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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended, claims 2-3 are withdrawn, claim 4-6 are newly added. Claims 1, and 4-6 are currently examined
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim 1, and 4-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (US 20200254738 A1) and Kano (US 20190372092 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ono discloses an electrode for all-solid-state batteries [0126-0130, fig. 2, Ono], the electrode comprising a collector and an electrode layer [0131, fig. 2 (20, 21, 23, 24), Ono], wherein a contact surface of the collector (10) with the electrode layer (11) and a contact surface of the electrode layer with the collector [0063, Ono], are attached by an adhesive layer (13) (fig. 1) [0018-0042, (0039)]; Ono teaches that the overall width and length of the cell is 15mm by 15mm ([0029]).
Ono is silent to 1) the width of the adhesive , 2) the ratio of adhesive to electrical conductivity is 53.33 or more and 75.00 or less, 3) the adhesive layer being composed of stripes where the distance (C) between the adhesive lines is 0.4 mm ≤ C ≤ 5 mm, and 4) the ratio of width of the adhesive lines (B) to the distance between the adhesive lines is 0.16 ≤ B/C ≤ 2.00.
However, Kano discloses a lithium battery in which protrusions (133 A, 133 B) formed in stripes (lines) ([0063]) from adhesive tape (which may be insulative if desired) are located between the electrode and current collector[0006, 0040, 0084-0085, 0123, fig. 2A-B, Kano], are applied as a layer between the current collector and active material layer [0006, 0040, 0084-0085, 0123, Kano].
The works of Ono and Kano are analogous as each relate to the use of lithium-ion batteries and improving the longevity of the use of the battery itself. Ono discloses that one may use adhesives to remove and replace damaged parts of the battery that may no longer be functioning [0010, Ono]. Kano discloses that one may use adhesives to create a protrusion to prevent damage occurring to the battery [0019-0020, Kano].
Kano discloses that the adhesive layer is composed of adhesive lines disposed in stripes between the contact surface [0051, 0054, Kano]; wherein a distance C (mm) between the adjacent adhesive lines is more than 0.4 mm and is 5 mm or less [0051, 0053, 0123-0124, Kano discloses that the distance between the protrusions (“adhesive lines”) is 150% - 3000% the width of the protrusion.]
In regards to 1) and 3), a preferred embodiment Kano discloses using an adhesive tape (protrusions) with a width of 1 mm as a protrusion and with a spacing of 5 mm between the center-to-center distance. The center-to center distance is the distance between the second center lines (i.e. the distance between the outer edges of the protrusions would be 4 mm (i.e instant claimed C is 4mm and B/C is 0.25).
In regards to 2) wherein a ratio (B/A) of a width B (mm) of the applied adhesive lines to an electrical conductivity A (mS) of the electrode layer, is 53.33 or more and 75.00 or less.
The instant specification discloses that the active material particles are Li1.15Ni1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 and coated the active material with lithium niobate (LiNbO3) [0052] and VGCF is used to adjust the electrical conductivity [0057].
Ono discloses the use of an active material and notes that the thickness of the layer is not particularly limited and may be between 0.1-1000 µm [0028, 0046-0053, 0055, Ono] with the formula LixMyOz where M is a transition metal selected from Co, Mn, Ni, V, Fe, and Si, x is between 0.02-2.2, y is from 1-2 and z is from 1.4 to 4 [0046, Ono]. A coating layer of the active material can also include LiNbO3. Therefore, one could arrive at the active material with a formula Li1.15Ni1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 and coat it with LiNbO3. Furthermore, one can add an electroconductive material such as VGCF [0053, Ono]. Ono discloses using the same active materials and notes that the thickness is not particularly limited [0055, Ono] One of ordinary skill would expect modified Ono to meet his limitation because electrical conductivity is directly related to active material thickness and composition.
However, in an effort to expedite prosecution, should the ratio not be necessarily met given the similar conditions outlined above. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that B/A is a result effective variable. Ono discloses the use of adhesive to promote recyclability of the current collector and active material layers wherein one would appreciate that more adhesive (increased B) would further improve adhesion however increasing adhesive especially if insulative (see Ono above) would increase resistance wherein electrical conductivity is required to ensure electrons efficiently flow to the electrode and collector. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to balance the width (B) of adhesive to ensure electrical conductivity is high enough to effectively move electrons which is the primary function of a battery.
Regarding claim 4, Ono as modified above discloses an electrode wherein the ration (B/A) is 53.33 or more and 66.67 or less
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Ono discloses the use of an electrode that has the same electrical conductivity (A) as used in the instant application and a width of the adhesive strip being 1 mm. Wherein the ratio of B/A was 55.55. This reads on the claimed range. The distance C (mm) is 0.4 mm or more and 3 mm or less [0055, 0123, Kano discloses that the spacing between protrusions may be 150% or greater. Considering the width of the adhesive is 1 mm, the spacing would be 1.5 mm or greater]; and the ration (B/C) is 0.27 or more and 2.00 or less [0055, Kano with a width (B) of 1 mm and a spacing C of 1.5 mm would produce a ration of B/C = 1/1.5 = 0.67, which reads on the claimed range].
Regarding claim 5, Ono as modified above discloses an electrode wherein the ration (B/A) is 53.33 or more and 66.67 or less [see rejection of claim 4, B/A = 55.55]; the distance C (mm) is 0.8 mm or more and 3 mm or less [see rejection of claim 4, C = 1.5 mm or more]; and the ration (B/C) is 0.27 or more and 1.00 or less [see rejection of claim 4, B/C = 0.67].
Regarding claim 6, Ono as modified above discloses an electrode wherein the ration (B/A) is 66.67 or less [see rejection of claim 4, B/A = 55.55]; the distance C (mm) is 3 mm [0055, Kano’s disclosed ratio of adhesive width to spacing between adhesive strips is such that it satisfies a ratio of 150%-3000%, with a width of 1 mm a 300% ratio would provide a distance of 3 mm]; and the ration (B/C) is 0.27 or more and 0.4 or less [0055, Kano. 1/3 = 0.33].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Upon the examiner reviewing of the prior art and in light of applicant’s arguments around the use of Ono for the value of B the examine is in agreement that the 1mm diameter is in relation to ball and said numerical value will change upon being sandwiched in-between the current collector and adhesive layer. However, in light of applicant’s amendments the examiner has introduced Kano.
Shenzen Heart Layout Tech is no longer used and as such all arguments centered around it are moot.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Tian (Quantifying the effect of electronic conductivity). Tian explains that an out-of-plane electrical conductivity (electrode conductivity measured along the thickness direction of the electrode) of the NMC electrode mixture was greater than 1 S/m (>10 mS/cm) can improve the performance of an electrode.
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.
Contact Information
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724