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 Status
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 15 are amended. Support for amendment can be found in instant specification [0061], [0067], [0064], [0061]; and originally filed claims.
Claims 19-20 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 1-18 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joon et al. (KR20210012899A) hereinafter "Joon". Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Joon discloses a lithium-ion battery ([0037]; [0144]-[0145]) comprising: a positive electrode comprising a first conducting agent comprising one or more oxide containing functional groups; wherein the first conducting agent comprises electrically conductive reduced graphene oxide ([0038]-[0039]; [0092]; [0012]-[0018]; [0049]-[0051] “highly conductive reduced graphene oxide”; reduced graphene oxide is used to coat a cathode active material forming a conductive three-dimensional carbon network; [0130]).
Regarding claim 3, Joon discloses wherein the positive electrode comprises a second conducting agent ([0032]; [0051]; [0092] “conductive nanoparticles”).
Regarding claim 11, Joon discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Joon discloses reduced graphene oxide where the reduced graphene oxide contains carbonyl, hydroxyl, and carboxyl groups ([0058]; [0086] reducing graphene oxide removes a significant portion, leaving some functional groups remaining). The instant specification states that carbonyl functional groups, epoxy functional groups, hydroxyl functional groups, and carboxylic functional groups have an affinity for manganese ions (instant specification [(0053]). The limitation “wherein the one or more oxide-containing functional groups is configured to react with manganese ions” is functional language. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See Jn re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Joon discloses a first conducting agent, reduced graphene oxide, comprising one or more oxide containing functional groups such as carboxylic, and hydroxyl functionalities ([0058]; [0086]) which are capable of reacting with manganese, thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Joon discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. J Joon discloses reduced graphene oxide where the reduced graphene oxide contains carbonyl, hydroxyl, and carboxyl groups ([0058]; [0086] reducing graphene oxide removes a significant portion, leaving some functional groups remaining). The instant specification states that hydroxyl functional groups and carboxylic functional groups react readily with water (instant spec. [0051]). The limitation “wherein the one or more oxide-containing functional groups is configured to react with residual water” is functional language. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Joon discloses a first conducting agent, reduced graphene oxide, comprising one or more oxide containing functional groups such as carboxylic, and hydroxyl functionalities ([0058]; [0086]) which are capable of reacting with water, thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Joon discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. J Joon discloses reduced graphene oxide where the reduced graphene oxide contains carbonyl, hydroxyl, and carboxyl groups ([0058]; [0086] reducing graphene oxide removes a significant portion, leaving some functional groups remaining). The instant specification states that hydroxyl functional groups and carboxylic functional groups react with hydrogen fluoride (HF) (instant spec. [0052]). The limitation “wherein the one or more oxide-containing functional groups is configured to react with hydrogen fluoride” is functional language. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Joon discloses a first conducting agent, reduced graphene oxide, comprising one or more oxide containing functional groups such as carboxylic, and hydroxyl functionalities ([0058]; [0086]) which are capable of reacting with HF, thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Joon discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Joon discloses reduced graphene oxide where the reduced graphene oxide contains carbonyl, hydroxyl, and carboxyl groups ([0058]; [0086] reducing graphene oxide removes a significant portion, leaving some functional groups remaining). The limitation “wherein the one or more oxide-containing functional groups is configured to react with nitrogen ions, phosphorus ions, sulfur ions, or a combination thereof” is functional language. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Joon discloses a first conducting agent, reduced graphene oxide, comprising one or more oxide containing functional groups such as carboxylic, and hydroxyl functionalities ([0058]; [0086]) which are capable of reacting with nitrogen ions, phosphorus ions, sulfur ions, or a combination thereof, thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, Joon teaches wherein the one or more oxide-containing functional groups comprise a carbonyl functional group, a carboxylic functional group, a hydroxyl functional group, or a combination thereof ([0059]; [0086] reducing graphene oxide removes a significant portion of functional groups, leaving some functional groups remaining).
Regarding claim 17, Joon discloses the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Joon further teaches wherein the positive electrode comprises 90-99 wt. % active material, 0.5-5 wt. % conducting agent, and 0.5-5 wt. % binder ([0144] “the active material was mixed with Super P and PVdF binder in NMP at a weight ratio of 90:5:5”).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-10, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joon (KR20210012899A).
Regarding claim 4, Joon discloses wherein a weight ratio of the second conducting agent to the first conducting agent is 2:1 to 9:1 ([0035] the case where the coating layer is 70% conductive nanoparticles and 30% reduced graphene oxide; [0102]; [0124]). 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Joon teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 3. Joon further teaches wherein the second conducting agent comprises carbon nanotubes such as multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) ([0043]; [0092]; [0094]). Joon teaches that the ease of dispersion is affected by the CNT type and it may be advantageous to use MWCNT ([0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select MWCNT as the second conductive additive.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select MWCNT as the second conductive additive to increase the ease of dispersion.
Regarding claim 6, Joon teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 3. Joon further teaches wherein the second conducting agent comprises carbon nanotubes such as single walled carbon nanotubes. ([0043]; [0092]; [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select SWCNT as the second conductive additive because SWCNT are taught within the disclosure of Joon as an acceptable form of carbon nanotubes.
Regarding claim 7, Joon teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Joon further teaches wherein the positive electrode comprises a second conducting agent and wherein the second conducting agent comprises carbon nanotubes ([0043]; [0092]; [0094]; [0150]-[0151]).
Joon is silent as to whether the carbon nanotubes are non-functionalized carbon nanotubes.
However, given that Joon teaches a second conducting agent, wherein the second conducting agent comprises carbon nanotubes ([0043]; [0092]; [0094]; [0150]-[0151]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select non-functionalized carbon nanotubes.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have select non-functionalized carbon nanotubes as the carbon nanotubes of Joon with a reasonable expectation of success given that Joon teaches multiple types of CNTs. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, Joon further teaches wherein a weight ratio of the second conducting agent to the first conducting agent is 2:1 to 9:1 ([0035] the case where the coating layer is 70% conductive nanoparticles and 30% reduced graphene oxide; [0102]; [0124]). 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Joon further teaches wherein a weight ratio of the second conducting agent to the first conducting agent is 7:3 ([0035] the case where the coating layer is 70% conductive nanoparticles and 30% reduced graphene oxide; [0102]; [0124]). 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 10, Joon teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 7. Joon further teaches wherein a weight ratio of the second conducting agent to the first conducting agent is 7:3 ([0035] the case where the coating layer is 70% conductive nanoparticles and 30% reduced graphene oxide; [0102]; [0124]). 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) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, Joon teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Joon wherein the positive electrode comprises a Mn-based cathode material ([0112] NCM; [0028]; [0110]). Absent a specific definition, Mn-based cathode materials are interpreted as cathode materials containing manganese.
Regarding claim 18, Joon teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Joon further teaches an electric vehicle system comprising the lithium-ion battery of claim 1 ([0039]; [0130]; [0150]-[0151]).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joon (KR20210012899A) in view of Finlayson et al. (US 20200369522 A1) hereinafter “Finlayson”.
Regarding claim 2, Joon teaches the lithium-ion battery of claim 1. Joon further teaches wherein the positive electrode comprises a second conducting agent: and wherein the second conducting agent comprises carbon nanotubes such as multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT), double walled carbon nanotubes (DWCNT) or single walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) ([0043]; [0092]; [0094]).
Joon does not teach wherein the carbon nanotubes are oxide containing single-walled nanotubes, oxide containing multiwalled-nanotubes, or a combination thereof.
However, Finlayson teaches conductive functionalized single wall, double wall or multi wall carbon nanotubes having an overall (total) oxidation level of from about 0.1 weight percent to about 15 weight percent ([0038]-[0040]; [0060]). Finlayson teaches the use of oxide containing CNTs in electrodes ([0018]; [0060]; [0156]-[0164]). Finlayson teaches that the oxide containing CNTs disclosed can improve mechanical, electrical, and thermal properties ([0048]) compared to conventional CNTs ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the CNTs in the lithium-ion battery taught by Joon with the functionalized CNTs taught by Finlayson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the CNTs in the lithium-ion battery taught by Joon with the functionalized CNTs taught by Finlayson to improve mechanical, electrical, and thermal properties ([0048]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng et al. (US 20200203767 A1) a cathode containing a cathode active material particle and a carbon conductive additive forming an island-bridge structure on the surface of the cathode active material particle wherein the carbon conductive additive includes graphenes partially covered with the surface of the cathode active material particle to form an island structure, carbon blacks attached on the surface of the graphene and carbon nanotubes connecting between graphenes as a bridge structure (abstract).
Ikenuma (US 20210143419 A1) teaches a positive electrode active material comprising a lithium manganese composite oxide coated in reduced graphene oxide (abstract) for use in a lithium-ion storage battery ([0027]-[0028]). Ikenuma further teaches electric vehicles using electric storage devices ([0403]-[0409]). Cited in previous OA.
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights