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 .
Title
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.
Suggestion is: “BiNi Containing Negative Electrode and Lithium Composite Oxide Cathode Electrode Battery”
Claim Interpretation
Instant claim does not include limitations to the amount of lithium “a” to the total amount of oxygen “2d”. The instant claim requires d to be greater than 0 whereby 0.1 is acceptable. When a is 1.1 and the combination of b + c is 1.1, these all would reduce down to 1-Li, 1-Ni Me, 2-O. This is typical electrochemistry selections for very well-known battery cathodes. Because of the breadth of the instant claim, basic math allows the scope of the claim to read on these very well-known materials.
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) 1-10, 13 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (JP 2019-164961).
Claim 1: Ichikawa teaches a battery (2) having an electrode body (3) [0103] wherein the positive electrode comprises an active material and substrate (current collector) [0065-0071], the negative electrode comprises an active material on a substrate (current collector) [0025-0060], and an electrolyte layer [0061-0062]. The positive electrode is a composite oxide of lithium and nickel [0067] – LiNiaCo(1-a)O2 – (a=1.1), (Me=Co), (b is overlapping ranges up to 1), (c is overlapping ranges and includes 0.1), (b+c is capable of being 1.1), (d=0.1) whereby the empirical formula in this scenario reduces to the prior art teaching and meets the claim language presented. The negative electrode is taught to comprise an alloy of nickel and bismuth [0014-0017]. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as the empirical formula is selectable within the overlapping range taught by the prior art.
Claim 2: Ichikawa teaches a negative electrode to be made of an alloy of Ni and Bi with an atomic ratio of 1:1 [0016] which teaches BiNi.
Claim 3: Ichikawa teaches a negative electrode to be made of an alloy of Ni and Bi [0014-0017] in order to improve the capacity retention rate of the battery during charging/discharging whereby the material is interpreted to be a “main component”.
Claim 4: Ichikawa teaches the bismuth alloy to have a crystal structure assigned to the space group of P63/mmc (hexagonal), Fm-3m (cubic rock-salt), or Pnm (orthorhombic). The prior art does not explicitly teach the BiNi to be a monoclinic crystal structure of the space group C2/m. The prior art teaching a starting crystal structure and the intended use of charging/discharging the material teaches the monoclinic structure as the crystal structure undergoing a symmetry-lower or distortive phase transition is predictable and routine during electrochemical cycling due to ion insertion and extraction or inducing Jahn-Teller distortions. The compositional changes due to valency ordering would break the high-symmetry structure, at least in part, to the claimed monoclinic structure through repeated charging cycles.
Claim 5: Ichikawa is silent to explicitly teach LiBi and Li3Bi to be present in the anode. During initial discharging, lithium ions will react with the bismuth component to form a LiBi phase material around 0.82V vs. Li/Li+ and will have a second reaction plateau into fully lithiated Li3Bi around 0.78V vs Li/Li+. The inclusion of LiBi and Li3Bi in the anode are dependent on the degree of discharging Li from the cathode to the anode and therefore the prior art teaches such feature as it naturally occurs during normal operation.
Claim 6: Ichikawa teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte energy storage element [0015] which is interpreted to be substantially free of solid electrolyte.
Claim 7: Ichikawa does not teach measuring the x-ray diffraction pattern of material within the system after charging/discharging cycling. It is predictable the claimed x-ray diffraction features would naturally occur through routine operation of the assembly of Ichikawa. Ichikawa teaches the bismuth alloy to have a crystal structure assigned to the space group of P63/mmc (hexagonal), Fm-3m (cubic rock-salt), or Pnm (orthorhombic). The prior art does not explicitly teach the BiNi to be a monoclinic crystal structure of the space group C2/m. The prior art teaching a starting crystal structure and the intended use of charging/discharging the material teaches the monoclinic structure as the crystal structure undergoing a symmetry-lower or distortive phase transition is predictable and routine during electrochemical cycling due to ion insertion and extraction or inducing Jahn-Teller distortions. The compositional changes due to valency ordering would break the high-symmetry structure, at least in part, to the claimed monoclinic structure through repeated charging cycles.
Claim 8: Ichikawa teaches the negative electrode active material to be on a substrate exemplified to be Cu or Ni [0053].
Claim 9: Ichikawa teaches all positively recited structural features of the instant claim. Instant claim pertains to a method of formation which does not further limit the structural scope of the instant invention. However, it should be noted the mixture to form the negative electrode comprises a heating step [0086].
Claim 10: Ichikawa teaches it is considered to use polymer solid electrolytes [0076].
Claim 13: Ichikawa teaches the electrolyte layer to include an electrolyte solution [0094].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (JP 2019-164961) as applies to claim 1, further in view of Tomita et al (PGPUB 2022/0285726).
Claim 11: Ichikawa teaches the electrolyte to be a solid electrolytes [0076], but is silent to teach the material to be a halide material.
Tomita teaches an all-solid-state battery that has excellent load characteristics and are relatable to Ichikawa because the positive electrode is taught to be conventional lithium-ion secondary battery materials [0038] and the negative electrode is taught to comprise bismuth alloys [0040]. The electrolyte comprises a hydride-based solid electrolyte [0052, 0080] comprising halide material [0054]. It would have been obvious to modify the solid electrolyte material of Ichikawa with the material selection of Tomita in order to produce a battery having excellent load characteristics [0012]. Alternate embodiments that are non-preferred are usable as teaching.
Claim 12: Ichikawa teaches the electrolyte to be a solid electrolytes [0076], but is silent to teach the material to be a halide material.
Tomita teaches an all-solid-state battery that has excellent load characteristics and are relatable to Ichikawa because the positive electrode is taught to be conventional lithium-ion secondary battery materials [0038] and the negative electrode is taught to comprise bismuth alloys [0040]. The electrolyte comprises a sulfide based solid electrolyte material [0013-0014, 0053]. It would have been obvious to modify the solid electrolyte material of Ichikawa with the material selection of Tomita in order to produce a battery having excellent load characteristics [0012].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (JP 2019-164961) as applies to claim 1, further in view of Baek (PGPUB 2013/0230782).
Claim 14: Ichikawa is silent to teach a composite oxide with the claimed formula where the amount of oxygen is 2.8 to 3.2. It is interpreted this is not a single particle, but a combination of spinel structure and lithium + metal + oxide material.
Baek teaches a lithium battery having a cathode containing a lithium metal oxide material with a spinel structure [abstract]. The cathode can be formed with a combination of formulas [0045]. The specific cathode material is taught by Baek [0030-0040]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to include spinel material of Ichikawa to have an oxygen amount within the claimed range as taught by Baek in order to improve high temperature stability of the battery [0009]; additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Baek as obvious equivalents for cathode materials and would have found the selection of material obvious to include or replace with equivalent – absent critical or unexpected results by applicant based upon positively claimed structural features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights