containing a Ti-
oxide (paragraph [0112]). The motivation for utilizing this specific pore diameter range in
the negative electrode’s active-material layer is to allow for the movement of lithium ions freely which
can prevent the adverse effects on the charge transfer resistance of both positive and negative
electrodes. (paragraph [0127]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art
and familiar with the claimed invention at the time of filling to utilize a negative active material within
this pore diameter size range to aid in charge transfer resistance.
As to claim 6, Hotta et al. teaches the battery (column 3, lines 1-5) according to claim 1, wherein the Ti-containing oxide (column 7, lines 3-6) comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a niobium titanium-containing oxide (column 7, lines 26-30), a lithium titanium-containing oxide (column 19-25), and a titanium oxide (column 7, lines 11-18) .
As to claim 7, Hotta et al. teaches the battery (column 3, lines 1-5) according to claim 1, wherein the Ti-containing oxide comprises at least one selected from the group (column 7, lines 3-30) consisting of TiNb2O7, Ti2Nb10O29, TiO2(B), and Li4Ti5O12.
As to claim 8, Hotta et al. teaches a battery pack (column 15, lines 24-28) comprising the battery (column 3, lines 1-5) according to claim 1.
As to claim 9, Hotta et al. teaches the battery pack (column 15, lines 24-28) according to claim 8, further comprising: an external power distribution terminal (column 15, lines 43-52); and a protective circuit (column 15, lines 37-42).
As to claim 10, Hotta et al. teaches the battery pack (column 15, lines 24-28) according to claim 9, comprising a plurality of the battery (column 15, lines 29-36), wherein the batteries are electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of series and parallel (column 15, lines 31-33).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Yoshikawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al. (US 20220384804 A1) – herein after, Hayashi et al.
As to Claim 4, Hotta et al. does not teach a battery, wherein a pore diameter of the positive electrode active material-containing layer according to a mercury intrusion method is 0.09 μm to 0.19 μm. However, Hayashi et al. teaches a positive electrode active material with a pore diameter range of 0.05 μm to 0.25 μm, according to mercury porosimetry (paragraph [0072]). The motivation for having this specific pore diameter that falls within this range is when the pore diameter is less than 0.01 μm) then particle strength cannot be maintained thus impairing battery performance (paragraph [0075]). As well as when the pore diameter is more than 0.30 μm because a reaction area with an electrolyte cannot be sufficiently secured (paragraph [0075]).Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art and familiar with the claimed invention at the time of filling to utilize a positive active material within this diameter size range in order to maintain the composition of the electrolyte.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta et al. in view of Jeong et al. and Yoshikawa et al. as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and in further view of Sekiguchi et al. (US 20220085366 A1) - herein after referred to as Sekiguchi et al).
As to claim 5, Hotta et al. teaches the battery (column 3, lines 1-5) according to claim 1, wherein the electrolyte (column 3, line 15) further comprises a compound including an amide bond (column 3, lines 46-47) and
Hotta et al. does not teach at least one lithium salt selected from the group consisting of LiN(FSO2)2, LiN(CF3SO2)2, and LiN(SO2C2F5)2.
However, Sekiguchi et al. teaches at least one lithium salt selected from the group consisting of LiN(FSO2)2 (paragraph [0157]), LiN(CF3SO2)2 (paragraph 0157]), and LiN(SO2C2F5). The motivation for utilizing at least one lithium salt selected from this group is because when the concentration of lithium and sodium ions within an aqueous electrolyte are high, electrolysis of the aqueous solvent at the negative electrode tend to suppress (paragraph 0159)]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of claimed invention was effectively filed to utilize a lithium salt in order to suppress electrolysis.
As to Claim 11, Hotta et al. does not disclose a stationary power source compromising the battery pack.
However, Sekiguchi et al. discloses a stationary power supply that compromises the battery pack where the stationary power supply supplies stored power from the system (paragraphs [0264]-[267] and Fig. 14, reference #’s:112 and 123). Sekiguchi et al. also discloses a system that contains an electric power plant, customer side electric system, and energy management system as well (paragraph [0266]). The motivation for having a stationary power supply that includes the battery pack is for the advantage of a stored power supply (paragraph [0267]). The battery pack within the stationary power supply can store electric power from the power plant (paragraph [0267]. . Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art and familiarity with the claimed invention at the time it was filed to utilize a stationary power supply where the battery pack can use the generated power for a high efficiency of battery life.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA L COSBY whose telephone number is (571)270-0542. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/KAYLA L. COSBY/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights