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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 18-19, 25-26 and 30-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugnaux US20040131934A1 in view of Ban US20110070495A1.
Regarding claim 18, Sugnaux discloses a method for manufacturing a porous electrode for an electrochemical device (Sugnaux, [0015]), the method comprising:
(a) providing a substrate (Sugnaux, [0079]) and a colloidal suspension or a paste that includes aggregates or agglomerates of monodisperse primary nanoparticles (Sugnaux, [0050], [0092]), of at least one active electrode material (Sugnaux, [0050]), having an average primary size of less than 50 nm and the aggregates or agglomerates having an average size above 50 nm (Sugnaux, [0050]), which significantly overlap with and touch the claimed ranges of an average primary diameter of between 2 nm and 60 nm, the aggregates or agglomerates having an average diameter of between 100 nm to 200 nm, The Courts have held that 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) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
(b) depositing a layer from the colloidal suspension or paste on at least one face of the substrate via at least one of electrophoresis, and a printing method (Sugnaux, [0079]), has a porosity of between 30% to 70%, by mass to surface measurements (Sugnaux, [0104]) which significantly overlaps with the claimed range of between 20% and 60% by volume, and has pores with an average diameter of less than 50 nm (Sugnaux, [0026], [0039]),
(c) drying the deposited layer (Sugnaux, [0086]), heat treating the dried layer under an oxidizing atmosphere (Sugnaux, [0062]), and then consolidating the heat treated by pressing and/or heating to obtain a mesoporous layer (Sugnaux, [0064-0065]) and
(d) depositing, on and inside the pores of the mesoporous layer, a coating of an electronically conductive material (Sugnaux, [0065]).
Sugnaux also discloses wherein the binder of the deposited layer substituted with an electronic conductive material (Sugnaux, [0053]), which is used to stabilize the layer to produce a percolating interconnected network extending throughout the layer in order that the percolative flow of electrons across the network of mesoscopic oxide particles is effective (Sugnaux, [0076]). Therefore, Sugnaux teaching in the alternative of substituting the binder with an electronic conductive material would be obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the deposited layer of Sugnaux wherein the deposited layer is free of binder thereby stabilizing the layer to produce a percolating interconnected network extending throughout the layer in order that the percolative flow of electrons across the network of mesoscopic oxide particles is effective.
Alternatively, in a method for manufacturing a porous electrode for an electrochemical device Ban teaches wherein the deposited layer of an electrode is configured to be binder free (Ban, [0029]) and that the deposited layer comprises an electrically conductive material that acts to connect the active nanoparticles such that no binder material is required, which allows more active materials to be included to improve energy density and other desirable characteristics of the electrode (Ban, [0010-0011). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deposited layer of Sugnaux with the teaching of Ban wherein the deposited layer is free of binder, thereby allowing more active materials to be included to improve energy density and other desirable characteristics of the electrode.
Regarding claim 19, modified Sugnaux also teaches wherein the substrate is configured to act as an electric current collector (Sugnaux, [0074]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Sugnaux additionally teaches wherein the mesoporous layer has a thickness of between 4 and 20 microns (Sugnaux, [0086], [0104]) which overlaps with the claimed range of between 4 µm and 400 µm. The Courts have held that 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) and similarly a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 26, modified Sugnaux further teaches wherein the colloidal suspension or paste comprises organic additives that include ligands, stabilisers, binders, or residual organic solvents (Sugnaux, [0023], [0052-0053]).
Regarding claim 30, modified Sugnaux also teaches wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of LiMn2O4 (Sugnaux, [0088]), LiCoO2 (Sugnaux, [0107]),
Regarding claim 31, modified Sugnaux additionally teaches wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of TiO2 (Sugnaux, [0086]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Sugnaux further teaches a porous electrode formed using the method of claim 18 (Sugnaux, [0014]).
Regarding claim 33, modified Sugnaux also teaches wherein the porous electrode: has a porosity of between 30% to 70%, by mass to surface measurements (Sugnaux, [0104]) which significantly overlaps with the claimed range of between 20% and 60% by volume, is free of binder (see claim 18 above), and has pores with an average diameter of less than 50 nm (Sugnaux, [0026], [0039]).
Regarding claim 34, modified Sugnaux also teaches a method for manufacturing a battery, the method comprising forming a porous electrode formed using the method of claim 18 (Sugnaux, [0071]).
Regarding claim 35, modified Sugnaux additionally teaches wherein the battery comprises a lithium-ion battery (Sugnaux, [0071]).
Regarding claim 36, modified Sugnaux further teaches wherein the porous electrode comprises an anode or a cathode (Sugnaux, [0001], [0087]).
Regarding claim 37, modified Sugnaux also teaches further comprising impregnating the porous electrode with an electrolyte (Sugnaux, [0048]) that includes phase carrying lithium ions selected from the group consisting of:
an electrolyte composed of at least one aprotic solvent and at least one lithium salt (Sugnaux, [0087]),
an electrolyte composed of at least one ionic liquid and at least one lithium salt (Sugnaux, [0112]).
Claim(s) 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugnaux US20040131934A1 in view of Ban US20110070495A1, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Gaben US20150104713A1.
Regarding claim 20, modified Sugnaux additionally teaches wherein the substrate comprises multiple layers (Sugnaux, [0082]) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises an intermediate substrate.
In a method for manufacturing a porous electrode for an electrochemical device (Gaben, [0098]) Gaben teaches providing a substrate and a colloidal suspension or a paste that includes aggregates or agglomerates of monodisperse primary nanoparticles (Gaben, [0156]), depositing a layer from the colloidal suspension or paste on at least one face of the substrate via at least one of electrophoresis (Gaben, [0138], [0143]) and without binder in order that the lack of any large quantities of organic compounds in the deposit can limit or even prevent risks of crazing or the appearance of other defects in the deposit during drying steps (Gaben, [0138]), drying the deposited layer (Gaben, [0151]) and then consolidating the heat treated by pressing and/or heating (Gaben, [0156]) and depositing a coating of an electronically conductive material (Gaben, [0055-0056]).
Gaben further teaches wherein the substrate comprises an intermediate substrate (Gaben, [0188], Fig. 4a, 61 strippable polymer film) in order to protect the surface of the substrate (Gaben, [0188]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate of Sugnaux with the teaching of Gaben wherein the substrate comprises an intermediate substrate thereby protecting the surface of the substrate.
Regarding claims 21, modified Sugnaux also teaches forming a porous plate by separating the mesoporous layer from the intermediate substrate (Sugnaux, [0038], Fig. 3B, porous electrode 50, metal current collector 54; Gaben, Figs. 4b-c, 61 strippable polymer film, metal film 62, electrode 63), the examiner notes that the porous electrode on the substrate satisfies the claim limitations as there are no further metes and bounds to distinguish the claimed porous plate from that taught by modified Sugnaux of a plate comprising a porous electrode and a substrate.
Regarding claim 22, modified Sugnaux additionally teaches wherein the deposited layer is dried (Sugnaux, [0086]; Gaben, [0151]) and removing the intermediate layer (Gaben, [0192], [0195], [0202], Figs. 4c and 5f, stencils 64a and 64b). While modified Sugnaux is not directed toward when the intermediate substrate is separated, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wherein the deposited layer is dried before separating the mesoporous layer from the intermediate substrate as the intermediate substrate is removed after the protection of the substrate is accomplished (Gaben, [0188-0189]). The Courts have held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 23, modifies Sugnaux further teaches the deposited layer is dried (Sugnaux, [0086]; Gaben, [0151]) and removing the intermediate layer (Gaben, [0192], [0195], [0202], Figs. 4c and 5f, stencils 64a and 64b). While modified Sugnaux is not directed toward when the intermediate substrate is separated, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art wherein the deposited layer is dried after separating the mesoporous layer from the intermediate substrate, as the intermediate substrate is removed after the protection of the substrate is accomplished (Gaben, [0188-0189]). The Courts have held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 24, modified Sugnaux further teaches wherein the mesoporous layer: has a porosity of between 30% to 70%, by mass to surface measurements (Sugnaux, [0104]) which overlaps with the claimed range of 25% and 50% by volume, the Courts have held that 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.
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugnaux US20040131934A1 in view of Ban US20110070495A1, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Xiao US20150180023A1.
Regarding claims 27, Sugnaux discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of LiMn2O4 (Sugnaux, [0088]), LiCoO2 (Sugnaux, [0107]), wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of a titanium based oxide (Sugnaux, [0086]) and depositing, on and inside the pores of the mesoporous layer, a coating of an electronically conductive material such as a metal oxide (Sugnaux, [0065]) using methods such as sputtering (physical vapor deposition, PVD). Sugnaux however does not disclose wherein the electronically conductive material comprises carbon.
In a method for manufacturing an electrode Xiao teaches wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of LiMn2O4 and LiCoO2 (Xiao, [0038]) wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of a titanium based oxide (Xiao, [0039]) and depositing a coating of an electronically conductive material such as a metal oxide (Xiao, [0054]) using methods such as PVD or atomic layer deposition (ALD) including a precursor of the electronically conductive material and then transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material (Xiao, [0061]) in order to deposit or grow ultrathin films on a surface (Xiao, [0061]) and a single atomic layer of the surface coating material may be bound to the electrode surface, thereby providing a monoatomic coating (Xiao, [0064]). Xiao additionally teaches wherein the electronically conductive material comprises a carbon-rich compound, such as ethylene based conductive polymers (Xiao, [0080]) in order to significantly suppress or eliminate gas generation (Xiao, [0058]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Sugnaux with the teaching of Xiao wherein the electronically conductive material comprises carbon and wherein depositing the electronically conductive material is conducted by: atomic layer deposition ALD technique and then transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material thereby depositing or growing ultrathin films on a surface and significantly suppressing or eliminating gas generation.
Regarding claim 28, modified Sugnaux teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above including wherein depositing the electronically conductive material is conducted by: atomic layer deposition ALD technique including a precursor of the electronically conductive material and then transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material (Xiao, [0061]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugnaux US20040131934A1 in view of Ban US20110070495A1 and Xiao US20150180023A1, , as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Armand US20100065787A1.
Regarding claim 29, modified Sugnaux teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of lithium and a metal comprising Mn and Co (Sugnaux, [0088], [0107]; Xiao, [0038]) or lithium metal phosphates (e.g., LiFePO4) (Xiao, [0038]) wherein the electronically conductive material comprises a carbon-rich compound, such as ethylene based conductive polymers (Xiao, [0080]). Modified Sugnaux however does not teach wherein the precursor includes a polysaccharide, and transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material is conducted by pyrolysis under an inert atmosphere.
In a method for manufacturing an electrode Armand teaches wherein the at least one active electrode material is selected from the group consisting of lithium and a metal comprising Mn and Co (Armand, [0080]) and LiFePO4 (Armand, [0085]). Armand further teaches wherein the precursor includes a carbon-rich compound, such as ethylene based conductive polymers and a polysaccharide (Armand [0062]), and transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material is conducted by pyrolysis under an inert atmosphere (Armand, [0050]) in order to allow its distribution, preferably homogeneously, throughout (Armand, [0061]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Sugnaux with the teaching of Armand wherein he precursor comprises a carbon-rich compound that includes a polysaccharide, and transforming the precursor into the electronically conductive material is conducted by pyrolysis under an inert atmosphere thereby allowing its distribution, preferably homogeneously, throughout.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18-37 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17-32 of copending Application No. 17997156 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claims 17-32 of 17997156 are directed toward, inter alia, a method for manufacturing an electrochemical device, the method comprising: forming a porous electrode by: (a) providing a substrate and a colloidal suspension or a paste comprising aggregates or agglomerates of monodisperse primary nanoparticles of at least one active electrode material, the monodisperse primary nanoparticles having an average primary diameter of between 2 nm and 60 nm, said aggregates or agglomerates having an average diameter of between 100 nm to 200 nm, wherein the substrate is a substrate acting as an electric current collector or an intermediate substrate, (b) depositing a layer is from said colloidal suspension or said paste provided on at least one face of said substrate using one of: electrophoresis, ink-jet printing, flexographic printing, doctor blade coating, roll coating, curtain coating, dip- coating, or slot-die coating, (c) drying the deposited layer, before or after separating said layer from the intermediate substrate, then heat treating the dried layer under an oxidizing atmosphere, and then consolidating the heat treated layer by pressing and/or heating to obtain a mesoporous layer, (d) depositing a coating of an electronically conductive material on and inside the pores of said mesoporous layer, wherein the mesoporous layer is free of binder and has a porosity of between 20% and 60% by volume, preferably between 25% and 50%, and pores with an average diameter of less than 50 nm, which significantly overlap with the claimed invention of the Instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 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.
The examiner notes that while applicant argues that the binder of Sugnaux is critical to the structure, as set forth above, Sugnaux discloses wherein the binder of the deposited layer substituted with an electronic conductive material (Sugnaux, [0053]), which is used to stabilize the layer to produce a percolating interconnected network extending throughout the layer in order that the percolative flow of electrons across the network of mesoscopic oxide particles is effective (Sugnaux, [0076]). Therefore, Sugnaux teaching in the alternative of substituting the binder with an electronic conductive material would be obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the deposited layer of Sugnaux wherein the deposited layer is free of binder thereby stabilizing the layer to produce a percolating interconnected network extending throughout the layer in order that the percolative flow of electrons across the network of mesoscopic oxide particles is effective.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yanke US5208121A (discloses a method of manufacturing a porous electrode for an electrochemical device, the method comprising providing a substrate and a colloidal suspension or a paste that includes aggregates or agglomerates of monodisperse primary nanoparticles, of at least one active electrode material, being binder free and having a modifiable porosity by the skilled artisan).
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 JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights