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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-18 of copending Application No. 18/405033.
Claim 1 of Patent application ‘033 cites a positive electrode material comprising: a mixture of a positive electrode active material, a solid electrolyte, and a conductive material, wherein the conductive material contains a first conductive material having an average major axis diameter of greater than or equal to 1 μm and a second conductive material having an average particle diameter of less than or equal to 100 nm, and a ratio of a volume of the positive electrode active material to a total volume of the positive electrode active material and the solid electrolyte is greater than or equal to 60% and less than or equal to 90%. The definition of the average major axis diameter of application ‘033 and the claimed average long-axis diameter shows overlap per the respective application’s specification. Furthermore, the claimed average particle diameter of second conductive material overlaps with the range in application ‘033. The claimed ratio of a volume of the positive electrode active material to a sum of the volume of the positive electrode active material and a volume of the solid electrolyte being 50% or more and 90% or less shows overlap with the ratio in application ‘033 (stated above). Hence, the examined application claim 1 would have been obvious over the reference claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 of application ‘033 have the same ratio ranges as the instant claims 2, 3. Claim 5, 6, 7 of application ‘033 has the same ratio of the mass of second conductive material to the mass of the conductive material as the instant claims 6, 7, 8. Claim 8 of application ‘033 has the same average diameter range for the first conductive material as the instant claim 9. Claims 10-13 of application ‘033 have the same carbon materials of the conductive material as stated in instant claims 12-15. Features of positive electrode material and battery comprising the same as shown in claims 14-18 of application ‘033 are the same as the features of instant claims 16-20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki et al (US 20100248034 A1) in view of Mizutani et al (US 20160072120 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Oki teaches a positive electrode material (composite material for positive electrodes; Paragraph 0019) comprising: a mixture of a positive electrode active material (Paragraph 0022), and a conductive material, wherein the conductive material contains a first conductive material (fibrous carbons; Paragraph 0024) having a fiber length of 1 μm or more (Paragraph 0025). The fiber length is akin to the claimed average long-axis diameter of 1 μm or more. The instant specification states that the long-axis diameter of each of the particles of the first conductive material is defined as the diameter of a circle having the minimum area surrounding the particle of the first conductive material in the SEM image of the particles of the first conductive material. A smallest area circle that encloses a particle would cover the length of the fiber, and hence, the diameter of this circle would be around the same as the length of the fiber.
Furthermore, Oki teaches adding a second conductive material (a carbon material subserving conductivity in addition to the fibrous carbons may be blended; Paragraph 0029). Oki does not specifically teach that the carbon material has an average particle diameter of more than 23 nm and 100 nm or less.
Oki also does not teach a solid electrolyte in the positive electrode material and that the ratio of a volume of the positive electrode active material to a total volume of the positive electrode active material and the solid electrolyte is greater than or equal to 50% and less than or equal to 90%, but Oki does state that other constituents of the positive electrode are not limited (Paragraph 0069).
However, Mizutani teaches a cathode mixture that comprises cathode active material, fibrous electroconductive material, particulate electroconductive material, and a solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0014). Mizutani also teaches that the particulate electroconductive material (akin to the claimed second conductive material) has primary particle size no less than 5 nm and no more than 100 nm (Paragraph 0040). This range overlaps with the claimed range of more than 23 nm and 100 nm or less. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the particle size range of Mizutani into the electrode material of Oki in order to obtain a cathode mixture that has high ion conductivity and electron conductivity and excellent output characteristic (Paragraph 0025).
Furthermore, Mizutani teaches adding cathode active material particles in an amount of no less than 40 mass % and no more than 99 mass % of the total amount of cathode active, fibrous conductive, particulate conductive, and solid electrolyte material (Paragraph 0038). The fibrous electroconductive material and the particulate electroconductive material are included in an amount of no less than 0.5 mass % and no more than 2.5 mass % in total (Paragraph 0014). The cathode mixture of the present invention preferably includes no less than 0.5 mass % and no more than 55 mass % of the solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0044). Based on the mass % values chosen from the ranges above, the resulting volume % varies such that it overlaps with the claimed range. Hence, it would be possible to choose the mass % amounts of the cathode active material and the solid electrolyte in Mizutani in such a way that it overlaps with the claimed range of the ratio of a volume of the positive electrode active material to a total volume of the positive electrode active material and the solid electrolyte is greater than or equal to 50% and less than or equal to 90%. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mass % amount as taught in Mizutani with the electrode material of Oki in order to obtain a cathode with excellent ion conductivity and electron conductivity (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 2, and Claim 3,
Oki does not teach that the ratio of the volume of the positive electrode active material to the total volume of the positive electrode active material and the solid electrolyte is greater than or equal to 65% and less than or equal to 85%, or is greater than or equal to 67% and less than or equal to 75%.
However, Mizutani teaches adding cathode active material particles in an amount of no less than 40 mass % and no more than 99 mass % of the total amount of cathode active, fibrous conductive, particulate conductive, and solid electrolyte material (Paragraph 0038). The fibrous electroconductive material and the particulate electroconductive material are included in an amount of no less than 0.5 mass % and no more than 2.5 mass % in total (Paragraph 0014). The cathode mixture of the present invention preferably includes no less than 0.5 mass % and no more than 55 mass % of the solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0044). Based on the mass % values chosen from the ranges above, the resulting volume % varies such that it overlaps with the claimed range. Hence, it would be possible to choose the mass % amounts of the cathode active material and the solid electrolyte in Mizutani in such a way that it overlaps with the claimed range of the ratio of a volume of the positive electrode active material to a total volume of the positive electrode active material and the solid electrolyte is greater than or equal to 65% and less than or equal to 85%, or is greater than or equal to 67% and less than or equal to 75%. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mass % amount as taught in Mizutani with the electrode material of Oki in order to obtain a cathode with excellent ion conductivity and electron conductivity (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 4, and Claim 5,
Oki teaches that the total blending amount of the fibrous carbons and the carbon material other than the fibrous carbons is preferably 0.02 parts by weight or more, more preferably 0.1 parts by weight or more, and still more preferably 0.5 parts by weight or more based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material. From the viewpoint of enhancing the energy density of the composite material for positive electrodes, the total blending amount thereof is preferably 30 parts by weight or less, more preferably 20 parts by weight or less, and still more preferably 10 parts by weight or less. Collectively considering the viewpoints, the total blending amount of the fibrous carbons and the carbon material other than the fibrous carbons is preferably 0.02 to 30 parts by weight, more preferably 0.1 to 20 parts by weight, and still more preferably 0.5 to 10 parts by weight (Paragraph 0033). This range overlaps with a ratio of a mass of the conductive material to a mass of the positive electrode active material is 10% or less, or the ratio of the mass of the conductive material to the mass of the positive electrode active material is 3% or less. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the overlapping value of the mass ratio of the conductive material in Oki in order to enhance the energy density of the electrode.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 7, and Claim 8,
Oki teaches the blending amount of the carbon material other than the fibrous carbons is preferably 0 to 20 parts by weight, more preferably 0 to 10 parts by weight, and still more preferably 0 to 5 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the positive electrode active material (Paragraph 0032). The total blending amount of the fibrous carbons and the carbon material other than the fibrous carbons is preferably 0.02 to 30 parts by weight, more preferably 0.1 to 20 parts by weight, and still more preferably 0.5 to 10 parts by weight (Paragraph 0033). Hence, based on the above it would be possible to choose blending amounts of the carbon material (i.e. second conductive material) in relation to the mass of the conductive material such that the ratio of a mass of the second conductive material to a mass of the conductive material is 80% or less, or the ratio of the mass of the second conductive material to the mass of the conductive material is 5% or more and 50% or less, or the ratio of the mass of the second conductive material to the mass of the conductive material is 6% or more and 25% or less. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the appropriate blending amount in Oki to meet the claimed ranges in order to hold the shape of the granules while subserving conductivity (Paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 9,
Oki teaches that the fiber length of the fibrous carbon is preferably 50 nm to 50 um, more preferably 500 nm to 30 um, and still more preferably 1 um to 10 um (Paragraph 0025). These ranges overlap with the claimed range of the average long-axis diameter of the first conductive material being 4 μm or more. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an appropriate fiber length (akin to average long-axis diameter) in order to account for the smoothness of the surface of the positive electrode (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 10, and Claim 11,
Oki does not teach that the average particle diameter of the second conductive material is more than 23 nm and 70 nm or less, or that the average particle diameter of the second conductive material is more than 23 nm and 50 nm or less.
However, Mizutani teaches that the particulate electroconductive material (akin to the claimed second conductive material) has primary particle size no less than 5 nm and no more than 100 nm (Paragraph 0040). This range overlaps with the claimed range of more than 23 nm and 70 nm or less, and more than 23 nm and 50 nm or less. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the particle size range of Mizutani into the electrode material of Oki in order to obtain a cathode mixture that has high ion conductivity and electron conductivity and excellent output characteristic (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 13, Claim 14, Claim 15,
Oki teaches the use of carbon material for both the first conductive material and the second conductive material contain a carbon material. Oki teaches using fibrous carbon in the positive electrode material (Paragraph 024). Oki teaches using carbon black as the additional carbon material added to the electrode mixture (second conductive material), and also states that acetylene black is preferably used (Paragraph 0028 and 0029).
Regarding Claim 16,
Oki does not limit the other constituents of the lithium battery (Paragraph 0069), but Oki does not specifically teach that the solid electrolyte contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a sulfide solid electrolyte and a halide solid electrolyte.
However, Mizutani teaches the use of sulfide solid electrolyte in the cathode mixture (Paragraph 0043). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the solid electrolyte as shown in Mizutani into the mix of Oki in order to obtain a cathode with excellent ion conductivity and electron conductivity (Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 17,
Oki teaches that as the positive electrode active material, any conventionally known materials can be used. Examples thereof include Li--Mn-based composite oxides such as LiMn2O4, Li--Co-based composite oxides such as LiCoO2, Li--Ni-based composite oxides such as LiNiO2, Li--Fe-based composite oxides such as LiFeO2, and the like. The instant specification also provides examples of positive electrode active material 110 include LiCoO2, LiNixMe1-xO2, LiNixCo1-xO2, LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2, LiMnO2. Since Oki teaches conventionally known materials as the positive electrode active material, hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the active material has a layered rock-salt structure in order to utilize materials that can absorb and release lithium ions easily (Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 18,
Oki does not teach that a coating layer covering at least a portion of a surface of the positive electrode active material. However, Mizutani teaches that the cathode active material particle is preferably covered by a lithium ion conductive oxide. This is akin to a coating layer. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a coating layer in order prevent increase in battery resistance, by making it difficult for a high resistance layer to form at the interface between the cathode active material particle and the sulfide solid electrolyte (Paragraph 0045).
Regarding Claim 19, and Claim 20,
Oki does not specifically teach the limitations around the battery composition.
However, Mizutani teaches a solid battery including the cathode according to the invention, a solid electrolyte layer, and an anode, and a production method of a solid battery including a step of laminating the cathode obtained by the production method according to the present invention, a solid electrolyte layer, and an anode. It is preferable that the solid battery is a sulfide all-solid battery including a sulfide solid electrolyte in both its solid electrolyte layer and anode (Paragraph 0066).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights