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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the lithium transition metal composite oxide” in lines 1-2. The examiner suggests amending Claim 2 to read “the nickel-containing lithium transition metal composite oxide” to improve clarity and to be consistent with Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shizuka et al. (US 2011/0003200 A1) further in view of Mizuno et al. (JP 2014049390 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 01/22/2024) (citations made in reference to the machine English translation attached to this office action).
In Regards to Claim 1:
Shizuka discloses a positive electrode (lithium secondary battery positive electrode) for an energy storage device (lithium secondary battery), comprising a positive active material layer [0068, 0113]. Shizuka further discloses that the positive active material layer contains positive active material particles (lithium transition metal based compound powder) and a binder [0113]. Shizuka further discloses that the positive active material particles (lithium transition metal based compound powder) may be a nickel-containing lithium transition metal composite oxide represented by formula (I): LiMO2 and having an α-NaFeO2-type crystal structure [0090, 0229-0230, 0225-0226]. Shizuka further discloses that the positive active material particles (lithium transition metal based compound powder) include secondary particles that have primary particles (primary grain) aggregated [0290]. Shizuka further discloses in Example 3 that the average primary particle (primary grain) size may be 1 µm and the median size may be 3.6 µm [0415], thus the skilled artisan would appreciate the positive active material particles (lithium transition metal based compound powder) would have a ratio as claimed of 3.6. Shizuka further discloses in Example 3 that the BET specific surface area of the positive active material particles (lithium transition metal based compound powder) may be 0.8 m2/g [0415], thus the skilled artisan would appreciate that a product of the median size and a BET specific surface area of the positive active material particles (lithium transition metal based compound powder) would be 2.88 µm* m2/g. Shizuka further discloses that the binder may be polytetrafluoroethylene [0459].
Shizuka is silent to the weight average molecular weight of the binder.
Mizuno discloses a positive electrode for an energy storage device (lithium-ion secondary battery) comprising a positive active material layer, wherein the positive active material layer contains a positive active material and a binder [0007]. Mizuno further discloses that the binder may be polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) [0031]. Mizuno further discloses that the binder may have a weight average molecular weight between 150,000 and 2,000,000 [0033]. Mizuno further teaches that binders with a larger weight-average molecular weight exhibit better adhesion and can effectively secure electrolyte components [0033].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the binder of Shizuka, a polytetrafluoroethylene having a weight average molecular weight between 150,000 and 2,000,000, as it is known in the art that a binder having a weight average molecular weight between 150,000 and 2,000,000 and which may be polytetrafluoroethylene is suitable for use as a binder in a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, as taught by Mizuno. By doing so, the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing a binder with great adhesion and which may effectively secure electrolyte components, as taught by Mizuno. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
In Regards to Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Shizuka as modified by Mizuno discloses the positive electrode of Claim 1 as set forth above. Shizuka further discloses that the lithium transition metal composite oxide may be represented by formula (I): LiMO2 and may include nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and manganese (Mn) [0090]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
In Regards to Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Shizuka as modified by Mizuno discloses the positive electrode of Claim 1 as set forth above. Shizuka further discloses that the binder may be polytetrafluoroethylene [0459]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
In Regards to Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Shizuka as modified by Mizuno discloses the positive electrode of Claim 1 as set forth above. Shizuka further discloses that a content of the binder in the positive active material layer may be between 0.1% by mass or more and 80% by mass or less [0318]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Shizuka as modified by Mizuno discloses the positive electrode of Claim 1 as set forth above. Shizuka further discloses an energy storage device (lithium secondary battery) comprising the positive electrode (lithium secondary battery positive electrode) according to Claim 1 [0068]. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shizuka et al. (US 2011/0003200 A1) as modified by Mizuno et al. (JP 2014049390 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 01/22/2024) (citations made in reference to the machine English translation attached to this office action), as applied to Claim 5 above, further in view of Hyun (US 2020/0168859 A1).
In Regards to Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 5):
Shizuka as modified by Mizuno discloses the energy storage device of Claim 5 as set forth above. Shizuka further disclose that the energy storage device (lithium secondary battery) may be suitable for use in an electric vehicle [0002].
Shizuka is deficient in disclosing an energy storage apparatus comprising two or more energy storage devices, and comprising one or more energy storage devices according to Claim 5.
Hyun teaches that an energy storage apparatus (battery module) comprising a plurality of energy storage devices (battery cells) is suitable for powering an electric vehicle [0026, 0040]. Hyun further teaches that the energy storage devices (battery cells) may be lithium batteries [0040]. Hyun further teaches that the plurality of energy storage devices (battery cells) allows the electric vehicle to be powered with an energy storage apparatus (battery module) having improved capacity [0026].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to arrange a plurality of the energy storage devices of Shizuka together to form an energy storage apparatus, as it is known in the art that arranging a plurality of energy storage devices together to form an energy storage apparatus allows an electric vehicle to be powered with an arrangement having improved capacity, as taught by Hyun. Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights