DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on December 02, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending with claims 11-20 withdrawn as being directed to non-elected inventions.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “metal nano-microparticles” in par.0009, par.0011-0012, par.0018, par.0020-0021, and par.0070 should be amended to recite “metal nano- or micro-particles”.
The amended is suggested because nanoparticles are particles measuring between 1 and 100 nanometers, and microparticles are particles measuring between 1 and 1000 micrometers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “metal nano-microparticles” should be amended to recite “metal nano- or micro-particles”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delaporte et al. (“Fabrication of Current Collectors and Binder-Free Electrodes on Separators Used in Lithium-Ion Batteries”), as evidenced by Dubois et al. (WO 2017/102852) and Huang et al. (US 2013/0143146).
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Delaporte et al. teach the preparation of electrodes on a separator: a dispersion of 80wt% active material (LFP or LTO) and 20wt% few layer graphene (FLG) in DMF forms a film on a Celgard 2320 separator (see “Electrode material coated on a separator” and Scheme 1a on page 640).
Scheme 1a shows clearly a continuous film comprising active material and FLG on the surface of the Celgard 2320 separator.
LFP is LiFePO4, LTO is Li4Ti5O12 (see “Electrode material coated in aluminum foil” on page 640), and they meet the limitations of claim 1 for “electroactive material”.
Few layer graphene (FLG) is an electrically conductive material, as evidenced in lines 12-15 on page 6 of Dubois et al.
Celgard 2320 is a porous separator, as evidenced in par.0034 of Huang et al.
The amounts of active material (LFP or LTO) and few layer graphene (FLG) are within the ranges in claim 2.
Therefore, the electrode coated onto a separator of Delaporte et al. is equivalent to the reference electrode assembly in claims 1 and 2 of the instant application.
With regard to claim 3, LiFePO4(LFP) meets the claim limitations.
Claim 9 is a product-by-process claim. Even though the claim is directed to a process, the patentability is given by the products itself.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (MPEP 2113.I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS)
Therefore, the electrode coated onto a separator of Delaporte et al. anticipates the reference electrode assembly in claim 9.
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaporte et al. (“Fabrication of Current Collectors and Binder-Free Electrodes on Separators Used in Lithium-Ion Batteries”), as evidenced by Dubois et al. (WO 2017/102852) and Huang et al. (US 2013/0143146) in view of Schulz-Dobrick et al. (US 2011/0227001).
With regard to claims 4-6, Delaporte et al. teach the reference electrode assembly in claim 1 (see paragraph 6 above), wherein the electrically conductive material is few layers graphene (FLG).
Delaporte et al. fail to teach the claimed electrically conductive material(s).
However, it is well-known in the art that graphite, carbon black, and carbon nanotubes are functionally equivalent to graphene as electrically conductive materials for an electrode (see par.0062 of Schulz-Dobrick et al.). Additionally, Schulz-Dobrick et al. teach that mixtures of electrically conductive materials are allowed in the electrode (par.0062).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use graphite, carbon black, carbon nanotubes, or mixtures thereof in the electrode layer of Delaporte et al.
Graphite, carbon black, and carbon nanotubes meet the limitations of claim 4.
A mixture of two selected from the group consisting of graphite, carbon black, and carbon nanotubes meets the limitation of claims 5 and 6.
With regard to claim 7, a mixture of two selected from the group consisting of graphite, carbon black, and carbon nanotubes allows for a mixture of carbon nanotubes with graphite or carbon black.
Carbon nanotubes are equivalent to the claimed “first electrically conductive material”.
Graphite and carbon black are equivalent to the claimed “second electrically conductive material”.
9. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaporte et al. (“Fabrication of Current Collectors and Binder-Free Electrodes on Separators Used in Lithium-Ion Batteries”), as evidenced by Dubois et al. (WO 2017/102852) and Huang et al. (US 2013/0143146) in view Ahn (US 2011/0143181).
With regard to claim 8, Delaporte et al. teach the reference electrode assembly in claim 1 (see paragraph 6 above), but fail to teach the claimed thickness of the separator-electrode assembly.
However, it is well-known in the art that the thickness of an electrode assembly determines the energy density of a battery. A thick electrode assembly leads to an increased volume of the electrode assembly and a reduced energy density of the battery (see par.0053 of Ahn).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thickness of the separator-electrode assembly of Delaporte et al. in order to optimize the energy density of the battery,
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaporte et al. (“Fabrication of Current Collectors and Binder-Free Electrodes on Separators Used in Lithium-Ion Batteries”), as evidenced by Dubois et al. (WO 2017/102852) and Huang et al. (US 2013/0143146) in view of Tan et al. (US 2014/0315097).
With regard to claim 10, Delaporte et al. teach the reference electrode assembly in claim 1 (see paragraph 6 above), but fail to teach the loading density of the electrode layer.
However, it is well-known in the art that the loading density of an electrode determines the capacity of the electrode (see par.0015 of Tan et al.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the loading density of the electrode layer of Delaporte et al. in order to optimize the capacity of the electrode layer.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (“Separator-Supported Electrode Configuration for Ultra-High Energy Density Lithium Secondary Battery) teach an electrode-separator assembly, wherein the electrode layer is directly coated on the separator, to realize lightweight lithium-ion batteries by removing heavy current collectors (abstract, fig.1a).
Kwon et al. (“Free-standing electrode/separator assembly architectures for improving energy density of Lithium-ion batteries”) teach electrode/separator assembly structure comprising Li4Ti5O12 electrode layers spray-coated onto a glass fiber separator (abstract).
However, Kim et al. and Kwon et al. are not available as prior art.
Zhao et al. (“Integrated Thin Film Battery Design for Flexible Lithium Ion Storage: Optimizing the Compatibility of the Current Collector-Free Electrodes”) teach that slurries of electroactive materials are cast on both sides of a nano-SiO2 modified polyethylene (SiO2-MPE) separator via spin-coating process (abstract).
Carlson (US Patent 6,488,721) teaches the cathode/separator assembly (13) which comprises a microporous separator layer (102) having deposited thereon a cathode active layer (201) with a desired pattern:
PNG
media_image1.png
124
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(fig.1, column 11, lines 53-67).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722