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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatemata et al. (JP 2014/135275, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Yatemata et al. discloses an electrochemical device ([0016]) comprising: a positive electrode ([0046]); a negative electrode ([0047]); and an electrolyte ([0016]) having lithium ion conductivity ([0130]), wherein: the negative electrode ([0047]) includes a negative current collector ([0018]) and a negative electrode mixture layer ([0047], [0050]) supported on the negative current collector ([0018]), the negative electrode mixture layer ([0047], [0050]) contains a conductive additive ([0053]-[0054]) and a negative electrode active material reversibly doped with a lithium ion ([0047], [0050]).
Yatemata et al. does not explicitly disclose a surface area A (m²/g) per unit mass of the negative electrode mixture layer and a mass B (g/m²) of the negative electrode mixture layer supported on a unit area of the negative current collector on one surface satisfy a relationship of 200 ≤ AB ≤ 1,400, or wherein 340 ≤ AB ≤ 1,000. As the electrode structural integrity and battery electrical performance (see Yatemata et al., [0010], [0050], [0092]-[0095]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said active material surface area and mass / amount, with said electrode structural integrity and battery electrical performance both varying as the active material surface area and mass / amount is varied, the precise active material surface area and mass / amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed active material surface area and mass / amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the active material surface area and mass / amount in the device of Yatemata et al. to obtain the desired balance between the electrode structural integrity and battery electrical performance (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 3, modified Yatemata et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the conductive additive includes carbon black ([0053]-[0054]), and a specific surface area of the carbon black ranges from 800 m²/g to 1,200 m²/g, inclusive ([0056]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yatemata et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the negative electrode active material includes non-graphitizable carbon ([0047], [0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Oshawa et al. (US 2018/0342728) discloses in Figs 1-6, a secondary battery (ref 100) including a negative electrode having active materials with definite surface area to amount ratios ([0155], Table 1 / P7-8).
Morimoto et al. (US 2006/0222937) discloses in Figs 1-6, a secondary battery ([0019]) including a negative electrode having active materials with definite surface area to amount ratios ([0037]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights