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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20200161659 A1) and further in view of Sun (US 20170358800 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a positive electrode (para. 0012, [Fig. 1 shows … a positive electrode plate]) for a lithium secondary battery (abstract, [secondary battery] and para. 0101 [lithium battery]), the positive electrode (para. 0011) comprising: a positive electrode current collector (Fig. 1, item 10); a binder layer (Fig. 1, item 12); and a positive electrode active material layer(Fig. 1, item 14)) (para. 0011, [positive electrode comprising a current collector, a positive active material layer, and a binding layer)), wherein the binder layer (Fig. 1, item 12) is sequentially formed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (Fig. 1, item 10) (para. 0011, [the binding layer disposed between the current collector and the positive active material layer]).
PNG
media_image1.png
445
1186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li does not teach wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises a free-standing film positive electrode material.
Sun, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises a free-standing film positive electrode material (Sun, para. 0039, [the prepared cathode active material slurry is applied on a substrate or a current collector, thereby being formed in a film form]) comprising sulfur and carbon (Sun, para. 038, [to form the cathode active material layer, the nitrogen - doped carbon materials and the sulfur containing material]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have replaced Li’s positive electrode with Sun’s positive electrode active material which is in a single film form, in order to utilize a material having a property of adsorbing sulfur in a single film form, as taught in the background information of Sun (Sun, para. 0009).
Furthermore, one skilled in the art would have also replaced Li’s positive electrode active material with Sun’s positive electrode material, in order to incorporate sulfur into the positive electrode, which is an element that has a high energy density compared to the mass thereof, is cheap, and is harmless to the human body, as taught by Sun (Sun, para. 0007); and therefore makes it an attractive cathode material for secondary batteries (Sun, para. 0007).
Modified Li is silent on the specific application amount per unit area of the binder layer.
However, Li teaches that the thickness of the binding layer can be reasonably determined according to actual needs (Li, para. 0066).
Li further teaches that if the binder layer thickness is too small, it is not enough to ensure that the binding layer has the effect of improving safety performance of the battery; and if it is too large, the internal resistance of the battery will increase seriously, which will affect electrochemical performance of the battery during normal operation (Li, para. 0066). Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the application amount per unit area of the binder layer according to the electrode’s needs. It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at an application amount per unit area of the binder layer of 0.1 to 20 µg/cm2 without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Li teaches the positive electrode according to claim 1, wherein the binder layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of acrylonitrile copolymer, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylonitrile, and polyacrylate (Li, para. 0027, [the binding layer matrix is selected from at least one of polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylate, polyacrylonitrile-acrylic acid, and polyacrylonitrile-acrylate]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Li teaches the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the binder layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 20 µm (Li, para. 0066, [the thickness of the binding layer can be reasonably determined according to actual needs. The thickness of the binding layer is … preferably not more than 20 µm]).
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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), [MPEP 2144.05, I].
Regarding claim 5, modified Li discloses the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein the free-standing film type positive electrode material is composed of 50 wt% to 80 wt% of sulfur (Sun, para. 0064, [sulfur powder 60%]) and 20 wt% to 50 wt% of a porous carbon material (Sun, para. 0064, [nitrogen-doped carbon material – 30%]) (Sun, para. 0041, [the nitrogen-doped carbon materials … may be porous materials having micropores]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Li teaches a lithium secondary battery (Li, para. 0172, [electrode plate of the present invention are only exemplified to be used for a lithium battery) comprising: the positive electrode according to claim 1, and further teaches a negative electrode comprising lithium metal or lithium alloy (Li, para. 0083, [the negative electrode plate for use in conjunction with the positive electrode plate … the negative electrode active material is … a lithium-containing oxide, a lithium metal, or a lithium aluminum alloy); a separator between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Li, para. 0107, [the separator was sandwiched in between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate]); and an electrolyte in which the positive electrode, the negative electrode and the separator are immersed (Li, para. 0107, [the electrolyte … was injected therein followed by vacuum package]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Li teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 12, and further teaches wherein the lithium secondary battery is a lithium-sulfur secondary battery (Li, para. 0172, [it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the above application examples of the electrode plate of the present invention are only exemplified to be used for a lithium battery, but the electrode plate of the present invention can also be applied to other types of batteries or electrochemical devices , and still may produce good technical effect of the present invention]). Examiner notes that one skilled in the art would understand that the electrode Li’s electrode plate can be applied to other types of batteries.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20200161659 A1) and further in view of Sun (US 20170358800 A1) and Dillard (US 20210210766 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Li teaches the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Modified Li does not disclose the internal adhesive strength of the material.
However, it has been held that “products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F .2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In this case, modified Li teaches a positive electrode material in the form of a free-standing film with the same composition (Sun, para. 0038, [the active material may include 500 to 800 parts by weight of the sulfur containing material based on 100 parts by weight of the binder]) as the claimed invention (pg. 13, instant specification, [sulfur may be contained in an amount of 80 wt.% or less] … [when sulfur is contained in an amount of 50 wt% to 80 wt% in the sulfur-carbon composite …]).
Modified Li does not teach that the free standing film was fabricated by melting the sulfur under pressure as stated in pg. 3 of the instant specification.
Dillard, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches that free-standing sulfur-carbon cathodes can be fabricated by diffusing melted sulfur into a carbon nanofiber [CNF] [material] produced by electrospinning [Dillard, para. 0126]. The fabrication process involves “melting and diffusing in to the CNF material … by applying a slight pressure of about 200 psi and heat in a hydraulic press” (Dillard, para. 0127).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated Dillard’s free-standing sulfur carbon manufacturing process to make modified Li’s positive electrode material, in order to provide a practical means for manufacturing Li-S cathodes by simplifying the sulfur melting procedure and providing exceptional cycling stability of the free standing sulfur-based composite (Dillard, para. 0114), as taught by Dillard.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the positive electrode material of modified Li would have the same adhesive strength as the claimed invention (10 gf/cm or more) as the material of modified Li has the same composition and has been made in a substantially similar way.
Applicant is invited to provide evidence showing any differences between modified Li and the present invention that would result in the positive electrode material of modified Li having an internal adhesive strength below the claimed amount.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20200161659 A1) and further in view of Sun (US 20170358800 A1) and Park (US 20140170475 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Li teaches the positive electrode for the lithium secondary battery according to claim 1.
Modified Li is silent regarding the porosity of the free-standing film type positive electrode material.
Park, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein the positive electrode material has a porosity of 68% or less (Park, para. 0100, [the film may include porosity of about 1% to about 70%]).
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 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), [MPEP 2144.05, I].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made modified Li’s porous free-standing film to have a porosity between 1% and 70%, as taught by Park, in order to increases the mechanical durability of the film, as taught by Park (para. 0100, [the electrode attachment substance [in modified Li’s case – the binder layer] within the porosity of the film can increase the mechanical durability of the film]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20200161659 A1) and further in view of Sun (US 20170358800 A1) and Manthiram (US 20170092954 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Li teaches the lithium secondary battery according to claim 12. Modified Li does not teach wherein the positive electrode has a loading amount of sulfur of 3.0 to 5.0 mg/cm2 .
Manthiram, in the same field of endeavor batteries teaches the cathode has a sulfur loading of at least 3-5 mg/cm2. (para. 0109 and claim 15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have utilized a sulfur loading amount of 3.0-5.0 mg/cm2 of Li’s cathode, as taught by Manthiram, in order to optimize the cycle stability of the cell, as taught by Manthiram (para. 0157, [the improved cycle stability was found even after increasing the sulfur loading by almost six times due to the unique electrode structure that stabilizes the S-based cathode active material]).
Other Pertinent Art
US 20210242463 A1
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks that Li’s binder is of a polymer material which differs from the binder material of the instant specification.
Examiner responds by stating that claim 2 provides a list of materials that the binder can be made of, and Li teaches one of the materials provided in that list (Li, para. 0027).
Applicant remarks that Li does not teach a binder application amount and that the amount per unit area is not merely a result of routine optimization.
Examiner agrees that Li does not teach a binder application amount, however para. 0066 of Li does teach the importance of having an appropriate thickness for the binder. The justification for an appropriate thickness would lead one of ordinary skill in the art towards the binder application amount as claimed in claim 1.
Applicant remarks that Li’s binder layer is “designed for a completely different purpose, e.g., safety during nail penetration, and has a fundamentally different composition and structure.”
Examiner responds by stating that the purpose of Li’s binder is to enhance adhesion as explained in para. 0029. This is similar to the purpose of the instant’s binder. Furthermore, Li teaches that the binder is made of a polymers such as acrylonitrile copolymer, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylonitrile, and polyacrylate , which are listed in the instant’s claim 2.
Applicant remarks that Sun’s binder layer contains the positive active material slurry mixed with the binder material; whereas, claim 1 says that the binder is separate.
Examiner responds by stating that the combination of Li and Sun read over claim 1 by teaching a structure composed of Sun’s positive active material, Li’s binder layer, and Li’s current collector. Therefore, the remark over Sun’s binder layer is considered moot because the office action does not rely on Sun’s binder layer in the rejection.
Applicant remarks that Li and Sun do not teach a positive layer with a free standing film comprised of sulfur and carbon.
Examiner responds by stating that Sun does teach a positive layer material composed of sulfur and carbon, and therefore teaches the limitation of claim 1. Examiner agrees that Sun’s carbon is nitrogen doped whereas, the instant’s carbon is not doped with nitrogen; however, this detail is not a requirement of claim 1.
Regarding applicant’s remarks pertaining to claim 6, applicant states that “Dillard’s approach is specifically designed to eliminate binders and current collectors entirely, which is the opposite of the structure recited in claim 1”.
Examiner responds by stating that Dillard’s fabrication method is only referenced in the office action to teach the method of melting and diffusing sulfur in to the CNF material (Dillard para. 0126). Dillard’s teaching is then combined with modified Li as a method of making modified Li’s positive active material.
Application of Dillard’s method to modified Li’s positive active material, leads to diffusing sulfur into the carbon nanofiber material. Dillard teaches fabrication by applying a slight pressure of about 200 psi and heat in a hydraulic press (Dillard, para. 0127).
This method is similar to the fabrication method described in pg. 12 of the instant specification, “the internal adhesive force is due to the property that sulfur is melted and aggregated with the surrounding sulfur during the pressing process”.
The melting and aggregation attributes to the internal adhesive force, and if modified Li’s positive active material layer (which is also made of sulfur and carbon) is made with a similar method, then the internal properties (such as internal adhesive force) should also be the same (refer to claim 6 above).
As stated in the previous office action, the applicant is invited to provide evidence showing any differences between modified Li and the present invention that would result in the positive electrode material of modified Li having an internal adhesive strength below the claimed amount.
Conclusion
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 VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights