DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foreign Publication KR20180077794A (see attached machine translation), hereafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a positive electrode ([0009] positive electrode), comprising a first positive electrode active material and a second positive electrode active material ([0048] positive electrode has SPAN, which is a positive active material, [0050] SPAN may include one or more of chemical formulas 1 to 5), wherein the first positive electrode active material is a sulfurized polyacrylonitrile with a sulfur percentage of 45wt% to 60wt% ([0057] Formula 3 where n = 1 is about 55.20% sulfur), and the second positive electrode active material is a sulfurized polyacrylonitrile with a sulfur percentage of 30wt% to 40wt% ([0052] Formula 1 is about 39.05% sulfur).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses wherein a ratio of the sulfur percentage in the first active material to the sulfur percentage in the second active material is 1.1 to 1.5 ([0057] Formula 3 where n = 1 is about 55.20% sulfur; [0052] Formula 1 is about 39.05% sulfur; 55.20/39.05 = 1.41).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses wherein based on a weight of the positive electrode, a ratio of a mass of element sulfur in the first active material to a mass of element sulfur in the second active material is 1 to 3 ([0057] Formula 3: 3 sulfur atoms; [0052] Formula 1: 2 sulfur atoms; 3/2 = 1.5).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses wherein based on a weight of the positive electrode, a ratio of a mass of element sulfur in the first active material to a mass of element sulfur in the second active material is 1 to 2 ([0057] Formula 3: 3 sulfur atoms; [0052] Formula 1: 2 sulfur atoms; 3/2 = 1.5).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the first active material and the second active material form an agglomerate (Figs 1-9b all show various agglomerated masses), and according to an elemental analysis test method, the second active material surrounds a surface of the first active material (an agglomerated mass would inherently result in surfaces of both active materials surrounding one another to various degrees).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses An electrochemical apparatus ([0112] electrochemical device), comprising a negative electrode ([0112] anode), an electrolyte ([0118] electrolyte), and a positive electrode ([0009] positive electrode; [0112] cathode); the positive electrode comprises a first positive electrode active material and a second positive electrode active material ([0048] positive electrode has SPAN, which is a positive active material, [0050] SPAN may include one or more of chemical formulas 1 to 5), wherein the first positive electrode active material is a sulfurized polyacrylonitrile with a sulfur percentage of 45wt% to 60wt% ([0057] Formula 3 where n = 1 is about 55.20% sulfur), and the second positive electrode active material is a sulfurized polyacrylonitrile with a sulfur percentage of 30wt% to 40wt% ([0052] Formula 1 is about 39.05% sulfur).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses wherein the negative electrode comprises lithium metal ([0114] Li metal for the negative electrode (examiner notes the provided translation is inconsistent with the application of the terms anode and cathode and negative and positive electrodes, but it appears to be the case that the SPAN compound is intended to be the cathode active material while lithium metal is exemplified as the anode active material)).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses wherein a ratio of the sulfur percentage in the first active material to the sulfur percentage in the second active material is 1.1 to 1.5 ([0057] Formula 3 where n = 1 is about 55.20% sulfur; [0052] Formula 1 is about 39.05% sulfur; 55.20/39.05 = 1.41).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses wherein based on a weight of the positive electrode, a ratio of a mass of element sulfur in the first active material to a mass of element sulfur in the second active material is 1 to 2 ([0057] Formula 3: 3 sulfur atoms; [0052] Formula 1: 2 sulfur atoms; 3/2 = 1.5).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses an electronic apparatus ([0124] device including the battery as a power source), comprising the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 10 (see above rejection of claim 10).
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication KR20180077794A (see attached machine translation), hereafter Lee, as stated above for claims 1 and 10, in view of Foreign Publication JP5754606B2 (see attached machine translation), hereafter Kawasumi.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Lee is silent on wherein a particle size of the first active material is 2 μm to 5 μm, and a particle size of the second active material is 0.5 μm to 3 μm.
In the analogous art of secondary battery positive electrode materials, Kawasumi discloses wherein a particle size of the first active material is 2 μm to 5 μm ([0043] aggregate is crushed to 4 µm or less in order to loosen the aggregated sulfur-modified PAN, which overlaps with the claimed range of 2-5 µm. 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)), and a particle size of the second active material is 0.5 μm to 3 μm ([0043] aggregate is crushed to 4 µm or less in order to loosen the aggregated sulfur-modified PAN, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5-3 µm. 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)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Lee to crush the aggregated active material composite to 4 µm or less as disclosed by Kawasumi in order to loosen the aggregated sulfur-modified PAN, as suggested by Kawasumi.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, modified Lee is silent on wherein a ratio of the particle size of the first active material to the particle size of the second active material is 2.5 to 5.
However, as the density of the composite active material is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the particle sizes of the first active material and the second active material, with the density of the active material decreasing as the particle sizes of the first active material and the second active material are increased due to the gaps between particles becoming larger for larger particles, the particle sizes of the first active material and the second active material would have been considered result effective variables by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of particle sizes of the first and second active materials cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle sizes of the first and second active materials in the invention of modified Lee, for example to 4 µm for the first active material and 1.5 µm for the second active material, yielding a ratio of 2.67, which is within the claimed range of 2.5 to 5, to obtain the desired density of the composite active material (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, modified Lee is silent on wherein a ratio of the particle size of the first active material to the particle size of the second active material is 1 to 3.
However, as the density of the composite active material is/are variable(s) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the particle sizes of the first active material and the second active material, with the density of the active material decreasing as the particle sizes of the first active material and the second active material are increased due to the gaps between particles becoming larger for larger particles, the particle sizes of the first active material and the second active material would have been considered result effective variables by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of particle sizes of the first and second active materials cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the particle sizes of the first and second active materials in the invention of modified Lee, for example to 4 µm for the first active material and 1.5 µm for the second active material, yielding a ratio of 2.67, which is within the claimed range of 1 to 3, to obtain the desired density of the composite active material (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication KR20180077794A (see attached machine translation), hereafter Lee, as stated above for claims 1 and 10, in view of Published Application US20220376256A1, hereafter Wang.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Lee is silent on wherein a compacted density of the positive electrode is 1.2 g/cm3 to 1.5 g/cm3.
In the analogous art of secondary battery electrodes, Wang discloses wherein a compacted density of the positive electrode is 1.2 g/cm3 to 1.5 g/cm3 ([0025] cathode undergoes pressure treatment to obtain high density of 0.8-1.6 g/cm3, which encompasses the claimed range of 1.2 g/cm3 to 1.5 g/cm3. 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)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Lee to perform a pressure treatment on the cathode to have a compacted density of the positive electrode of 1.2g/cm3 to 1.5g/cm3 as disclosed by Wang in order to achieve a higher density with a lower thickness, resulting in increased energy density due to the cathode occupying less space inside the cell.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication KR20180077794A (used attached machine translation), hereafter Lee, as stated above for claim 10, in view of Published Application US20190131651A1, hereafter Park.
Regarding claim 11, Lee is silent on wherein the electrolyte comprises a phosphoric ester additive; and based on a weight of the electrolyte, a percentage of the phosphoric ester additive is 2% to 4%.
In the analogous art of Li-S secondary battery electrolytes, Park discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a phosphoric ester additive; and based on a weight of the electrolyte, a percentage of the phosphoric ester additive is 2% to 4% ([0112] triethyl phosphite additive in electrolyte included at 0.1 to 5% by weight, in order to improve the lifespan characteristics of the battery, inhibit a decrease in capacity of the battery, and improve the discharge capacity of the battery, which encompasses the claimed range of 2% to 4%. 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)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Lee to include a triethyl phosphite additive in the amount of 2% to 4% as disclosed by Park in order to improve the lifespan characteristics of the battery, inhibit a decrease in capacity of the battery, and improve the discharge capacity of the battery, as suggested by Park.
Regarding claim 12, Park further discloses wherein the phosphoric ester additive comprises triethyl phosphite ([0112] triethyl phosphite).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights