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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1: regarding the limitation the electrode having lightness L* that satisfies 40 ≤ L* ≤ 85, lightness L* is interpreted as a parameter measured as set forth in P6L6–9 of the instant specification.
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 1–12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation a weight of carbon contained in the electrode being 2.5 parts by weight or less, per 100 parts by weight of the active material. However, it is unclear if “carbon” in this context is in reference to the carbon material recited earlier in the claim which is contained in the conductive agent, or generally the total amount of carbon in the electrode, which would also include e.g. an organic binder. For the purposes of this office action, the first interpretation is being used, i.e. the above limitation has been interpreted as a weight of the carbon material contained in the electrode being 2.5 parts by weight or less, per 100 parts by weight of the active material which appears to be supported by P20L12–P21L5 and Table 1 of the instant specification.
Claims 2–12 are rejected as they depend upon Claim 1 and do not resolve the indefinite language described above.
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 and 8–14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of copending Application No. 17/823,544 in view of and as evidenced by Kusama et al. (US 2021/0083268 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1, claim 2 of the reference application recite: an electrode comprising an active material that comprises a metal oxide, and a conductive agent that contains a carbon material (claim 1 of the reference application).
While claim 2 of the reference application does not disclose a weight of the carbon material contained in the electrode being 2.5 parts by weight or less, per 100 parts by weight of the active material, Kusama teaches an electrode (see electrode, [0024]) comprising an active material (see active material, [0024]) that comprises a metal oxide (see titanium-containing composite oxide, [0024]), and a conductive agent that contains a carbon material (see combination of carbon fiber, [0025], and granular carbon, [0028]), a weight of carbon material in the form of a fibrous carbon material (see carbon fiber, [0025]) contained in the electrode being 0.01 to 5 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the active material ([0061]), and a weight of carbon material in the form of granular carbon material (see granular carbon, [0028]) contained in the electrode being 0 to 5 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the active material ([0063]). Kusama teaches ([0061], [0063]) that including the fibrous carbon material and granular carbon material in the above weight ranges in the electrode can increase electronic conductivity of the active material-containing layer without decreasing energy density.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 2 of the reference application such that the weight of the carbon material in the form of the fibrous carbon material is 0.01 to 5 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the active material, and a weight of the carbon material in the form of the granular carbon material is 0 to 5 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the active material, as taught by Kusama, for the purpose of increasing electronic conductivity of the active material-containing layer without decreasing energy density.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have bene obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the weight of the carbon material contained in the electrode with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in an electrode with suitable levels of electronic conductivity and energy density, thus satisfying the limitation a weight of the carbon material contained in the electrode being 2.5 parts by weight or less, per 100 parts by weight of the active material, as recited in Claim 1 of the instant application.
While claim 2 of the reference application does not recite the electrode having lightness L* that satisfies 40 ≤ L* ≤ 85, claim 2 of the reference application does recite wherein the lightness L* satisfies 35.0 ≤ L* ≤ 50.0.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the lightness L* with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a functional electrode, thus satisfying the limitation the electrode having lightness L* that satisfies 40 ≤ L* ≤ 85, as recited in Claim 1 of the instant application.
Regarding Claims 8–10, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 1 of the instant application as set forth above. Claim 2 of the reference application further recites wherein the metal oxide comprises a monoclinic niobium titanium-containing oxide (claim 1 of the reference application).
Regarding Claim 11, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 1 of the instant application as set forth above.
While claim 2 of the reference application does not disclose the limitation a secondary battery comprising:
a positive electrode;
a negative electrode; and
an electrolyte,
at least one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode being the electrode according to claim 1, it is well-known in the field of electrodes for secondary batteries to incorporate electrodes into secondary batteries in the manner set forth above, as evidenced by Kusama ([0073], [0080]). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified claim 2 of the reference application, thus satisfying the limitation a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and an electrolyte, at least one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode being the electrode according to claim 1, as recited in Claim 11 of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 12, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 11 of the instant application as set forth above.
While claim 2 of the reference application does not disclose the limitation a battery pack comprising at least one secondary battery according to claim 11, it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries to incorporate secondary batteries into a battery pack in the manner set forth above, as evidenced by Kusama ([0143]). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified claim 2 of the reference application, thus satisfying the limitation a battery pack comprising at least one secondary battery according to claim 11, as recited in Claim 12 of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 13, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 12 of the instant application as set forth above.
While claim 2 of the reference application does not disclose the limitation the battery pack further comprising:
an external power distribution terminal; and
a protective circuit, it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries to include external power distribution terminals and protective circuits in battery packs, as evidenced by Kusama ([0144]–[0145]). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified claim 2 of the reference application, thus satisfying the limitation the battery pack further comprising an external power distribution terminal; and a protective circuit, as recited in Claim 13 of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 14, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 12 of the instant application as set forth above.
While claim 2 of the reference application does not disclose the limitation the battery pack comprising a plurality of the at least one secondary battery,
the secondary batteries being electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of series connection and parallel connection, it is well-known in the field of secondary batteries to include a plurality of secondary batteries in a battery pack which are electrically connected in series, parallel, or in a combination of series and parallel, as evidenced by Kusama ([0150]–[0151]). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified claim 2 of the reference application, thus satisfying the limitation the battery pack comprising a plurality of the at least one secondary battery, the secondary batteries being electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of series connection and parallel connection, as recited in Claim 14 of the instant application.
Claims 2 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of copending Application No. 17/823,544 in view of Kusama et al. (US 2021/0083268 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Yoshitake et al. (US 2012/0171566 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 2, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 1 of the instant application as set forth above. Claim 2 of the reference application further recites wherein the carbon material in the conductive agent comprises a fibrous carbon material (see at least one of single-walled carbon nanotubes or multi-walled carbon nanotubes, claim 1 of the reference application).
While modified claim 2 of the reference application does not disclose the limitation the fibrous carbon material having a first portion with a fiber diameter of 60 nm to 500 nm, and a second portion with a fiber diameter of 1 nm to 15 nm, Yoshitake teaches an electrode ([0044]) comprising an active material ([0097]) that comprises a metal oxide (see titanium oxide, [0098]), and a conductive agent that contains a carbon material (see combination of fine fibrous carbon (a), fibrous carbon having a diameter of 100 nm or more (b), and a non-fibrous conductive carbon (c), [0044]). Yoshitake teaches that the carbon material in the conductive agent comprises a fibrous carbon material (see combination of fine fibrous carbon (a) and fibrous carbon having a diameter of 100 nm or more (b), [0044]) having a first portion with a fiber diameter of 100 nm or more (see fibrous carbon having a diameter of 100 nm or more (b), [0044], [0090]), and a second portion (see fine fibrous carbon (a), [0044], [0045]) with a fiber diameter of less than 100 nm ([0045]). Yoshitake teaches ([0094]) that including both of these first and second portions of fibrous carbon material with fiber diameters of 100 nm or more and less than 100 nm, respectively, results in improved conductivity and homogenized electrode potential.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified claim 2 of the reference application such that the fibrous carbon material has a first portion with a fiber diameter of over 100 nm, and a second portion of less than 100 nm, as taught by Yoshitake, for the purpose of improving conductivity and homogenizing electrode potential.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the fiber diameters of the first and second portions of the fibrous carbon material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in improved conductivity and homogenized electrode potential, thus satisfying the limitation wherein the carbon material in the conductive agent comprises a fibrous carbon material having a first portion with a fiber diameter of 60 nm to 500 nm, and a second portion with a fiber diameter of 1 nm to 15 nm, as recited in Claim 2 of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 3, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 2 of the instant application as set forth above. As already set forth above, claim 2 of the reference application further recites wherein the fibrous carbon material comprises carbon nanotube (claim 1 of the reference application).
Claims 4 and 5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of copending Application No. 17/823,544 in view of Kusama et al. (US 2021/0083268 A1) and further in view of Yoshitake et al. (US 2012/0171566 A1) as applied to Claims 2 and 3 above, further in view of Hoshina et al. (US 2020/0091505 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 4, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 2 of the instant application as set forth above. Claim 2 of the reference application further recites wherein the carbon material in the conductive agent further comprises a granular carbon material (see acetylene black, claim 1 of the reference application).
While modified claim 2 of the reference application does not disclose the limitation the granular carbon material has a particle size of 30 nm or smaller, Hoshina teaches an electrode ([0019]) comprising an active material ([0020]) that comprises a metal oxide (see niobium-titanium composite oxide, [0020]), and a conductive agent ([0020]) that contains a carbon material (see combination of fibrous carbon, [0020], and granular carbon, [0076]), a weight of the carbon material contained in the electrode being 1 to 5 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the active material ([0078]), wherein the carbon material in the conductive agent comprises a granular carbon material (see granular carbon, [0076]) with a particle size of 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less ([0077]). Hoshina teaches ([0077]) that when the granular carbon material has a particle size within the range of 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less, the input-output performance and life performance of the secondary battery tend to be high.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified claim 2 of the reference application such that the granular carbon material has a particle size of 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less, as taught by Hoshina, for the purpose of contributing to a high input-output performance and life performance of the secondary battery.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the particle size of the granular carbon material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a secondary battery tending to have high input-output performance and life performance, thus satisfying the limitation wherein the carbon material in the conductive agent further comprises a granular carbon material with a particle size of 30 nm or smaller, as recited in Claim 4 of the instant application.
Regarding Claim 5, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 4 of the instant application as set forth above. As already set forth above, claim 2 of the reference application further recites wherein the granular carbon material comprises carbon black (see acetylene black, claim 1 of the reference application).
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of copending Application No. 17/823,544 in view of Kusama et al. (US 2021/0083268 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, as evidenced by Griffith et al. (“Ionic and Electronic Conduction in TiNb2O7”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 6, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 1 of the instant application as set forth above.
While claim 2 of the reference application does not explicitly disclose the limitation wherein the metal oxide is a white particulate matter, claim 2 of the reference application does recite wherein the metal oxide is Nb2TiO7 (claim 1 of the reference application), which as evidenced by Griffith is a white particulate matter (p. 16719 ¶ “Implications of Electronic…”), and thus satisfies the limitation wherein the metal oxide is a white particulate matter, as recited in Claim 6 of the instant application.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 2 of copending Application No. 17/823,544 in view of Kusama et al. (US 2021/0083268 A1) as evidenced by Griffith et al. (“Ionic and Electronic Conduction in TiNb2O7”) as applied to Claim 6 above, further in view of Hoshina et al. (US 2020/0091505 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified claim 2 of the reference application discloses Claim 6 of the instant application as set forth above.
While claim 2 of the reference application does not disclose the limitation wherein the metal oxide has an average primary particle size of 0.4 µm to 1.5 µm, Hoshina teaches an electrode ([0019]) comprising an active material ([0020]) that comprises a metal oxide (see niobium-titanium composite oxide, [0020]), and a conductive agent ([0020]) that contains a carbon material (see combination of fibrous carbon, [0020], and granular carbon, [0076]), a weight of the carbon material contained in the electrode being 1 to 5 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the active material ([0078]). Hoshina teaches ([0032]) that when the metal oxide has an average primary particle size of 0.4 µm to 1.3 µm, deterioration of the life performance of the secondary battery tends to be avoided and the input-output performance can be sufficiently improved.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified claim 2 of the reference application such that the metal oxide has an average primary particle size of 0.4 µm to 1.3 µm, as taught by Hoshina, for the purpose of tending to avoid deterioration of the life performance of the secondary battery and sufficiently improving the input-output performance, thus satisfying the limitation wherein the metal oxide has an average primary particle size of 0.4 µm to 1.5 µm, as recited in Claim 7 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claima 1–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (US 2021/0083268 A1) in view of Hoshina et al. (US 2020/0091505 A1) and further in view of Yoshitake et al. (US 2012/0171566 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kusama discloses an electrode ([0024]) comprising an active material ([0024]) that comprises a metal oxide (see titanium-containing composite oxide, [0024]), and a conductive agent that contains a carbon material (see combination of carbon fiber, [0025], and granular carbon, [0028]).
Kusama does not disclose a weight of the carbon material contained in the electrode being 2.5 parts by weight or less, per 100 parts by weight of the active material, but does disclose a weight of carbon material in the form of a fibrous carbon material (see carbon fiber, [0025]) contained in the electrode being 0.01 to 5 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the active material ([0061]), and a weight of carbon material in the form of granular carbon material (see granular carbon, [0028]) contained in the electrode being 0 to 5 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the active material ([0063]). Kusama discloses ([0061], [0063]) that including the fibrous carbon material and granular carbon material in the above weight ranges in the electrode can increase electronic conductivity of the active material-containing layer without decreasing energy density. It can be understood from the above that Kusama discloses wherein a weight of the carbon material contained in the electrode is from 0.1 to 10 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the active material (this being the sum of the two weight ranges for the fibrous carbon material and granular carbon material disclosed by Kusama).
Kusama is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrodes for secondary batteries. When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the weight of the carbon material contained in the electrode with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in an electrode with suitable levels of electronic conductivity and energy density.
Kusama does not explicitly disclose the electrode having lightness L* that satisfies 40 ≤ L* ≤ 85.
However, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus a description of, inherent properties of the recited electrode, as evidenced by the instant specification.
Applicant discloses that the lightness L* is dependent upon the amount of conductive agent (P4L12–19), and the dispersion and entanglement of the conductive agent with the active material (P4L20–P5L4).
Furthermore, Applicant discloses ([0218]–[0219], Table 1) e.g. Example 8 with a lightness L* of 66 and having the following properties:
the metal oxide is TiNb2O7 with an average primary particle size of 1.1 µm
the conductive agent comprises:
a fibrous carbon material (carbon nanotube) having a first portion with a fiber diameter of 100 nm, and a second portion with a fiber diameter of 2 nm
a granular carbon material (acetylene black) with a particle size of 36 nm
the electrode composition has a content ratio by weight of fibrous carbon material : granular carbon material : active material of 0.3 : 0.5 : 100
Accordingly, it is reasonably interpreted given the above that the content of the conductive agent in addition to its dispersity and entanglement with the active material are critical to an electrode (such as the electrode of Example 8) having a lightness L* within the desired range of Claim 1.
In comparison, Kusama discloses an electrode with the following properties:
the active material is a monoclinic niobium titanium-containing oxide TiNb2O7 (see AxTiMyNb2–yO7±z wherein x = y = z = 0, [0042], and LixNb2TiO7 wherein x = 0, [0045]; note [0045] describes said compound as monoclinic)
the conductive agent comprises:
as set forth above, a fibrous carbon material (see carbon fiber, [0025]) in the form of carbon nanotube ([0060])
as set forth above, a granular carbon material (see granular carbon, [0025]) in the form of carbon black ([0062]), specifically acetylene black ([0062])
as set forth above, the electrode composition has a content ratio by weight of fibrous carbon material : granular carbon material : active material of 0.01 to 5 : 0 to 5 : 100 ([0061], [0063])
Kusama does not explicitly disclose the metal oxide has a primary particle size of 1.1 µm, as in Example 8 of the instant specification, but does disclose ([0070]) that the metal oxide has an average particle size (not specified as primary particle size) of 1 µm to 5 µm.
Hoshina teaches an electrode ([0019]) comprising an active material ([0020]) that comprises a metal oxide (see niobium-titanium composite oxide, [0020]), and a conductive agent ([0020]) that contains a carbon material (see combination of fibrous carbon, [0020], and granular carbon, [0076]), a weight of the carbon material contained in the electrode being 1 to 5 parts by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the active material ([0078]). Hoshina teaches ([0032]) that when the metal oxide has an average primary particle size of 0.4 µm to 1.3 µm, deterioration of the life performance of the secondary battery tends to be avoided and the input-output performance can be sufficiently improved.
Hoshina is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrodes for secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of modified Kusama such that the metal oxide has an average primary particle size of 0.4 µm to 1.3 µm, as taught by Hoshina, for the purpose of tending to avoid deterioration of the life performance of the secondary battery and sufficiently improving the input-output performance.
Kusama does not explicitly disclose the fibrous carbon material having a first portion with a fiber diameter of 100 nm, and a second portion with a fiber diameter of 2 nm as in Example 8 of the instant specification, but does disclose the fibrous carbon material having a fiber diameter of 1 nm to 200 nm ([0060]).
Yoshitake teaches an electrode ([0044]) comprising an active material ([0097]) that comprises a metal oxide (see titanium oxide, [0098]), and a conductive agent that contains a carbon material (see combination of fine fibrous carbon (a), fibrous carbon having a diameter of 100 nm or more (b), and a non-fibrous conductive carbon (c), [0044]). Yoshitake teaches that the carbon material in the conductive agent comprises a fibrous carbon material (see combination of fine fibrous carbon (a) and fibrous carbon having a diameter of 100 nm or more (b), [0044]) having a first portion with a fiber diameter of 100 nm or more (see fibrous carbon having a diameter of 100 nm or more (b), [0044], [0090]), and a second portion (see fine fibrous carbon (a), [0044], [0045]) with a fiber diameter of less than 100 nm ([0045]). Yoshitake teaches ([0094]) that including both of these first and second portions of fibrous carbon material with fiber diameters of 100 nm or more and less than 100 nm, respectively, results in improved conductivity and homogenized electrode potential.
Yoshitake is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of electrodes for secondary batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of modified Kusama such that the fibrous carbon material has a first portion with a fiber diameter of over 100 nm, and a second portion with a fiber diameter of less than 100 nm, as taught by Yoshitake, for the purpose of improving conductivity and homogenizing electrode potential.
Kusama does not explicitly disclose the granular carbon material having a particle size of 36 nm as in Example 8 of the instant specification.
Hoshina teaches wherein the carbon material in the conductive agent comprises a granular carbon material (see granular carbon, [0076]) with a particle size of 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less ([0077]). Hoshina teaches ([0077]) that when the granular carbon material has a particle size within the range of 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less, the input-output performance and life performance of the secondary battery tend to be high.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of modified Kusama such that the granular carbon material has a particle size of 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less, as taught by Hoshina, for the purpose of contributing to a high input-output performance and life performance of the secondary battery.
Kusama discloses inorganic solid particles in the form of a solid electrolyte as an additional component to enhance lithium ion conductivity ([0052], [0059]), and that these inorganic solid particles can be included in a content ratio as low as 0.1 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of active material ([0059]). It would therefore have been obvious to include them in such an amount with a reasonable expectation that does so would still achieve their intended effects; it is submitted that including the inorganic solid particles in such a small amount (less than 0.1 wt% of the entire electrode) would not affect the lightness of the electrode to an appreciable extent.
MPEP § 2112.02.I states that 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.
It is submitted that the electrode of modified Kusama is substantially identical to the electrode of Example 8 of the instant specification, as set forth above, such that the electrode of modified Kusama would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus satisfy the claimed limitations, i.e. have a lightness L* that satisfies 40 ≤ L* ≤ 85.
Assuming, arguendo, that the properties recited in the claimed limitation are not inherent, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed electrode and that of modified Kusama are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the instant specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the electrode of modified Kusama and that of the instant application to be obvious variants of one another.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kusama discloses the electrode as set forth above. Regarding the limitation wherein the carbon material in the conductive agent comprises a fibrous carbon material having a first portion with a fiber diameter of 60 nm to 500 nm, and a second portion with a fiber diameter of 1 nm to 15 nm, as already set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, modified Kusama discloses wherein the carbon material in the conductive agent comprises a fibrous carbon material having a first portion with a fiber diameter of 100 nm or more, and a second portion with a fiber diameter of less than 100 nm, and Yoshitake teaches ([0094]) that including both of these first and second portions of fibrous carbon material results in improved conductivity and homogenized electrode potential.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the fiber diameters of the first and second portions of the fibrous carbon material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in improved conductivity and homogenized electrode potential.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kusama discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kusama further discloses wherein the fibrous carbon material comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of carbon nanotube (see carbon nanotubes (CNTs), [0060]), vapor grown carbon fiber (see vapor-grown carbon fibers (VGCFs), [0060]), and carbon nanofiber (see carbon nanofibers (CNFs), [0060]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kusama discloses the electrode as set forth above. Regarding the limitation wherein the carbon material in the conductive agent further comprises a granular carbon material with a particle size of 30 nm or smaller, as already set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, modified Kusama discloses wherein the carbon material in the conductive agent further comprises a granular carbon material with a particle size of 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less, and Hoshina teaches ([0077]) that when the granular carbon material has a particle size within the range of 10 nm or more and 300 nm or less, the input-output performance and life performance of the secondary battery tend to be high.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the particle size of the granular carbon material with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a secondary battery tending to have high input-output performance and life performance.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kusama discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kusama further discloses ([0062]) wherein the granular carbon material comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of carbon black and graphite.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kusama discloses the electrode as set forth above. As already set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Kusama discloses wherein the metal oxide is TiNb2O7 (see AxTiMyNb2–yO7±z wherein x = y = z = 0, [0042], and LixNb2TiO7 wherein x = 0, [0045]) which is evidenced by the instant specification (P68L10–P69L2) to be a white particulate matter.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kusama discloses the electrode as set forth above. As already set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, modified Kusama discloses wherein the metal oxide has an average primary particle size of 0.4 µm to 1.3 µm.
Regarding Claims 8–10, modified Kusama discloses the electrode as set forth above. As already set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Kusama discloses wherein the metal oxide comprises a monoclinic niobium titanium-containing oxide, specifically TiNb2O7 (see AxTiMyNb2–yO7±z wherein x = y = z = 0, [0042], and LixNb2TiO7 wherein x = 0, [0045]; note [0045] describes said compound as monoclinic).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kusama discloses the electrode as set forth above. Kusama further discloses a secondary battery ([0073]), comprising:
a positive electrode ([0073]);
a negative electrode ([0073]); and
an electrolyte ([0073]),
at least one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode is the electrode according to Claim 1 ([0073], [0080]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kusama discloses the secondary battery as set forth above. Kusama further discloses a battery pack (see battery pack, [0143]) comprising at least one secondary battery according to Claim 11 ([0143]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kusama discloses the battery pack as set forth above. Kusama further discloses the battery pack further comprising:
an external power distribution terminal ([0145]); and
a protective circuit ([0144]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kusama discloses the battery pack as set forth above. Kusama further discloses the battery pack further comprising a plurality of the at least one secondary battery (see plural single batteries, [0150]),
the secondary batteries being electrically connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of series connection and parallel connection ([0151]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights