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 Application
Claims 1-6 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 6 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1,6 currently recites “a negative electrode containing at least one selected from the group consisting of graphite and non-graphitic carbon and containing carbon black”. It is unclear what the Markush group is and where it ends. Specifically, it is unclear whether the negative electrode contains:
at least one of graphite or non-graphitic carbon, and in addition, carbon black
at least one of graphite, non-graphitic carbon, and carbon black
at least one selected from graphite and non-graphitic carbon, wherein the non-graphitic carbon contains carbon black since carbon black is a non-graphitic carbon.
A review of the instant specification seems to provide support for the limitation as interpreted in (i) above [0013]. However, for examination purposes, all three interpretations (i)-(iii) have been considered.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mari (US20100159334A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mari discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device (lithium secondary battery; title, [0023, 0064, 0092]) comprising:
a positive electrode containing LiFePO4 ([0090] in Example 5),
a negative electrode containing hard carbon (i.e., non-graphitizable carbon) and acetylene black [0031-0037, 0091], which meets the claimed limitation of “at least one selected from the group consisting of graphite and non-graphitic carbon containing carbon black” (see claim interpretation in 112(b) section)
a nonaqueous electrolyte containing a lithium salt ([0059-0061][0092]);
wherein a concentration of the lithium salt ranges from 0.1 to 2.0 mol/L, and preferably 0.3 to 1.0 mol/L [0061] (note: mol/L is equivalent to mol/dm3), which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.7 mol/dm3 or less”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping range, with a reasonable expectation to provide a nonaqueous electrolytic solution that is incombustible [0020-0021, 0059-0060].
Regarding claim 2, Mari discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein the lithium salt comprises bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide only (i.e., 100 mol% LiFSI; [0092]), which falls within the claimed range of “a content of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide in the lithium salt is 40 mol% or more”.
Regarding claim 3, Mari discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein the lithium salt contains lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide [0092].
Mari further discloses that the lithium salt may be used as a mixture of two or more and preferably LiFSI and LiTFSI [0060], and the lithium salt may be in a concentration of from 0.1 to 2.0 mol/L and preferably from 0.3 to 1.0 mol/L [0059-0061].
As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used LiFSI and LiTFSI as the lithium salt such that they are each in the range of 0.3-1.0mol/L, with a reasonable expectation to provide a lithium salt for a nonaqueous electrolytic solution [0059-0060]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would further recognize that when LiFSI and LiTFSI are in a molar ratio of (0.3-1.0 mol/L) : (0.3-1.0 mol/L), it overlaps with the claimed range of “50:50 to 99:1”. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to select the overlapping molar ratio, with a reasonable expectation to provide a nonaqueous electrolytic solution that is incombustible [0020-0021, 0059-0060].
Further, since the lithium salt comprises LiFSI and LiTFSI only, a total content of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide and lithium hexafluorophosphate in the lithium salt is 100 mol%, which falls within the claimed range of “90 mol% or more and 100 mol% or less”.
Regarding claim 4, Mari discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein the negative comprises hard carbon (i.e., amorphous carbon) as the negative electrode active substance [0091]. Mari further discloses that the active substance of the negative electrode may further include amorphous carbon, graphite and natural graphite in combination as a carbon material [0031]. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used graphite and amorphous carbon in combination, with a reasonable expectation to provide an active substance capable of performing occlusion and release of lithium ion [0031], which further meets the claim limitation of “a total content of graphite and amorphous carbon in a negative active material contained in the negative electrode is 100% by mass”.
Regarding claim 5, Mari discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 3. Mari discloses the nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device according to claim 1, wherein the negative comprises hard carbon (i.e., amorphous carbon) as the negative electrode active substance [0091]. Mari further discloses that the active substance of the negative electrode may further include amorphous carbon, graphite and natural graphite in combination as a carbon material [0031]. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used graphite and amorphous carbon in combination, with a reasonable expectation to provide an active substance capable of performing occlusion and release of lithium ion [0031], which further meets the claim limitation of “a total content of graphite and amorphous carbon in a negative active material contained in the negative electrode is 100% by mass”.
Regarding claim 6, Mari discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte energy storage device (lithium secondary battery; title, [0023, 0064, 0092]) comprising:
a positive electrode containing LiFePO4 ([0090] in Example 5),
a negative electrode containing hard carbon (i.e., non-graphitizable carbon) and acetylene black (i.e., carbon black; [0031-0037, 0091]), which meets the claimed limitation of “at least one selected from the group consisting of graphite and non-graphitic carbon containing carbon black” (see claim interpretation in 112(b) section)
Mari further discloses wherein a nonaqueous electrolyte may be selected from the list comprising lithium hexafluorophosphate [0060], wherein the lithium salt may be in a concentration range of 0.1 to 2.0 mol/L and preferably from 0.3 to 1.0 mol/L [0061], which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.7 mol/dm3 or less”.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the lithium hexafluorophosphate as the lithium salt in the overlapping concentration range, with a reasonable expectation to provide an electrolyte that is incombustible [0020,0059].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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 Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights