DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-141475, filed on August 31st, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on February 15th, 2024 and March 6th, 2025 have been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 9-10 recite the limitation “porosity of the mixture layer in the first region is higher than porosity of the mixture layer in the second region.” This appears to be a typographical error and should most likely read (with emphasis): “a porosity of the mixture layer in the first region is higher than a porosity of the mixture layer in the second region.”
This error also occurs in Claim 2, lines 11-12 and Claim 4, lines 11-12.
Claim 1, lines 11-12 recite the limitation “content of the conductive agent in the first region is lower than content of the conductive agent in the second region.” This appears to be a typographical error and should most likely read (with emphasis): “a content of the conductive agent in the first region is lower than a content of the conductive agent in the second region.”
This error also occurs in Claim 2, lines 13-14 and Claim 4, lines 13-14.
Claim 3, lines 2-3 recite the limitation “a difference between surface resistivity in the first region and surface resistivity in the second region.” This appears to be a typographical error and should most likely read (with emphasis): “a difference between a surface resistivity in the first region and a surface resistivity in the second region.”
This error also occurs in Claim 5, lines 2-3 and Claim 7, lines 2-3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art
Kim US PG Publication 2015/0340730 (“Kim”)
Yushin US PG Publication 2012/0251886 (“Yushin”)
Lee US PG Publication 2016/0372807 (“Lee”)
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim US PG Publication 2015/0340730.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte (corresponding to the instantly claimed non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery) ([0003]-[0009], [0135], entire disclosure dependent upon), comprising:
an electrode structure (electrode assembly) in which a first electrode (either positive electrode 20 or a negative electrode 30) and a second electrode (the other of either the positive electrode 20 or the negative electrode 30) having polarities different from each other (i.e. positive versus negative) are located facing each other across a first separator 42 (Fig. 4, [0012], [0070]-[0071], [0082]), and a battery case (battery housing) that houses the electrode assembly ([0133]), wherein
the first electrode has a mixture layer containing a conducting agent (conductive agent) ([0100], [0104]),
when the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery is used in a fixed state (as is after insertion), the mixture layer has a first region located toward an upper part in a vertical direction, and a second region located toward a lower part in the vertical direction (Fig. 4),
a porosity of the mixture layer in the first region is higher than a porosity of the mixture layer in the second region ([0110]-[0111]), and
a content of the conductive agent in the first region is lower than a content of the conductive agent in the second region ([0110]-[0112]), and the conductive agent contained in the first region is selected from a list including carbon fibers (fibrous carbon), while the conductive agent contained in the second region is selected from a list including acetylene black (wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that acetylene black is a granular carbon – as evidenced by paragraph [0034] of Applicant’s own PG Publication).
PNG
media_image1.png
683
1249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Kim
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US PG Publication 2015/0340730 in view of Yushin US PG Publication 2012/0251886.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte (corresponding to the instantly claimed non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery) ([0003]-[0009], [0135], entire disclosure dependent upon), comprising:
an electrode structure (electrode assembly) in which a first electrode (either positive electrode 20 or a negative electrode 30) and a second electrode (the other of either the positive electrode 20 or the negative electrode 30) having polarities different from each other (i.e. positive versus negative) are located facing each other across a first separator 42 (Fig. 4, [0012], [0070]-[0071], [0082]), and a cylindrically shaped battery case (a bottom tubular outer can) that houses the electrode assembly ([0133]), wherein
the first electrode has a mixture layer containing a conducting agent (conductive agent) ([0100], [0104]),
assuming that a direction in which the electrode assembly is inserted into the outer can is an insertion direction, the mixture layer has a first region located toward a top portion of the outer can in the insertion direction, and a second region located toward a bottom portion of the outer can in the insertion direction (Fig. 4),
a porosity of the mixture layer in the first region is higher than a porosity of the mixture layer in the second region ([0110]-[0111]), and
a content of the conductive agent in the first region is lower than a content of the conductive agent in the second region ([0110]-[0112]), and the conductive agent contained in the first region is selected from a list including carbon fibers (fibrous carbon), while the conductive agent contained in the second region is selected from a list including acetylene black (wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that acetylene black is a granular carbon – as evidenced by paragraph [0034] of Applicant’s own PG Publication).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose a sealing assembly.
However, Yushin discloses a lithium-ion battery ([0003], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprised within a cylindrical battery case 5 ([0129]). Yushin teaches a sealing member 6 that seals the battery case 5 that closes the upper opening of the battery case 5 to encase the anode, cathode, and separator within a closed environment (Fig. 14, [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Kim to further include a sealing assembly that closes an opening of the outer can in order to encase the first electrode, second electrode, and separator within a closed environment, as taught by Yushin.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a nonaqueous electrolyte (corresponding to the instantly claimed non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery) ([0003]-[0009], [0135], entire disclosure dependent upon), comprising:
an electrode structure (electrode assembly) in which a first electrode (either positive electrode 20 or a negative electrode 30) and a second electrode (the other of either the positive electrode 20 or the negative electrode 30) having polarities different from each other (i.e. positive versus negative) are located facing each other across a first separator 42 (Fig. 4, [0012], [0070]-[0071], [0082]), and a cylindrically shaped battery case (a bottom tubular outer can) that houses the electrode assembly ([0133]), wherein
the first electrode has a mixture layer containing a conducting agent (conductive agent) ([0100], [0104]),
assuming that a direction in which the electrode assembly is inserted into the outer can is an insertion direction, the mixture layer has a first region located toward a top portion of the outer can in the insertion direction, and a second region located toward a bottom portion of the outer can in the insertion direction (Fig. 4),
a porosity of the mixture layer in the first region is higher than a porosity of the mixture layer in the second region ([0110]-[0111]), and
a content of the conductive agent in the first region is lower than a content of the conductive agent in the second region ([0110]-[0112]), and the conductive agent contained in the first region is selected from a list including carbon fibers (fibrous carbon) ([0122]), while the conductive agent contained in the second region is selected from a list including acetylene black (wherein the skilled artisan would recognize that acetylene black is a granular carbon – as evidenced by paragraph [0034] of Applicant’s own PG Publication) ([0122]).
Kim fails to explicitly disclose a sealing assembly.
However, Yushin discloses a lithium-ion battery ([0003], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprised within a cylindrical battery case 5 ([0129]). Yushin teaches a sealing member 6 that seals the battery case 5 that closes the upper opening of the battery case 5 to encase the anode, cathode, and separator within a closed environment (Fig. 14, [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Kim to further include a sealing assembly that closes an opening of the outer can in order to encase the first electrode, second electrode, and separator within a closed environment, as taught by Yushin.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US PG Publication 2015/0340730, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Lee US PG Publication 2016/0372807.
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1.
Kim is silent as to the surface resistivity of the first and second regions.
However, Lee discloses a cathode having a porous carbon structure including varying porosities (Abstract, [0041]-[0044], entire disclosure dependent upon). Lee teaches that it is beneficial for the entire porous carbon structure of the cathode to have a low surface area, specifically 5 Ω/cm2 or less in order to have improved conductivity ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Kim such that the surface resistivity in the first region and the surface resistivity in the second region are 5 Ω/cm2 or less in order to have improved conductivity, as taught by Lee.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a difference between the surface resistivity in the first region and the surface resistivity in the second region of Kim in view of Lee is 100% or less (which encompasses the claimed range of 20% or less)1 relative to the surface resistivity in the second region.
1 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).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1) Kim discloses wherein the granular carbon is selected from a list including acetylene black ([0122]). While Kim teaches that the conducting agent (including the fibrous carbon) may be any material that is generally available as a conducting agent for a lithium battery in the art ([0122]), Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibrous carbon is carbon nanotubes2,3. However, Lee discloses a cathode having a porous carbon structure including varying porosities (Abstract, [0041]-[0042], entire disclosure dependent upon). Lee teaches the use of carbon nanotubes as a carbonaceous material for a battery in order to reduce the need for additional materials, such as a binder ([0038], [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Kim such that the fibrous carbon is carbon nanotubes in order to reduce the need for additional materials, such as a binder, as taught by Lee.
2 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
3 The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US PG Publication 2015/0340730 in view of Yushin US PG Publication 2012/0251886, as applied to Claim 4, further in view of Lee US PG Publication 2016/0372807.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 4.
Kim is silent as to the surface resistivity of the first and second regions.
However, Lee discloses a cathode having a porous carbon structure including varying porosities (Abstract, [0041]-[0042], entire disclosure dependent upon). Lee teaches that it is beneficial for the entire porous carbon structure of the cathode to have a low surface area, specifically 5 Ω/cm2 or less in order to have improved conductivity ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Kim such that the surface resistivity in the first region and the surface resistivity in the second region are 5 Ω/cm2 or less in order to have improved conductivity, as taught by Lee.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a difference between the surface resistivity in the first region and the surface resistivity in the second region of Kim in view of Lee is 100% or less (which encompasses the claimed range of 20% or less)1 relative to the surface resistivity in the second region.
1 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).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim in view of Yushin teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 4, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 4) Kim discloses wherein the granular carbon is selected from a list including acetylene black ([0122]). While Kim teaches that the conducting agent (including the fibrous carbon) may be any material that is generally available as a conducting agent for a lithium battery in the art ([0122]), Kim in view of Yushin does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibrous carbon is carbon nanotubes2,3. However, Lee discloses a cathode having a porous carbon structure including varying porosities (Abstract, [0041]-[0042], entire disclosure dependent upon). Lee teaches the use of carbon nanotubes as a carbonaceous material for a battery in order to reduce the need for additional materials, such as a binder ([0038], [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Kim in view of Yushin such that the fibrous carbon is carbon nanotubes in order to reduce the need for additional materials, such as a binder, as taught by Lee.
2 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
3 The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US PG Publication 2015/0340730 in view of Yushin US PG Publication 2012/0251886, as applied to Claim 2, further in view of Lee US PG Publication 2016/0372807.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 2.
Kim is silent as to the surface resistivity of the first and second regions.
However, Lee discloses a cathode having a porous carbon structure including varying porosities (Abstract, [0041]-[0042], entire disclosure dependent upon). Lee teaches that it is beneficial for the entire porous carbon structure of the cathode to have a low surface area, specifically 5 Ω/cm2 or less in order to have improved conductivity ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Kim such that the surface resistivity in the first region and the surface resistivity in the second region are 5 Ω/cm2 or less in order to have improved conductivity, as taught by Lee.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a difference between the surface resistivity in the first region and the surface resistivity in the second region of Kim in view of Lee is 100% or less (which encompasses the claimed range of 20% or less)1 relative to the surface resistivity in the second region.
1 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).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim in view of Yushin teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 2, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 2) Kim discloses wherein the granular carbon is selected from a list including acetylene black ([0122]). While Kim teaches that the conducting agent (including the fibrous carbon) may be any material that is generally available as a conducting agent for a lithium battery in the art ([0122]), Kim in view of Yushin does not explicitly disclose wherein the fibrous carbon is carbon nanotubes2,3. However, Lee discloses a cathode having a porous carbon structure including varying porosities (Abstract, [0041]-[0042], entire disclosure dependent upon). Lee teaches the use of carbon nanotubes as a carbonaceous material for a battery in order to reduce the need for additional materials, such as a binder ([0038], [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Kim in view of Yushin such that the fibrous carbon is carbon nanotubes in order to reduce the need for additional materials, such as a binder, as taught by Lee.
2 The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
3 The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights