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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the PCT international search report by the China National Intellectual Property Administration have been considered.
The information disclosure statements (IDS)’s submitted on 01/03/2024, 04/02/2024, 10/07/2024, and 02/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 1-5, 8-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2001243989 A) in view of Huang et al. (A two layer electrode structure for improved Li Ion diffusion and volumetric capacity in Li Ion batteries, Nano Energy, Vol. 31,2017, Pages 377-385, ISSN 2211-2855, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2016.11.043. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211285516305390) (Year: 2017)), and further in view of Guo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180190963 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 3 (Shioda et al.))]
PNG
media_image1.png
519
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Shioda et al. teaches an electrode with a plate-like shape (electrode plate) including a first active layer (negative electrode layer (14)) formed on a negative electrode current collector (13) (para. 15, Fig. 3). The first active layer is provided with a first groove (21) (para. 15-16, Fig. 3).
Shioda et al. does not teach a second active layer wherein the second active layer is divided into a first portion disposed in the first groove and a second portion disposed on a surface away from the current collector of the first active layer; the first portion provided with a second groove and a tab disposed at the second groove electrically connected to the current collector; and a thickness of the first portion of the second active layer is less than a total thickness of the first active layer and the second portion of the second active layer.
Huang et al. teaches a negative electrode manufactured in two distinct layers by a spray deposition technique providing a combination of high volumetric capacity and rate capability surpassing the performance of conventional blended electrodes (Abstract).
Guo et al. teaches an anode electrode plate (101) comprising a groove (1013) in which an anode electrode tab (102) electrically connected to the current collector is disposed therein (para. 126). Guo et al. teaches the configuration provides improved energy density of the secondary battery (para. 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include two distinct active material layers as taught by Huang et al. to provide high volumetric capacity and rate capability. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include a second groove in the electrode plate for receiving a tab in which is electrically connected to the current collector as taught by Guo et al. to provide improved energy density of the secondary battery.
When performing the described modification, it is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention as claimed as further shown in annotated Figure 3 of Shioda et al. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second active layer above the first active layer in a position above the indicated dotted double arrow based on the teachings of Huang et al. In this case, as the groove is formed in the middle of the first active material layers, it would be obvious for the formed second active layer to elute and form within the groove in which an equivalent first portion; and second portion is formed in which the second active layer is divided into a first portion disposed in the first groove; and a second portion disposed on a surface away from the current collector of the first active layer. As indicated in annotated Figure 3 by the vertical arrows, a thickness of the first portion of the second active layer would be less than a total thickness of the first active layer and the second portion of the second active layer. Therefore, the aspects of the invention are obvious considering Shioda et al. in view of Huang et al. and Guo et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Shioda et al. does not teach a thickness of the second active layer greater than a thickness of the first active layer; and/or the thickness of the first portion of the second active layer is greater than a thickness of the second portion.
Huang et al. teaches layering configurations and changing the thickness ratio between the two electrode layers (first and second active layers) can be investigated to improve the performance of the electrodes (para. 9 of “3.2 Electrochemical Characterization”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include adjusting the thickness ratio between the two electrode layers to improve the performance of the electrodes as taught by Huang et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a thickness of the second active layer greater than a thickness of first active layer and to provide the opposite configuration to observe the effects on electrode performance.
Regarding Claim 3, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Shioda et al. teaches the width of the first groove filling the negative electrode active material layer in which the width of the first groove extends to the width of the negative electrode active material; and a width of the first groove, active material layer, and current [AltContent: textbox (Fig. 8 (Shioda et al.))]
PNG
media_image2.png
565
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
collector are the same (para. 13-14, 30, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 4, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the electrode plate of Shioda et al. is modified to include a second groove in the electrode plate for receiving a tab as taught by Guo et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to include the second groove on the current collector at a center portion within the first groove with reference to a vertical projection region to ensure sufficient contact with the current collector in which is not inhibited by the electrode active material layer.
Regarding Claim 5, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose a vertical projected area of the second groove on the current collector with respect to a vertical projected area of the first groove on the current collector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the dimensions of the first and second groove, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that a size of the first and second groove can affect the battery characteristics and performance; and other design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of the second and first groove as modified.
Regarding Claim 8, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Shioda et al. does not teach a thickness of the first active layer ranging from 5% to 80% of the total thickness of the first active layer and the second portion of the second active layer.
Huang et al. teaches layering configurations and changing the thickness ratio between the two electrode layers (first and second active layers) can be investigated to improve the performance of the electrodes (para. 9 of “3.2 Electrochemical Characterization”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include adjusting the thickness ratio between the two electrode layers to improve the performance of the electrodes as taught by Huang et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a thickness of the first active layer with respect to a total thickness of the first active layer and the second portion of the second active layer to observe the effects on electrode performance.
While the reference does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first active layer with respect to a total thickness of the first active layer and the second portion of the second active layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness of the first active layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportion of a component. A change in size/proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative proportion of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that adjusting the thickness of a first active layer with respect to a total thickness of the first active layer and the second portion of the second active layer can affect the battery characteristics and performance; and other design parameters are taken into consideration when determining an appropriate thickness of the first active layer.
Regarding Claim 9, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose a width of the second groove less than a width of the first groove in a width direction of the current collector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the dimensions of the first and second groove, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that a size of the first and second groove can affect the battery characteristics and performance; and other design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of the second and first groove as modified.
Regarding Claim 10, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose a width and length of the second groove with respect to a width of a tab connection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the dimensions of the first and second groove to arrive at the claimed invention, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that a size of the first and second groove can affect the battery characteristics and performance; and other design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of the second and first groove as modified. Further, the second groove in which is formed to receive the electrode tab, should be greater than a width of the tab connection region to prevent contact between the active material layer and improve connection between the tab and current collector.
Regarding Claim 11, Shioda et al. teaches a lithium (lithium-ion) secondary battery (para. 3) comprising an electrode with a plate-like shape including a first active layer (negative electrode layer (14)) formed on a negative electrode current collector (13) (para. 15, Fig. 3). The first active layer is provided with a first groove (21) (para. 15-16, Fig. 3).
Shioda et al. does not teach a second active layer wherein the second active layer is divided into a first portion disposed in the first groove and a second portion disposed on a surface away from the current collector of the first active layer; the first portion provided with a second groove and a tab disposed at the second groove electrically connected to the current collector; and a thickness of the first portion of the second active layer is less than a total thickness of the first active layer and the second portion of the second active layer.
Huang et al. teaches a negative electrode manufactured in two distinct layers by a spray deposition technique providing a combination of high volumetric capacity and rate capability surpassing the performance of conventional blended electrodes (Abstract).
Guo et al. teaches an anode electrode plate (101) comprising a groove (1013) in which an anode electrode tab (102) electrically connected to the current collector is disposed therein (para. 126). Guo et al. teaches the configuration provides improved energy density of the secondary battery (para. 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include two distinct active material layers as taught by Huang et al. to provide high volumetric capacity and rate capability. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include a second groove in the electrode plate for receiving a tab in which is electrically connected to the current collector as taught by Guo et al. to provide improved energy density of the secondary battery.
When performing the described modification, it is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention as claimed as further shown in annotated Figure 3 of Shioda et al. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second active layer above the first active layer in a position above the indicated dotted double arrow based on the teachings of Huang et al. In this case, as the groove is formed in the middle of the first active material layers, it would be obvious for the formed second active layer to elute and form within the groove in which an equivalent first portion and second portion is formed in which the second active layer is divided into a first portion disposed in the first groove and a second portion disposed on a surface away from the current collector of the first active layer. As indicated in annotated Figure 3 by the vertical arrows, a thickness of the first portion of the second active layer would be less than a total thickness of the first active layer and the second portion of the second active layer. Therefore, the aspects of the invention are obvious considering Shioda et al. in view of Huang et al. and Guo et al.
Regarding Claim 12, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above.
Shioda et al. does not teach a thickness of the second active layer greater than a thickness of the first active layer; and/or the thickness of the first portion of the second active layer is greater than a thickness of the second portion.
Huang et al. teaches layering configurations and changing the thickness ratio between the two electrode layers (first and second active layers) can be investigated to improve the performance of the electrodes (para. 9 of “3.2 Electrochemical Characterization”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include adjusting the thickness ratio between the two electrode layers to improve the performance of the electrodes as taught by Huang et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a thickness of the second active layer greater than a thickness of first active layer and to provide the opposite configuration to observe the effects on electrode performance.
Regarding Claim 13, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Shioda et al. teaches the width of the first groove filling the negative electrode active material layer in which the width of the first groove extends to the width of the negative electrode active material; and a width of the first groove, active material layer, and current collector are the same (para. 13-14, 30, Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 14, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose a vertical projected area of the second groove on the current collector with respect to a vertical projected area of the first groove on the current collector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the dimensions of the first and second groove, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component.
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that a size of the first and second groove can affect the battery characteristics and performance; and other design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of the second and first groove as modified.
Regarding Claim 17, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above.
Shioda et al. does not teach a thickness of the first active layer ranging from 5% to 80% of the total thickness of the first active layer and the second portion of the second active layer.
Huang et al. teaches layering configurations and changing the thickness ratio between the two electrode layers (first and second active layers) can be investigated to improve the performance of the electrodes (para. 9 of “3.2 Electrochemical Characterization”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include adjusting the thickness ratio between the two electrode layers to improve the performance of the electrodes as taught by Huang et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a thickness of the first active layer with respect to a total thickness of the first active layer and the second portion of the second active layer to observe the effects on electrode performance.
Regarding Claim 18, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose a width of the second groove less than a width of the first groove in a width direction of the current collector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the dimensions of the first and second groove, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that a size of the first and second groove can affect the battery characteristics and performance; and other design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of the second and first groove as modified.
Regarding Claim 19, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose a width and length of the second groove with respect to a width of a tab connection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the dimensions of the first and second groove, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that a size of the first and second groove can affect the battery characteristics and performance; and other design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of the second and first groove as modified. Further, the second groove in which is formed to receive the electrode tab, should be greater than a width of the tab connection region to prevent contact between the active material layer and improve connection between the tab and current collector.
Regarding Claim 20, Shioda et al. teaches a method for preparing an electrode with a plate-like shape (electrode plate) comprising coating a first active layer slurry (negative electrode active material paste) on a surface of a current collector and cutting to form the first groove (para. 19). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the active layer slurry on a surface of a region excluding a region corresponding to a first groove to form said first groove rather than performing an additional cutting method to reduce process steps and manufacturing time.
Shioda et al. does not teach avoiding application of the slurry in a region corresponding to the first groove; coating a second active layer slurry to obtain a first portion and a second portion of a second active layer, the first portion being formed in the first groove, the second portion covering a surface, away from the current collector, of the first active layer; cleaning some regions in the first groove to obtain a second groove; and disposing a tab in the second groove, so that the tab is electrically connected to the current collector.
Huang et al. teaches a negative electrode manufactured in two distinct layers by a spray deposition technique providing a combination of high volumetric capacity and rate capability surpassing the performance of conventional blended electrodes (Abstract).
Guo et al. teaches an anode electrode plate (101) comprising a groove (1013) in which an anode electrode tab (102) electrically connected to the current collector is disposed therein (para. 126). Guo et al. teaches the configuration provides improved energy density of the secondary battery (para. 34). Further, Guo et al. teaches a cleaning mechanism for notching the electrode plate to form the groove (second groove) to receive the tab.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include two distinct active material layers formed by coating a second active material layer on a first active material layer as taught by Huang et al. to provide high volumetric capacity and rate capability. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include disposing a second groove in the electrode plate for receiving a tab in which is electrically connected to the current collector as taught by Guo et al. to provide improved energy density of the secondary battery; and to adopt Guo et al.’s cleaning mechanism for forming the tab receiving groove.
When performing the described modification, it is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the invention as claimed as further shown in annotated Figure 3 of Shioda et al. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the second active layer above the first active layer in a position above the indicated dotted double arrow based on the teachings of Huang et al. In this case, as the groove is formed in the middle of the first active material layers, it would be obvious for the formed second active layer to elute and form within the groove in which an equivalent first portion and second portion is formed in which the second active layer is divided into a first portion disposed in the first groove and a second portion disposed on a surface away from the current collector of the first active layer. Further, when adopting the cleaning mechanism of Guo et al., one of ordinary skill in the art would clean regions in the first groove to obtain the second groove for tab disposal.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2001243989 A) in view of Huang et al. (A two layer electrode structure for improved Li Ion diffusion and volumetric capacity in Li Ion batteries, Nano Energy, Vol. 31,2017, Pages 377-385, ISSN 2211-2855, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2016.11.043. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211285516305390) (Year: 2017)) and Guo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180190963 A1), and further in view of Xu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190288279 A1).
Claim 6 is dependent on Claim 1 and Claim 15 is dependent on Claim 11.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 and 11 above, respectively. Shioda et al. teaches the electrode plate as a negative electrode plate (para. 34).
Shioda et al. does not teach a negative electrode active substance in the second active layer having an average particle size ranging from 5 μm to 20 μm, and a degree of graphitization ranging from 90% to 98%, as required by Claims 1 and 15.
Xu et al. teaches a negative electrode material (active substance) having an average particle diameter or size ranging from 2 to 25 micrometers, overlapping the claimed range of 5 to 20 micrometers; further, the active substance comprises a degree of graphitization of 90 to 96%, within and lying inside the claimed range of 90 to 98% (Abstract). Xu et al. teaches the negative electrode material having desirable dynamic performance, cycle performance, and storage performance (para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include a negative electrode material (active substance) having an average particle diameter or size ranging from 2 to 25 micrometers as taught by Xu et al., overlapping the claimed range of 5 to 20 micrometers; and a degree of graphitization of 90 to 96%, within and lying inside the claimed range of 90 to 98% (Abstract). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the negative electrode active substance in the second active layer to provide the electrode plate with desirable dynamic performance, cycle performance, and storage performance.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2001243989 A) in view of Huang et al. (A two layer electrode structure for improved Li Ion diffusion and volumetric capacity in Li Ion batteries, Nano Energy, Vol. 31,2017, Pages 377-385, ISSN 2211-2855, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2016.11.043. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211285516305390) (Year: 2017)) and Guo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180190963 A1), and further in view of Baek et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190312259 A1) and Uchida et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190288287 A1).
Claim 7 is dependent on Claim 1 and Claim 16 is dependent on Claim 11.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Shioda et al. is modified by Huang et al. and Guo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 and 11 above, respectively. Shioda et al. further teaches the electrode plate include a positive electrode plate (para. 12, 42).
Shioda et al. does not teach a molecular mass of a binder in the first active layer ranges from 800000 to 2000000, and a mass of the binder ranges from 3% to 40% of a total mass of the first active layer, as required by Claims 7 and 16.
Baek et al. teaches a binder for a positive electrode having a molecular weight (mass) of 880,000 g/mol, within the claimed range of 800,000 to 2,000,000 to ensure sufficient adhesion to the positive electrode (para. 46).
Uchida et al. teaches a binder present in an active material layer ranging from (0% to 10%), within and overlapping the claimed range of 3 to 40% of a total mass of the active material layer to ensure the active material is strongly bonded (para. 10, 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode plate of Shioda et al. to include a binder having a molecular mass of 880,000 g/mol as taught by Baek et al, within the claimed range of 800,000 to 2,000,000 to ensure sufficient adhesion to the positive electrode; and to further modify by Uchida et al. to include the binder in an amount of 0% to 10% of a total mass of the active layer, within and overlapping the claimed range of 3 to 40% to ensure the active material is strongly bonded thereto (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply said teachings to the first active material layer to provide an electrode exhibiting said benefits of Baek et al. and Uchida et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights