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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onodera et al (US 20210193995 A1) in view of Nishimura et al (WO 2012039477 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Onodera teaches an electrochemical apparatus (secondary battery 10; Paragraph [0016]) with a negative electrode 12 comprising a current collector 30, a first layer (first negative electrode mixture layer 32), and a second layer (second negative electrode mixture layer 34; Paragraph [0022]). The first and second layers are both comprised of graphite (graphite particles; Paragraph [0024]) and are oriented such that the first layer 32 is located between the current collector 30 and the second layer 34 (Paragraph [0022]). Onodera does not disclose measurements of thermal decomposition.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Nishimura teaches a negative electrode including an active material comprised of a first layer made from graphite (graphite core material) and a second layer (low-crystalline carbon coating layer) coating the first (Paragraph [0027]). As seen in FIG. 3, the thermal decomposition temperature (measured as the oxidation peak) of the second layer was 599 °C and the thermal decomposition temperature of the first layer was 801 °C, as measured by TG-DTA. The difference between these temperatures (202 °C) is between 100 °C and 500 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). The coating layer is applied to prevent the electrolyte solution from coming into direct contact with the graphite core material, which reduces the electrolyte decomposition reaction during charge/discharge cycles and improves battery performance (Paragraph [0071]). Onodera discloses that graphite particles with varying degrees of graphitization may be used in the negative electrode mixture layers with the limitation that the volume change ratio upon charge and discharge are different (Paragraph [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the coated graphite material taught by Nishimura as at least one of the layers in the invention of Onodera to reduce electrolyte decomposition reactions and improve battery performance. A particular embodiment in which the first negative electrode mixture layer comprises an uncoated graphite from Nishimura and the second negative electrode mixture layer comprises the coated graphite from Nishimura will be referred to as modified Onodera.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Onodera teaches the electrochemical apparatus of Claim 1, in which the difference in the thermal decomposition temperatures of the two layers is 202 °C, which falls between 100 °C ≤ A – B ≤ 450 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Onodera teaches the electrochemical apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the thermal decomposition temperature of the first layer is 801 °C, which falls between the range of 800 °C to 1000 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Onodera teaches the electrochemical apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the thermal decomposition temperature of the first layer is 801 °C, which falls between the range of 800 °C to 900 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Onodera teaches the electrochemical apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the difference in the thermal decomposition temperatures of the two layers is 202 °C, which falls between 200 °C ≤ A – B ≤ 400 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Onodera teaches the electrochemical apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the thermal decomposition temperature of the second layer is 599 °C, which falls between the range of 500 °C to 650 °C and the difference in the thermal decomposition temperatures of the two layers is 202 °C, which falls between 100 °C ≤ A – B ≤ 400 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Onodera teaches the electrochemical apparatus of Claim 1. Onodera further teaches a thickness ratio of the second layer to the first layer of 3:7 to 7:3, which can be rewritten as approximately 0.43 to 2.33, which overlaps the range of 0.1 – 1.0. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Onodera teaches the electrochemical apparatus of Claim 1. Onodera further teaches a thickness ratio of the second layer to the first layer of 3:7 to 7:3, which can be rewritten as approximately 0.43 to 2.33, which overlaps the range of 0.25 – 0.67. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Onodera teaches the electrochemical apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the second layer has decomposition characteristic peaks at 599 °C and at 801 °C and the first layer has only one decomposition characteristic peak at 801 °C. Although the peak at 599 °C is technically outside the 600 °C – 900 °C range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Onodera teaches an electrochemical apparatus (secondary battery 10; Paragraph [0016]) with a negative electrode 12 comprising a current collector 30, a first layer (first negative electrode mixture layer 32), and a second layer (second negative electrode mixture layer 34; Paragraph [0022]). The first and second layers are both comprised of graphite (graphite particles; Paragraph [0024]) and are oriented such that the first layer 32 is located between the current collector 30 and the second layer 34 (Paragraph [0022]). Modified Onodera further teaches the thermal decomposition temperature (measured as the oxidation peak) of the second layer was 599 °C and the thermal decomposition temperature of the first layer was 801 °C, as measured by TG-DTA. The difference between these temperatures (202 °C) is between 100 °C and 500 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Onodera is silent regarding an electronic apparatus which comprises the electrochemical apparatus. However, Nishimura teaches the electrochemical apparatus (secondary battery) may be used in electric vehicles, power tools, and other electronic apparatuses. The idea of matching an electronic device with an electrochemical apparatus to power said device is well known and therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the electrochemical apparatus taught by modified Onodera to power an electronic apparatus as taught by Nishimura. An embodiment of the modified Onodera wherein the electrochemical apparatus is installed for use in an electric vehicle will be referred to as further modified Onodera.
Regarding Claim 12,
Further modified Onodera teaches the electronic apparatus of Claim 11, in which the difference in the thermal decomposition temperatures of the two layers is 202 °C, which falls between 100 °C ≤ A – B ≤ 450 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 13,
Further modified Onodera teaches the electronic apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the thermal decomposition temperature of the first layer is 801 °C, which falls between the range of 800 °C to 1000 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 14,
Further modified Onodera teaches the electronic apparatus of Claim 13, wherein the thermal decomposition temperature of the first layer is 801 °C, which falls between the range of 800 °C to 900 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 16,
Further modified Onodera teaches the electronic apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the difference in the thermal decomposition temperatures of the two layers is 202 °C, which falls between 200 °C ≤ A – B ≤ 400 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 17,
Further modified Onodera teaches the electronic apparatus of Claim 13, wherein the thermal decomposition temperature of the second layer is 599 °C, which falls between the range of 500 °C to 650 °C and the difference in the thermal decomposition temperatures of the two layers is 202 °C, which falls between 100 °C ≤ A – B ≤ 400 °C. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 18,
Further modified Onodera teaches the electronic apparatus of Claim 11. Onodera further teaches a thickness ratio of the second layer to the first layer of 3:7 to 7:3, which can be rewritten as approximately 0.43 to 2.33, which overlaps the range of 0.1 – 1.0. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 19,
Further modified Onodera teaches the electronic apparatus of Claim 11. Onodera further teaches a thickness ratio of the second layer to the first layer of 3:7 to 7:3, which can be rewritten as approximately 0.43 to 2.33, which overlaps the range of 0.25 – 0.67. 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) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claim 20,
Further modified Onodera teaches the electronic apparatus of Claim 11, wherein the second layer has decomposition characteristic peaks at 599 °C and at 801 °C and the first layer has only one decomposition characteristic peak at 801 °C. Although the peak at 599 °C is technically outside the 600 °C – 900 °C range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onodera in view of Nishimura as applied to claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 above, and further in view of Jiang et al (Thermal and electrochemical studies of carbons for Li-ion batteries: 1. Thermal analysis of petroleum and pitch cokes, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 85, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 261-268).
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Onodera teaches the electrochemical apparatus of Claim 3, but does not teach a thermal decomposition temperature peak in the range of 900 °C to 1,000 °C.
PNG
media_image2.png
265
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Jiang describes a relationship between the degree of graphitization and the thermal and crystallographic properties of graphitizable carbons. Jiang describes the degree of graphitization as a function of the d(002) spacing of carbons. A decrease in d(002) spacing corresponds with greater degrees of graphitization and an increased thermal decomposition temperature as seen in Fig. 6. Jiang also teaches disordered carbon (low graphitization) may have higher initial capacity than graphite but is more likely to suffer irreversible capacity loss. Onodera teaches that the graphite particles may have
varying degrees of graphitization (Paragraph [0027]) and discloses a process which includes graphitization of a precursor material (Paragraph [0028]). Subjecting the graphite particles to further graphitization until the thermal decomposition temperature is between 900 °C to 1,000 °C would decrease irreversible capacity loss and stabilize performance of the electrochemical apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further graphitize the graphite particles taught by modified Onodera.
Regarding Claim 15,
Further modified Onodera teaches the electronic apparatus of Claim 13, but does not teach a thermal decomposition temperature peak in the range of 900 °C to 1,000 °C.
However, Jiang describes a relationship between the degree of graphitization and the thermal and crystallographic properties of graphitizable carbons. Jiang describes the degree of graphitization as a function of the d(002) spacing of carbons. A decrease in d(002) spacing corresponds with greater degrees of graphitization and an increased thermal decomposition temperature as seen in Fig. 6. Jiang also teaches disordered carbon (low graphitization) may have higher initial capacity than graphite but is more likely to suffer irreversible capacity loss. Onodera teaches that the graphite particles may have varying degrees of graphitization (Paragraph [0027]) and discloses a process which includes graphitization of a precursor material (Paragraph [0028]). Subjecting the graphite particles to further graphitization until the thermal decomposition temperature is between 900 °C to 1,000 °C would decrease irreversible capacity loss and stabilize performance of the electrochemical apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further graphitize the graphite particles taught by modified Onodera.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M KNOWLAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/KEVIN M KNOWLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights