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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 8 and 12.
The pending claims are claims 1-10, 12-17, 19, 20.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 1-10, 12-17, 19, 20 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.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 12 have been amended to state the “current collector comprises or consists of” which renders the claim indefinite since the transitional phrases comprises and consists have different connotations. MPEP 2113.03. For examination purposes, the claim language has been interpreted as comprises and there construed as open. All other claims are dependent on these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al., WO 2013178059, in view of Tranchot et al., J Electrochem Society, and in further view of Kataoka et al., WO 2018016519 (translation Kataoka et al., US 2019/0157720).
Regarding claim 1, Yue et al., teaches an electrode (0004-0005; 0019) for an electrochemical cell (abstract), the electrode comprising electrode material (0004-0005;0019), a current collector (graphite support) (0019), and a binder composition (0022-0024), wherein the binder composition (5% PVDF) (0039) adheres (“substance that is capable of holding materials together in a functional manner by surface attachment that resists separation” (Google definition) the electrode material to the current collector (graphite surface) (0022-0024); composition comprising water-soluble lignin (0012; 0029; 0060).
Yue et al., does not teach composition comprising from 5 to 95% weight by weight of at least one water-soluble lignin and said composition further comprising from 5 to 95% weight by weight of carboxymethyl cellulose, wherein the % weight by weight are based on the overall dry weight of the composition, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Tranchot et al., teaches a carboxymethyl cellulose binder (pg. A1020, col. 1-2) in a lithium battery.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Tranchot into the teachings of Yue because Tranchot teaches carboxymethyl cellulose as the binder, wherein “the role of the binder is very critical for Si electrodes to maintain the electrode architecture” and CMC “has been shown to significantly improve the cycling performance of Si electrodes.”
Yue and Tranchot do not teach current collector comprises metal designed as foil, network, or gauze.
Kataoka et al., teaches current collector (0122; 0129; 0193-0194) comprising metal (0193) designed as network (“net-shaped collector”) (0194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Kataoka into the teachings of modified Yue modified by Tranchot because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2, Yue et al., teaches the water- soluble lignin is a sulfonated lignin (0012), or a lignosulfonate (0012; 0029).
Regarding claim 3, Yue et al., teaches the composition comprises at least one further component selected from the group consisting of at least one water soluble polymer, at least one water dispersible polymer and a mixture thereof (0028).
Regarding claim 4, Yue et al., teaches an electrode wherein the at least one further component is selected from the group consisting of polyetherimide (0012).
Regarding claim 5, Yue et al., teaches a negative electrode (0008; 0019-0024).
Regarding claim 6, Yue et al., teaches the electrode material comprises an electrochemically active material is selected from silicon or a silicon- carbon composite (0019; 0022) either separately or combined with other negative active materials or other forms of electrochemically active carbon, (0019-0022), as well as mixtures of one or more of these compounds, also in the form of composites with carbon (0006; 0012).
Regarding claim 7, Yue et al., teaches the electrode material further comprises at least one conductive agent (0019-0020).
Regarding claim 8, Yue et al., teaches a method for producing a negative electrode for an electrochemical cell, the method comprising the step of mixing a binder composition comprising 5 to 95% wt by wt of carboxymethyl cellulose, wherein %wt by wt are based on overall dry wt of the binder composition, with at least one electrode active material and adhering the electrode active material with the binder compositon to a current collector, whenein the collector comprises a comprises metal and is designed as foil, network, or gauze.
Tranchot et al., teaches a carboxymethyl cellulose binder (pg. A1020, col. 1-2) in a lithium battery.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Tranchot into the teachings of Yue because Tranchot teaches carboxymethyl cellulose as the binder, wherein “the role of the binder is very critical for Si electrodes to maintain the electrode architecture” and CMC “has been shown to significantly improve the cycling performance of Si electrodes.”
Yue and Tranchot do not teach current collector comprises metal designed as foil, network, or gauze.
Kataoka et al., teaches current collector (0122; 0129; 0193-0194) comprising metal (0193) designed as network (“net-shaped collector”) (0194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Kataoka into the teachings of modified Yue modified by Tranchot because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 9, Yue et al., teaches an electrochemical cell (abstract) comprising the negative electrode according to claim 5 (abstract; 0008; 0019-0024).
Regarding claim 10, Yue et al., teaches a battery, comprising at least one electrochemical cell, according to claim 9 (0019).
Regarding claim 12, Yue et al., teaches a method of manufacturing an electrochemical cell, in particular a negative electrode of a lithium ion battery, the method comprising dispersing an electrochemically active material in a slurry comprising the composition (0026-0029) according to claim1 (0008) and adhering the electrode active material with the binder composition to a current collector (carrier; graphite support) (0005; 0019).
Yue and Tranchot do not teach current collector comprises metal designed as foil, network, or gauze.
Kataoka et al., teaches current collector (0122; 0129; 0193-0194) comprising metal (0193) designed as network (“net-shaped collector”) (0194).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to insert the teachings of Kataoka into the teachings of modified Yue modified by Tranchot because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 13, Yue et al., teaches the battery is a lithium ion battery (abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Yue et al., teaches the at least one electrochemical cell is a plurality of electrochemical cells (0038-0039; 0047).
Regarding claim 16, Yue et al., teaches the composition is for a negative electrode of an electrochemical cell (abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Yue et al., teaches the water-soluble lignin (0029; 0060) is a sulfonated lignin (0012) or a lignosulfonate (0012; 0029).
Regarding claim 19, Yue et al., teaches active material comprises silicon or silicon-carbon composite (0019; 0022).
Regarding claim 20, Yue et al., teaches the electrode material further comprises at least one conductive agent (graphite) (0019-0020).
5. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue et al., WO 2013178059, in view of Tranchot et al., J Electrochem Society, and in further view of Kataoka et al., WO 2018016519 (translation Kataoka et al., US 2019/0157720), and still in further view of Luski et al., US 2017/0365882.
Regarding claim 15, modified Yue et al., teaches the electrode material comprises an electrochemically active material is a silicon or a silicon-carbon composite (0022).
Yue et al., does not teach silicon or a silicon-carbon composite combined with lithium titanate.
Luski et al., teaches a lithium ion battery comprising a negative electrode comprising silicon or silicon-carbon composites and lithium titanate (0042).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Luski into the teachings of Yue because:
“The negative electrode 12 may include any lithium host active material that can sufficiently undergo lithium intercalation and deintercalation while functioning as the negative terminal of the lithium ion battery 10. Examples of the lithium host active material include graphite or a low surface area amorphous carbon. Graphite is widely utilized to form the negative electrode 12 because it exhibits favorable lithium intercalation and deintercalation characteristics, is relatively non-reactive, and can store lithium in quantities that produce a relatively high energy density… Other materials can also be used to form the negative electrode including, for example, lithium titanate (LTO), silicon or silicon-carbon composites…” (0042).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12-17, 19, 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on an additional, new reference, Kataoka et al., WO 2018016519 (translation Kataoka et al., US 2019/0157720) in a 35 USC 103 Rejection.
Kataoka et al., US 2019/0157720, teaches: “[0193] As collectors for the positive electrode and the negative electrode, an electron conductor is used. The collector for the positive electrode is preferably aluminum, stainless steel, nickel, titanium, or, additionally, a collector obtained by treating the surface of aluminum or stainless steel with carbon, nickel, titanium, or silver, and, among these, aluminum or an aluminum alloy is more preferred. The collector for the negative electrode is preferably aluminum, copper, stainless steel, nickel, or titanium and more preferably aluminum, copper, or a copper alloy.”
Additionally, Kataoka teaches the ideal amount of carboxymethyl cellulose (binding agent) is 1% to 30% (0189), which is within the claimed range of 5% to 95%. Kataoka teaches the advantages of the amount of binding agent:
“[0189] The amount of the binding agent added is preferably 1% to 30% by mass and more preferably 2% to 10% by mass with respect to 100% by mass of the solid component in the dispersion (mixture) for constituting the active material layer. In the case of setting the amount in the above-described range, it is possible to more appropriately maintain the holding force and agglomeration force of the respective components in the dispersion while suppressing a decrease in the electrode unit volume or the capacity per unit mass caused by an increase in the electrode volume.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights