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 .
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1–6 are pending.
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 paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2024/0266499 A1.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07 December 2023 and 11 March 2025 were filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. The submissions comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The view numbers of FIGS. 1 and 2 are not larger than the letters, numbers, and reference characters used in the drawing. The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters. See 37 CFR 1.84 (u)(2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE HAVING COMPRESSED ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY WITH NEGATIVE ELECTRODE INCLUDING SOLID GRAPHITE.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term Ketjen black (e.g., [0049]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term Ketjen black is not accompanied by generic terminology, is not capitalized, and does not include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce.
The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima et al. (US 2019/0165361 A1, hereinafter Nishijima) in view of Takahata (US 2017/0047616 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishijima discloses an energy storage device (10, [0025]) comprising
an electrode assembly (21) including a negative electrode (11, 13) and a positive electrode (12, 15; [0025]),
wherein the negative electrode (11, 13) includes a negative active material layer (13) including a negative active material (see negative electrode active material, [0062]),
the negative active material contains solid graphite (TABLE 1, [0143]), and
the negative active material layer has a BET specific surface area of 2.1 m2/g or less (TABLE 1, [0143])
Nishijima does not explicitly disclose:
a pressure applied to the electrode assembly is 0.1 MPa or more.
Takahata discloses an energy storage device (100) comprising an electrode assembly (20) having a pressure of 0.1 MPa or more applied to improve the cycle characteristics of the energy storage device by reducing the internal resistance (FIG. 6, [0126]). Nishijima and Takahata are analogous because they are directed to energy storage devices including negative electrodes containing graphite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to apply a pressure as taught Takahata to the electrode assembly of Nishijima in order to improve the cycle characteristics of the energy storage device by reducing the internal resistance.
Regarding claim 3, modified Nishijima discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an energy storage device:
wherein a content of the solid graphite in the negative active material is 50% by mass or more (see solid component, [0143]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nishijima discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an energy storage device:
wherein the solid graphite is artificial graphite (see negative electrode active material, [0062]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima (US 2019/0165361 A1) in view of Takahata (US 2017/0047616 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamami et al. (US 2014/0134492 A1, hereinafter Yamami).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nishijima discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose an energy storage device:
wherein the negative active material further includes scaly graphite.
Yamami discloses a negative electrode active material including solid graphite and scaly graphite to suppress an increase in the internal resistance of the negative electrode (see negative electrode active material, [0023]). Nishijima and Yamami are analogous because they are directed to energy storage devices including negative electrodes containing graphite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the negative active material of modified Nishijima with scaly graphite as taught by Yamami in order to suppress an increase in the internal resistance of the negative electrode.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima (US 2019/0165361 A1) in view of Takahata (US 2017/0047616 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (WO 2021/101219 A1; see English language equivalent, US 2022/0407048 A1; hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nishijima discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose an energy storage device:
wherein a difference between D90 and D10 in a particle size distribution of the negative active material layer is 40 μm or less.
Choi discloses a negative active material layer having a difference between D90 and D10 in a particle size distribution to improve the discharge capacity, room-temperature cycle performance and resistance increment (TABLE 1, [0124]). Nishijima and Choi are analogous because they are directed to energy storage devices including negative electrodes containing graphite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the negative active material layer of modified Nishijima with the difference between D90 and D10 in a particle size distribution as taught by Choi in order to improve the discharge capacity, room-temperature cycle performance and resistance increment.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishijima (US 2019/0165361 A1) in view of Takahata (US 2017/0047616 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tashita et al. (WO 2019/239947 A1; see English language equivalent, US 2021/0218025 A1; hereinafter Tashita).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nishijima discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and further discloses an energy storage device:
wherein the solid graphite is particulate (see solid component, [0143]).
Nishijima does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the solid graphite has an aspect ratio (b/a) of less than 5, with the aspect ratio (b/a) being a major axis b of a particle to a minor axis a of the particle, and
wherein the solid graphite has a porosity of 2% or less
Tashita discloses a solid graphite having an aspect ratio (b/a) of less than 5, with the aspect ratio (b/a) being a major axis b of a particle to a minor axis a of the particle (FIG. 2, [0029]), and wherein the solid graphite has a porosity of 2% or less (TABLE 1, [0068]) to suppress deterioration in charging/discharging cycle characteristics (TABLE 1, [0083]). Nishijima and Tashita are analogous because they are directed to energy storage devices including negative electrodes containing graphite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the solid graphite of modified Nishijima with the aspect ratio and porosity of Tashita in order to suppress deterioration in charging/discharging cycle characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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 A 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights