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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2, 8-9, 13 and 19-20 cancelled
Claims 1, 7, 11 and 18 amended
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14-18 pending
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/07/2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinpara (PG Pub 2016/0156024 A1) and in view of Yoon (PG Pub 2013/0280603) and in further view of Nagata (US Pat. 5,443,859).
Consider Claims 1, 9, 11 and 18, Kinpara teaches the process of forming a negative electrode active material (anode/electrode active material) comprising graphite [0020], where the graphite is formed using raw material/carbon precursors that are processed under a high temperature for carbonization [0020], where the electrode active material further comprises silicon particles [0021], binder/carbon [0023], and where the carbonized material/carbon precursor include polyamideimide [0092], process at a carbonization/pyrolyzing temperature between 600°C and 4000°C [0093]. Kinpara teaches the anode/negative electrode active material are formed into a slurry [0099], and where the formed negative electrode mixture slurry was applied onto current collector such as copper [0130]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05). Kinpara does not teach the addition of catalyst to the polyamideimide/carbon precursor and the carbonization/pyrolyzing process.
Kinpara does not teach the addition of catalyst to the polyamideimide/carbon precursor and the carbonization/pyrolyzing process, at temperature between 400-750C.
However, Yoon is in the prior art of forming anode active material having metal oxide precursor and a polymer as a carbon precursor (abstract), teaches the polymer include polyamideimide [0015], and where the anode active material is applied to the current collector in a slurry form [0019], and where the metal oxide precursor is metal chloride [0013], such as nickel chloride NiCl2 [0014]. Yoon teaches the process of carbonizing (heating/thermally treating the material) to a first temperature to 280°C to dry and followed by a second higher temperature to 500°C (claim 8); and wherein example 1; the carbonizing temperature is set at 550°C temperature while in an Argon atmosphere [0087], encompassing 500-550℃. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Kinpara with Yoon to use Nickel chloride as a catalyst with polyamideimide for forming the anode active material slurry, to lower the carbonizing temperature from 600°C to a range between 500°C- 550°C (claim 8 and [0087]).
The combined Kinpara (with Yoon) does not teach the amount of nickel chloride as catalyst.
However, Nagata is in the prior art of forming carbon film derived from polyimide film having an electrical conductivity (abstract) such as electrode material (Col. 15, lines 63-65), teaches the carbon film is obtained from carbonizing the polyimide film to a temperature maybe ranging from 800°C or higher (Col. 13, lines 55-60), where the polyimide film precursor include high MW component such as polyamideimide (Col. 11, lines 17-29) where the high MW component is added with the amount of not more than 20 % by wt. of the total weight of the polyimide film (Col. 11, Lines 41-44), and where in the carbonization process the addition of catalyst such as nickel chloride (NiCl2) is added with an amount of less than 20% by wt. of the total weight of the polyimide film (Col. 14, line 67 to Col. 15, line 8). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, Nagata teaches the use of polyamideimide with no more than 20% by weight of the total film weight, where the nickel chloride is used with less than 20% by weight of the total film weight, encompassing (for example) 0.1% by weight. This would lead to a ratio between the polyamideimide and the nickel chloride ranging between 1:1 to 200:1 (for example). Therefore, it would be obvious for skilled person in art to calculate the molecular weight of both of polyamideimide and for nickel chloride according to the above ratios, using the general formula of W = MW * V * M (where W is the weight by grams, MW is that molecular weight, V is the volume in liter calculated using weight/density, and M is mol/liter (mol/V)) where the molecular weight of the high molecular polyamideimide is at least 48 kg/mol and with density 1.48 g/cm3, and the nickel chloride with 129.6 g/mole of molecular weight, and density is 3.55 g/cm3.
For example, for every 1 gram of the total weight of the polyimide film, 0.0001 gram of polyamideimide would be used with 0.2 gram of nickel chloride, this would result in 0.456 mol of Polyamideimide with 0.486 mol or nickel chloride, ((0.486)/(0.486+0.456)*100) with 51.6 mol% relative to the amount of polyamideimide. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Kinpara (with Yoon) with Nagata to add Nickel chloride in the claimed amount relative to polyamideimide for the carbonization process, to provide with an at least of 200 S/cm of electrical conductively (abstract).
Consider Claims 3-4 and 14-15, the combined Kinpara (with Yoon and Nagata) teaches the carbonization process (second heat treatment) under inert/Ar atmosphere (Yoon, [0018]), where that would be obvious that the oxygen/air atmosphere was purged using Ar gas in the second heat treatment, as the prior first heat treatment was process under Air atmosphere (Yoon, [0018]).
Consider Claims 5 and 16, the combined Kinpara (with Yoon and Nagata) teaches the carbonization in the range between 600°C -4000°C (Kinpara, [0093]), and under 500°C -550°C (Yoon, Claim 8, [0087]) using NiCl2 as catalyst (Yoon, [0014]).
The combined Kinpara (with Yoon and Nagata) does not explicitly teach the catalyst in the carbonization process would be in a partial pressure of catalyst provided as a gas
However, the combined Kinpara (with Yoon and Nagata) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “carbonization in the presence of NiCl2 under temperature ranging from 200-900°C”. Since the “catalyst in the carbonization process would be in a partial pressure of catalyst provided as a gas” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “carbonization in the presence of NiCl2 under temperature ranging from 200-900°C”, and the combination of the Kinpara (with Yoon and Nagata) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Kinpara (with Yoon and Nagata) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “catalyst in the carbonization process would be in a partial pressure of catalyst provided as a gas” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claims 6 and 17, the combined Kinpara (with Yoon and Nagata) teaches the use of NiCl2 (Yoon, [0087]).
Consider Claims 10 and 12, the combined Kinpara (with Yoon and Nagata) teaches the current collector to be made from Al, Cu, and Ti (Kinpara, [0108]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14-18 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kinpara with Yoon and Nagata.
The applicant argued about the previously applied rejection mainly based on the prior art of Nagata and the amount of catalyst/nickel chloride used.
However, the previously used amount in the prior rejection was an example from a larger range stated in Nagata. Moreover, as described in the above rejection where the amount of catalyst/nickel chloride is less than 20%, and where using an example where the amount used is 0.2 g, it was shown that the mol percentage is 51.6 mol%. Encompassing the claimed range.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights