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 Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “expended,” which believed to be a typographical error and should read “expanded”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation. “thermally expandable polymer,” in claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 14 has no defined meaning in the field and in absence of a method to determine what is meant with such wording (e.g. pressure at a given temperature, rate of expansion based on pressure at a given temperature etc.), any polymer may be considered a “thermally expandable polymer.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites in part, “…the thermal expandable polymer is a polymer which is expended at 70 0C to 200 C.” However without disclosing the pressure at which this temperature range applies for a “thermal expandable polymer” makes this limitation indefinite. For the purpose of examination one atmospheric (1 atm) pressure will be applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seok et al. (US2019/0334157A1).
As to claim 1, Seok discloses an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery [0001], comprising: a current collector (31); an active material layer (33) positioned on the current collector; and a safety functional layer ((32),functional layer) positioned inside the active material layer as a separator layer (fig. 1) and comprising a thermal expandable polymer (polymer particle, [Abstract]…the polymer particles 34 may have a melting temperature ranging from 90° C. to 125° C [0030] which provides a higher melting temperature than room temperature, matching the definition of an expandable polymer as exemplified in page 7 lines 4-5 of the instant specification.)
As to claim 4, Seok discloses the thermal expandable polymer includes a polyolefin (polyethylene [0088]).
As to claim 8, Seok discloses the safety functional layer further includes a conductive material. [0032]
As to claim 10, Seok discloses the safety functional layer further includes a binder. (acrylate-based binder [0088])
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, Seok discloses the binder includes an acryl resin (acrylate-based binder [0088]).
As to claim 17, Seok discloses electrode for the rechargeable lithium battery is a negative electrode. [0036-0039].
As to claim 18, Seok discloses comprising: an electrode of claim 1; a separator; and an electrolyte. [0065]
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 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Seok et al. (US2019/0334157A1).
As to claim 2, Seok discloses the thermal expandable polymer is a polymer which is expended at 700 C to 2000 C. (Polymer particles (34) may have a melting point from 900C to 1250C [0030], and which would correspond an expanding point prior to the melting point or less than 900 C which provides an overlapping range, and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 3, Seok discloses the thermal expandable polymer is a polymer which is melted at 100 0C to 200 C. (Polymer particles (34) may have a melting point from 900C to 1250C [0030], and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, Seok discloses the polyolefin includes low density polyethylene (Polyethylene having a weight-average molecular weight of 150,000 [0100]).
As to claim 6, Seok discloses the thermal expandable polymer has a particle form and has a thermally expandable polymer particle (polymer particles (34)) diameter D50 of 50 nm to 10 µm. (Average particle size of the polymer particles 34 may be 0.3 μm to 2.3 μm [0026] [0027], and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 7, Seok discloses the thermal expandable polymer is included in an amount of 5 wt% to 95 wt% based on 100 wt% of the safety functional layer. (amount of the polymer particles 34 may be 93 wt % to 98.5 wt %, based on a total amount of the functional layer 32 [0029], and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, Seok discloses the conductive material is included in an amount of 1 wt% to 50 wt% based on100 wt% of the safety functional layer. (1 wt % of denka black as a conductive material [0088], and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, Seok discloses the binder is included in an amount of 1 wt% to 50 wt% based on 100 wt% of the safety functional layer. (2 wt % of an acrylate-based binder [0088], and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 13, Seok discloses the safety functional layer has a thickness of 0.5 pm to 8 µm. (thickness of the functional layer 32 may be 5 μm to 15 μm [0028] and 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (US2019/0334157A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung et al (US2018/0097255A1).
As to claim 14, Seok does not explicitly disclose the electrode for the rechargeable lithium battery includes a current collector, a lower active material layer positioned on the current collector and including a first active material, a safety functional layer positioned on the lower active material layer and including a thermal expandable polymer, and an upper active material layer positioned on the safety functional layer and including a second active material.
In the same field of endeavor Jung discloses electrode for an electrochemical device [Abstract] for a lithium battery [Jung,0075] and teaches, the electrode includes a current collector, a lower active material layer positioned on the current collector and including a first active material, a safety functional layer (barrier layer) positioned on the lower active material layer and including a thermal expandable polymer (polymer resin), and an upper active material layer positioned on the safety functional layer and including a second active material [Jung,0009].
Jung further teaches, the present invention relates to an electrode for an electrochemical device having excellent electrolyte impregnation and improved battery output and lifecycle properties, [Abstract]… the barrier layer many prevent deformation of the active material monolayer [Jung,0058]
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Seok with the structure as taught by Jung to prevent damage to the active material and provide an electrode with improved battery output and lifecycle properties.
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, modified Seok discloses, the first active material and the second active material are the same ([Jung, [0048], [0079])
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (US2019/0334157A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jung et al (US2018/0097255A1), and further in view of Chang et al. (US9,276,259B2).
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, modified Seok does not explicitly disclose the first active material and the second active material are the different. In the same field of endeavor Chang discloses an electrode for a lithium battery [Abstract], and teaches two or more active materials having a redox potential difference with given conditions is used as a cathode active material, it is possible to prepare a lithium secondary battery having improved discharge characteristics [C2L14-18], which meets the limitation of different active materials. Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Seok with the different active materials as taught by Chang to achieve improved discharge characteristics.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Kise et al. (US6,440,605B1) Resin layer with high density polyethylene.
Kim et al. (US2013/0130075A1) Types of thermoplastics used in batteries.
Yamamoto et al. (US2020/0403276A1) Electrode with polymer particles and
thermally expandable microcapsule.
Kuzuoka et al. (US2018/0040899A1) Insulating polyolefin.
Park et al. (KR10-0670485B1) Electrode with PTC coating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728