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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: S21 (FIG. 2) and 221A (FIG 4B). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1,9,11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ODANI et al (US 20200119401) and GUEN (US 20190312252).
Regarding claim 1, Odani teaches:
An electrode wound body that has a positive electrode 21 and a negative electrode 22 stacked with a separator 23 interposed therebetween and has a wound structure and a positive electrode current collector 21A and a negative electrode current collector 22A, accommodated in an exterior can. This would body 20 is impregnated with an electrolytic solution [0275, 0280 and 0297]. Where this electrolytic solution includes a solvent and an electrolyte salt (e.g
L
i
P
F
6
,
L
i
B
F
4
…
) [0252]. Also, teaches that the content of the electrolyte salt is not particularly limited, but preferably 0.3 mol/kg to 3 mol/kg with respect to the solvent [0262].
Odani is silent about the covered part for the positive and negative electrode or the exposition. In the same field of endeavor, electrode for battery, Guen teaches a battery with a first electrode 121 and a second electrode 122 that include an electrode activated portions 21a and 22a, which are regions where an active material is coated on a thin plate that is formed of a metal foil , and electrode uncoated regions 21b and 22b, which are regions where an active material is not coated [0030], considered equivalent to the covered part and the un-covered part by the active material layer. The first electrode active material uncoated (i.e., non-covered) regions 21b and the second electrode active material uncoated region 22b contact the current collecting members 140 and 142, Fig 2 and 3 [0040]. The first and second electrode being equivalent to the positive and negative electrode. Guen disclose the first and second electrode active material non-coated region are connected to the current collector at the same end of the spirally wound electrode assembly (FIG. 3) and is silent about the first electrode or second electrode non-coated part is joined to the first or second current collector at the other end of the wound electrode body, However, making the first uncoated region of the first electrode and the second uncoated region of the second electrode at two end of the wound electrode assembly instead of the same end as disclosed by Guen would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art since such change is considered a mere change in position, and according to the MPEP, shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation. (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C.). Guen discloses the uncoated region 21b and 22b of the first and second electrode are bend by bending towards a central axis of the wound structure and overlap each other (FIG 3) [0040]. It would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to implement the covered and not covered part disclosed by Guen into the positive and negative electrode disclosed by Odani since this embodiment provides a known structural arrangement for covering and protecting the current collector, without changing the basic operation.
Regarding claim 9,11 and 12, Odani teaches:
The electrolytic solution with a polycyclic aromatic compound (formula 1). Where R1 to R8 represent any of… a halogen group, a monovalent nitrogen-containing hydrocarbon group… [0011]. Where this halogen group is for example any of a fluorine group (—F) [0056]. Also, teaches other materials for the electrolytic solution [0222]. Where any one kind or two or more kinds among solvents such as a non-aqueous solvent (organic solvent) and this is a so-called non-aqueous electrolytic solution, and this solvent may contain any one kind or two or more kinds among… a nitrile (mononitrile) compound [0223] or a dinitrile compound which include succinonitrile [0242].
Regarding claim 13, Odani teaches:
The fabrication of the negative electrode 34 by mixing silicon (first metal-based material) [0440].
Regarding claim 14, Odani teaches:
The fabrication of the positive electrode 33 was prepared with lithium cobalt oxide [0413].
Regarding claim 15, Odani teaches:
A controller that controls operation of the lithium-ion secondary battery [0492]
Regarding claim 16, Odani teaches:
According to the claim 14, an electrically driven vehicle comprising: a lithium-ion secondary battery; a converter that converts electric power supplied from the lithium-ion secondary battery into driving force; a driving unit to be driven in accordance with the driving force; and a controller that controls operation of the lithium-ion secondary battery.
Regarding claim 17, Odani teaches:
Driven vehicles that can be include this battery pack. This electrically driven vehicle can travel using, for example, either of the engine 75 or the motor 77 as a driving source. The engine 75 is a main power source, and examples thereof include a gasoline engine [0395]. Driven vehicle includes, for example, a controller 74, an engine 75, a power source 76, a driving motor 77, a differential gear 78, a power generator 79, a transmission 80 and a clutch 81, inverters 82 and 83, and various sensors 84 inside a metal housing 73. Odani or combination is silent about the electric aircraft, however it would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to recognized that the disclosed battery, inverter, and electric motor arrangement could be applied to an electric aircraft.
Regarding claim 18, Odani teaches:
An electric tool including: the lithium-ion secondary battery according to any one of (1) to (11); and a moving unit to which electric power is supplied from the lithium-ion secondary battery [0503 to 0505].
Regarding claim 19, Odani teaches:
An electronic device including: the lithium-ion secondary battery according to any one of (1) to (11) as an electric power supply source [0506 and 0507].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ODANI et al (US 20200119401) and GUEN (US 20190312252) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO (2020151658).
Regarding claim 2, Odani teaches:
Any one kind or two or more kinds among electrolyte salts such as lithium salts, for example, for example, the lithium salt such as LiPF6 , LiBF4 [0251-0252].
Combination is silent about the weight percentage of the lithium salt. In the same field of endeavor, electrolytic solution, WO’ 1658 teaches an electrolytic solution that includes a lithium salt and the weight percentage of the lithium salt additive is about 0.01 wt% top about 10 wt% [Pag. 25, ln 7-9]. It would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to select the range of the weight percentage disclosed by WP’ 1658 since the selection of an appropriate concentration of an electrolytic salt would have been a routine optimization within the skill of the art, and WO’1658 provides a known concentration for achieving the desired electrolyte properties with a known lithium salt disclosed by Odani.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ODANI et al (US 20200119401) and GUEN (US 20190312252) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO (2018139448).
Regarding claim 3, combination doesn’t teach:
The positive electrode active material layer has an area density that is greater than or equal to 21.5 milligrams per square centimeter and less than or equal to 23.5 milligrams per square centimeter.
In the same field of endeavor, positive electrode material layer, WO’ 9448 teaches the amount of the positive electrode active material layer 2 b per unit area was 22.5 mg / cm 2 [P88]. It would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to apply the 22.5mg/cm2 positive electrode active material layer because the areal loading of the positive electrode is a routine electrode design parameter used to balance electrode capacity, energy density, and electrode thickness in a secondary battery.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ODANI et al (US 20200119401) and GUEN (US 20190312252) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of article by Mehrnaz Javadipour “Analysis of current density in the electrode and electrolyte of lithium-ion cells” (March 2021).
Regarding claim 4, Guen teaches:
A first electrode 121 and a second electrode 122 that include an electrode activated portions 21a and 22a, which are regions where an active material is coated on a thin plate that is formed of a metal foil, and electrode uncoated regions 21b and 22b, which are regions where an active material is not coated [0030].
Combination is silent about the ratio between the positive electrode covered part and the positive electrode current collector greater than or equal to 5.0 and less than or equal to 6.5. In the same field of endeavor, current density in the electrode, according to the authors in different articles, they analyzed the distribution of current density inside of the electrode along its height and width in a prototype cell in a lab‐scale size. In this paper, the distribution of cell's current via the formation process of the graphite electrode has been investigated. Similarly, in other article, several aged electrodes were analyzed to present that even small current densities can cause intense gradients inside the electrodes with its subsequent effect on the magnetic fields [Sec. 1, Pag. 177]. Mehnaz in [Sec 4, pag 180-183], teaches the analyze of a Nissan Leaf lithium-ion cell and report in Table 2 the result of a positive electrode thickness of 60 μm and a positive electrode current collector thickness of 10 μm, these disclosed values yield a thickness ratio of 6.0. These physical parameters are used to model an actual Nissan leaf cell, the authors further indicate that the model uses the same sizes and parameters as the experimental cell. The article does not expressly refer to this thickness dimension as the covered part. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider the discloses dimensions when implementing or optimizing the Guen’s wound electrode body, particularly because the dimensions were representative of an actual commercial lithium-ion battery cell. Selecting these dimensions would have been a predictable modification involving routine optimization of electrode construction, without changing the fundamental operation of Guen’s secondary battery.
Claim(s) 5 to 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ODANI et al (US 20200119401) and GUEN (US 20190312252) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO (2021225396).
Regarding claim 5: combination doesn’t teach:
The positive electrode active material layer is provided with a positive electrode film on a surface of the positive electrode active material layer, the positive electrode film including a fluorine compound and a nitrogen compound, and the negative electrode active material layer is provided with a negative electrode film on a surface of the negative electrode active material layer, the negative electrode film including a fluorine compound and a nitrogen compound.
In the same field of endeavor, lithium secondary battery, WO’ 5396 teaches a binder for the positive and negative electrode material [P37 and P48]. Specific examples of the binder include a fluoride-compound like polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and a nitrogen-compound like polyacrylonitrile, which may be used alone or in combination of two or more thereof [P37]. It would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to improve the positive and negative electrode active material disclose by Odani and Guen with the implementation of a binder since WO’ 5396 teaches that the binder serves to improve adhesion between the positive electrode material particles and the adhesive force between the positive electrode active material and the positive electrode current collector [P37].
Regarding claim 6 and 8: combination doesn’t teach:
A weight ratio of a fluorine content to a nitrogen content in the in the positive electrode film is greater than or equal to 3 and less than or equal to 50, and a weight ratio of a fluorine content to a nitrogen content in the negative electrode film is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 30 or the weight ratio of the fluorine content to the nitrogen content in the positive electrode film is greater than or equal to 15 and less than or equal to 35, and the weight ratio of the fluorine content to the nitrogen content in the negative electrode film is greater than or equal to 5 and less than or equal to 15.
In the same field of endeavor, lithium secondary battery, WO’ 5396 teaches that the binder may be included in an amount of 1 to 30 wt% with respect to the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer [P37]. It would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to select the disclosed weight percentage of WO’5396 because the amount of a binder is a known variable that can be adjusted to provide sufficient adhesion and mechanical strength while maintaining a suitable amount of active material. Further, because WO’5396 teaches a binder that can comprise both compounds, the fluorine and the nitrogen, adjusting their relative amounts to provide a greater amount of the fluorine compound would have been a routine optimization of the binder composition to achieve the desired electrode properties, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ODANI et al (US 20200119401) and GUEN (US 20190312252) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the NPL by Nicolas Delaporte “Protection of
L
i
F
e
P
O
4
against Moisture” 2022.
Regarding claim 7, Odani teaches:
The bonding state of elements, can be confirmed using, for example, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) [0317].
Combination is silent about the weight ratio of the fluorine content to the nitrogen content calculation. In the same field of endeavor, lithium-ion batteries, Delaporte et al. (2020) demonstrates that XPS can be used to detect and quantify both fluorine and nitrogen in a material. The reference performs XPS analysis and determines semi-quantitative atomic concentrations from the individual XPS peak areas using relative sensitivity factors [abs and Sec. 2]. Table 2 reports both N 1S and F 1S concentrations. It would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to identify and understood that XPS was a known technique for determining the amounts of fluorine and nitrogen present in a compound and/or material.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ODANI et al (US 20200119401) and GUEN (US 20190312252) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokuoka (US 20210135173).
Regarding claim 10, combination doesn’t teach:
The fluorine compound includes at least one of fluorinated ethylene carbonate, trifluorocarbonate, trifluoroethyl methyl carbonate, a fluorinated carboxylic acid ester, or a fluorine ether.
In the same field of endeavor, battery modules, Tokuoka teaches the use of a known additive on the electrolytic solution, for example the fluorinated ethylene carbonate (FEC) [122-124]. It would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to use the fluorinated mention above in the electrolytic solution of Odani or Guen because according to Tokuoka this is commonly used additive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kang et al (US 20050026043) and SI et al (US 2020/0144603).
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICOLAS J ROSA BERRIOS at telephone number (571)270-1856.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ Nicolas Rosa / Examiner / Art Unit 1741
08/18/2023
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights