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 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.
Claim(s) 1 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi (US20210098770) in view of Milobar (US20200373551).
Regarding Claim 1, Yudi discloses an electrode for an electrochemical cell (second electrode-104, [0053]), the electrode comprising:
A current collector ([0053]); and
One or more electroactive material layers disposed adjacently to one or more exposed surfaces of the current collector (electrode film-114 acts as electroactive material layer, [0053]).
Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Yudi discloses wherein the thickness of the electrode film can range from 30 um to about 250 um ([0053]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 150 micrometers to about 5 milimeters.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill using the disclosure of Yudi to have wherein the thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Yudi discloses wherien the electroactive material layer can be formed of lithium metal oxides, including lithium iron phosphates ([0053]), but does not directly disclose wherein the one or more electrochemical materials layers each comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate, or where the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2. Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the at least one of the one or more electroactive material layers comprises one or more of LiMn0.7Fe0.3PO4, LiMn0.6Fe0.4PO4, LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 and LiMn0.75Fe0.25.
Milobar discloses an electrode with various cathode materials for an electrochemical device ([0106]). Milobar further discloses wherein the cathode active material can be lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, or lithium manganese iron phosphate ([0106]), and therefore Milobar teaches that these materials are interchangeable as cathode active materials. Milobar further discloses wherein the formula for the lithium manganese iron phosphate meets the formula LiMnxFe1-xPO4, and further can be represented by the formula LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 ([0106]).
The examiner notes that since the areal capacity is directly related to the active material used, and thickness of the electrode material. The instant application discloses LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 as a material that can be used, and a thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Therefore, because Yudi modified by Milobar discloses the same active material as instant claim 1, in particular the lithium manganese iron phosphate material disclosed by the instant, and that Yudi discloses the same thickness as the instant application, in particular a thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters, is it he examiner’s position that Yudi in view of Milobar discloses where the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2.
"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit remanded a decision to the district court because the record did not present sufficient evidence to prove inherency in the context of obviousness. The district court concluded the pharmacokinetic parameters of a claim are inherent properties of the obvious formulation. The Federal Circuit stated that while "inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis", "the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness." Id. at 1194-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. "[I]n order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis – the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art." Id. at 1195-96, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. But see, Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations LTD., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191, 2019 USPQ2d 494084 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court stated that a proper finding of inherency does not require that all limitations are taught in a single reference, and that inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." (emphasis in original). The court found that pharmacokinetic limitations of the asserted claims were inherently met by combining prior art references because the limitations were necessarily present in the prior art combination. Id. See also Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 946 F.3d 1322, 1329-32, 2020 USPQ2d 6227 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Milobar to have wherein the one or more electrochemical materials layers each comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate, or where the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2 and wherein the at least one of the one or more electroactive material layers comprises one or more of LiMn0.7Fe0.3PO4, LiMn0.6Fe0.4PO4, LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 and LiMn0.75Fe0.25.
Regarding Claim 10, Yudi in view of Milobar discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 500 micrometers. Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2.
Yudi discloses wherein the thickness of the electrode film can range from 30 um to about 250 um ([0053]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 150 micrometers to about 500 micrometers.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill using the disclosure of Yudi to have wherein the thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Yudi discloses wherien the electroactive material layer can be formed of lithium metal oxides, including lithium iron phosphates ([0053]), but does not directly disclose wherein the one or more electrochemical materials layers each comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate, or where the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2. Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the at least one of the one or more electroactive material layers comprises one or more of LiMn0.7Fe0.3PO4, LiMn0.6Fe0.4PO4, LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 and LiMn0.75Fe0.25.
Milobar discloses an electrode with various cathode materials for an electrochemical device ([0106]). Milobar further discloses wherein the cathode active material can be lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, or lithium manganese iron phosphate ([0106]), and therefore Milobar teaches that these materials are interchangeable as cathode active materials. Milobar further discloses wherein the formula for the lithium manganese iron phosphate meets the formula LiMnxFe1-xPO4, and further can be represented by the formula LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 ([0106]).
The examiner notes that since the areal capacity is directly related to the active material used, and thickness of the electrode material. The instant application discloses LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 as a material that can be used, and a thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Therefore, because Yudi modified by Milobar discloses the same active material as instant claim 1, in particular the lithium manganese iron phosphate material disclosed by the instant, and that Yudi discloses the same thickness as the instant application, in particular a thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters, is it he examiner’s position that Yudi in view of Milobar discloses where the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2.
"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit remanded a decision to the district court because the record did not present sufficient evidence to prove inherency in the context of obviousness. The district court concluded the pharmacokinetic parameters of a claim are inherent properties of the obvious formulation. The Federal Circuit stated that while "inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis", "the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness." Id. at 1194-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. "[I]n order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis – the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art." Id. at 1195-96, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. But see, Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations LTD., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191, 2019 USPQ2d 494084 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court stated that a proper finding of inherency does not require that all limitations are taught in a single reference, and that inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." (emphasis in original). The court found that pharmacokinetic limitations of the asserted claims were inherently met by combining prior art references because the limitations were necessarily present in the prior art combination. Id. See also Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 946 F.3d 1322, 1329-32, 2020 USPQ2d 6227 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Milobar to have wherein the one or more electrochemical materials layers each comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate, or where the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2 and wherein the at least one of the one or more electroactive material layers comprises one or more of LiMn0.7Fe0.3PO4, LiMn0.6Fe0.4PO4, LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 and LiMn0.75Fe0.25.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Milobar to have wherein the areal capacity greater then about 4.5 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 7.5 mAh/cm2.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi (US20210098770) in view of in view of Milobar (US20200373551).
Regarding Claim 15, Yudi discloses an electrode for an electrochemical cell (second electrode-104, [0053]), the electrode comprising:
A current collector ([0053]); and
One or more electroactive material layers disposed adjacently to one or more exposed surfaces of the current collector (electrode film-114 acts as electroactive material layer, [0053]).
Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Yudi discloses wherein the thickness of the electrode film can range from 30 um to about 250 um ([0053]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 150 micrometers to about 5 milimeters.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill using the disclosure of Yudi to have wherein the thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi (US20210098770) in view of in view of Milobar (US20200373551) further in view of Zhang (US20210242535).
Regarding Claim 2, Yudi in view of Milobar discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Yudi discloses wherein the electrochemical layers can have conductive additives ([0036]), but does not directly disclose wherein the electrode further comprises one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers disposed between the current collector and the one or more electroactive material layers.
Zhang discloses a coating layer (fiber coating-4 and conductive coating-2 form coating layer, [0061]), wherein the coating layer is coated on the surface of active material layer and the surface of the current collector ([0061]). Zhang further discloses wherein the fiber coating layer has strong conductivity and enhances the adhesion ([0058]) between the current collector and the active material layer ([0058],[0061]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Yudi with the teachings of Zhang to have wherein the electrode further comprises one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers disposed between the current collector and the one or more electroactive material layers.
Regarding Claim 3, Yudi in view of Milobar further in view of Zhang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers has a thickness greater than or equal to about 0.5 um to less than or equal to about 20 um.
Zhang discloses wherein the fiber coating layer can have a thickness of 1 um to 20 um ([0013]), which substantially overlaps the instant claim range of 0.5um to 20 um.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Yudi with the teachings of Zhang to have wherein the one ore more electronically conductive adhesive layers has a thickness greater than or equal to about 0.5 um to less than or equal to about 20 um.
Regarding Claim 4, Yudi in view of Milobar further in view of Zhang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers comprises greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt% to less than or equal to about 50 wt% of one more polymer component, and greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt% to less than or equal to about 50 wt% of one or more conductive fillers.
Zhang discloses wherein the fiber coating layer can be made from PVdf, polyamide, or polyimide ([0041]). Zhang further discloses wherein the conductive coating layer can be made from carbon nanotubes, carbon black, or graphene ([0062]).
The examiner notes that the ranges claimed are broad, and therefore since Zhang discloses wherein the coating layer is formed from a polymer components and conductive filler component, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify Yudi with the teachings of Zhang to achieve the claimed ranges.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Zhang to have wherein the one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers comprises greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt% to less than or equal to about 50 wt% of one more polymer component, and greater than or equal to about 0.1 wt% to less than or equal to about 50 wt% of one or more conductive fillers.
Regarding Claim 5, Yudi in view of Milobar further in view of Zhang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yudi further doe not directly disclose wherein the one or more polymer components is selected from a group consisting of polyacrylic acid, epoxy, polyimide, polyester, polyacrylate, vinyl ester, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyamide, silicon, acrylic, and combinations thereof, and wherein the one of more conductive fillers are selected from the group consisting of: carbon black, graphene, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, meal powders, conductive polymers, and combinations thereof.
Zhang discloses wherein the fiber coating layer can be made from PVdf, polyamide, or polyimide ([0041]). Zhang further discloses wherein the conductive coating layer can be made from carbon nanotubes, carbon black, or graphene ([0062]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Yudi with the teachings of Zhang to have wherein the one or more polymer components is selected from a group consisting of polyacrylic acid, epoxy, polyimide, polyester, polyacrylate, vinyl ester, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyamide, silicon, acrylic, and combinations thereof, and wherein the one of more conductive fillers are selected from the group consisting of: carbon black, graphene, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, meal powders, conductive polymers, and combinations thereof.
Regarding Claim 10, Yudi in view of Milobar discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 500 micrometers. Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2.
Yudi discloses wherein the thickness of the electrode film can range from 30 um to about 250 um ([0053]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 150 micrometers to about 500 micrometers.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill using the disclosure of Yudi to have wherein the thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Yudi discloses wherien the electroactive material layer can be formed of lithium metal oxides, including lithium iron phosphates ([0053]), but does not directly disclose wherein the one or more electrochemical materials layers each comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate, or where the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2. Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the at least one of the one or more electroactive material layers comprises one or more of LiMn0.7Fe0.3PO4, LiMn0.6Fe0.4PO4, LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 and LiMn0.75Fe0.25.
Milobar discloses an electrode with various cathode materials for an electrochemical device ([0106]). Milobar further discloses wherein the cathode active material can be lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, or lithium manganese iron phosphate ([0106]), and therefore Milobar teaches that these materials are interchangeable as cathode active materials. Milobar further discloses wherein the formula for the lithium manganese iron phosphate meets the formula LiMnxFe1-xPO4, and further can be represented by the formula LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 ([0106]).
The examiner notes that since the areal capacity is directly related to the active material used, and thickness of the electrode material. The instant application discloses LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 as a material that can be used, and a thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Therefore, because Yudi modified by Milobar discloses the same active material as instant claim 1, in particular the lithium manganese iron phosphate material disclosed by the instant, and that Yudi discloses the same thickness as the instant application, in particular a thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters, is it he examiner’s position that Yudi in view of Milobar discloses where the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2.
"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit remanded a decision to the district court because the record did not present sufficient evidence to prove inherency in the context of obviousness. The district court concluded the pharmacokinetic parameters of a claim are inherent properties of the obvious formulation. The Federal Circuit stated that while "inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis", "the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness." Id. at 1194-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. "[I]n order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis – the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art." Id. at 1195-96, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. But see, Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations LTD., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191, 2019 USPQ2d 494084 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court stated that a proper finding of inherency does not require that all limitations are taught in a single reference, and that inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." (emphasis in original). The court found that pharmacokinetic limitations of the asserted claims were inherently met by combining prior art references because the limitations were necessarily present in the prior art combination. Id. See also Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 946 F.3d 1322, 1329-32, 2020 USPQ2d 6227 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Milobar to have wherein the one or more electrochemical materials layers each comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate, or where the electrode has an areal capacity greater then about 4 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 50 mAh/cm2 and wherein the at least one of the one or more electroactive material layers comprises one or more of LiMn0.7Fe0.3PO4, LiMn0.6Fe0.4PO4, LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 and LiMn0.75Fe0.25.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Milobar to have wherein the areal capacity greater then about 4.5 mAh/cm2 to less than or equal to about 7.5 mAh/cm2.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 13, 14, 17 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi (US20210098770) in view of Milobar (US20200373551) further in view of Zhang (US20210242535) further in view of Ota (US20190363351).
Regarding Claim 8 & 17, Yudi in view of Milobar discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Yudi does not directly disclose wherein at least one of the one or more electroactive material layers comprises one or more sublayers having different interparticle porosities, wherein sublayers of the one or more sublayers having lower interparticle porosities are disposed nearer to the current collector and sublayers of the one or more sublayers having higher interparticle porosities are disposed further from the current collector.
Ota discloses wherein the cathode active material than can be used can include lithium metal alloys that can form compounds with manganese and iron, including lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide ([0043]), and other material with suitable chemistries. Yudi discloses wherein at least one of the electroactive material layers comprises one or more sublayers having different interparticle porosities (electrochemical layers-120 and electrochemical layer-130 act as sublayers, [0036], first electrochemical layer-120 has a higher porosity than the second electrochemical layer-130, [003], [0026], [0056]), wherein the sublayers of the one or more sublayers having lower interparticle porosities are disposed nearer to the current collector and sublayers of the one or more sublayers having higher interparticle porosities are disposed further from the current collector (Fig. 1, [0056]). Yudi teaches that this structure provides an electrode with improved cycle stability ([0051]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Yudi to have wherein at least one of the one or more electroactive material layers comprises one or more sublayers having different interparticle porosities, wherein sublayers of the one or more sublayers having lower interparticle porosities are disposed nearer to the current collector and sublayers of the one or more sublayers having higher interparticle porosities are disposed further from the current collector. This modified structure yields the expected result of improved cycle stability.
Regarding Claim 9, Yudi in view of Milobar further in view of Zhang discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the one or more sublayers comprise a first sublayer having a first interparticle porosity and a second sublayer having a second interparticle porosity, wherein the second interparticle porosity is larger than the first interparticle porosity and the first sublayer is disposed adjacent to the current collector and the second sublayer is disposed adjacent to an exposed surface of the first sublayer.
Ota further discloses wherein the one or more sublayers comprise a first sublayer having a first interparticle porosity and a second sublayer having a second interparticle porosity, wherein the second interparticle is larger than the first interparticle porosity and the first sublayer is disposed adjacent to the current collector and the second sublayer is disposed adjacent to an exposed surface of the first sublayer (electrochemical layers-120 and electrochemical layer-130 act as sublayers, [0036], first electrochemical layer-120 has a higher porosity than the second electrochemical layer-130, [003], [0026], [0056]), wherein the sublayers of the one or more sublayers having lower interparticle porosities are disposed nearer to the current collector and sublayers of the one or more sublayers having higher interparticle porosities are disposed further from the current collector (Fig. 1, [0056]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Yudi to have wherein the one or more sublayers comprise a first sublayer having a first interparticle porosity and a second sublayer having a second interparticle porosity, wherein the second interparticle porosity is larger than the first interparticle porosity and the first sublayer is disposed adjacent to the current collector and the second sublayer is disposed adjacent to an exposed surface of the first sublayer. This modified structure yields the expected result of improved cycle stability.
Regarding Claim 13, Yudi in view of Milobar discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the electrode has a press density of greater than or equal to about 1.0 g/cc to less than or equal to about 3.0 g/cc.
Ota discloses wherein the interparticle porosity can be greater than or equal to about 25 vol% to less than or equal to about 60 vol % (first and second porosity can be 25 % to 60 %, [0057-0058]).
The examiner notes that press density is defined in the art as the mass density of the electrode after it has compressed under pressuring during the manufacturing process. The examiner further notes that press density is affected by the type and amount of binder used, the thickness of the electrode coating and the solvent used in the slurry preparation.
Ota discloses wherein the binder can be PVDf, EPDM, or PVDF-HFP ([0046]), which are the same as the instant specifications, and can be included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 20 wt% ([0046]) which encompasses the instant specifications of 0.5 wt% to 10 wt% of binder. Yudi further discloses wherein the thickness of the electrode coating can be 150 um to 500 um thick ([0047-0048]), which is the same thickness as the instant claim range. Yudi further discloses wherein solvent that can be used include butylene carbonate ([0045]), which is the same solvent stated in the instant specifications.
"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original). In PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 112 USPQ2d 1945 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit remanded a decision to the district court because the record did not present sufficient evidence to prove inherency in the context of obviousness. The district court concluded the pharmacokinetic parameters of a claim are inherent properties of the obvious formulation. The Federal Circuit stated that while "inherency may support a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis", "the use of inherency, a doctrine originally rooted in anticipation, must be carefully circumscribed in the context of obviousness." Id. at 1194-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. "[I]n order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an obviousness analysis – the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art." Id. at 1195-96, 112 USPQ2d at 1952. But see, Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations LTD., 945 F.3d 1184, 1191, 2019 USPQ2d 494084 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court stated that a proper finding of inherency does not require that all limitations are taught in a single reference, and that inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." (emphasis in original). The court found that pharmacokinetic limitations of the asserted claims were inherently met by combining prior art references because the limitations were necessarily present in the prior art combination. Id. See also Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC, 946 F.3d 1322, 1329-32, 2020 USPQ2d 6227 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Yudi to have wherein the electrode has a press density of greater than or equal to about 1.0 g/cc to less than or equal to about 3.0 g/cc.
Regarding Claim 14, Yudi in view of Milobar discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yudi in view of Zhang discloses wherein the electroactive material layer is lithium manganese iron phosphate.
Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the at least one of the one or more electroactive material layers comprises greater than or equal to about 80 wt% to less than or equal to about 98 wt% of the lithium manganese iron phosphate, and wherein at least one of one or more electroactive material layers further comprises: greater than or qual to about 0.5 wt% to less than or equal to about 10 wt% of one or more binders and greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt% to less than or equal to about 15 wt% of one or more conductive fillers.
Yudi discloses wherein the electrode film can contain 90 to 99 wt% of active material ([0039]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 80 wt% to 98 wt%. Yudi further discloses wherein the binder in the electrode film can range from 1 wt% to 5 wt% ([0040]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 0.5 wt% to 10 wt%. Yudi further discloses wherein the conductive additive can be present in the electrode in a range of 1 wt% to 7 wt% ([0039]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 0.5 wt% to 10 wt%.
Therefore it would be obvious to one using the disclosure of Yudi to have wherein the at least one of the one or more electroactive material layers comprises greater than or equal to about 80 wt% to less than or equal to about 98 wt% of the lithium manganese iron phosphate, and wherein at least one of one or more electroactive material layers further comprises: greater than or qual to about 0.5 wt% to less than or equal to about 10 wt% of one or more binders and greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt% to less than or equal to about 15 wt% of one or more conductive fillers.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi (US20210098770) in view of Milobar (US20200373551) further in view of Zhang (US20210242535) further in view of Narula (US20120100440).
Regarding Claim 6 & 16 , Yudi in view of Milobar discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the current collector is a meshed current collector having a porosity greater than or equal to about 0.1 vol% to less than or equal to about 50 vol% and an average pore size greater than or equal to about 5nm to less that or equal to about 500 um.
Narula discloses a mesh current collector ([0020]). Narula further discloses wherein the porosity of the current collector can be 30 to 35 % ([0062]), which is encompassed by the instant claim range of 0.1 vol% to 500 vol%. Narula further discloses wherein pore size of the current collector can be 2-3 um ([0062]), which is encompassed by the instant claim range of 5nm to 500 um. Narula discloses wherein this structure with higher energy density, and longer cycle life ([0034]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Yudi with the teachings of Narula to have wherein the current collector is a meshed current collector having a porosity greater than or equal to about 0.1 vol% to less than or equal to about 50 vol% and an average pore size greater than or equal to about 5nm to less than or equal to about 500 um.
Regarding Claim 7, Yudi in view of Milobar discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the one or more electroactive material layers are pressed into pores of the meshed current collector during fabrication.
Yudi discloses wherein the electrode materials are disposed onto the current collector into a laminate structure ([0068]).
The examiner notes that Yudi modified with the teachings of Narula has a porous mesh current collector. Therefore a laminated electrode material onto a current collector would lead to a structure where the electroactive material layers are pressed into the pores of the meshed current collector this modified structure would yield the expected result of higher energy density, and longer cycle life ([0034]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Yudi with the teachings of Narula to have wherein the one or more electroactive material layers are pressed into pores of the meshed current collector during fabrication.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi (US20210098770) in view of Milobar (US20200373551) further in view of Zhang (US20210242535) further in view of Jen (US20210119211).
Regarding Claim 12, Yudi in view of Zhang discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yudi in view of Zhang does not directly disclose wherein the electroactive material layers are doped with one or more dopants selected from magnesium, aluminum, yttrium, scandium, and combinations thereof.
Jen discloses a lithium manganese iron phosphate active material ([005]) that is doped ([005]). Jen further discloses wherein the dopants can be magnesium or aluminum, or a combination of them both ([0024]). Jen teaches that this doping provides an electrode with improved cycle life ([0093]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Jen to have wherein the electroactive material layers are doped with one or more dopants selected from magnesium, aluminum, and combinations thereof. This modification would yield the expected result of improved cycle life of the electrode.
Claim(s) 18 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi (US20210098770) in view of Milobar (US20200373551) further in view of Ota (US20190363351).
Regarding Claim 18, Yudi discloses an electrode for an electrochemical cell (second electrode-104, [0053]), the electrode comprising:
A current collector ([0053]); and
One or more electroactive material layers disposed adjacently to one or more exposed surfaces of the current collector (electrode film-114 acts as electroactive material layer, [0053]).
Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Yudi discloses wherein the thickness of the electrode film can range from 30 um to about 250 um ([0053]), which overlaps the instant claim range of 150 micrometers to about 5 milimeters.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill using the disclosure of Yudi to have wherein the thickness of the electroactive material layers has a thickness greater than about 150 micrometers to less than or equal to about 5 millimeters.
Yudi does not directly disclose a first sublayer having a first interparticle porosity, and a second sublayer having a second interparticle porosity, wherein the second interparticle porosity being larger than the first interparticle porosity, the first sublayer being disposed adjacent to the current collector, the second sublayer being disposed adjacent to an exposed surface of the first sublayer, wherein the first sublayer and the second sublayer each comprising a comprises lithium manganese iron phosphate selected from the group consisting of: LiMno.7Feo.3PO4, LiMno.6Feo.4PO4, LiMno.8Feo.2PO4, LiMno.75Feo.25PO4, and combinations thereof (LiMnx.eaPO4, where 0< x < 1) (LMFP).
Milobar discloses an electrode with various cathode materials for an electrochemical device ([0106]). Milobar further discloses wherein the cathode active material can be lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, or lithium manganese iron phosphate ([0106]), and therefore Milobar teaches that these materials are interchangeable as cathode active materials. Milobar further discloses wherein the formula for the lithium manganese iron phosphate meets the formula LiMnxFe1-xPO4, and further can be represented by the formula LiMn0.8Fe0.2PO4 ([0106]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Milobar to have wherein the one or more electrochemical materials layers each comprise lithium manganese iron phosphate.
Ota discloses wherein at least one of the electroactive material layers comprises one or more sublayers having different interparticle porosities (electrochemical layers-120 and electrochemical layer-130 act as sublayers, [0036], first electrochemical layer-120 has a higher porosity than the second electrochemical layer-130, [003], [0026], [0056]), wherein the sublayers of the one or more sublayers having lower interparticle porosities are disposed nearer to the current collector and sublayers of the one or more sublayers having higher interparticle porosities are disposed further from the current collector (Fig. 1, [0056]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yudi with the teachings of Yudi to have wherein a first sublayer having a first interparticle porosity, and a second sublayer having a second interparticle porosity, wherein the second interparticle porosity being larger than the first interparticle porosity, the first sublayer being disposed adjacent to the current collector, the second sublayer being disposed adjacent to an exposed surface of the first sublayer, wherein the first sublayer and the second sublayer each comprising a comprises lithium manganese iron phosphate selected from the group consisting of: LiMno.7Feo.3PO4, LiMno.6Feo.4PO4, LiMno.8Feo.2PO4, LiMno.75Feo.25PO4, and combinations thereof (LiMnx.eaPO4, where 0< x < 1) (LMFP).
Regarding Claim 19, Yudi in view of Zhang further in view of Yudi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yudi discloses wherein the electrochemical layers can have conductive additives ([0018]), but does not directly disclose wherein the electrode further comprises one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers disposed between the current collector and the one or more electroactive material layers.
Zhang discloses a coating layer (fiber coating-4 and conductive coating-2 form coating layer, [0061]), wherein the coating layer is coated on the surface of active material layer and the surface of the current collector ([0061]). Zhang further discloses wherein the fiber coating layer has strong conductivity and enhances the adhesion ([0058]) between the current collector and the active material layer ([0058],[0061]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Yudi with the teachings of Zhang to have wherein the electrode further comprises one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers disposed between the current collector and the one or more electroactive material layers.
Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers has a thickness greater than or equal to about 0.5 um to less than or equal to about 20 um.
Zhang discloses wherein the fiber coating layer can have a thickness of 1 um to 20 um ([0013]), which substantially overlaps the instant claim range of 0.5um to 20 um.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Yudi with the teachings of Zhang to have wherein the one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers has a thickness greater than or equal to about 0.5 um to less than or equal to about 20 um.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi (US20210098770) in view of Milobar (US20200373551) further in view of Ota (US20190363351) further in view of Zhang (US20210242535).
Regarding Claim 20, Yudi in view of Milobar further in view of Ota discloses the limitations as set forth above. Yudi does not directly disclose wherein the one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers has a thickness greater than or equal to about 0.5 um to less than or equal to about 20 um.
Zhang discloses wherein the fiber coating layer can have a thickness of 1 um to 20 um ([0013]), which substantially overlaps the instant claim range of 0.5um to 20 um.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Yudi with the teachings of Zhang to have wherein the one or more electronically conductive adhesive layers has a thickness greater than or equal to about 0.5 um to less than or equal to about 20 um.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yudi in view of Milobar under 35 USC 103.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yudi in view of Milobar in view of Zhang under 35 USC 103.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yudi in view of Milobar in view of Ota under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights