CTNF 18/584,413 CTNF 100171 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “a negative electrode for lithium-ion battery” should read “a negative electrode for a lithium-ion battery” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “the negative electrode for lithium-ion battery according to claim 1” should read “the negative electrode for the lithium-ion battery according to claim 1” . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1 “the lithium-ion negative electrode for battery according to claim 5” should read “the lithium-ion negative electrode for the battery according to claim 5” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20100159337 A1, “Matsumoto”) in view of Masanori et al. (JP 2019021510 A, “Masanori”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes . Regarding claim 1 , Matsumoto discloses a negative electrode for lithium-ion battery (see abstract “anode” & “secondary battery”) , comprising: a negative electrode active material (see abstract “anode active material”) and a specific metal; a void is located inside the negative electrode active material; the specific metal adheres to an outside surface and an inside surface of the negative electrode active material (see [0081] “void inside the anode active material particles 4 is preferably filled with the metal 6”). Regarding the limitation the specific metal includes a dissolution potential and a deposition potential , Matsumoto discloses in [0088] “metal 6 having the foregoing metal element is formed by liquid-phase deposition method or the like” which reads on deposition potential. Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the specific metal includes a dissolution potential and a deposition potential; and the deposition potential is higher than a potential at which the negative electrode active material stores lithium ions. Masanori teaches deposition and dissolution potential (see [0030] “the pos. electrode potential becomes high and exceeds the dissolution potential of Fe, so that the metallic foreign matter is easily dissolved in the electrolytic solution 17 on the pos. electrode plate 21” & “since the neg. electrode potential does not become too low (remains higher than the deposition potential of iron ions), the metal derived from the metal foreign object is less likely to be deposited on the neg. electrode plate 31”; see [0033] “When the main charging step S8 is performed, the negative electrode potential decreases and becomes lower than the deposition potential of ferrous ions, so that metals derived from a metallic foreign matter such as ferrous are likely to be deposited on the negative electrode plate 31”). Matsumoto and Masanori are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely lithium ion batteries (see Masanori title). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dissolution potential and deposition potential into the negative electrode of Matsumoto because Masanori teaches “since the negative electrode potential does not become too low (remains higher than the deposition potential of iron ions), the metal derived from the metal foreign object is less likely to be deposited on the negative electrode plate” (see [0030]) and in the main charging step “the negative electrode potential decreases and becomes lower than the deposition potential of ferrous ions, so that metal derived from a metal foreign matter such as iron is easily deposited on the negative electrode plate” (see [0033]). Regarding claim 2 , Matsumoto discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the specific metal includes zinc, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper (see [0080] “metal 6” & “iron, cobalt, nickel, zinc, and copper”). Regarding claim 3 , Matsumoto discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the specific metal includes iron, and nickel (see [0080] “metal 6” & “iron” & “nickel”) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20100159337 A1, “Matsumoto”) in view of Masanori et al. (JP 2019021510 A, “Masanori”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ide et al. (US 20100062340 A1, “Ide”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes . Regarding claim 4 , Matsumoto discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a ratio of mass of the specific metal to mass of the negative electrode active material (see [0274] “content ratio of nickel in the anode active material was 5 atomic %”). Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose ratio is 0.192 to 0.384. Ide teaches “metallic material 13” & “preferably 60% or less” (see [0027]). Ide teaches ratio of 60% or less (equivalent to 0.6 or less), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.192 to 0.384. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'. Matsumoto and Ide are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “60% or less” as suggested by Ide (see [0027]) into the negative electrode of Matsumoto because doing so is preferable, as suggested by Ide (see [0027]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20100159337 A1, “Matsumoto”) in view of Masanori et al. (JP 2019021510 A, “Masanori”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimaki et al. (CN 104769745 A, “Fujimaki”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes . Regarding claim 5 , Matsumoto discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose primary particles nor secondary particles. Fujimaki teaches primary particles and secondary particles in the pores (voids) (see [0198] describes “mixing states of metal foreign matter representative particles” & “such as the embedding states of metal foreign matter representative particles in electrodes”). Fujimaki teaches pores (see [0101] describes “continuous pores may be formed by bonding a plurality of particles” & “metal materials” & plurality of particles reads on primary and secondary particles & [0101] describes the void is located between the primary particles). Further, Fujimaki teaches “porous metal body” can “ensure the strength” & “suppress the air permeation resistance” (see [0101]). Matsumoto and Fujimaki are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries (see Fujimaki abstract). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate primary and secondary particles into the negative electrode of Matsumoto because Fujimaki teaches that “porous metal body” & “continuous pores may be formed by bonding a plurality of particles” & doing so improves the strength and suppresses air permeation resistance as suggested by Fujimaki (see [0101]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 20100159337 A1, “Matsumoto”) in view of Masanori et al. (JP 2019021510 A, “Masanori”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fujimaki et al. (CN 104769745 A, “Fujimaki”) and Ide et al. (US 20100062340 A1, “Ide”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes . Regarding claim 6 , Matsumoto discloses the lithium-ion negative electrode according to claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose wherein in the negative electrode active material, the specific metal adheres to the inside surface up to a distance of one-fifth or more of a maximum diameter of the secondary particle from a surface of the secondary particle toward a center of the secondary particle on a line segment of the maximum diameter of the secondary particle. Ide teaches voids and 15% to 40% by volume (see [0018] “voids are formed between the particles 12a coated with the metallic material” & “the proportion of the voids in the active material layer 12 is preferably 15% to 40% by volume, still preferably 20% to 35% by volume” & “the proportion of the voids can be controlled within the recited range by, for example, properly selecting the conditions for depositing the metallic material 13 between the particles 12a by electroplating”) and 15% reads on 0.15 which overlaps the claimed range of 1/5 (equivalent to 0.2). Ide teaches a range of 15% to 40% (equivalent to 0.15 to 0.40), which overlaps with the claimed range of 1/5 or more (equivalent to 0.2 or more) . MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate voids 15% to 40%, as suggested by Ide into the negative electrode of Matsumoto because doing so is preferable, as suggested by Ide (see [0018]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 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. /S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 05/23/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/584,413 Page 2 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/584,413 Page 3 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/584,413 Page 4 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/584,413 Page 5 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/584,413 Page 6 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/584,413 Page 7 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/584,413 Page 8 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/584,413 Page 9 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/584,413 Page 10 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/584,413 Page 11 Art Unit: 1725
Prosecution Insights