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 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “that” is not a common or well-understood transitional phrase from the preamble to the claim limitations. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-11 are similarly objected to for dependence on claim 1.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “specific gravity” is known in the art as a unitless value. The recited “g/cm3” (mass per volume) appears to be a unit of density instead of specific gravity. 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.
Claims 3 and 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 3 recites the limitation "the recessed portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear which of “a plurality of recessed portions” (introduced in claim 2) is referred to in claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the through-hole" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear which of “a plurality of through-holes” (introduced in claim 4) is referred to in claim 5.
Claims 8-9 each recite “the Mg alloy”. However, claim 1 does not positively necessitate an Mg alloy (in also giving the option of an Mg metal). It is unclear whether claims 8-9 are optional limitations which need not be met, or whether claims 8-9 intend to positively necessitate the presence of the Mg alloy in the negative electrode.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung et al. (US 2014/0349177 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chung teaches a lithium secondary battery ([0046]) that a lithium metal deposits on a surface of a negative electrode and charge/discharge are performed by electrolytically dissolving the deposited lithium metal (lithium in cathode and electrolyte, [0032-0034]; a combined use of the magnesium ion, the lithium ion and the sodium ion; [0049]),
wherein the negative electrode essentially consists of an Mg alloy or an Mg metal (the anode is a magnesium or magnesium alloy metal, [0009]).
Regarding claim 10, Chung teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein, before an initial charge, a lithium foil is not formed on the surface of the negative electrode (Mg only at anode, Fig. 1).
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.
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) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 2014/0349177 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hisayuki et al. (US 2014/0147748 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chung teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but fails to teach a plurality of recessed portions are formed on the surface of the negative electrode on which the lithium metal deposits.
Hisayuki is analogous in the art of negative electrodes for secondary batteries and teaches the negative electrode material includes a porous layer with porosity of 30 to 70 vol. % ([0048]) so that the volume expansion of a negative electrode can be effectively reduced during charging, and thus cracking or disintegration of the negative electrode can be effectively prevented ([0022, 0048]). As shown in Fig. 2, the porous layer reads on “a plurality of recessed portions are formed on the surface of the negative electrode”, and the negative electrode material can occlude and release a larger amount of Li ions ([0025]) and it is known that a large amount of ions of a metal other than Al are eluted from the negative electrode material during charging/discharging ([0047]) which reads on “the surface of the negative electrode on which the lithium metal deposits”.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Chung include a porous layer having recesses on the negative electrode surface in order to reduce volume expansion and cracking during charging as taught by Hisayuki.
Thereby, claim 2 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, modified Chung teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 2, and wherein the recessed portion is filled with a gel electrolyte (secondary battery containing a non-aqueous electrolyte such a gel electrolyte, Hisayuki [0001, 0067]; pores sized to facilitate incorporation of an electrolyte into pores, Hisayuki [0053] – as applied above to modify Chung).
Regarding claim 4, Chung teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but fails to teach a plurality of through-holes penetrating between the surface of the negative electrode on which the lithium metal deposits and a surface on a side opposite to the surface are formed in the negative electrode.
Hisayuki is analogous in the art of negative electrodes for secondary batteries and teaches the negative electrode material includes a porous layer with porosity of 30 to 70 vol. % ([0048]) so that the volume expansion of a negative electrode can be effectively reduced during charging, and thus cracking or disintegration of the negative electrode can be effectively prevented ([0022, 0048]). As shown in Fig. 5, porous layer on each face of negative electrode material 20 in its thickness direction reads on “a plurality of through-holes penetrating between the surface of the negative electrode on which the lithium metal deposits and a surface on a side opposite to the surface are formed in the negative electrode”. Hisayuki teaches in [0065-0066] that the negative electrode pores shown in Fig. 5 is an acceptable embodiment of the desired porosity and thickness ranges of the pores relative to the overall negative electrode, so that the appropriate amount of Li ions are occluded and released in the thickness direction to exhibit sufficient charge/discharge capacity.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Chung include porous layers having pores penetrating both surfaces of the negative electrode in order to reduce volume expansion and cracking during charging as well as occlude/release a desired amount of ions for good charge/discharge capacity as taught by Hisayuki.
Thereby, claim 4 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, modified Chung teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 4, and wherein the through-hole is filled with a gel electrolyte (secondary battery containing a non-aqueous electrolyte such a gel electrolyte, Hisayuki [0001, 0067]; pores sized to facilitate incorporation of an electrolyte into pores, Hisayuki [0053] – as applied above to modify Chung).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chung teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1 but fails to teach wherein an average thickness of the negative electrode is 3.0 μm or more and 30 μm or less.
Instead, Chung teaches in [0075] 200-μm thick magnesium foil used as an anode.
Hisayuki is analogous in the art of negative electrodes for secondary batteries and teaches in [0046] that as specified by JIS, the foil forming the negative electrode has a thickness of 0.006 to 0.2 mm (which equates to 6 μm to 200 μm).
Changes in size are design choices within the ambit oh a person having ordinary skill in the art per MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the magnesium foil negative electrode of Chung to have a smaller thickness that still fell within the range of acceptable, known negative electrode foil thicknesses taught by Hisayuki. This range of 6 μm to 200 μm overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range of 3.0 μm or more and 30 μm or less (In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 I).
Thereby, claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 2014/0349177 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dansie (US 2018/0183121 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Chung teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but fails to teach a specific gravity of the negative electrode is 3.5 g/cm3 or less.
Dansie is analogous in the art of batteries using magnesium-based the negative electrode ([0044]) and teaches in the Table under [0127] that magnesium exhibits Specific Gravity of 1.74 (which falls in the claimed range by being less than 3.5).
While Chung is silent on the specific gravity of the negative electrode, Chung teaches such can comprise magnesium (see citations above in claim 1 rejection). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07, such that it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to select the suitable magnesium negative electrode material taught by Dansie and expect such to also exhibit a specific gravity of 1.74 when used in modified Chung. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists; MPEP 2144.05 I.
Thereby, claim 7 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Chung teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but fails to teach an energy density is 425 Wh/kg or more.
Dansie is analogous in the art of batteries using magnesium alloy in the negative electrode ([0044]) and teaches that the magnesium alloy used has a storage capacity of one watt-hour (Wh) for every gram of material by weight ([0127]). Therefore, for 1 kg (= 1000 g) of material, the magnesium alloy of Dansie would have a storage capacity of 1000 Wh. This reads on the claimed “an energy density is 425 Wh/kg or more” since 1000 Wh/kg is more than 425 Wh/kg.
While Chung is silent on the energy density of the negative electrode, Chung teaches such can comprise magnesium alloy (see citations above in claim 1 rejection). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07, such that it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to select the suitable magnesium alloy negative electrode material taught by Dansie and expect such to also exhibit a storage capacity (energy density) of 1000 Wh/kg when used in modified Chung. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists; MPEP 2144.05 I.
Thereby, claim 11 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 2014/0349177 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamizono et al. (US 2013/0136982 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Chung teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the Mg alloy contains 50 mol % or more of an Mg atom.
Kamizono is analogous in the art of batteries using magnesium alloy in the negative electrode ([0018]) and teaches that content of the calcium element in the magnesium-calcium alloy is preferably 35.6 at % or less of the total magnesium-calcium alloy ([0019]); therefore, 64.4 at % or more magnesium is the balance of the magnesium-calcium alloy and encompasses the claimed range of “50 mol % or more of an Mg atom”. Kamizono [0019] teaches that keeping the calcium content sufficiently low avoids detrimental effects to the overall structure of the negative electrode. Kamizono also teaches a specific inventive example of magnesium-calcium alloy (Mg:Ca=70:30 (at %) in which magnesium is 70 atomic percent ([0034]).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07, such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from the teaching of Kamizono to select magnesium-calcium alloy with 64.4 atomic % or more magnesium as the material for the negative electrode of Chung to achieve a suitable magnesium-based negative electrode structure.
Thereby, claim 8 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Chung teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach that the Mg alloy is an alloy consisting of Mg and at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Li, Zn, Mn, Fe, Si, Cu, Ni, and Ca.
Kamizono is analogous in the art of batteries using magnesium alloy in the negative electrode ([0018]) and teaches that the magnesium alloy is preferably a magnesium-calcium alloy ([0019]) which reads on “an alloy consisting of Mg and … Ca”.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07, such that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious from the teaching of Kamizono to select magnesium-calcium alloy as the material for the negative electrode of Chung to achieve a suitable magnesium-based negative electrode.
Thereby, claim 9 is rendered obvious.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kamizono et al. (US 2013/0136982 A1, as cited above in 103 section) teaches a secondary battery ([0003, 0024]) that a lithium metal deposits on a surface of a negative electrode and charge/discharge ([0016]) are performed by electrolytically dissolving the deposited lithium metal (dipping the metallic lithium in the electrolytic solution for a predetermined time period facilitates the dissolution and deposition of the negative electrode active material, [0023]),
wherein the negative electrode essentially consists of an Mg alloy (negative electrode may also contain a negative electrode active material formed of a magnesium alloy, [0018]) or an Mg metal (when the negative electrode is formed of simple metallic magnesium, [0017]);
and wherein the Mg alloy contains 50 mol % or more of an Mg atom (content of the calcium element in the magnesium-calcium alloy is preferably 35.6 at % or less of the total magnesium-calcium alloy, [0019] – therefore 64.4 at % or more magnesium being the balance of the magnesium-calcium alloy; see also example of magnesium-calcium alloy (Mg:Ca=70:30 (at %) in [0034]);
and wherein, before an initial charge, a lithium foil is not formed on the surface of the negative electrode (lithium only used in preparation of electrolytic solution in [0026], not in negative electrode preparation in [0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights