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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 2, “a group” should read “the group”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo et al. (EP 1184918 A2) in view of Yuan (WO 2023015489 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2:
Tanjo et al. teaches a rechargeable lithium ion battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte exhibiting lithium ion conduction (0017). The electrolyte (electrolytic solution) is filled between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (0018). As the non-aqueous electrolytic solution, various kinds of solvent exhibiting lithium ion conduction are preferable, where cyclic ester carbonates can be used singly or by appropriately mixing them (0026), i.e. the positive electrode and negative electrode are immersed in an organic anhydrous electrolyte. The negative electrode active material is carbon material such as activated carbon, and metal oxide such as Nb2O5 can be used singly or in a mixed state (0021), and the positive electrode is made from lithium manganese oxide (LiMnO2, LiMn2O4) (0020).
However, Tanjo et al. does not teach wherein the positive electrode includes a positive active material composition includes 0.001 wt% to 5.0 wt% niobium based on a weight of the lithium manganese oxide.
Yuan teaches the lithium manganese oxide of the present application further contains niobium element, based on the weight of the positive electrode active material, the content of the niobium element is C%, which satisfies 0<C ≤1% (0013).
Yuan also teaches the niobium element within the above content range can improve the high-temperature cycle performance and storage capacity retention performance of the electrochemical device (0014).
In light of the motivation for using 0.001 wt% to 5.0 wt% niobium disclosed by Yuan as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 0.001 wt% to 5.0 wt% niobium in the positive electrode material composition of the rechargeable lithium ion battery of Tanjo et al. in order to improve the high-temperature cycle performance and storage capacity retention performance.
Regarding claims 3-4:
Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan teaches a rechargeable lithium ion battery as set forth above.
Further, Tanjo et al. teaches a conductive substance such as carbon black may be added to the paste (0023).
Regarding claim 5:
Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan teaches a rechargeable lithium ion battery as set forth above.
Given that the rechargeable lithium ion battery of Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan discloses the energy storage cell as presently claimed, the negative active material composition would necessarily inherently consist of more than 50 wt% negative active material, or wherein the positive active material composition consists of more than 50 wt% positive active material, or both.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo et al. (EP 1184918 A2) in view of Yuan (WO 2023015489 A1) and Groombridge et al. (US 20250033991).
Regarding claim 6:
Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan teaches a rechargeable lithium ion battery as set forth above.
However, Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan does not teach wherein the Nb2O5 particles have a particle size of D90 between 1 µm to 100 µm.
Groombridge et al. teaches a mixed niobium oxide may have a D90 particle diameter of no more than 200 μm. By maintaining a D90 particle diameter within this range, the proportion of the particle size distribution with large particle sizes is minimised, making the material easier to manufacture into a homogenous electrode (0088).
In light of the motivation for using a mixed niobium oxide D90 of no more than 200 μm disclosed by Groombridge et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixed niobium oxide D90 of no more than 200 μm in the rechargeable lithium ion battery of Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan in order to make the material easier to manufacture.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo et al. (EP 1184918 A2) in view of Yuan (WO 2023015489 A1) and Yaegashi et al. (US 20140120385 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8:
Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan teaches a rechargeable lithium ion battery as set forth above.
However, Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan does not teach wherein the activated carbon particles have a BET nitrogen surface area of at least 60 m2/g and wherein the activated carbon particles have a particle size D90 between 5 µm to 30 µm.
Yaegashi et al. teaches a composition for a negative electrode active material (Abstract). Compositions A comprises activated carbon having a BET surface area of about 1200 m2/g and having a D90-value of about 9 µm (0107) to improve deep cycle life performance (0116).
In light of the motivation for using activated carbon having a BET surface area of about 1200 m2/g and having a D90-value of about 9 µm disclosed by Yaegashi et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use activated carbon having a BET surface area of about 1200 m2/g and having a D90-value of about 9 µm in the rechargeable lithium ion battery of Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan in order to improve deep cycle life performance.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo et al. (EP 1184918 A2) in view of Yuan (WO 2023015489 A1) and Kim et al. (EP 4160749 A1).
Regarding claims 9-13:
Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan teaches a rechargeable lithium ion battery as set forth above.
However, Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan does not teach wherein the positive electrode includes 1 wt% to 10 wt% carbon black, 0.3 wt% to 2 wt% CNTs, and/or 0.3 wt% to 2 wt% graphene.
Kim et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery and a positive electrode active material containing a conductive material which may include one or more materials selected from the group consisting of carbon black, graphene, and carbon nanotubes (0017). The conductive material may be included in an amount of 0.1 to 5 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode mixture layer (0018), and the conductive material is a material used to improve electrical performance of the positive electrode (0048). Therefore, the positive electrode material can comprise carbon black, CNTs, or graphene each in 0.1 to 5 wt.%. Further, when only CNTs are used, the difference between the amount of CNTs and graphene would be 0.1-5 wt.% (0.1%-0% to 5%-0%). Additionally, given that Kim et al. disclose that “one or more” materials can be used, it can be found that that a total wt % of a mixture of carbon nanotubes and graphene is 5 wt%, with 2.5 wt % of carbon nanotubes and 2.5 wt % of graphene. When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
In light of the motivation for using 0.1 to 5 parts by weight of carbon black, graphene, and/or carbon nanotubes disclosed by Kim et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 0.1 to 5 parts by weight of carbon black, graphene, and/or carbon nanotubes in the rechargeable lithium ion battery of Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan in order to improve electrical performance of the positive electrode.
Claim 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo et al. (EP 1184918 A2) in view of Yuan (WO 2023015489 A1) and Kamine et al. (US 20210351437).
Regarding claim 14:
Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan teaches a rechargeable lithium ion battery as set forth above.
Further, Tanjo et al. teaches LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4, and LiAsF6 can be used as the electrolyte, i.e. lithium conductive salt, in the non-aqueous electrolytic solution (0027).
However, Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan does not teach wherein the organic anhydrous electrolyte includes 80 vol% to 95 vol% acetonitrile and 5 vol% to 20 vol% ethylenecarbonate.
Kamine et al. teaches a nonaqueous secondary battery (Abstract) using 5-95 vol% acetonitrile increases ionic conductivity (0058) and 0.5-50 wt.% cyclic carbonate such as ethylene carbonate improve the stability of the electrolyte solution (0078-0079).
Although there is no explicit disclosure of a vol % of ethylene carbonate in Kaine et al., given the broad range of the wt. % disclosed by Kamine et al. and the broad range of the vol % claimed, the values would necessarily inherently overlap with the vol % presently claimed.
In light of the motivation for using 5-95 vol% acetonitrile and 0.5-50 wt.% ethylene carbonate disclosed by Kamine et al. as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 5-95 vol% acetonitrile and 0.5-50 wt.% ethylene carbonate in the electrolyte of the rechargeable lithium ion battery of Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan in order to increase ionic conductivity and improve the stability of the electrolyte solution.
Claim 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo et al. (EP 1184918 A2) in view of Yuan (WO 2023015489 A1) and Osaki (JP H0785888).
Regarding claim 14-15:
Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan teaches a rechargeable lithium ion battery as set forth above.
Further, Tanjo et al. teaches LiPF6, LiBF4, LiClO4, and LiAsF6 can be used as the electrolyte, i.e. lithium conductive salt, in the non-aqueous electrolytic solution (0027).
However, Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan does not teach wherein the organic anhydrous electrolyte includes 80 vol% to 95 vol% acetonitrile and 5 vol% to 20 vol% ethylene carbonate.
Osaki teaches 10-80 vol% solvent including ethylene carbonate and 20-90 vol.% solvent including acetonitrile (0086) in order to obtain excellent chemical stability, oxidation-reduction resistance, high-temperature operating performance, storage performance, rate characteristics, and cycle life, as well as a high conductivity, a high flash point, and a non-toxic, highly safe battery (0011, 0093).
In light of the motivation for using 10-80 vol% solvent including ethylene carbonate and 20-90 vol.% solvent including acetonitrile disclosed by Osaki as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use 10-80 vol% solvent including ethylene carbonate and 20-90 vol.% solvent including acetonitrile in the electrolyte of the rechargeable lithium ion battery of Tanjo et al. in view of Yuan in order to obtain excellent chemical stability, oxidation-reduction resistance, high-temperature operating performance, storage performance, rate characteristics, and cycle life, as well as a high conductivity, a high flash point, and a non-toxic, highly safe battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON E. BROWN whose telephone number is (571)775-5984. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 5712721123. 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.
/MADISON ELIZABETH BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights