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 § 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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites “the positive electrode contains a positive active material, tungsten, boron,…aluminum, zirconium, or a different element which is a combination thereof is present on a surface of the positive active material” in lines 6-9. However, it is unclear what is required by the claim. As written, the claim appears as though the positive active material is an option among the list of tungsten, boron, and others. It is suggested to add a semi-colon after “positive active material”, or to rewrite the claim to show that the list of elements (i.e., tungsten, boron, etc.) is in addition to the positive electrode active material.
Claim 1 recites “or a different element which is a combination thereof” in line 8. This is unclear because the list is of single elements, and the term “different” element implies that the element is in fact different than the list of elements. If the phrase “different element” is meant to be a combination of elements from the list, then the claim should be amended to “or
Claim 3 recites “wherein a content of the different element is…with respect to lithium and a metal element other than the different element contained in the positive active material” in lines 2-4. However, it is unclear as to what is included in “the different element” because claim 1 states “a different element which is a combination thereof”, and therefore the different element is a combination of multiple elements.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected for being dependent thereon.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (WO 2015/194504, see machine translation), Jito et al. (US 2015/0357635), and Nishino (JP 2015-144108, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hirota discloses a battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a polyolefin microporous film [separator] interposed therebetween (pages 1 and 11 of translation). With regards to the limitation of “a creep strain after a load of 2 MPa is held at a temperature of 65C in the separator is 0.20 or less, Hirota discloses the thickness range ratio% after heating and compression under a pressure of 5.0 MPa, after heating at 90C for 5 minutes, is preferably 10% or less, and preferably 5% or less (pages 10 and 12). As the instant specification describes the creep strain as a change in thickness from the original thickness [creep strain = {(A-B)/A}], Hirota teaches a smaller change in thickness under greater load and higher temperature, and therefore the separator will display the claimed properties.
However, Hirota does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrode assembly is in a state where a load is applied to the electrode assembly in a stacking direction.
Jito discloses a secondary battery having a good charge/discharge cycle characteristics by having a pressure applied to battery and electrode (abstract, [0013]). In examples, Jito teaches a pressure of 0.13 MPa, 0.57 MPa, or 1.30 MPa is applied to the battery, and teaches the capacity retention is improved ([0069]-[0071], Table 5). The pressure is applied to the positive electrode plate 16, negative electrode plate 17, and separators 18 [electrode assembly] in the direction the assembly is stacked ([0032], Fig 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the applied pressure (including in the amounts of 0.13, 0.57, or 1.30 MPa) to the electrode assembly of Jito with the assembly of Hirota for the purpose of improving the charge/discharge cycle characteristics.
However, Hirota does not explicitly disclose tungsten, boron, sulfur, phosphorus, silicon, titanium, nitrogen, germanium, aluminum, zirconium, or a different element which is a combination thereof is present on a surface of the positive active material.
Nishino discloses a positive electrode active material having a surface modification (abstract). The surface modification is at least one element selected from the group consisting of elements in the following groups S1 and S2 (where group S1 consists of Al, Zr, Ti, Mg, Zn, Nb, Mo, Ta, W and rare earth elements, and group S2 consists of F, P, and S) (abstract). The positive active material can have the formula Li(CoNiAlM)OF, where M represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of transition metals, Sn, Ge, Na, K, B, C, Si, P, S, Zn, Ga, and Bi, other than Co and Ni (abstract). Nishino teaches that surface modification suppresses decomposition of electrolyte and elution of metal ions, thereby improving cycle durability and suppressing gas generation, and improving cycle durability and safety and suppressing battery swelling (page 6). In an example, Nishino teaches surface modification amounts in the amount of 0.1 mol% Zr and 0.4 mol% P with respect to the base material (page 17, Example 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the surface modification of the positive electrode material with elements of Al, Zr, Ti, W, P, and/or S as taught by Nishino with the positive electrode material of Hirota for the purpose of suppressing decomposition of electrolyte, elution of metal ions, suppressing gas generation, improving cycle durability and safety, and suppressing battery swelling.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hirota discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jito additionally teaches the applied pressure is 0.1 MPa or more [0.13, 0.57, or 1.30 MPa] ([0069]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hirota discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above. Nishino provides examples where the surface modification amount is 0.1 mol% and 0.4 mol% with respect to the base material (page 17, Example 12).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hirota discloses all of the claim limitations a set forth above. While Hirota discloses a battery (page 1), modified Hirota does not explicitly disclose a energy storage apparatus comprising two or more storage device, and comprising one or more energy storage devices according to claim 1.
However, Jito further teaches a battery pack including a plurality of secondary batteries ([0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a plurality (two or more) of batteries according to claim 1/modified Hirota for the purpose of increasing the power and/or energy capable of being supplied.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirota (WO 2015/194504, see machine translation), Jito et al. (US 2015/0357635), and Nishino (JP 2015-144108, see machine translation), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Miyazaki (US 2014/0295245).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hirota discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Hirota discloses a polyolefin microporous film [substrate layer] (page 3) and a electrodes (page 11), modified Hirota does not explicitly disclose wherein an inorganic layer is disposed between the positive electrode active material layer and the substrate layer.
Miyazaki discloses an electric storage device including a container 2, an electrode assembly 10, wherein the electrode assembly 10 includes a positive electrode 11 having a positive electrode substrate [current collector] 11A and a positive electrode active material layer 11B that is formed on the positive electrode substrate 11A, a negative electrode 13, and a separator 12 interposed between the positive 11 and negative electrodes 13 (abstract, [0043]-[0044], Figs 2-5). The separator 12 includes a separator substrate 12A and an inorganic layer 12B formed on one surface of the separator substrate 12A ([0065], Fig 6). The separator substrate 12A is a microporous polyolefin film ([0075]). The inorganic layer 12B can suppress the thermal shrinkage of the separator, and thereby improves safety ([0073]). The inorganic layer 12B is preferably opposed to the positive electrode 11 ([0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inorganic layer of the separator between separator substrate and positive electrode of Miyazaki between the separator and positive electrode of modified Hirota for the purpose of providing an inorganic layer that suppresses the thermal shrinkage of the separator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights