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 .
Specification
The use of the term “Cyrene”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see paragraph [0043] of the specification). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 13, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, 4th line, add “an” before “angle”.
In claim 13, 2nd line, replace “on” with “one” before “another”.
In claim 18, 4th line, add “an” before “angle”.
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 16-20 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.
With regard to independent claim 16, the phrase “can undergo” (bridging the last two lines of step (b)) is indefinite, as “can undergo” recites an optional function of “undergoing”. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “can undergo” with “undergoes” to more distinctly define this limitation in the claim. Since claims 17-20 depend from claim 16, these claims are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the reversible intercalation" in the last line of step (b). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekkanat et al. (US 5,106,709) in view of Gadkaree et al. (US 2015/0116905).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Tekkanat et al. disclose a method of manufacturing a composite electrode (bipolar substrate (10)) for an electrochemical cell (see abstract; column 3, line 37 through column 4, line 53; column 5, lines 43-62; column 7, line 61 through column 8, line 4; Examples 1 and 3; and Figures 1-4), in which the method comprises the following steps:
introducing a solvent mixture of solvent and binder materials into a screw extruder (30 or 32) – see Examples 1 and 3; and Figure 4;
introducing electroactive material particles and an electrically conductive agent into the mixture in the screw extruder (30 or 32) to form an electrode precursor mixture (see Examples 1 and 3; and Figure 4);
discharging the electrode precursor mixture from the screw extruder (30 or 32) onto a metal substrate to form an electrode precursor layer having a facing surface on the metal substrate (see Examples 1 and 3; and Figure 4);
calendaring the electrode precursor layer by passing the electrode precursor layer between a first set of rollers ((40 or 42) and then (45,45)) to adhere the electrode precursor layer to and uniformly distribute the electrode precursor layer over the metal substrate – see column 7, line 61 through column 8, line 4; and Figure 4; and
drying the electrode precursor layer to remove the solvent to form a solid electrode layer including the electroactive material particles, the electrically conductive agent, and the binder on a metal substrate surface (column 5, lines 43-62; and column 7, line 61 through column 8, line 4).
Although Tekkanat et al. disclose solvent and binder materials, Tekkanat et al. fail to teach that the solvent material comprises a polar aprotic solvent, including γ-valerolactone, and that the binder material comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).
However, Gadkaree et al. disclose an energy storage device that includes positive and negative electrodes with electrolyte materials to form a composite electrode (abstract; paragraphs [0003], [0019], [0029]-[0036], [0065], [0066], and [0086]), in which the electrolyte materials to form the composite electrode include a solvent comprising γ-valerolactone (see paragraph [0032]) and a binder comprising polyvinylidene fluoride (see paragraph [0019]), for the purpose of making composite electrodes having high specific capacitance and improved long term stability (see paragraph [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a polar aprotic solvent (of γ-valerolactone) and a binder (of polyvinylidene fluoride PVDF)), as taught by Gadkaree et al., into the method of manufacturing a composite electrode, as disclosed by Tekkanat et al., in order to manufacture composite electrodes having high specific capacitance and improved long term stability (Gadkaree et al.; paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the combined teachings of Tekkanat et al. and Gadkaree et al. fail to teach that the electrode precursor mixture has a solids content of 80% or greater, as well as the claimed ratios of the electrode precursor mixture, the polar aprotic solvent, the binder, and the electrically conductive agent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any or all of these claimed ranges in view of the combined teachings of Tekkanat et al. and Gadkaree et al., since optimization of these ranges would have been an obvious design choice based on the desired result via routine experimentation. In addition, modification of the solids content of the electrode precursor mixture, as well as the relative amounts (in comparison to one another) of the electrode precursor mixture, the polar aprotic solvent (from 10% to 40% of the electrode precursor mixture), the binder (from 0.1% to 8% of the electrode precursor mixture), and the electrically conductive agent (from 0.4% to 4% of the electrode precursor mixture), would be readily adjusted to obtain optimum results with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve specific capacitance and long term stability of the composite electrodes (Gadkaree et al.; paragraph [0086]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 5, Tekkanat et al. disclose that the screw extruder (30 or 32) comprises a stationary barrel (35), a cylindrical channel extending between a first end and an opposite second end, and a rotatable screw (34) disposed within the cylindrical channel, wherein the rotatable screw (34) has an axis of rotation at zero degrees with respect to a plane defined by the surface of the metal substrate (Tekkanat et al.; column 7, lines 61-66; and Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, and in referring to the rejection of claim 5 above, although Tekannat et al. disclose that the stationary barrel (35) includes an inlet opening in fluid communication with the cylindrical channel and located between the first end and the second end thereof, including that the solvent mixture is introduced into the cylindrical channel via the inlet opening, the combined teachings of Tekkanat et al. and Gadkaree et. fail to teach two (separate) inlet openings, for which another (second) inlet opening is used to introduce the electroactive material particles and the electrically conductive agent. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have all of these materials (solvent mixture, electroactive material particles and electrically conductive agent) to be delivered in the same inlet opening (of Tekannat et al.) or via multiple inlet openings, depending on design choice of the screw extruder. As a result of all of these materials ultimately being mixed together, the use of one or multiple inlet openings would provide all materials to be mixed together regardless of which inlet(s) these materials are to be introduced. Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 7-9, Tekannat et al. in view of Gadkaree et al. fail to teach the temperature of the mixture (from 25°C to 80°C) of claim 7, a gap of the first set of rollers (from 200 µm to 250 µm) of claim 8, and a heating temperature and time of heating for drying of the electrode precursor layer (from 50°C to 150°C, and from 30 seconds to 10 minutes) of claim 9. However, since Tekannat et al. and Gadkaree et al. disclose and/or suggest the claimed process steps of independent claim 1 to manufacture the composite electrodes, it would have been obvious to vary any of these operating parameters to achieve optimal results with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of making composite electrodes having high specific capacitance and improved long term stability (see paragraph [0086] of Gadkaree et al.). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 12, Tekannat et al. disclose a second set rollers ((45,45) or (47,47)) operable for a calendaring process to consolidate the electroactive material particles, the electrically conductive agent, and the binder in the solid electrode layer and form the composite electrode (Tekannat et al.; column 7, line 61 through column 8, line 4; and Figure 4).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, and in referring to the rejection of claim 12 above, Tekannat et al. in view of Gadkaree et al. fail to teach a gap of the second set of rollers (from 100 µm to 200 µm) of claim 13, a porosity of the solid electrode layer to be greater than 40% prior to the calendaring step and between 20% and 35% after the calendaring step of claim 14. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any or all of these claimed ranges in view of the combined teachings of Tekkanat et al. and Gadkaree et al., since optimization of these ranges would have been an obvious design choice based on the desired result via routine experimentation. Since Tekannat et al. and Gadkaree et al. disclose and/or suggest the claimed process steps of independent claim 1 and claim 12 to manufacture the composite electrodes, it would have been obvious to vary any of these operating parameters to achieve optimal results with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of making composite electrodes having high specific capacitance and improved long term stability (see paragraph [0086] of Gadkaree et al.). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings of Tekkanat et al. and Gadkaree et al. fail to teach that the claimed ratios of the electroactive material particles, the binder, and the electrically conductive agent as a portion of the solid electrode layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any or all of these claimed ranges in view of the combined teachings of Tekkanat et al. and Gadkaree et al., since optimization of these ranges would have been an obvious design choice based on the desired result via routine experimentation. In addition, modification of the relative amounts (in comparison to one another) of the solid electrode layer, the electroactive material particles (from 90% to 99% of the solid electrode layer), the binder (from 0.1% to 9% of the solid electrode layer), and the electrically conductive agent (from 0.5% to 5% of the solid electrode layer), would be readily adjusted to obtain optimum results with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve specific capacitance and long term stability of the composite electrodes (Gadkaree et al.; paragraph [0086]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are 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.
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or suggest the methods of manufacturing a composite positive electrode, in which the methods comprise the following process steps:
prior to a step of calendaring an electrode precursor layer by passing the electrode precursor layer between a first set of rollers to adhere the electrode precursor layer to and uniformly distribute the electrode precursor layer over a metal substrate, applying a release film to a facing surface of the electrode precursor layer to form a laminate structure including the metal substrate, the electrode precursor layer, and the release film, wherein the electrode precursor layer is calendared by passing the laminate structure between the first set of rollers (of dependent claim 10 that depends from independent claim 1, and from which claim 11 further depends from claim 10); and
applying a release film to a facing surface of an electrode precursor layer to form a laminate structure including a metal substrate, the electrode precursor layer, and the release film, followed by removing the release film from the facing surface of the electrode precursor layer and performing another step of calendaring of a solid electrode layer (obtained from the electrode precursor layer after a drying step) by passing the solid electrode layer and the metal substrate between a second set of rollers to form the composite positive electrode (of independent claim 16, from which claims 17-20 depend).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure. US 2023/0268478 is also cited in PTO-892 as related art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 December 8, 2025