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 05/14/2024 and 08/20/2026 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 were received on 05/14/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The specification was received on 05/14/2024. The specification is acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a composite particle comprising a carbon black particle and a deterioration reducing particle”. It is not clear if the applicant intends for the particle to be composed of only two particles. In the following it is assumed that the composite particle is composed of carbon black and the deterioration reducing material particles. The claim further recites that the composite particle is a mixture particle. The term mixture particle is not common in the art. It is unclear if the particle is a core-shell particle or a particle consisting of a homogeneous or heterogeneous mixture of the two substances. In the following it is assumed that any of these qualify as a mixture particle.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (JP 5704143 B2; “Nakayama” hereinafter; US20140099550A1 is used as a translation”) and Chang et al. (KR-20150027423-A; “Chang” hereinafter; a machine translation is used for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama discloses a negative electrode active material (anode material, abstract) for a secondary battery (sodium battery, abstract), comprising- a composite particle (The anode active material and the conductive material are composited (Nakayama: [0043])) of a carbon black particle (carbon black [0043]) as an active material and a deterioration reducing material particle that reduces deterioration of active material properties of the carbon black particle by charging and discharging (Nakayama: discloses Na2Ti6O13 and teaches that the electric potential of the anode active material is controlled so that an irreversible reaction between the carbon material and the Na ion may be inhibited [0026]). Nakayama fails to disclose that the deterioration reducing material particle is a particle that has a larger particle size than the carbon black particle. Nakayama discloses that the material does not act as an active material (the crystallinity of the carbon material is so high that an Na ion is inserted into the carbon material with difficulty and irreversible capacitance due to Na ion insertion may be decreased [0047])- and wherein the composite particle is a mixture particle (Nakayama: mixed state, [0047]) of the carbon black particle and the deterioration reducing material particle.
Nakayama discloses the anode active material for a battery but fails to explicitly disclose that the battery is a secondary battery.
Chang discloses a sodium secondary battery (sodium secondary battery, page 2, line 5), discloses NaxLi4 Ti5 O12 and discloses that Li4Ti5O12 is a known zero-strain insertion material and discloses that the deterioration reducing material particle is a particle that has a larger particle size than the carbon black by disclosing that the negative electrode material is characterized in that the negative electrode active material is coated with carbon to improve the conductivity (page 3, [11]).
Nakayama and Chang are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely anode materials for sodium batteries.
In seeking an anode material for a sodium battery that results in a high a high electrode capacity and an increased cycle lifetime
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 zero strain material disclosed by Chang to the material discloses by Nakayama 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.
Regarding claim 2, Nakayama teaches the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the composite particle contains nanofibers (Nakayama: vapor grown carbon fiber VGCF [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Nakayama discloses the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery according to claim 1 and further discloses that the deterioration reducing material particle is a metal oxide particle (Na2Ti6O13, abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Nakayama discloses a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (Nakayama figure 1) including an active material layer (Nakayama: abstract) containing the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery according to claim 1 (see Nakayama figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
856
1194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Nakayama figure 1
Regarding claim 6, Nakayama discloses the secondary battery according to claim 5 and discloses that the secondary battery comprises sodium as a carrier (Nakayama: An Na-Ion moves between a cathode and anode [0002]).
Regarding claim 9, Nakayama discloses the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the deterioration reducing material particle is a metal oxide particle (Na2Ti6O13, abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Nakayama discloses a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (Nakayama figure 1) including an active material layer containing the negative electrode active material (Nakayama figure 1) for the secondary battery according to claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Nakayama discloses a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (Nakayama figure 1) including an active material layer (Nakayama abstract) containing the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery (Nakayama figure 1) according to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (Nakayama figure 1) including an active material layer (Nakayama abstract) containing the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery (Nakayama figure 1) according to claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, the secondary battery according to claim 11, wherein the secondary battery comprises sodium as a carrier (an Na-Ion moves between a cathode and anode [0002]).
Regarding claim 19, the secondary battery according to claim 13, wherein the secondary battery comprises sodium as a carrier (an Na-Ion moves between a cathode and anode [0002]).
Claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (JP 5704143 B2; “Nakayama” hereinafter; US20140099550A1 is used as a translation”) and Chang et al. (KR-20150027423-A; “Chang” hereinafter) as applied to claim 1/2/3/5/8/10/12 and further in view of Woo et al. (KR-20200124003-A; “Woo” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Nakayama discloses the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the composite particle has an average particle size in the range of 0.5 μm to 30 μm (Nakayama:
1 nm to 100 μm, and above all within a range of 10 nm to 30 μm [0045]), and the deterioration reducing material particle has an average particle size in the range of 0.4 μm to 10 μm. Nakayama is silent on the particle size of the deterioration reducing material. Woo, however, discloses an overlapping range for a deterioration reducing material of 0.1 to 0.5 μm (Woo: [0011]).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Nakayama and Woo are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely anode material for sodium ion batteries.
In seeking a sodium battery with excellent life characteristics and charge/discharge capacity before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize metal oxide particles having the same size as the ones disclosed by Woo for the anode material discloses by Nakayama 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.
Regarding claim 7, Nakayama discloses the secondary battery according to claim 5 but fails to disclose an electric apparatus using the secondary battery. Using the secondary battery in an electric apparatus in an intended use.
Additionally, Woo discloses sodium batteries as a replacement for lithium-ion batteries (Woo: [0003]) and discloses that lithium-ion batteries are used for example for portable electronic devices and electric vehicles (Woo: [0002]).
In seeking a more cost effective alternative to the lithium ion batteries as disclosed by Woo before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the sodium batteries disclosed by Nakayama for the electric apparatus disclosed by Woo 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.
Regarding claim 8, Nakayama discloses the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery according to claim 2, wherein the composite particle has an average particle size in the range of 0.5 μm to 30 μm (Nakayama:
1 nm to 100 μm, and above all within a range of 10 nm to 30 μm [0045]), and the deterioration reducing material particle has an average particle size in the range of 0.4 μm to 10 μm. Nakayama is silent on the particle size of the deterioration reducing material. Woo however, discloses an overlapping range for a deterioration reducing material of 0.1 to 0.5 μm (Woo: [0011]).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Nakayama and Woo are analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely anode material for sodium ion batteries.
In seeking a sodium battery with excellent life characteristics and charge/discharge capacity before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize metal oxide particles having the same size as the ones disclosed by Woo for the anode material discloses by Nakayama 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.
Regarding claim 10, Nakayama discloses the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery according to claim 8, wherein the deterioration reducing material particle is a metal oxide particle (Na2Ti6O13, abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Nakayama discloses a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (see Nakayama figure 1) including an active material layer (see Nakayama figure 1) containing the negative electrode active material (Nakayama abstract) for the secondary battery according to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (Nakayama figure 1) including an active material layer (Nakayama figure 1) containing the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery (Nakayama abstract) according to claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, a secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (Nakayama figure 1) including an active material layer (Nakayama figure 1) containing the negative electrode active material for the secondary battery (Nakayama abstract) according to claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, Nakayama discloses the secondary battery according to claim 12, wherein the secondary battery comprises sodium as a carrier (an Na-ion moves between a cathode and anode [0002]).
Regarding claim 20, Nakayama discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1 but fails to disclose an electric apparatus using the secondary battery. Using the secondary battery in an electric apparatus in an intended use.
Additionally, Woo discloses sodium batteries as a replacement for lithium-ion batteries (Woo: [0003]) and discloses that lithium-ion batteries are used for example for portable electronic devices and electric vehicles (Woo: [0002]).
In seeking a more cost effective alternative to the lithium ion batteries as disclosed by Woo before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the sodium batteries disclosed by Nakayama for the electric apparatus disclosed by Woo 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.
Conclusion
US 11894547 B2 discloses an engineered particle for an energy storage device.
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
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 10/08/2026
