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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0287146).
As to claim 1, Suzuki et al. discloses an electrochemical device comprising: a positive electrode (see e.g. positive electrode 10, [0037] and Fig. 1); a negative electrode (see e.g. negative electrode 20, [0037] and Fig. 1); a separator (see e.g. separator 18, [0037] and Fig. 1); and a lithium ion-conductive electrolyte (see e.g. [0102]),
wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector (see e.g. negative electrode current collector 22, [0037] and Fig. 1), and a negative electrode material layer supported on the negative electrode current collector (see e.g. negative electrode mixture layer 24 [0037] and Fig. 1),
the negative electrode material layer includes a negative electrode active material into which lithium ions are reversibly doped (see e.g. [0092], the negative electrode is doped with lithium ions),
the negative electrode includes a carbon material (see e.g. [0052], the negative electrode active material may include carbon materials),
a surface layer portion of the negative electrode material layer has a film region (see e.g. [0092], the lithium powder is pressed onto the negative electrode such that the powder is immobilized on the negative electrode, and therefore is immobilized on the negative active material layer to form a film region on a surface layer portion of the negative electrode material layer),
the separator includes an olefin-based resin (see e.g. polypropylene, polyethylene or other polyolefins, [0106]).
Suzuki et al. is silent as to the particular X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy properties recited in claim 1, and does not explicitly state that:
when the film region is measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a peak in an Ols spectrum is observed in a binding energy range of 530 to 534 eV, and
an intensity of the peak in the Ols spectrum increases from a surface layer of the film region toward an inner side.
However, it has been held that a rejection under 35 USC § 103 can be made when a prior art product seems to be identical to a claimed product except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic (see MPEP 2112(III)). In the instant case, the negative electrode material layer of Suzuki et al. comprises a carbon material that is substantially similar to that of the claimed battery (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0052], the negative electrode active material may include carbon materials, compare with para [0013] of the Instant Specification, describing a carbon material as a negative electrode material), and is coated via a transfer method to form a layer that contains lithium carbonate (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0092], lithium powder is pressed onto the negative electrode such that the powder is immobilized on the negative electrode, and therefore is immobilized on the negative active material layer such that it coats the negative active material layer. This lithium powder comprises lithium carbonate, as per Suzuki et al.: [0067]. Compare with para [0044]-[0048] of the Instant Specification).
Finally, this negative electrode material layer is impregnated with an electrolyte that contains lithium ions to pre-dope the material with lithium (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0092], stating that, by adding the electrolyte, lithium ions can be doped into the lithium ion secondary battery negative electrode. Compare with paras [0027] and [0032] of the Instant Specification).
Because Suzuki et al.’s negative electrode material layer is substantially similar to that of the claimed material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the negative electrode material layer would reasonably be expected to exhibit corresponding chemical states in XPS binding energies when analyzed using conventional XPS techniques. XPS is a wall-known analytical technique for characterizing lithium battery materials. Therefore, obtaining the claimed XPS spectrum would merely constitute characterization of an otherwise obvious composition rather than a creation of a patentably distinct structure. It is therefore obvious that Suzuki et al.’s battery also has the property that when the film region is measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a peak in an Ols spectrum is observed in a binding energy range of 530 to 534 eV, and an intensity of the peak in the Ols spectrum increases from a surface layer of the film region toward an inner side.
As to claim 3, Suzuki et al. discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1, wherein the olefin-based resin contains at least one selected from the group consisting of polypropylene and polyethylene (see e.g. [0106]).
As to claim 4, Suzuki et al. discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1.
Suzuki et al. is silent as to the particular X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy properties recited in claim 4, and does not explicitly state that: when the film region is measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a peak in an Fls spectrum is observed in a binding energy range of 684.8 to 685.3 eV, and an intensity of the peak in the Fls spectrum decreases from the surface layer of the film region toward the inner side.
However, it has been held that a rejection under 35 USC § 103 can be made when a prior art product seems to be identical to a claimed product except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic (see MPEP 2112(III)). In the instant case, the negative electrode material layer of Suzuki et al. comprises a carbon material that is substantially similar to that of the claimed battery (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0052], the negative electrode active material may include carbon materials, compare with para [0013] of the Instant Specification, describing a carbon material as a negative electrode material), and is coated via a transfer method to form a layer that contains lithium carbonate (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0092], lithium powder is pressed onto the negative electrode such that the powder is immobilized on the negative electrode, and therefore is immobilized on the negative active material layer such that it coats the negative active material layer. This lithium powder comprises lithium carbonate, as per Suzuki et al.: [0067]. Compare with para [0044]-[0048] of the Instant Specification).
Finally, this negative electrode material layer is impregnated with an electrolyte that contains lithium ions to pre-dope the material with lithium (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0092], stating that, by adding the electrolyte, lithium ions can be doped into the lithium ion secondary battery negative electrode. Compare with paras [0027] and [0032] of the Instant Specification).
Because Suzuki et al.’s negative electrode material layer is substantially similar to that of the claimed material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the negative electrode material layer would reasonably be expected to exhibit corresponding chemical states in XPS binding energies when analyzed using conventional XPS techniques. XPS is a wall-known analytical technique for characterizing lithium battery materials. Therefore, obtaining the claimed XPS spectrum would merely constitute characterization of an otherwise obvious composition rather than a creation of a patentably distinct structure. It is therefore obvious that when the film region is measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, a peak in an Fls spectrum is observed in a binding energy range of 684.8 to 685.3 eV, and an intensity of the peak in the Fls spectrum decreases from the surface layer of the film region toward the inner side.
As to claim 5, Suzuki et al. discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 4.
Suzuki et al. is silent as to the particular X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy properties recited in claim 5, and does not explicitly state that: a ratio A/B of a peak intensity A at the top of the peak in the Ols spectrum to a peak intensity B at the top of the peak in the Fls spectrum increases and then decreases from the surface layer of the film region toward the inner side.
However, it has been held that a rejection under 35 USC § 103 can be made when a prior art product seems to be identical to a claimed product except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic (see MPEP 2112(III)). In the instant case, the negative electrode material layer of Suzuki et al. comprises a carbon material that is substantially similar to that of the claimed battery (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0052], the negative electrode active material may include carbon materials, compare with para [0013] of the Instant Specification, describing a carbon material as a negative electrode material), and is coated via a transfer method to form a layer that contains lithium carbonate (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0092], lithium powder is pressed onto the negative electrode such that the powder is immobilized on the negative electrode, and therefore is immobilized on the negative active material layer such that it coats the negative active material layer. This lithium powder comprises lithium carbonate, as per Suzuki et al.: [0067]. Compare with para [0044]-[0048] of the Instant Specification).
Finally, this negative electrode material layer is impregnated with an electrolyte that contains lithium ions to pre-dope the material with lithium (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0092], stating that, by adding the electrolyte, lithium ions can be doped into the lithium ion secondary battery negative electrode. Compare with paras [0027] and [0032] of the Instant Specification).
Because Suzuki et al.’s negative electrode material layer is substantially similar to that of the claimed material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the negative electrode material layer would reasonably be expected to exhibit corresponding chemical states in XPS binding energies when analyzed using conventional XPS techniques. XPS is a wall-known analytical technique for characterizing lithium battery materials. Therefore, obtaining the claimed XPS spectrum would merely constitute characterization of an otherwise obvious composition rather than a creation of a patentably distinct structure. It is therefore obvious that a ratio A/B of a peak intensity A at the top of the peak in the Ols spectrum to a peak intensity B at the top of the peak in the Fls spectrum increases and then decreases from the surface layer of the film region toward the inner side.
As to claim 6, Suzuki et al. discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 5.
Suzuki et al. is silent as to the particular X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy properties recited in claim 6, and does not explicitly state that: when the surface layer portion of the negative electrode material layer is measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, substantially no peak attributed to binding of the carbon material in the Cls spectrum is observed in a depth from the surface layer of the film region at which the ratio A/B is the maximum.
However, it has been held that a rejection under 35 USC § 103 can be made when a prior art product seems to be identical to a claimed product except that the prior art is silent as to an inherent characteristic (see MPEP 2112(III)). In the instant case, the negative electrode material layer of Suzuki et al. comprises a carbon material that is substantially similar to that of the claimed battery (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0052], the negative electrode active material may include carbon materials, compare with para [0013] of the Instant Specification, describing a carbon material as a negative electrode material), and is coated via a transfer method to form a layer that contains lithium carbonate (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0092], lithium powder is pressed onto the negative electrode such that the powder is immobilized on the negative electrode, and therefore is immobilized on the negative active material layer such that it coats the negative active material layer. This lithium powder comprises lithium carbonate, as per Suzuki et al.: [0067]. Compare with para [0044]-[0048] of the Instant Specification).
Finally, this negative electrode material layer is impregnated with an electrolyte that contains lithium ions to pre-dope the material with lithium (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0092], stating that, by adding the electrolyte, lithium ions can be doped into the lithium ion secondary battery negative electrode. Compare with paras [0027] and [0032] of the Instant Specification).
Because Suzuki et al.’s negative electrode material layer is substantially similar to that of the claimed material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the negative electrode material layer would reasonably be expected to exhibit corresponding chemical states in XPS binding energies when analyzed using conventional XPS techniques. XPS is a wall-known analytical technique for characterizing lithium battery materials. Therefore, obtaining the claimed XPS spectrum would merely constitute characterization of an otherwise obvious composition rather than a creation of a patentably distinct structure. It is therefore obvious that when the surface layer portion of the negative electrode material layer is measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, substantially no peak attributed to binding of the carbon material in the Cls spectrum is observed in a depth from the surface layer of the film region at which the ratio A/B is the maximum.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0287146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US 2017/0229698).
As to claim 3, Suzuki et al. discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1, including a separator (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0106]), but is silent as to the thickness of the separator, and does not disclose that the separator has a thickness of 12 mm or more and 30 mm or less, or that the separator has an air permeability resistance of 70 sec/100mL or more and 500 sec/100 mL or less.
Mizuno et al., also working on an analogous electrochemical device, teaches a polyolefin separator that performs the same function as Suzuki et al.’s separator and has a preferred thickness of 9 mm or more or 16 mm or less, which lies within and thereby anticipates the instantly-claimed range (see e.g. polyolefin porous membrane, Mizuno et al.: [0018], [0032]). Additionally, Mizuno et al.’s separator has a preferred air permeability resistance of 150 sec/100cc, which lies within and thereby anticipates the range of 70 sec/100mL or more and 500 sec/100 mL or less (see e.g. Mizuno et al.: [0033]). Mizuno et al. further teaches that this separator has excellent electrode adhesion and excellent heat resistance (see e.g. Mizuno et al.: [0001], [0029]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrochemical device of Suzuki et al. by setting the separator thickness to be in the range of 12 mm or more and 30 mm or less and to set the separator air permeability resistance to be in the range of 70 sec/100mL or more and 500 sec/100 mL or less as taught by Mizuno et al.. This is because Mizuno et al. teaches that a polyolefin separator having these properties yields excellent electrode adhesion and excellent heat resistance.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2018/0287146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haga et al. (US 2021/0408521).
As to claim 7, Suzuki et al. discloses the electrochemical device according to claim 1 wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0037] and Fig. 1, positive electrode 10 comprises positive electrode current collector 12), and a positive electrode material layer supported on the positive electrode current collector (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0037] and Fig. 1, positive electrode 10 comprises positive electrode mixture layer 14).
Suzuki et al.’s positive electrode active material may comprise a lithium transition metal oxide (see e.g. Suzuki et al.: [0043]). While Suzuki et al. does not particularly limit the active material, Suzuki et al. does not disclose a positive electrode material layer that contains a carbon material serving as a positive electrode active material and that constitutes a polarizable electrode layer.
Haga et al., also working on an analogous electrochemical device, teaches that the positive electrode material layer of the device may contain either a lithium transition metal oxide or a carbon material to serve as a positive electrode active material (see e.g. activated carbon, Haga et al.: [0117]). As Haga et al.’s carbon material is substantially the same as the carbon material disclosed in the Instant Specification (see e.g. activated carbon, Haga et al.: [0117] and compare with para [0057] of the Instant Specification), it also constitutes a polarizable electrode layer.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the lithium transition metal oxide positive electrode material layer of the Suzuki et al.’s electrochemical device with the carbon material that constitutes a polarizable electrode layer taught by Haga et al.. Said artisan would have found such a substitution to be obvious because Haga et al. teaches that this carbon material is a functional alternative to a lithium transition metal oxide and serves the same intended purpose of acting as a positive electrode material in an electrochemical device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kondou et al. (US 2012/0218683) and Li et al. (CN 113270587A, as read via machine translation) also teach an analogous electrochemical device that features a doped lithium carbonate coating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights