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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 6/5/2026 has been fully considered. Claim 6 is cancelled, claims 12-15 are withdrawn and claims 1-5 and 7-15 are pending.
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 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al (US 2008/0131776 A1) in view of Matsuzaki et al (US 2018/0108917 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakuma discloses an electrochemical device (nonaqueous electrochemical device of a lithium secondary battery; Fig. 2; paragraph [0047]) comprising
a) a positive electrode (Fig. 2 #1; paragraph [0048]),
b) a negative electrode (Fig. 2 #2; paragraph [0048]),
c) a separator (Fig. 2 #3; paragraph [0168]), wherein the separator is a porous polymeric material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene and polypropylene (fine porous film of a polymeric material such as polypropylene or polyethylene; Fig. 2 #3; paragraph [0048]), and
d) a liquid electrolyte added to a pre-assembly of the positive electrode, the negative electrode and the separator (separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and impregnated with an electrolytic solution; paragraph [0048]),
wherein at least one of said positive electrode and said negative electrode is a gelled electrode (positive electrode and negative electrode has a structure of the electrode structure #10; Fig.1; paragraph [0048]) comprising an electronic conductive substrate (Fig. 1; paragraph [0046]) and directly adhered onto the electronic conductive substrate (electrode layers #12a and #12b directly on electroconductive substrate #11; Fig. 1; paragraph [0046]), at least one layer of a gelled electrode-forming composition (electrode layers #12a and #12b; paragraph [0046]),
wherein the d) liquid electrolyte comprises at least one organic carbonate (paragraph [0050] and [0175]), and at least one metal salt (lithium salt; paragraph [0049]), and
wherein the gelled electrode-forming composition comprises a liquid medium (I) (organic solvent comprising tetrahydrofuran; paragraph [0038])
Sakuma does not disclose the electrochemical device comprising the gelled electrode composition comprises a liquid medium (I) comprising at least one organic carbonate and/or at least one ionic liquid (paragraph [0140]).
However, Matsuzaki discloses a gelled electrode composition comprises a liquid medium (I) comprising at least one organic carbonate and/or at least one ionic liquid (electrode mixture layer comprising a water and a water-soluble organic solvent where the water-soluble organic solvent comprises a ketone such as tetrahydrofuran or a carbonate such as ethylene carbonate; paragraph [0096])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrochemical device of Sakuma to substitute the tetrahydrofuran of Sakuma for the ethylene carbonate of Matsuzaki because having ethylene carbonate in the electrode mixture layer allows for the drying properties to be adjusted (paragraph [0096] of Matsuzaki).
Regarding claim 2, Sakuma and Matsuzaki disclose the electrochemical device of claim 1 as noted above and Sakuma discloses the electrochemical device comprising the gelled electrode-forming composition (electrode forming composition C2; paragraph [0013]) further comprises
i) at least one partially fluorinated fluoropolymer (core/shell polymer comprising a rubber core comprising a crosslinked vinylidene fluoride copolymer; paragraph [0018]) comprising
at least one first recurring unit derived from at least one ethylenically unsaturated fluorinated monomer (vinylidene fluoride; paragraph [0026]),
and at least one second recurring unit derived from at least one hydrogenated monomer comprising at least one carboxylic group (acrylic acid; paragraph [0031]); and
ii) at least one electro-active compound (electroconductive aid; paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Sakuma and Matsuzaki disclose the electrochemical device of claim 1 as noted above and Sakuma discloses the electrochemical device comprising the c) separator (separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and impregnated with an electrolytic solution; paragraph [0048]) and a liquid medium (II) comprising at least one organic carbonate (propylene carbonate; paragraph [0050]) is placed between the a) positive electrode and the b) negative electrode (separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode and impregnated with an electrolytic solution; paragraph [0048]), and wherein the d) liquid electrolyte is a mixture of the liquid medium (I) and the liquid medium (II) (electrolytic solution comprises propylene carbonate and ethylene carbonate and mixtures thereof; paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Sakuma and Matsuzaki disclose the electrochemical device of claim 1 as noted above and Sakuma discloses the electrochemical device comprising the liquid medium (I) and the liquid medium (II) are different (electrolytic solution comprises propylene carbonate and ethylene carbonate and mixtures thereof; paragraph [0050]) and at least one of the liquid medium (I) and the liquid medium (II) additionally comprise at least one metal salt (a lithium salt; paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Sakuma and Matsuzaki disclose the electrochemical device of claim 1 as noted above and Sakuma discloses the electrochemical device comprising the thickness of the electrode being from 15- 1100 µm (thickness of each electrode layer is 10-1000 µm and thickness of electroconductive substrate is 5-20 µml paragraph [0046]).
The thickness of the electrode overlaps the claimed range for the thickness of the positive electrode or the thickness of the negative electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to having the desired strength and durability for the electrode while not using excess material as a means for reducing cost. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Sakuma and Matsuzaki disclose the electrochemical device of claim 2 as noted above and Sakuma discloses the electrochemical device comprising at least one first recurring unit derived from vinylidene fluoride (paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Sakuma and Matsuzaki disclose the electrochemical device of claim 2 as noted above and Sakuma discloses the electrochemical device comprising at least one second recurring unit selected from (meth)acrylic monomers of formula 1 wherein each of R1, R2 and R3 equal to or different from each other is independently a hydrogen atom or a C1-C3 (acrylic acid; paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Sakuma and Matsuzaki disclose the electrochemical device of claim 2 as noted above and Pras discloses the electrochemical device comprising the partially fluorinated polymer comprising a third recurring unit derived from at least one fluorinated monomer different from vinylidene fluoride (hexafluoroethylene; paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 10, Sakuma and Matsuzaki disclose the electrochemical device of claim 2 as noted above and Sakuma discloses the electrochemical device comprising the at least one electroactive compound loaded onto the electroconductive substrate (LiMYO2 where M is at least one selected from Nu, Co and Mn; paragraph [0042]).
Since the LiMYO2 where M is at least one selected from Nu, Co and Mn is the same as one of Applicant’s preferred materials for the at least one electro-active compound as stated in pg. 21 of Applicant’s Specification, the LiMYO2 where M is at least one selected from Nu, Co and Mn would inherently have an areal capacity between 1.0 mAh/cm2 and 9.0 mAh/cm2.
Regarding claim 11, Sakuma and Matsuzaki disclose the electrochemical device of claim 1 as noted above and Sakuma discloses the electrochemical device comprising the metal salt being LiN(SO2CF3)2 (paragraph [0050]).
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.
Applicants argue that Pras does not disclose the liquid electrolyte being added to the pre-assembly of the positive electrode, the negative electrode and the separator.
This argument is moot as Pras does not disclose the liquid electrolyte being added to the pre-assembly of the positive electrode, the negative electrode and the separator. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection has been noted above.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights