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 .
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the applicant’s remarks filed 3/11/16.
The applicant argues that the amendments overcome the previous rejection, and that the previous rejection is improper as Kim teaches away from the proposed combination. Specifically, it is submitted that Kim teaches coating the entire surface of the tab is discouraged as it would interfere with the weld.
Regarding the amendments, the examiner agrees, and the previous rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments directed at the cited art, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim does not teach that coating the layer cannot be formed within the welding area. Kim instead teaches that the thickness of the coating layer within the welding area can interfere with the weld [0037]. Then, Kim does not teach away from coating the entire tab, but instead teaches away from an excess coating layer thickness in a welding area.
Regarding the arguments directed at Oku and Taguchi, the arguments are directed at the teachings of the individual references, and not the combination of references. For instance, Taguchi is not relied upon for teaching the claimed anti-corrosion material, and Oku is not relied upon for teaching a single layer structure. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because “[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA].” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11 – 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, KR20160051001A, and Taguchi, KR200469693Y1, and Li, US20220102698A1
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a positive electrode current collector (30) for a lithium secondary battery [0005][fig. 2]
comprising: a tab (36) and a positive electrode current collector substrate (32), the tab extending from the positive electrode current collector substrate [fig. 2]; and wherein the tab is a portion where the positive electrode mixture layer (34) is not formed in the positive electrode current collector (32) and is exposed outside of the positive electrode current collector [fig. 2]
an anti-corrosion layer made of only one type of layer (anti corrosion layer (148))[0011]
Kim does not teach the anti-corrosion layer is formed over the entire surface of the tab (formed everywhere except for welding area between the tab and collector)[fig. 4][0036].
Taguchi teaches a positive electrode current collector for a lithium secondary battery [0001][0002] comprising a tab (4) extending from a current collector (not labeled)[fig. 1b][0013] wherein an anti-corrosion layer (anti corrosion layer (148))[0011] made of a layer selected from the group consisting of a primer layer, a conductive polymer layer, and a conductive epoxy layer (nickel plating (7))[0003] is formed over the entire surface including a connection point between the tab and the collector [fig. 1b]. Further, Taguchi teaches the nickel plating to be a good conducting material [pg. 1 para. 4]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine deposition of Taguchi into the anti-corrosion layer of Kim to increase conductivity while still preventing corrosion.
Neither Kim nor Taguchi teaches selected from the group consisting of a primer layer comprising a conductive material and a non-metallic binding material, a conductive polymer layer, and a conductive epoxy layer.
Li teaches a current collector comprising an anti-corrosion layer selected from the group consisting of a primer layer comprising a conductive material and a non-metallic binding material (conductive primer layer)[0067][0151]. Further, Li teaches the primer layer comprising the above materials provides protection to the current collector and improves conductivity [0107][0150]. Then. it would have been obvious to combine the anti-corrosion layer materials of Li into the anti-corrosion layer of Kim to improve conductivity while protecting the current collector.
Regarding claim 2, combined Kim teaches the positive electrode current collector according to claim 1.
Further, Kim teaches wherein the anti-corrosion layer (148) is additionally formed on a part or the entire surface of at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector substrate (142)[fig. 3]
Regarding claim 11, combined Kim teaches the positive electrode current collector according to claim 1.
Further, Kim teaches wherein the positive electrode current collector includes aluminum (Al) [0016].
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the positive electrode having a positive electrode mixture layer (134) formed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, combined Kim teaches the battery including an electrode assembly is impregnated with a lithium non-aqueous electrolyte [0009], the electrode assembly comprising: the positive electrode according to claim 12; a negative electrode (140) having a negative electrode mixture layer (144) formed on at least one surface of a negative electrode current collector (142); and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and negative electrode (50)[0008].
Regarding claim 15, combined Kim teaches the battery according to claim 13.
Further, Kim teaches wherein the battery is a lithium ion battery, a lithium polymer battery, a lithium metal battery, or a lithium-free battery [0001][0002].
Claims 3 – 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, KR20160051001A, and Taguchi, KR200469693Y1 and Li, US20220102698A1 as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Oku, US20150318555A1
Regarding claim 3, combined Kim the positive electrode current collector according to claim 1.
Kim does not teach wherein the primer layer includes: at least one conductive material selected from the group consisting of natural graphite, artificial graphite, graphene, carbon black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, thermal black, carbon nanotube, graphite nanofiber, carbon nanofiber, aluminum, nickel, and a polyphenylene derivative and a binding material.
Oku teaches a current collector comprising an anti-corrosion layer (layer (1) having electrolyte blocking properties)[0007][0062] wherein the primer layer includes:
at least one conductive material selected from the group consisting of natural graphite, artificial graphite, graphene, carbon black, carbon nanotubealuminum, nickel, and a (conductive additives)[0037][0117][0123]; and a binding material (polymer of layer (1))[0013][0089][0090].
Further, Oku teaches the anti-corrosion layer increases battery durability and capacity retention [0007]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the materials of Oku into the layer of combined Kim to improve durability and capacity retention.
Regarding claim 4, combined Kim teaches the positive electrode current collector according to claim 3.
Further, Oku teaches wherein the binding material is at least one binding material selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene, polypropylene, ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer (EPDM), sulfonated EPDM, and styrene butylene rubber [0090][0163][0190][0155].
Regarding claim 5, combined Kim teaches the positive electrode current collector according to claim 3.
Further, Oku teaches wherein a range of a weight ratio between the conductive material and the binding material is 1:99 to 99:1 [0132].
Regarding claim 6, combined Kim teaches the positive electrode current collector according to claim 1.
Oku teaches a current collector comprising an anti-corrosion layer (layers (1) having electrolyte blocking properties)[0007][0062] wherein the conductive polymer layer includes at least one conductive polymer selected from the group consisting of polyaniline (PANI) and polypyrrole (PPy), (PPV)[0118]
Further, Oku teaches the anti-corrosion layer increases battery durability and capacity retention [0007]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the materials of Oku into the layer of combined Kim to improve durability and capacity retention.
Regarding claim 7, combined Kim teaches the positive electrode current collector according to claim 1,
Oku teaches a current collector comprising an anti-corrosion layer (layers (1) having electrolyte blocking properties)[0007][0062] wherein the conductive epoxy layer includes (epoxy)[0092]: at least one conductive filler selected from the group consisting of metal powder of gold, platinum, silver, copper, or nickel; carbon or carbon fiber, graphite; and composite powder thereof [0037][0117][0123]; and a binder (polymer of layer (1))[0013][0089][0090].
Further, Oku teaches the anti-corrosion layer increases battery durability and capacity retention [0007]. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the materials of Oku into the layer of combined Kim to improve durability and capacity retention.
Regarding claim 8, combined Kim the positive electrode current collector according to claim 7,
Further, Oku teaches wherein the binder is at least one material selected from the group consisting of epoxy-based and phenolic-based (epoxy or phenolic)[0013]
Regarding claim 9, combined Kim teaches the positive electrode current collector according to claim 7.
Further, Oku teaches wherein a range of a weight ratio between the conductive filler and the binder is 1:99 to 99:1 [0132].
Regarding claim 10, combined Kim teaches the positive electrode current collector according to claim 1.
Further, Kim teaches wherein a thickness of the anti-corrosion layer is 0.1 μm to 100 μm [0034].
Regarding claim 14, combined Kim teaches the battery according to claim 13.
Combined Kim does not teach wherein the lithium non-aqueous electrolyte includes a lithium salt and a non-aqueous solvent, and wherein the lithium salt includes an imide-based salt selected from the group consisting of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), lithium bis(perfluoroethylsulfonyl)imide (LiBETI), lithium (fluorosulfonyl)(nonafluorobutanesulfoyl)imide (LiFNFSI), and lithium (fluorosulfonyl)(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiFTI or LiFTA).
Oku teaches a current collector comprising an anti-corrosion layer (layers (1) having electrolyte blocking properties)[0007][0062]
wherein the lithium non-aqueous electrolyte includes a lithium salt and a non-aqueous solvent [0285], and wherein the lithium salt includes an imide-based salt selected from the group consisting of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), lithium bis(perfluoroethylsulfonyl)imide (LiBETI), [0285].
Further, Oku teaches the anti-corrosion layer increases battery durability and capacity retention [0007] by having electrolyte blocking properties for the above electrolytes. Then, it would have been obvious to combine the materials of Oku into the layer and electrolyte of combined Kim to improve durability and capacity retention.
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 PATRICK M GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-1340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on (571)270-5256. 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.
/PATRICK MARSHALL GREENE/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights