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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the negative electrode current collecting plate 23 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: in paragraph [0005], “tends to contain water” should read --tend to contain water--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The term “substantial” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of further prosecution, the examiner will interpret claim 11 to require that in X-ray photoelectron spectroscopic measurements of the two layers, if a F1s peak attributed to LiF is present in the first layer it is smaller than the F1s peak attributed to LiF which is always observed in the second layer.
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 1-3, 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (WO 2020111094 A1), hereinafter “Nakamura”, in view of Komatsu et al. (US 2015/0188137 A1), hereinafter “Komatsu”, wherein an English machine translation of Nakamura is used and cited herein.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Nakamura teaches an electrochemical device comprising a positive electrode including a positive electrode material layer (corresponding to the claimed positive electrode active material) (Nakamura, [0019]) wherein anions are doped in the positive electrode during charging and dedoped during discharging (corresponding to the claimed reversible doping of the positive electrode active material) (Nakamura, [0020]);
a negative electrode current collector plate (Nakamura, [0032) and a negative electrode ([0019]) including a negative electrode active material which may include non-graphitizable carbon (corresponding to the claimed hardly-graphitized carbon) (Nakamura, [0045]) and wherein lithium ions are occluded in the negative electrode during charging and released during discharging (corresponding to the claimed reversible doping of the negative electrode active material) (Nakamura, [0020]);
a separator which may be a microporous membrane made of polyolefin (corresponding to the claimed olefin-based resin) ([Nakamura, [0050]), and an electrolyte that has lithium ion conductivity (corresponding to the claimed lithium-ion conductive electrolyte) (Nakamura, [0051]).
Nakamura is silent on the specific surface area of the negative electrode active material.
However, Komatsu teaches an anode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprised of a non-graphitizable carbonaceous material (Komatsu, [0043] - [0044]) having a specific surface area in the range of 1 - 13 m2/g (Komatsu, [0061]) which overlaps with the claimed specific surface area ranges of claim 1 (10 - 70 m2/g) and claim 3 (10 - 50 m2/g). The anode having a specific surface area in Komatsu’s range keeps the irreversible capacity of the battery low while preventing the discharge capacity of the battery from becoming small (Komatsu, [0061]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add the specific surface area range of Komatsu to Nakamura’s negative electrode active material providing an electrochemical device with a low irreversible capacity while maintaining the discharge capacity as taught by Komatsu (Komatsu, [0061]). In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of specific surface area within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura further discloses that the negative electrode potential after pre-doping was 0.2 V or less with respect to metallic lithium (corresponding to the claimed negative electrode potential of 0.2 V or less on a lithium basis) (Nakamura, [0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura teaches the electrolyte containing a lithium salt which may be LiN(FSO2)2 (corresponding to the claimed lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl) imide) (Nakamura, 0052]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Nakamura teaches a lithium carbonate containing region (corresponding to claim 7’s claimed first layer containing lithium carbonate) formed as a surface layer portion of the negative electrode material layer (Nakamura, [0012]) and a solid electrolyte interface (SEI) (corresponding to claim 8’s claimed second layer containing a solid electrolyte) on the surface of the negative electrode material layer (corresponding to claim 8’s claimed second layer covering a surface of the negative electrode mixture layer via the first layer) (Nakamura, [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura further teaches that the SEI layer contains a very small amount of lithium carbonate (corresponding to the claimed second layer containing lithium carbonate) (Nakamura, [0015]) the content (corresponding to the claimed content of lithium carbonate contained in the second layer) of which one skilled in the art would understand to be less than the content of lithium carbonate contained in the lithium carbonate-containing layer (corresponding to the claimed first layer).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura teaches the example negative electrode A3 having a lithium carbonate region thickness of 30 nm (corresponding to the claimed first layer thickness range of 1 - 50 nm) (Nakamura, Table 1, [0064], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, as interpreted based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Nakamura teaches that when the lithium carbonate and SEI layers are examined by XPS the F1s peak attributed to LiF is observed for the SEI film (corresponding to the claimed F1s peak attributed to LiF being observed in the second layer) but not for the lithium carbonate-containing region (corresponding to the claimed F1s peak attributed to LiF not being observed in the first layer) (Nakamura, [0015]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Komatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 2024/0234791 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Nakamura modified by Komatsu suggests the electrochemical device according to claim 1 but does not suggest an air permeability resistance of the separator.
However, Tanaka discloses a separator for an energy storage device, which may be polyethylene or polypropylene (Tanaka, [0065]), having an air permeability resistance between 50 - 250 sec/100 mL (Tanaka, [0068]) which overlaps with the claimed air permeability resistance ranges of claim 4 (70 - 500 sec/100 mL) and claim 5 (70 - 300 sec/100 mL). Tanaka further teaches that when the air permeability resistance of the separator is within the given range, the decrease in discharge capacity of the energy storage device at high current density and under sufficient load can be suppressed (Tanaka, [0068]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Tanaka's air permeability resistance range to the separator of the electrochemical device suggested by modified Nakamura, to suppress the loss of discharge capacity at high current density and under load (Tanaka, [0068]). In this regard, it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill to select any value of air permeability resistance within the disclosed range, including a value within the claimed range, as it has been held that overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Abe et al. (US 2014/0220438 A1) and Furusawa et al. (US 2018/0375084 A1) teach the conductive polymer separator according to claim 1. Lee et al. (US 2005/0003277 A1) reads on claims 7 and 10 and teaches a lithium carbonate layer of 2 - 30 nm formed by sputtering. Sonobe (US 2023/0197956 A1), Oono et al (US 2019/0386290 A1), and Imaji et al. (US 2015/0263347 A1) teach a non-graphitizable carbon negative electrode according to claim 1. Inoue et al. (US 2023/0102905 A1) and Ikoma et al. (US2012/0219864 A1) read on the air permeability resistance ranges of claims 4 and 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMRAN S SAUND whose telephone number is (571)270-0845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/SIMRAN S. SAUND/Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights