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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0085], lines 6, “the spring constant K2” should read as --the reciprocal of the spring constant K2--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 13, “an SOC 0%” should read as --a state of charge (SOC) of 0%--.
The formula “
E
=
(
A
×
B
)
/
(
C
×
D
)
” should come before line 9, such that A, B, C, and D are recited after the formula.
“when A represents a sum of a mass” should read as --wherein A represents a sum of a mass--.
“a range of 0.48 to 0.69, inclusive” should read as --a range of 0.48
m
g
∙
n
m
3
∙
k
N
c
m
2
∙
N
∙
m
m
to 0.69
m
g
∙
n
m
3
∙
k
N
c
m
2
∙
N
∙
m
m
, inclusive--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein E has a value of 0.56 or greater” which is broader than the limitation “E has a value in a range of 0.48 to 0.69, inclusive” recited in claim 1, because “a value of 0.56 or greater” has no upper limit. Therefore, claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torita et al. (US 20190148762 A1), hereinafter “Torita”, in view of Harayama et al. (JP 2016081758 A), hereinafter “Harayama”, Ramana et al. (Ramana et al. “Growth, characterization and performance of bulk and nanoengineered molybdenum oxides for electrochemical energy storage and conversion”, Progress in Crystal Growth and Characterization of Materials, 2021, 67(3), published 11 Jun 2021 ), hereinafter “Ramana”, and Terashima et al. (WO 2016079581 A1), hereinafter “Terashima”, wherein an English machine translation of Harayama is used and cited herein.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Torita teaches
A non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Torita, [0002])
A positive electrode current collector 11 (corresponding to the claimed positive electrode plate), comprising positive electrode active material 12 on both sides of the current collector (Torita, [0084], lines 1-5)
A negative electrode current collector 21 (corresponding to the claimed negative electrode plate), comprising negative electrode active material 22 on both sides of the current collector (Torita, [0054], lines 1-5).
A porous separator 30 interposed between the positive electrode active material layer and the negative electrode active material layer (corresponding to the claimed separator being located between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate) (Torita, [0008], lines 1-8; [0010], line 6; Fig. 4)
The electrodes and separator stacked in a direction “y” (corresponding to claimed stacking direction) (See Torita Fig. 4)
An electrolyte solution containing a solvent and a supporting salt that may be LiPF6 (corresponding to the claimed non-aqueous electrolyte solution) (Torita, [0090], lines 1-5)
Torita also discloses a positive electrode active material layer spring constant in the range of 10000 kN/mm to 20000 kN/mm, inclusive (Torita, [0083], lines 1-2), and a porous separator 30 spring constant in the range of 8000 kN/mm to 16000 kN/mm, inclusive (Torita, [0071], lines 1-2 &7-10). The sum of the inverses of Torita’s disclosed spring constant ranges teaches a range of 0.00011 mm/kN to 0.00023 mm/kN (corresponding to the claimed sum of a reciprocal of a spring constant of the positive electrode plate and a reciprocal of the spring constant of the separator in the stacking direction).
Torita does not teach a sum of a mass of a negative electrode active material per unit area on each of the surfaces of the negative electrode substrate. Harayama teaches a mass of the negative electrode active material layer 44 per unit area of the negative electrode current collector 42 within a range of 7 mg/cm2 to 20 mg/cm2 (Harayama, [0039], lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Harayama’s negative electrode active material mass per unit area range to the non-aqueous battery of Torita to achieve high energy and power density (Harayama, [0039], lines 4-5).
Modified Torita does not teach a negative electrode active material with a lattice volume change amount when the non-aqueous rechargeable battery is charged from a state of charge (SOC) of 0% to 100%. Ramana teaches that Molybdenum oxide (MoO3) nanocomposite acts as a high capacity anode material for lithium-ion batteries (Ramana, p. 18, section 2.1.8.2, lines 1-3) and that hexagonal MoO3 undergoes a 0.97% volume change after discharge (Ramana, p. 27, section 2.3.3, lines 8-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Ramana’s hexagonal MoO3 anode material for the anode material of modified Torita to minimize volume expansion and contraction (Ramana, p. 18, section 2.1.8.2, lines 3-6). Ramana also teaches that hexagonal MoO3 has lattice parameters
a
=
10.55
Å
and
c
=
3.72
Å
before discharge (Ramana, p. 25, section 2.3.1, lines 21-24). Based on Ramana’s teachings, the lattice volume change amount is calculated by multiplying the 0.97% volume change that hexagonal MoO3 undergoes after discharge with the unit cell volume calculated from the original lattice parameters and the shape of a hexagonal unit cell (See Table 1 below). Therefore, a lattice volume change amount of 0.01043 nm3 would be the natural result of the combination of the lattice parameters before discharge and the percent volume change after discharge, explicitly disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2112. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Ramana’s hexagonal MoO3 change in lattice volume to the non-aqueous battery of modified Torita to minimize volume expansion and contraction (Ramana, p. 18, section 2.1.8.2, lines 3-6).
Lattice Parameters
Lattice Volume Before Discharge (Å3)
Lattice Volume Before Discharge (nm3)
Lattice Volume Change (nm3)
a
=
10.55
Å
c
=
3.72
Å
V
=
1076
Å
3
V
=
1.076
n
m
3
Δ
V
=
0.01043
n
m
3
Table 1. Values reported by Ramana to calculate lattice volume change amount.
Modified Torita does not teach a change amount of the load (N) acting in the stacking direction on the electrode body when the rechargeable battery is charged from the SOC of 0% to 100%. Terashima teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery that is restrained at 100 N to 20000 N in a direction perpendicular to a flat surface of the wound electrode body (Terashima, [0012], lines 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Terashima’s restraint range to the non-aqueous battery of modified Torita to prevent peeling of a heat resistant layer on the separator (Terashima, [0012], lines 10-15).
Modified Torita does not teach a value representative of “E” within the range of 0.48 to 0.69, inclusive, or the range of 0.56 or greater. However, modified Torita discloses ranges or values corresponding to quantities “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” in the instant claim (Table 2 below), and values within these disclosed ranges can be combined using the claimed equation
E
=
(
A
×
B
)
/
(
C
×
D
)
to arrive at values that overlap with the instantly claimed “E” ranges of 0.48 to 0.69 (corresponding to instant claim 1) and 0.56 or greater (corresponding to instant claim 2), such as in example 3 of Table 3, wherein
E
=
0.56
(See Table 3 below). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of negative electrode active material mass per unit area and restraint within the disclosed ranges, including values that correspond to values of “E” within the claimed ranges, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Instantly Claimed Range
Disclosed Range in Prior Art
A (mg/cm3)
7.0 – 10.0
7 - 20
B (nm3)
Not claimed
0.01043
C (N)
1650 – 1700
100 – 20000
D (mm/kN)
0.00011 – 0.00012
0.00011 – 0.00023
Table 2. Ranges and values disclosed by the prior art and used to calculate values of claimed “E”.
A (mg/cm2)
B (nm3)
C (N)
D (mm/kN)
E
Example 1
7
0.01043
1325
0.00011
0.48
Example 2
10
0.01043
1345
0.00011
0.69
Example 3
10
0.01043
1653
0.00011
0.56
Table 3. Examples of values disclosed by the prior art that meet the instantly claimed values of E, according to the claimed equation.
Regarding claim 3, Terashima teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery with a restraint range of 100 N to 20000 N in a direction perpendicular to a flat surface of the wound electrode (Terashima, [0012], lines 4-6; Table 2), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 1650 N to 1700 N load, denoted “C”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Terashima's restraint range to the non-aqueous battery of modified Torita to prevent peeling of a heat resistant layer on the separator (Terashima, [0012], lines 10-15). In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of restraint within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Harayama teaches a mass of negative electrode active material layer per unit area of the negative electrode current collector range of 7 mg/cm to 20 mg/cm (Harayama, [0039], lines 1-3; Table 2), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 7.0 mg/cm2 to 10.0 mg/cm2 sum of mass of negative electrode active material per unit area, denoted “A”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Harayama's mass of negative electrode active material layer per unit area range to the non-aqueous battery of modified Torita to achieve high energy and power density (Harayama, [0039], lines 4-5). In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of mass of negative electrode active material layer per unit area within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Torita teaches a sum of the reciprocals of the positive electrode active material layer spring constant and the separator range of 0.00011 mm/kN to 0.00023 mm/kN (Torita, [0083], lines 1-2; Torita, [0071], lines 1-2 &7-10; Table 2), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 0.00011 mm/kN to 0.00023 mm/kN sum of a reciprocal of a spring constant of the positive electrode plate and a reciprocal of the spring constant of the separator, denoted “D”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of the summed spring constant reciprocals within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rachel Avina whose telephone number is (571)270-0429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/R.M.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights