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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-9 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1
The limitation “wherein a pore ratio of the positive active material layer is 11 volume% to 16 volume%” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The claim recites a ratio but does not define what the pore volume is being comparted to or what the percentage is based on such that it defines a ratio. From further inspection of the instant specification, Fig. 3 refers to the claimed “pore ratio” parameter as porosity. For purposes of examination on the merits, it is interpreted that the claimed pore ratio corresponds to the porosity of the positive electrode active material. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claims 2-9
Claims 2-9 are rejected at least for their dependency on claim .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.
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(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190319257 A1, Ogawa et al. (hereinafter “Ogawa”).
Regarding claim 1
Ogawa teaches a positive electrode (“[t]he electrode for nonaqueous electrolyte secondary batteries according to the present embodiment is preferably used as a positive electrode”) [para. 0031] comprising:
a substrate (corresponding to aluminum current collector) [para. 0032], and
a positive active material layer on at least one surface of the substrate (collector) and comprising particles [paras. 0032 and 0051], wherein a pore ratio of the positive active material layer is 11 volume% to 16 volume% (the positive electrode active material has a void fraction of 10 to 45%) [para. 0033], and
an average diameter D50 of the particles is 8 µm to 20 µm (1 to 21 µm) [para. 0057], and wherein the positive electrode is for a battery [paras. 0031-0033].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 3
Ogawa teaches the positive electrode as set forth above, wherein: the positive active material layer comprises a first pore and a second pore of different sizes (obvious to provide a pore distribution comprising a first pore and a second pore of different sizes in order to enhance the output characteristics) [para. 0006], and a diameter of the first pore is 0.2 µm to 0.5 µm (0.1 µm to 1.0 µm) [paras. 0006 and 0041].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 4
Ogawa does not specifically disclose the first pore is 55 volume% to 65 volume% of the entire pore volume of the positive active material layer.
However, Ogawa recognizes said parameter as a result effective variable. Ogawa teaches controlling the void fraction and the relative volumes of pores of different sizes in order to improve the electrode density thereby enhancing the output characteristics [paras. 0004-0006, 0033 and 0035].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the volume% of the first pore to the entire pore volume of the positive electrode active material (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired electrode density and output characteristics. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 5
Ogawa is silent to a compression ratio of the positive active material layer is 69 volume% to 73 volume%.
However, the compression ration is directly tied to the pore ratio of the positive electrode active material. Ogawa discloses that a pore ratio (void fraction) of 10-45% provides particles that do not collapse when pressed during manufacturing, thereby avoiding the occurrence of cracks in the positive electrode material layer and improving the output characteristics [paras. 0033-0035 and 0052].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the compression ratio (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired void uniformity and output characteristics. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Furthermore, because the pore ratio (void fraction) discloses in Ogawa (10-45 %) overlaps with the claimed range of 11-16 vol. %, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6
Ogawa teaches the positive electrode as set forth above, wherein the substrate (current collector) comprises aluminum [para. 0032].
Regarding claim 7
Ogawa teaches a battery (corresponding to a nonaqueous electrolyte battery) comprising the positive electrode of claim 1 [paras. 0012, 0031-0033].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa as applied to claims 1 and 3-7 above, and further in view of US 2019/0109327 A1, Paulsen et al. (hereinafter “Paulsen”).
Regarding claim 2
Ogawa teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Ogawa is silent to a loading level (L/L) of the positive active material layer of 40 mg/cm2 to 60 mg/cm2.
Paulsen teaches a positive electrode active material where a loading level (L/L) of the positive electrode active material is at least 40 mg/cm2, said positive electrode active material having a pore ratio of less than 14 vol % [para. 0013]. Such provides high volumetric density and at the same time provides high ionic conductivity thereby enabling the material to operate in a rechargeable battery in a safe manner, and well balance with the anode material [paras. 0012-0013].
Ogawa and Paulsen are analogous inventions in the field of positive electrode active materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the positive electrode active material layer to have a loading level of at least 40 mg/cm2, as discloses in Paulsen, in order to provide a material that comprises both high volumetric density and ionic conductivity thereby enabling the material to operate in a rechargeable battery in a safe manner, and well balance with the anode material.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa as applied to claims 1 and 3-7 above, and further in view of US 2005/0164086 A1, Bofinger et al. (hereinafter “Bofinger”).
Regarding claim 8
Ogawa teaches a rechargeable battery (corresponding to a nonaqueous electrolyte battery) [paras. 0031-0033 and 0091-0092] comprising:
an electrode assembly to comprising the positive electrode of claim 1 [paras. 0031-0033, 0091-0092 and 0103-0106],
a case in which the electrode assembly is accommodated (the assembly is housed in a bag-shaped laminate pack) [para. 0105], and
an electrolyte in the case (an electrolyte liquid was injected into the laminate pack) [paras. 0091-0093 and 0105].
Ogawa is silent to a cap assembly coupled to the case and sealing the case.
Bofinger teaches a battery wherein a cap assembly (corresponding to cap 24 and annular insulating gasket 26) is coupled to a case (22) in order to provide a gas-tight and fluid-tight seal [Abstract, Fig. 1 and para. 0081].
Ogawa and Bofinger are analogous inventions in the field of rechargeable batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the battery of Ogawa to comprise a cap assembly, as in Bofinger, in order to provide a gas-tight and fluid-tight seal.
Regarding claim 9
Ogawa teaches the rechargeable battery as set forth above, wherein the case is a pouch (bag-shaped laminate pack) [Ogawa, para. 0106].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights