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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “Composite particles comprising an electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder, wherein the composite particles have an average value of area-equivalent diameter of not less than 20 µm and not more than 250 µm, a coefficient of variation of area-equivalent diameter calculated according to formula 1: (standard deviation of area-equivalent diameter/average value of area-equivalent diameter) x 100 of not less than 5% and not more than 50%, and a coefficient of density calculated according to formula 2: compressed density/bulk density of not less than 1.3 and not more than 3.5.”
The values of these parameters depend on the conditions under which they are measured, in particular the area-equivalent diameter utilizing image analysis the resolution for projection of pixel counting, contrast lighting, and edge detection algorithms, will affect the accuracy of the measurement. and compressed density is dependent on the material, temperature and pressure. While the claims are viewed in light of the specification, the specification is not read into the claims, which makes the claims indefinite.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent upon 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.
Claim(s) 1 -6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (JP2006-060193A), in view of Tominaga et al. (JP2012-116720A), in further view of Yamamoto et al. (US2015/0060725A1).
As to claim 1, Mori discloses composite particles [0112] comprising an electrode active material ([0120-0121], lithium-containing composite metal oxides such as LiCoO .sub.2 , LiNiO .sub.2 as the active material [0124-0126] as exemplified by paragraph [0030] of the instant specification), a conductive material (carbon-based conductive material [0112-0113], acetylene black, and ketjen black [0177], as exemplified by paragraph [0032] of the instant specification), and a binder ([0204-0205], diene polymer [0210] as exemplified by paragraph [0034] of the instant specification)
wherein the composite particles have an average value of area-equivalent diameter of not less than 20 µm and not more than 250 µm, (Mori discloses the active material composite particles (A-1) having a weight average particle diameter of 70 μm [0446] and a actual particular diameter of 70 µm would provide a projected image or area-equivalent diameter within the claimed range and a weight average distribution would provide an average value, thereby meeting the claimed range and it should be noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Mori is silent on the coefficient of variation however Tominaga discloses a particle diameter variation coefficient (CV value) of the composite oxide obtained by the average value of the radii of each particle and the standard deviation [0142-0146] and sets the particle diameter variation coefficient to 2.0% or more [0128] to increase the cycle capacity retention rate is increased. [0130] meeting the limitation a coefficient of variation of area-equivalent diameter calculated according to formula 1: (standard deviation of area-equivalent diameter/average value of area-equivalent diameter) x 100 of not less than 5% and not more than 50%,
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Mori with the CV value as taught by Tominaga to increase the cycle capacity.
Further it should be noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Mori does not explicitly discloses “a coefficient of density calculated according to formula 2: compressed density/bulk density of not less than 1.3 and not more than 3.5.” However Yamamoto discloses a positive electrode active substance particle being of the form of a composite oxide [0014-0016], and teaches that the positive electrode material particles need to have sufficient compressed density to sufficiently transfer electrons, but if the compressed density becomes too dense, contact area of the particles with the electrolyte is reduced, and smooth transfer of electrons is inhibited [0041]. Thus, Yamamoto identifies compressed density (which determines the compressed density/bulk density ratio) as a result effective variable.
It should be noted where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compressed density of the compressed particles of Mori, by optimizing the compressed density /bulk density ratio between 1.3 and 3.5, in order to optimize the electron transfer and the contact area of the resulting electrode.
As to claim 2, Mori discloses the same materials as claimed for the active material, conductive material and binder with the same particular structure as claimed, and as volume resistivity is an intrinsic property of a material the composite particle would have the claimed volume resistivity of not less than 1 Ω-cm and not more than 3,000 Ω-cm, as a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable MPEP 2112.01
As to claim 3, Mori discloses the particle shape of the electrode active material is preferably spherically size particles [0136-0138] and the conductor material is sprayed on
the active material and uniformly adheres to the active material [0330-0332]. Additionally the sprayed dispersion contains a binder [0204] forming the composite particle and the particle size can be controlled [0206]. Therefore a spherical core active material coated by a conductive material and a binder would provide a spherical shaped composite particular, and an area circularity of not less than 0.50 and not more than 0.93 and a convexity of not less than 0.70 and not more than 0.97 are regarded as a change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
As to claim 4, Mori discloses the binder is a polymeric material (diene polymer [0209-0210], as exemplified in paragraph [0034] of the instant specification) that dissolves in a non-aqueous solvent having a boiling point of 95°C or lower at 1 atm. The diene polymer would demonstrate the same properties as the claimed binder as a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable MPEP 2112.01
As to claim 5, Mori discloses An electrode for an electrochemical device (lithium ion battery) comprising an electrode mixed material layer containing the composite particles according to claim 1. [0036-0042]
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, Mori discloses an electrochemical (lithium ion battery) device comprising the electrode for an electrochemical device according to claim 5. [0036-0042]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights