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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the photos in figure 2,3,6,7,12,13,14,18,20 must be provided in sufficient quality or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 specification was received on 04/05/2024. The specification is acceptable.
Title of the invention
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “An electrode material which is an electrode material of a nonaqueous secondary battery “(line 1), and “includes a graphite pulverulent body which is aggregate of the graphite particles according to claim 1”. The examiner suggest electrode for (line 1) …. The examiner further suggests “includes a graphite pulverulent body composed of graphite particles according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “a salt concentration in the nonaqueous electrolyte is decreased by charging”. The examiner suggests: “The concentration of the nonaqueous electrolyte salt is decreasing throughout the charging process.”
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the nonaqueous battery being of a sealed type”. Using the term “sealed type” when speaking about non-aqueous is confusing. There are sealed lead acid batteries however they’re not non-aqueous batteries as required by claim 8.
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 2 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites sheet shape particles, ribbon shape particles and cube shape particles but does not clearly define what is required to be interpreted as a ribbon shape or a sheet shape or a cube shape. The images provided in the specification do not clearly display these shapes. The claim is rejected as being indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites sheet shape particles, ribbon shape particles and cube shape particles but does not clearly define what is required to be interpreted as a ribbon shape or a sheet shape or a cube shape. The images provided in the specification do not clearly display these shapes. The claim is rejected as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al. (JP2021095314A; “Takeshi” hereinafter; a machine translation is used for the citations) in view of Fray et al. (US-20160016805-A1) and further in view of Wu et al. (10.1016/j.carbon.2016.05.031) as evidenced by Arani et al. (DOI: 10.1039/c6ra25441a) and Popova (DOI: 10.3103/S1068364X17090058).
Regarding claim 1, Takeshi discloses graphite particles (carbon nanotubes, abstract & the carbon nanotube of the present embodiment has a shape in which flat graphite is wound in a cylindrical shape, page 4 line 35) and a specific surface area (BET) being calculated from a nitrogen-adsorption amount at 77 K is 10 m2/g or more and 400 m2/g or less (150 to 400 m2/g, abstract). Takeshi discloses the X-ray diffraction peak at 2θ = 25 ° ± 2 and therefore indirectly discloses the interplanar spacing and by disclosing that the nano structures are made of graphite. Graphite typically has an interplane distance between 3.340 Å-3.370 Å as evidenced by Popava (Popova, page 363, col 2, line 8 and page 364, col.1 line 1). Furthermore, the Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties with regards to the interplanar spacing are not positively stated by the reference(s). However, as shown by the previous argument and by the similar composition, the claim is anticipated by the prior art reference. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In reBest, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Additionally, Fray indirectly discloses that the interplanar spacing d 002 is 0.3360 nm or more and 0.3373 nm or less by teaching the XRD, SEM, TEM, ED and Raman analyses of the heat-treated carbon material unambiguously prove that it comprises a mixture of diamonds and graphite-type nanoparticles [0147] and by disclosing that the peak at 2Ѳ=26.43° is that of the (002) lattice planes of graphite (Fray, [143]). (As disclosed by Arani, a peak at 2Ѳ=26.43° would correspond to an interplanar spacing of roughly 0.33723 nm (Arani, table 1)). Takeshi and Fray are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nano-structured carbonaceous materials. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the methods of analysis and production methods as disclosed by Fray to the material disclosed by Takeshi as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Takeshi discloses, a particle diameter (an average outer diameter of the carbon nanotubes of the present embodiment is 5 to 25 nm and the fiber length is 0.5 to 5.0 μm, abstract) but fails to disclose that the diameter is 50 nm or more and 500 nm or less and that a value of 50% of an integrated value in number base particle diameter distribution (a mean particle diameter) is a secondary particle diameter (d50), and the secondary particle diameter (d50) is 0.15 µm or more and 1.6 µm or less. Fray discloses particles (diamond crystals) having diameters between 0.05 µm and 100 µm [0012] and discloses that nano-tubes typically have a diameter of between 2 nm and 100 nm [0016]). Wu discloses that diameters of the tubular structures range from 20 to 400 nm which fulfills the requirements of the claim. Wu discloses that the diameters are strongly affected by electrolytic conditions (Wu, page 212, col. 2, lines 10-12) and further specifies the influence of the electrolytic temperature on the particle size (Wu, page 212, col. 2, lines 10-12). Takeshi and Wu are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nanostructured carbon materials. In seeking larger particles and a specific distribution before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the electrolytic conditions according to the teachings of Wu as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al. (JP2021095314A; “Takeshi” hereinafter; a machine translation is used for the citations) in view of Fray et al. (US-20160016805-A1), as evidenced by Arani et al. (DOI: 10.1039/c6ra25441a) and Popova (DOI: 10.3103/S1068364X17090058) and in view of Wu et al. (10.1016/j.carbon.2016.05.031) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Khodabakhshi et al. (10.1016/j.carbon.2024.118940) and Licht (BR112019017253A2, “Licht” hereinafter, a machine translation is being used for citations).
Regarding claim 2, Takeshi discloses the graphite particles according to claim 1, but fails to specify the spherical shape, sheet shape, ribbon shape, and cube shape. Fray however discloses the material may be, for example, in the form of a powder comprising one or more carbon-based nanostructures such as nano-particles, nanotubes, nano-scrolls, nano-filaments, and nano-onions (Fray, [0015]). Wu further discloses a one-pot synthesis to obtain carbon structures including nano-sheets, nano-flakes, a honeycomb-like structure and platelet structures (Wu, Title).
Takeshi and Wu are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nano-structured carbonaceous materials. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rely on the method disclosed by Wu to produce shaped carbon nano particles as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result. Neither Takeshi nor Wu teach cube shaped particles. Khodabakhshi however discloses microporous carbon nanocubes from controlled processing of graphene oxide nanoribbons (Khodabakashi, Title). Takeshi and Khodabakhshi are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nano-structured carbonaceous materials. In seeking cube shaped particles, before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rely on the method disclosed by Wu to produce ribbon shaped particles and further apply the methods disclosed by Khodabakhshi to produce carbon nano cubes as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use known methods for their intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Additionally, while Takeshi and Wu disclose shaped particles but do not explicitly disclose nanocubes, Licht discloses various shapes including nano cubes, carbon nanotubes, graphene, carbon nano cubes and hollow carbon nanospheres (Licht, [009]). Takeshi and Licht are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely carbon nanomaterials and their production methods. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a process ad described by Licht to produce nanotubes as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al. (JP2021095314A; “Takeshi” hereinafter; a machine translation is used for the citations) in view of Fray et al. (US-20160016805-A1) as evidenced by Arani et al. (DOI: 10.1039/c6ra25441a) and Popova (DOI: 10.3103/S1068364X17090058) and in view of Wu et al. (10.1016/j.carbon.2016.05.031).
Regarding claim 3, Takeshi discloses the graphite particles according to claim 1 and discloses that the carbon nanotubes of the present embodiment may be produced by any method (page 4, line 45), but fails to specify that the graphite particles are obtained by electrolyzing carbon dioxide to obtain carbon particles. Wu and Fray both disclose electrolyzing methods. (see Wu figure 1 below) and subjecting the carbon particles to heat treatment. Wu discloses the electrolytical production method (see Wu figure 1) and discloses a series of post electrolysis steps including a temperature water bath at 60°C and the placement in a drying oven for 4h at 105°CTakeshi and Wu are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nano-structured carbonaceous materials. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rely on the method disclosed by Wu to produce carbon nano particles as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
PNG
media_image1.png
464
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Wu figure 1
Fray similarly discloses a thermal treatment involving steps of heating the carbonaceous material to a temperature greater than ambient temperature, and sufficient to initiate diamond formation, and cooling to ambient temperature (Fray [0011]).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al. (JP2021095314A; “Takeshi” hereinafter; a machine translation is used for the citations) in view of Fray et al. (US-20160016805-A1) as evidenced by Arani et al. (DOI: 10.1039/c6ra25441a) and Popova (DOI: 10.3103/S1068364X17090058) and in view of Wu et al. (10.1016/j.carbon.2016.05.031).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Takeshi and Fray discloses the graphite particles according to claim 3, and disclose the specific surface area 200 m2/g or more and 600 m2/g or less (Takeshi: 150-400 m2/g). Takeshi discloses, a particle diameter (an average outer diameter of the carbon nanotubes of the present embodiment is 5 to 25 nm and the fiber length is 0.5 to 5.0 μm, abstract) but fails to disclose that a particle diameter of the carbon particles is 100 nm or more and 200 nm or less. Fray discloses that preferably the diamond crystals are having a diameter between 0.05 and 100 µm (Fray, [0012]) and further discloses that nano-tubes typically have a diameter of between 2 nm and 100 nm (Fray, [0016]). Takeshi and Fray are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nano-structured carbonaceous materials. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the methods of analysis and production methods as disclosed by Fray to the material disclosed by Takeshi as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result. Wu discloses that diameters of the tubular structures range from 20 to 400 nm which encompasses the requirements of the claim, but Wu discloses that the diameters are strongly affected by electrolytic conditions (Wu, page 212, col. 2, lines 10-12) and further specifies the influence of the electrolytic temperature on the particle size (Wu, page 212, col. 2, lines 10-12).
Takeshi and Wu are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nanostructured carbon materials. In seeking larger particles and a specific distribution before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the electrolytic conditions according to the teachings of Wu as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Fray indirectly discloses that the interplanar spacing d 002 is 0.3360 nm or more and 0.3373 nm or less by teaching the XRD, SEM, TEM, ED and Raman analyses of the heat-treated carbon material unambiguously prove that it comprises a mixture of diamonds and graphite-type nanoparticles [0147] and by disclosing that the peak at 2Ѳ=26.43° is that of the (002) lattice planes of graphite (Fray, [143]). (As disclosed by Arani, a peak at 2Ѳ=26.43° would correspond to an interplanar spacing of roughly 0.33723 nm (Arani, table 1)) which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Takeshi discloses the graphite particles according to claim 1, but fails to specify the spherical shape, sheet shape, ribbon shape, and cube shape. Fray however discloses the material may be, for example, in the form of a powder comprising one or more carbon-based nanostructures such as nano-particles, nanotubes, nano-scrolls, nano-filaments, and nano-onions (Fray, [0015]). Wu further discloses a one-pot synthesis to obtain carbon structures including nano-sheets, nano-flakes, a honeycomb-like structure and platelet structures (Wu, Title).
Takeshi and Wu are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nano-structured carbonaceous materials. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rely on the method disclosed by Wu to produce carbon nano particles as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result. Neither Takeshi nor Wu teach cube shaped particles. Khodabakhshi however discloses microporous carbon nanocubes from controlled processing of graphene oxide nanoribbons (Khodabakashi, Title). Takeshi and Khodabakhshi are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nano-structured carbonaceous materials. In seeking cube shaped particles, before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rely on the method disclosed by Wu to produce ribbon shaped particles and further apply the methods disclosed by Khodabakhshi to produce carbon nano cubes as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use known methods for their intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Additionally, while Takeshi and Wu disclose shaped particles but do not explicitly disclose nanocubes, Licht discloses various shapes including nano cubes, carbon nanotubes, graphene, carbon nano cubes and hollow carbon nanospheres (Licht: [009]). Takeshi and Licht are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely carbon nanomaterials and their production methods. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a process ad described by Licht to produce nanotubes as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known method for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al. (JP2021095314A; “Takeshi” hereinafter; a machine translation is used for the citations) in view of Fray et al. (US-20160016805-A1) as evidenced by Arani et al.(DOI:10.1039/c6ra25441a) and Popova (DOI: 10.3103/S1068364X17090058) and in view of Wu et al. (10.1016/j.carbon.2016.05.031).
Regarding claim 6, Takeshi discloses an electrode material (electrode film page 6, line 3-4), which is an electrode material of a nonaqueous secondary battery (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, page 6, line 3-4), wherein the electrode material is an active material being capable of reversibly inserting and desorbing anions or cations, and the electrode material of the nonaqueous secondary battery includes a graphite pulverulent body which is aggregate of the graphite particles (By using the carbon nanotubes of the present invention, a resin composition , a mixture slurry, and an electrode film having excellent conductivity and adhesion can be obtained page 8, lines 1-4) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Takeshi discloses an electrode for a nonaqueous secondary battery, wherein the electrode is obtained by providing the electrode material according to claim 6 onto a current collector (a coating film in which an electrode mixture layer is formed by applying and drying a mixture slurry on a current collector page 14, line 9)) and the current collector is formed of any metal of copper, nickel, aluminum, titanium, tungsten, and stainless steel (material not limited (page 14, line 11), for example aluminum, copper, nickel, titanium, and stainless steel page 14, line 13).
Regarding claim 8, Takeshi discloses a nonaqueous secondary battery comprising the electrode according to claim 6 as a positive electrode, a negative electrode, or a bipolar electrode, the nonaqueous secondary battery being of a sealed type (laminate was sealed to prepare a laminated lithium-ion secondary battery, page 21, line 10).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al. (JP2021095314A; “Takeshi” hereinafter; a machine translation is used for the citations) in view of Fray et al. (US-20160016805-A1) as evidenced by Arani et al. (DOI: 10.1039/c6ra25441a) and Popova (DOI: 10.3103/S1068364X17090058) and Wu et al. (10.1016/j.carbon.2016.05.031) as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US9825337B2; “Wantanabe” hereinafter) and Zhang et al (https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202010958; “Zhang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, modified Takeshi discloses a nonaqueous secondary battery according to claim 8, comprising: a separator (separator provided as needed, page 14, line 51). Takeshi fails to disclose that the separator is impregnated with the nonaqueous electrolyte, wherein the nonaqueous secondary battery is configured in such a way that a salt concentration in the nonaqueous electrolyte is decreased by charging and that a salt concentration in the electrolyte is decreasing by charging. Watanabe discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte and explicitly states that an electrolyte is impregnated into the separator (Watanabe, abstract). Takeshi and Watanabe are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely nonaqueous electrolyte batteries. Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the impregnated separator as disclosed by Watanabe to the battery disclosed by Takeshi as doing so would amount to nothing more than to use a known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely predictable result. Neither Takeshi nor Watanabe disclose that the nonaqueous secondary battery is composed of a negative electrode being capable of inserting and desorbing cations which are made of alkali metal ions; a positive electrode being capable of inserting and desorbing anions which contain halogen a nonaqueous electrolyte including salt which is made of the cations and the anions; and configured in such a way that a salt concentration in the nonaqueous electrolyte is decreased by charging. Zhang however in the same field of endeavor namely graphite electrodes for Dual-Ion batteries discloses the claimed limitations including that the electrolyte salt concentration is decreasing by charging by disclosing during the charging process, the cations (e.g., Li+) and anions (e.g., PF 6−) are intercalated simultaneously into graphite anode and cathode, respectively (Zhang: page 1, Introduction) and discloses the use of a halogen containing anion in the chemical equations provided on page 1. Zhang further discloses the use of Na+ and K+ and other sustainable active cations to reduce the overall costs and environmental pollutions.
Regarding claim 10, Takeshi discloses the nonaqueous secondary battery according to claim 9 and further discloses that the alkali metal ions are sodium ions or potassium ions (a sodium salt, page 14, line 36).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al. (JP2021095314A; “Takeshi” hereinafter; a machine translation is used for the citations) in view of Fray et al. (US-20160016805-A1) and Wu et al. (10.1016/j.carbon.2016.05.031) as evidenced by Arani et al. (DOI: 10.1039/c6ra25441a) and Popova (DOI: 10.3103/S1068364X17090058) and as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Yamazaki (US 8, 124,266 B2 ).
Regarding claim 11, the nonaqueous secondary battery according to claim 8 the nonaqueous secondary battery using a bipolar electrode (a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery using a bipolar electrode in which a positive electrode active material and a negative electrode active material are held on both sides of a current collector is disclosed, page 1, lines 51) which is provided with the electrode material on both surfaces of the current collector, wherein one surface of the electrode functions as a positive electrode and another surface of the electrode functions as a negative electrode.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al. (JP2021095314A; “Takeshi” hereinafter; a machine translation is used for the citations) in view of Fray et al. (US-20160016805-A1) and Wu et al. (10.1016/j.carbon.2016.05.031) as applied to claim 8, as evidenced by Arani et al. (DOI: 10.1039/c6ra25441a) and Popova (DOI: 10.3103/S1068364X17090058).
Regarding claim 12, Takeshi discloses an electric appliance using the nonaqueous secondary battery according to claim 8 (widespread use of electric vehicles, the reduction in size and weight of mobile devices, and the increase in performance, secondary batteries having a high energy density, and the capacity of the secondary batteries are required to be increased, 15-16). The use of the battery is intended use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights