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
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(s) 1, 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210083281A1 (Mikami).
Claim 1, Mikami teaches a positive electrode material for a battery [abs]; a positive electrode comprising a positive electrode active material; an electrolyte solution; and a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material comprising a carbon material [100-0102, 0203-0205],
With regards to the claimed:
“wherein in X-ray diffraction analysis with CuKα1 radiation, the carbon material has peaks at: 2θ of greater than or equal to 20° and less than or equal to 24°; 2θ of greater than or equal to 42° and less than or equal to 46.5° and 2θ of greater than or equal to 78° and less than or equal to 82°,
wherein a value of discharge capacity obtained by subjecting the lithium ion battery to constant current charging at a charge rate of 0.1 C to a voltage of 4.5 V and constant voltage charging at 4.5 V to a current value of 0.05 C at 25 °C and then constant current discharging at a discharge rate of 0.1 C to a voltage of 2.5 V at -40 °C is higher than or equal to 40 % of a value of discharge capacity obtained by subjecting the lithium ion battery to constant current charging at a charge rate of 0.1 C to a voltage of 4.5 V and constant voltage charging at 4.5 V to a current value of 0.05 C at 25 °C and constant current discharging at a discharge rate of 0.1 C to a voltage of 2.5 V at 25
PNG
media_image1.png
87
4
media_image1.png
Greyscale
C, and wherein 1 C is defined as 200 mA/g”- Examiner notes, although Mikami does not specifically teach these conditions, these conditions are met for specific concentration distributions/ crystal structure, interplanar spacings, properties of the active material; the teachings of Mikami are deemed sufficient to satisfy the applicant’s broadly claimed requirement, as Mikami teaches the positive active material and negative material comprising carbon. In addition, Mikami does teach a positive electrode active material containing lithium, cobalt, magnesium, oxygen, and fluorine. The positive electrode active material has diffraction peaks at 2θ of 19.30±0.20° and 2θ of 45.55±0.10° when a lithium-ion secondary battery using the positive electrode active material for a positive electrode and lithium metal for a negative electrode is charged at 25° C. until battery voltage reaches 4.6 V and a current value is sufficiently reduced, and then the positive electrode is analyzed by powder X-ray diffraction using a CuKα1 ray [0018]; the theoretical capacity of LiCoO2 is 274 mAh/g, the theoretical capacity of LiNiO2 is 274 mAh/g, and the theoretical capacity of LiMn2O4 is 148 mAh/g [0077]; LiCoO2 charged to greater than or equal to 219.2 mAh/g is a high-voltage charged positive electrode active material [0079-0080]; therefore, it is the Examiner’s position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teachings of Mikami in order to arrive at the claimed invention, as Mikami broadly teaches diffraction peaks and the discharge capacity that are close to the required ranges. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Claim 3, Mikami teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises lithium cobalt oxide represented byLixCoO2 (0 < x- 1), wherein when x in the LixCoO2 is 1, the LixCoO2 has a layered rock-salt crystal structure of a space group R-3m [0070-0073, 0093],, and wherein when x in the LixCoO2 is greater than 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.24 in a charged state [0083-0086, 0093]. Mikami does not explicitly teach: “a diffraction pattern of the LixCoO2 analyzed by X-ray diffraction with CuKα1 radiation has peaks at least at:20 of greater than or equal to 19.37° and less than or equal to 19.57°; and 20 of greater than or equal to 45.57° and less than or equal to 45.67°”; Mikami teaches a positive electrode active material containing lithium, cobalt, magnesium, oxygen, and fluorine. The positive electrode active material has diffraction peaks at 2θ of 19.30±0.20° and 2θ of 45.55±0.10° when a lithium-ion secondary battery using the positive electrode active material for a positive electrode and lithium metal for a negative electrode is charged at 25° C. until battery voltage reaches 4.6 V and a current value is sufficiently reduced, and then the positive electrode is analyzed by powder X-ray diffraction using a CuKα1 ray [0018]; the ranges taught by Mikami are merely close, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the peaks as claimed, as one would have a reasonable expectation of success. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Claim 4, Mikami teaches the electrolyte solution comprises ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, and dimethyl carbonate [0217]. With regards to the claimed: “a volume ratio between the ethylene carbonate, the ethyl methyl carbonate, and the dimethyl carbonate is x:y:100-x-y (5 x 35 and 0 <y < 65) when a total amount of the ethylene carbonate, the ethyl methyl carbonate, and the dimethyl carbonate is set to 100 vol%”; Mikami teaches a solution in which ethylene carbonate (EC) and diethyl carbonate (DEC) at a volume ratio of 3:7 and vinylene carbonate (VC) at a 2 wt % are mixed can be used; the ratio of EC and DEC fall within the claimed range, therefore meets the claimed limitation. 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). Mikami does not explicitly teach the concentration of ethyl methyl carbonate [EMC]. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the concentrations of EMC, as this is a known variation in this field of endeavor with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210083281A1 (Mikami) in view of US20200176770A1 (Takahashi).
Claim 2, Mikami teaches wherein the positive electrode active material comprises lithium cobalt oxide represented byLixCoO2 (0 < x- 1), wherein when x in the LixCoO2 is 1, the LixCoO2 has a layered rock-salt crystal structure of a space group R-3m [0070-0073, 0093], and wherein when x in the LixCoO2 is greater than 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.24 in a charged state [0083-0086, 0093].
Mikami is silent with respect to the LixCoO2 has a crystal structure of a space group P2/m where: a lattice constant a = 4.88±0.01 (x 10-1 nm); a lattice constant b = 2.82±0.01 (x 10-1 nm); a lattice constant c = 4.84±0.01 (x 10-1 nm); a = 90°; p = 109.58+0.010; and y=90°. In a similar field of endeavor, Takahashi teaches a positive active material for a battery [abs]; and teaches the LixCoO2 has a crystal structure of a space group P2/m [110-113; 0519]. Takahashi is silent with regards to the claimed: lattice constant a = 4.88±0.01 (x 10-1 nm); a lattice constant b = 2.82±0.01 (x 10-1 nm); a lattice constant c = 4.84±0.01 (x 10-1 nm); a = 90°; p = 109.58+0.010; and y=90°. It is the examiner’s position, these values are achieved by specific known factors; i.e. specific concentration distributions/ crystal structure, interplanar spacings, properties of the active material. The instant claim does not provide any such specificities, thus it is the Examiner’s position, since Mikami in view of Takahashi broadly teach the claimed active material and the crystal structure, a skilled artisan would be able to arrive at the claimed result, with a reasonable expectation of success, given all the specific factors a known; Mikami in view of Takahashi teach the positive active material as claimed. “[W]here 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.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights