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
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al., US 2019/0067680
Regarding claim 1, Ohsawa et al., teaches a collector (abstract; 0006), which is made of a resin material (abstract; 0006) added with conductive particles (abstract; 0024), wherein in the collector, the conductive particles and the resin material are distributed at intervals (0024) (interface; 0029; 0446; 0521), and in an X-Y direction, the number of the conductive particles (conductive filler; conductive fiber) (abstract) forming a conductive path (0265; 0276-0278).
Ohsawa does not teach does not exceed 20% of the total number of the conductive particles; and in a Z direction, the number of the conductive particles forming the conductive path is not less than 60% of the total number of the conductive particles.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Ohsawa et al., teaches wherein the conductive particles comprise carbon material nanoparticles (carbon-based filler) (0070; 0072; 0228).
Regarding claim 3, Ohsawa et al., teaches wherein the carbon material (0070) is selected from one or a combination of two or more of a carbon black (0072; 0216), a ketjen black (0072; 0229), a carbon nanotube (0072; 0216), a carbon fiber (0216; 0279; 0304).
Regarding claim 4, Ohsawa et al., teaches wherein the particle size of the graphene is 5nm-100nm (0.1 to 100 um) (0077); the diameter is 1 nm-5 nm (0.01-1um) (0076), and the length is 10nm-500nm (0.1 to 100 um) (0077); and the length is 200nm-5um (0.1 to 100um) (0077).
Ohsawa does not teach the particle size of the carbon black and the ketjen black is l nm-100nm; preferably, the carbon nanotube can be selected from a single-wall carbon nanotube or a multi-wall carbon nanotube; and preferably, the diameter of the carbon fiber and VGCF is 80nm-200nm, BET is 5m2/g-30m2/g.
However, "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Ohsawa et al., teaches wherein the volume percentage of the conductive particles accounting for the collector is 30wt%-70wt% (30-80 wt%) (0307).
Regarding claim 6, Ohsawa et al., teaches wherein the resin material (abstract) is a polyolefin-based material (abstract; 0024), for example, a copolymer or a mixture of one or a combination of two or more of a high-density polyethylene (0060), a low-density polyethylene (0060), a polypropylene (0060), and a polymethylpentene (0060).
Regarding claim 7, Ohsawa et al., teaches wherein the thickness is 5-30 um; and preferably, the thickness of the collector is less than 20 um, further preferably less than 15 um, and more preferably less than 10 um (5-200 um) (0083; 0097).
Regarding claim 8, Ohsawa et al., teaches wherein the conductive particles (conductive filler; conductive fiber) (abstract) forming a conductive path (0265; 0276-0278).
Ohsawa does not teach a width of 500nm-5um; and the distance between adjacent conductive paths is 500nm-5um.
However, "[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)
Regarding claim 9, Ohsawa et al., does not teach wherein the surface impedance is lower than 15mohm/sq, preferably lower than 1Omohm/sq.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Ohsawa et al., does not teach wherein the density is
PNG
media_image1.png
12
49
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Ohsawa et al., teaches method for preparing the collector according to claims 1, wherein the method comprises: heating a resin to above the melting temperature, and mixing it with conductive particles uniformly; and extruding a molten mixture added with the conductive particles into a rotated cooling roller, rapidly increasing the viscosity of the mixture while cooled to form a film, and then stretching the film to the corresponding thickness and internal structure by a group of stretching rollers.
Regarding claim 12, Ohsawa et al., teaches a method according to claim 11, wherein the preheating temperature of a melting furnace is 600C-800C (0423; 0509); and preferably, the stretching speed is 5 m/min-30 m/min (3-10 m/min) (0185), and the stretching tension is 40N (0492).
Regarding claim 13, Ohsawa et al., teaches an application of the collector (abstract) according to claim 1 in preparing a lithium ion battery (abstract; 0100; 0316).
Regarding claim 14, Ohsawa et al., teaches wherein the conductive particles (conductive filler; conductive fiber) (abstract; 0024) , comprise carbon material nanoparticles (carbon-based filler) (0070; 0072; 0228).
Regarding claim 15, Ohsawa et al., teaches wherein the carbon material (0070) is selected from one or a combination of two or more of a carbon black (0072; 0216), a ketjen black (0072; 0229), a carbon nanotube (0072; 0216), a carbon fiber (0216; 0279; 0304).
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 on 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