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
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “substance present at least a part of a surface” should read “substance present at at least a part of a surface”.
Regarding claim 2, “substance present at least a part of a surface” should read “substance present at at least a part of a surface”.
Regarding claims 3-11, these claims are objected to due to their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “a nitrogen-containing substance”. It’s unclear if this is the same nitrogen containing substance positively recited in claim 1 or if a new different, distinct nitrogen containing substance is being introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hotta (US20220085457A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hotta teaches a secondary battery (paragraph [0190], Figure 3) that comprises of an aqueous electrolyte (paragraph [0109]) and a lithium salt (paragraphs [0111]-[0112]), a positive electrode (paragraph [0173]) made up of a positive electrode active material-containing layer (paragraph [0176]- [0182]) and an aluminum positive electrode current collector that supports the positive electrode active material-containing layer (paragraph [0174]) . This positive electrode active material is also stated to be made up of a binder such polyimide or polyacrylamide (paragraph [0185]), which are nitrogen-containing substances that present on at least a part of a surface of the positive electrode current collector. Hotta also states the presence of a negative electrode (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Hotta teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 and teaches that a composite membrane that is layered onto the positive electrode active material, as shown in Figure 2 and 3 (4, paragraphs [0188] and [0206]). This composite membrane is made up of a polymeric material that is made up of at least 70% of a monomer containing a nitrogen based functional group, such as an amino group, a –CN, and a –N(R)3 (paragraphs [0080]- [0086]). Hatto also teaches the use of lithium nitrate and sodium nitrate as electrolytic salts that are impregnated into the composite membrane and thus touching the positive electrode active material (paragraphs [0109]- [0113]). Therefore, a nitrogen containing substance is at least touching a part of positive electrode active material.
Regarding claim 3, Hotta teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 and teaches the use of lithium nitrate and sodium nitrate as electrolytic salts that are impregnated into the composite membrane (paragraphs [0109]- [0113]).
Regarding claim 5, Hotta teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 and teaches the use of lithium nickel cobalt manganese composite oxide, lithium manganese nickel composite oxide, lithium cobalt composite oxide, and lithium manganese iron composite oxides, like LikFe1−yMnyPO4, where 0<k≤1 and where 0≤y≤1, as positive electrode active material or as compounds capable of obtaining a high positive electrode potential, which would make them good candidates as positive electrode active materials (paragraphs [0178]- [0180]).
Regarding claim 6, Hotta teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 and teaches the use of titanium-containing oxide, niobium titanium composite, and lithium titanium composite oxide as negative electrode active materials (paragraphs [0040]- [0045]).
Regarding claim 7, Hotta teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 and teaches the use of monoclinic titanium-containing oxide, monoclinic lithium titanium composite oxide, and TiNb2O7, which is a monoclinic form of niobium titanium composite (Examples 42-49), as negative electrode active materials (paragraphs [0040]- [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Hotta teaches the secondary battery of claim 1 and teaches the use of the secondary battery in a battery pack (paragraph [0225]).
Regarding claim 9, Hotta teaches the battery pack of claim 8 and teaches the inclusion of a protective circuit and power distribution terminal (paragraphs [0225]- [0227], Figure 8).
Regarding claim 10, Hotta teaches the battery pack of claim 9 and teaches a plurality of secondary batteries which are connected in series, in parallel, or a combination of the in series, in parallel (paragraphs [0230] and [0235]).
Regarding claim 11, Hotta teaches the battery pack of claim 8 and teaches the use of the battery pack in a stationary power supply (paragraph [0264], Figure 12).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotta (US20220085457A1) in view of Burns (US20150056521A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hotta teaches the secondary battery according to claim 1, and teaches the presence of water in the electrolyte, as the battery uses an aqueous electrolyte, and teaches the electrolyte can be a mixture of water and an organic solvent (paragraph [0120]). It does not teach the presence of water within the range of 150 ppm to 100,000 ppm.
Burns teaches a lithium-ion battery with a comprised of positive electrode made up of a positive electrode active material (paragraph [0036]) coating an aluminum or an aluminum alloy positive electrode current (paragraph [0035]) that immersed in an electrolyte made up of water in a concentration of 200 ppm to 2000 ppm (paragraph [0024]-[0025]) and a lithium salt (paragraph [0023]-[0026]). This lithium salt is stated to be a lithium imide salt in a possible embodiment, which would be an example of a nitrogen-containing substance that comes in contact with the positive electrode current collector (paragraph [0028]). Burns also teaches the use of a negative electrode (paragraph [0037]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Hoata with Burns to obtain a battery having an electrolyte made up of an organic solvent with a specific concentration of water add to the system to “improved cycle life, high voltage stability, high temperature resiliency, and/or reduced impedance buildup especially at low temperature” (paragraph [0021]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamaguchi (US20190355984A1) teaches an electrochemical device that includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the electrodes, where the positive electrode is coated in a barrier layer that is made up of carbon and nitrogen to prevent oxidation of the electrode.
Harada (US20180277834A1) teaches an active material including a titanium-containing composite oxide phase and a carboxyl group-containing carbon coating layer is provided
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Jacob Williams whose telephone number is (571)270-7712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 4 pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)272-1307. 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.
/M.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights