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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed December 27, 2022 and July 3, 2023 are acknowledged. Action on the merits of claims 1-20 follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed December 27, 2022 and June 14, 2023 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references and foreign language patent office communications with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because drawings do not appear to have been filed in the instant application. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The substitute specification filed July 3, 2023 has been entered. The specification filed December 27, 2022 and substitute specification filed July 3, 2023 have been reviewed for examination purposes.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Evaluation Example 1 on pages 47-48 is inconsistent as it shows a comparison in Table 1 between Comparative Example 5 and Example 1 but concludes this evaluation as a comparison between Example 1 and Comparative Example 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
116
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
b. Evaluation Example 2 on pages 49-50 is inconsistent as it shows a comparison in Table 2 between Comparative Example 5 and Example 1 but concludes this evaluation as a comparison between Example 1 and Comparative Example 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
446
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13-17 are 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 13 recites the limitation "the width direction ends" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 14-17 are dependent upon claim 13 and do not remedy this issue. Therefor claims 14-17 are rejected for this same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanjo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0028380).
As to claim 1, Tanjo discloses an electrode comprising:
an electrode active material layer including an electrode active material and a binder;
an electrode current collector 30 disposed on a portion of one surface of the electrode active material layer 20A/20B (Fig. 3) or 21A/21B (Fig. 4) or in a portion between opposite surfaces of the electrode active material layer;
a first domain 20A (Fig. 3) or 21A (Fig. 4) including the electrode active material layer and the electrode current collector 30 disposed on one surface or between opposite surfaces of the electrode active material layer; and
a second domain 20B (Fig. 3) or 21B (Fig. 4) including the electrode active material layer, the electrode active material layer being spaced apart from and thus free of the electrode current collector on one surface or between opposite surfaces thereof,
wherein a mixture density of the electrode active material layer included in the second domain is less than 99 % of a mixture density of the electrode active material layer included in the first domain (Figs. 3 and 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
323
414
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
421
466
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, the porosity of the first domain 20A is less compared to a more porous second domain 20B and thus 99% or less porous compared to the second domain 20B (Fig. 3, para. [0052]).
As to claim 5, the active material layer 20 includes a binder, where the preferable binder is polyvinylidene fluoride, a fluorine-based binder (paras. [0038]; [0045]; examples 1-5).
As to claim 6, the active material layer 20 further comprises a conductive material comprising carbon black, graphite or acetylene black (para. [0036] ;examples 1-5).
As to claim 18, Tanjo discloses the electrodes above further in a lithium battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode and an electrolyte between the electrodes wherein at least one electrode is the electrode of claim 1 above (Fig. 1, paras. [0032]-[0043] and examples).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tanjo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0028380) as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to the ratio of change of vertical relative force defined in claim 11 and horizontal force ratio change of claim 12, the claimed ratios are held to be inherent to Tanjo, in the least, if any difference is shown, a minor and obvious difference.
The manner of measuring the electrode using SAICAS itself is not necessarily a limiting factor as the claimed invention is to the electrode itself and how the electrode is manipulated (such as how it is measured or tested) the method of measuring and system for such does not necessarily further limit the electrode. In the case of Tanjo, it appears that Tanjo, anticipating the electrode of claims 1, 11 and 12, would expectedly exhibit the same or remarkably similar properties when measured by SAICAS, absent clear evidence to the contrary.
As discussed above, Tanjo teaches of the electrode of claim 1 above wherein the electrode includes an active material layer having two different domains with the same mixing density difference, as the electrode of Tanjo appears to have the same features as claim 1, one would reasonably expect that the electrode would exhibit the same or similar ratio of change in a vertical relative force (claim 11) and horizontal force ratio of a horizontal force (claim 12), absent clear evidence to the contrary.
Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection.
“In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990)
The Examiner invites applicant to provide that that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.
Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted].” The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).
In the case that any difference between the properties of claims 11 and/or 12 are shown, the differences would further be held to be minor differences in value, absent clear evidence to the contrary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0028380) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schroder et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,038,193).
As shown above in Figs. 3 and 4, Tanjo teaches of first and second domains having different porosity and different mixing densities as a result of different porosity and particle distribution therein.
Tanjo does not teach of the difference in mixture density ranging from 0.1 g/cm3 to 2.0 g/cm3).
Schroder, drawn to the same field of endeavor that being electrode and electrode manufacturing methods for lithium battery systems having plural domains in the electrode active material, teaches that the density difference between different domains can be 0.2-0.5g/cc or 0.5-1g/cc (col. 16, ll. 46-57). The density difference was shown by Schroder to be of sufficient amount to provide for increased energy density without increasing power density. Furthermore, as noted by Tanjo, the two domains therein are different for the benefit of high energy density and high power density. Both Schroder and Tanjo relate to designs for electrodes having plural domains with high energy density and high power density. It would be well within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art to modify the different domains of Tanjo to have density differences such as 0.2-0.5g/cc or 0.5-1g/cc as taught by Schroder with the reasonable expectation that such density differences will provide for electrodes and batteries having high energy density and high power density.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the domains or Tanjo to have different densities such as 0.2-0.5g/cc or 0.5-1g/cc as taught by Schroder since it would have provided for electrodes and batteries having high energy density and high power density. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). 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); In re Woodruff, 919, F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0028380) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0139714).
Tanjo does not teach of the electrode layer being self-standing and free of residual processing solvent.
Shin, drawn to the same field of endeavor that being electrode and electrode manufacturing methods for lithium battery systems, teaches that self-standing electrode films were known in the art to include a binder matrix sufficient to support the film or layer to maintain its shape to be free-standing (para. [0025]). Shin further teaches that the electrode film is solvent free and does not include processing solvent residues (para. [0026]). Self-supporting films obtained via the dry route of Shin were found to have certain advantages including improve mechanical and electrochemical performance characteristics (para. [0004] for example).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode layers of Tanjo to be self-standing and free of residual processing solvents as taught by Shin since it would have provided the predictable benefits of designing self-standing electrodes via dry manufacturing methods having good mechanical properties and electrochemical performance.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanjo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0028380) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 111180738A).
Tanjo does not teach of providing a coating on the current collector of a thickness that is 30% or less of the collector (claim 8); where the coating includes a binder from a conductive binder and a non-conductive binder and the binder includes a fluorine-based binder (claim 9), where the coating further comprises a carbon-based conductive binder (claim 10).
Li and Tanjo are drawn to the same field of endeavor, notably to designs and improvements relating to lithium batteries and electrode therein. Li discloses providing a primer coating to the current collector where the coating includes a mixture of a binder and a conductive material so as to improve electrochemical performance (paras. [0144], [0220]-[0222]; [0224][-0225]; [0235]-[0236];[0239]-[0240]) and has a thickness ranging from 0.1 to 5 microns compared to a collector having a larger thickness ([0147]). By example, a 1.5 micron primer coating (conductive carbon black and pvdf binder) is applied to a positive current collector 4. Current collector foils having a conventional thickness of 12 microns (paras. [0051]; [0218] for example). Thus Li reasonably encompasses providing a primer thickness of 1.5 microns to a 12 micron collector foil, thus the primer thickness can include thicknesses 30% or less the thickness of the current collector (claim 8). The coating thickness can be optimized to achieve sufficient mechanical and electrochemical performance (applied to claim 8). According to Li the conductive material is conductive carbon material (para. [0235], for example; applied to claim 10) and the binder is a fluorine based binder such as PVDF (para. [0235], for example, applied to claim 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode current collector of Tanjo to include the relative primer coating to the collector as taught by Li since it would have mechanical and electrochemical performance.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0139714) in view of Tanjo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0028380).
As to claim 1, the electrode, Shin teaches of an electrode comprising
an electrode active material 114, a dry conductive material, and a dry binder (para. [0053] and paras. [0059]-[0066];
an electrode current collector 110;
wherein the electrode includes: a first domain (layer 1) including the electrode active material layer and the electrode current collector disposed on one surface or between opposite surfaces of the electrode active material layer (layer 1); and
a second domain including the electrode active material layer (layer 2), the electrode active material layer (layer 2) being apart from and thus free of the electrode current collector on one surface or between opposite surfaces thereof (claim 1).
As to claim 5, the dry binder is a fluorine-based fibrilized binder (examples and para. [0034]).
As to claim 6, the conductive material is a carbon-based conductive material (examples and paras. [0047]-[0048]).
As to claim 7, Shin teaches that each of the first and second electrodes 102 and 104 can be of the layered dry mixed methodology disclosed therein, where the cathode layer includes the active material, binder and conductive material all in dry form. Providing the layered electrode on a current collector and pressing the structure (Fig. 5B). Shin further teaches that the binder is a fluorinated fibrillar binder (para. [0034]) to aid in forming the self-standing electrode structure. The method specifically employs a dry process void of solvents to effectively fabricate a resultant multi-domain self-standing electrode structure on a given current collector.
As to claim 18, modified Shin discloses the electrodes above further in a lithium battery comprising a positive electrode, negative electrode and an electrolyte between the electrodes wherein at least one electrode is the electrode of claim 1 above (Fig. 1 and examples).
Shin does not teach of a mixture density of the second domain being less than 99% that of the first domain (claim 1) of the porosity of the first domain being 99% or less than the second domain (claim 3).
As to claim 1, Tanjo discloses an electrode comprising an electrode active material layer including an electrode active material and a binder; an electrode current collector 30 disposed on a portion of one surface of the electrode active material layer 20A/20B (Fig. 3) or 21A/21B (Fig. 4) or in a portion between opposite surfaces of the electrode active material layer; a first domain 20A (Fig. 3) or 21A (Fig. 4) including the electrode active material layer and the electrode current collector 30 disposed on one surface or between opposite surfaces of the electrode active material layer; and a second domain 20B (Fig. 3) or 21B (Fig. 4) including the electrode active material layer, the electrode active material layer being spaced apart from and thus free of the electrode current collector on one surface or between opposite surfaces thereof,
wherein a mixture density of the electrode active material layer included in the second domain is less than 99 % of a mixture density of the electrode active material layer included in the first domain (Figs. 3 and 4).
As to claim 3, the porosity of the first domain 20A is less compared to a more porous second domain 20B and thus 99% or less porous compared to the second domain 20B (Fig. 3, para. [0052]).
Both Shin and Tanjo are drawn to the same field of endeavor, notably to energy storage devices, specifically to materials and methods for multilayer electrode films. Tanjo recognized that providing different layers with different mixture densities as discussed above and in extensive detail within the reference itself, provided for improved electrochemical performance including, but limited to, increased power density and energy density.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layers of Shin to have different mixing densities wherein the second domain or second layer has a mixing density 99% or less than the mixing density of the first domain or layer adjacent to the current collector and different porosity as taught by Tanjo since it would have predictably and expectedly provided the benefits of Tanjo, including, but limited to, increased power density and energy density.
As to claim 19, Shin discloses a method of manufacturing an electrode, the method comprising:
preparing a mixture by dry-mixing an electrode active material 114, a dry conductive material, and a dry binder (para. [0053] and paras. [0059]-[00666];
providing an electrode current collector 110; and
disposing and pressing the mixture on one surface or opposite surfaces of the electrode current collector to manufacture an electrode including an electrode active material layer 114 on one surface or opposite surfaces of the electrode current collector 110 (Fig. 5B),
wherein the electrode includes: a first domain (layer 1) including the electrode active material layer and the electrode current collector disposed on one surface or between opposite surfaces of the electrode active material layer (layer 1); and
a second domain including the electrode active material layer (layer 2), the electrode active material layer (layer 2) being apart from and thus free of the electrode current collector on one surface or between opposite surfaces thereof (claim 19).
Shin teaches that each of the first4 and second electrodes 102 and 104 can be of the layered dry mixed methodology disclosed therein, where the cathode layer includes the active material, binder and conductive material all in dry form. Providing the layered electrode on a current collector and pressing the structure (Fig. 5B). Shin further teaches that the binder is a fluorinated fibrillar binder (para. [0034]) to aid in forming the self-standing electrode structure.
The method specifically employs a dry process void of solvents to effectively fabricate a resultant multi-domain self-standing electrode structure on a given current collector.
As to claim 20, each layer has the same relative thickness. Thus the thickness of layer 2 is less than (99% or less) the thickness of the total electrode active material layer and the current collector in the first domain (layer 1).
Shin does not teach that a mixture density of the electrode active material layer included in the second domain is less than 99 % of a mixture density of the electrode active material layer included in the first domain (claim 19).
Tanjo discloses an electrode comprising an electrode active material layer including an electrode active material and a binder; an electrode current collector 30 disposed on a portion of one surface of the electrode active material layer 20A/20B (Fig. 3) or 21A/21B (Fig. 4) or in a portion between opposite surfaces of the electrode active material layer; a first domain 20A (Fig. 3) or 21A (Fig. 4) including the electrode active material layer and the electrode current collector 30 disposed on one surface or between opposite surfaces of the electrode active material layer; and a second domain 20B (Fig. 3) or 21B (Fig. 4) including the electrode active material layer, the electrode active material layer being spaced apart from and thus free of the electrode current collector on one surface or between opposite surfaces thereof,
wherein a mixture density of the electrode active material layer included in the second domain is less than 99 % of a mixture density of the electrode active material layer included in the first domain (Figs. 3 and 4).
Both Shin and Tanjo are drawn to the same field of endeavor, notably to energy storage devices, specifically to materials and methods for multilayer electrode films. Tanjo recognized that providing different layers with different mixture densities as discussed above and in extensive detail within the reference itself, provided for improved electrochemical performance including, but limited to, increased power density and energy density.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the layers of Shin to have different mixing densities wherein the second domain or second layer has a mixing density 99% or less than the mixing density of the first domain or layer adjacent to the current collector as taught by Tanjo since it would have predictably and expectedly provided the benefits of Tanjo, including, but limited to, increased power density and energy density.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0139714) in view of Tanjo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0028380) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schroder et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,038,193).
As shown above in Figs. 3 and 4, Tanjo teaches of first and second domains having different porosity and different mixing densities as a result of different porosity and particle distribution therein.
Tanjo does not teach of the difference in mixture density ranging from 0.1 g/cm3 to 2.0 g/cm3).
Schroder, drawn to the same field of endeavor that being electrode and electrode manufacturing methods for lithium battery systems having plural domains in the electrode active material, teaches that the density difference between different domains can be 0.2-0.5g/cc or 0.5-1g/cc (col. 16, ll. 46-57). The density difference was shown by Schroder to be of sufficient amount to provide for increased energy density without increasing power density. Furthermore, as noted by Tanjo, the two domains therein are different for the benefit of high energy density and high power density. Both Schroder and Shin in view of Tanjo relate to designs for electrodes having plural domains with high energy density and high power density. It would be well within the skill of the ordinary worker in the art to modify the different domains of Shin in view of Tanjo to have density differences such as 0.2-0.5g/cc or 0.5-1g/cc as taught by Schroder with the reasonable expectation that such density differences will provide for electrodes and batteries having high energy density and high power density.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the domains or modified-Shin to have different densities such as 0.2-0.5g/cc or 0.5-1g/cc as taught by Schroder since it would have provided for electrodes and batteries having high energy density and high power density. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). 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); In re Woodruff, 919, F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0139714) in view of Tanjo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0028380) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 111180738A).
Tanjo does not teach of providing a coating on the current collector of a thickness that is 30% or less of the collector (claim 8); where the coating includes a binder from a conductive binder and a non-conductive binder and the binder includes a fluorine-based binder (claim 9), where the coating further comprises a carbon-based conductive binder (claim 10).
Li, Shin and Tanjo are drawn to the same field of endeavor, notably to designs and improvements relating to lithium batteries and electrode therein. Li discloses providing a primer coating to the current collector where the coating includes a mixture of a binder and a conductive material so as to improve electrochemical performance (paras. [0144], [0220]-[0222]; [0224][-0225]; [0235]-[0236];[0239]-[0240]) and has a thickness ranging from 0.1 to 5 microns compared to a collector having a larger thickness ([0147]). By example, a 1.5 micron primer coating (conductive carbon black and pvdf binder) is applied to a positive current collector 4. Current collector foils having a conventional thickness of 12 microns (paras. [0051]; [0218] for example). Thus Li reasonably encompasses providing a primer thickness of 1.5 microns to a 12 micron collector foil, thus the primer thickness can include thicknesses 30% or less the thickness of the current collector (claim 8). The coating thickness can be optimized to achieve sufficient mechanical and electrochemical performance (applied to claim 8). According to Li the conductive material is conductive carbon material (para. [0235], for example; applied to claim 10) and the binder is a fluorine based binder such as PVDF (para. [0235], for example, applied to claim 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode current collector of modified-Shin to include the relative primer coating to the collector as taught by Li since it would have mechanical and electrochemical performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 4, none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the electrode of claim 4 wherein a thickness of the electrode active material layer included in the second domain is 99 % or less of a total thickness of the electrode active material layer and the electrode current collector which are included in the first domain, a surface step of the electrode active material layer is disposed at a boundary between the first domain and the second domain, and a height of the surface step of the electrode active material layer is 1 % or more of a total thickness of the electrode active material layer and the electrode current collector in the first domain.
Neither Tanjo, Shin, nor the remaining cited prior art of record teach or suggest the electrode of claim 4, including the first and second domains as recited in the base claim having different mixture densities and further the surface step of the electrode active material layer disposed at a boundary between the first domain and the second domain as expressed in claim 4. The inclusion of a step surface in the context of the claimed invention appears to result in improved energy density.
Claims 13-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 13, none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the electrode of claim 13 wherein the electrode active material layer comprises: a first surface, and a second surface opposing the first surface; a first side surface connected to longitudinal ends of the first surface and the second surface, and a second side surface opposing the first side surface; and a third side surface connected to the width direction ends of the first surface and the second surface, and a fourth side surface opposing the third side surface, wherein the first domain is defined by the first surface, the second surface, the third side surface, and the fourth side surface, and is a region including the electrode current collector disposed between the first surface and the second surface, and the second domain is defined by the first surface, the second surface, the third side surface, and the fourth side surface, and is a region in which the electrode current collector is absent, between the first surface and the second surface.
Neither Tanjo, Shin, nor the remaining cited prior art of record teach or suggest the electrode of claim 12 with respect to the combination of surfaces in the electrode active material layer including the first and second domains defined by the same surfaces of claim 13 and the current collector disposed between the first and second surface in the first domain and is absent between the first and second surface of the second domain.
The claims relate to Fig. 5 of the instant invention where it can be seen that the two domains of the electrode active material layer are defined by the same surfaces and wherein the current collected is disposed between the first and second surface. This design is disclosed to improve safety of the lithium battery.
Tanjo, teaches of first and second domains bound by the same surface layers, however the current collector is adjacent to these layers as not disposed between any surfaces of the electrode active material layer itself. None of the remaining cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, teach or suggest this relationship with sufficient motivation to modify Tanjo to meet the features of at least claim 13. Therefore claims 13 (combination of base claim 1 and additional features of claim 13) appear to define a novel invention over the cited prior art of record.
Claims 14-17 are dependent upon claim 13 and allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0178734 discloses measuring using SAICAS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725