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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 03/28/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application recites “about” in various claims. In an effort to expedite prosecution and without explicit instant specification guidance the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. For the purpose of prosecution within 10% of ranges claimed will be taken as reading on “about” as one of ordinary skill would appreciate a reasonable 10% to be within reasonable error. For example claim 1, line 13 is interpreted as 40.5 to 85.25wt% inclusive for the purpose of prosecution barring amendment and/or clarification.
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
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US 2021/0083299).
Regarding claim 1, Ozawa teaches an electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery, comprising:
a current collector ([0118]),
an electrode mixed material layer ([0118]), and
a conductive base layer between the current collector and the electrode mixed material layer ([0118]),
wherein the base layer includes a styrene-acrylic acid ester-based copolymer ([0093]), a carbon material ([0101]), and polyacrylic acid ([0093]) ([0101]),
in the polyacrylic acid ([0093]), a carboxy group is not neutralized ([0093]),
and a loading amount of the electrode mixed material layer per one surface of the current collector is greater than or equal to about 15 mg/cm2 and less than or equal to about 70 mg/cm2 ([0553]).
Ozawa does not teach the particulars of the styrene-acrylic acid ester-based copolymer content.
However, Ozawa teaches the content of the polymer in the easily adhesive layer can be set to 100 mass % or lower ([0099]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 2, Ozawa teaches the loading amount of the electrode mixed material layer per one surface of the current collector is greater than or equal to about 25 mg/cm2 and less than or equal to about 70 mg/cm2 ([0553]).
Regarding claim 3, Ozawa teaches the loading amount of the electrode mixed material layer per one surface of the current collector is greater than or equal to about 30 mg/cm2 and less than or equal to about 50 mg/cm2 ([0553]).
Regarding claim 4, Ozawa does not specifically teach the base layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to about 0.5 μm and less than or equal to about 5 μm.
However, Ozawa teaches the thickness of the easily adhesive layer is not particularly limited but is preferably 10 to 500 nm ([0083]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 5, Ozawa does not specifically teach the base layer has a thickness of greater than or equal to about 0.5 μm and less than or equal to about 2 μm.
However, Ozawa teaches the thickness of the easily adhesive layer is not particularly limited but is preferably 10 to 500 nm ([0083]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 6, Ozawa does not specifically teach a glass transition temperature of the styrene-acrylic acid ester-based copolymer is greater than or equal to about -20 °C and less than or equal to about 15 °C.
However, Ozawa teaches the glass transition of the polymer is still more preferably 10 °C or lower ([0097]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Regarding claim 8, Ozawa teaches the polyacrylic acid has no neutralized carboxy group ([0093]).
Regarding claim 9, Ozawa does not specifically teach a content of the styrene-acrylic acid ester-based copolymer is greater than or equal to about 60 wt% and less than or equal to about 70 wt% based on 100 wt% of the base layer.
However, Ozawa teaches the content of the polymer in the easily adhesive layer can be set to 100 mass % or lower ([0099]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US 2021/0083299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koo (US 2020/0044257).
Regarding claim 7, Ozawa does not teach the electrode mixed material layer further comprises polytetrafluoroethylene in an amount of greater than or equal to about 0.5 wt% and less than or equal to about 10 wt%.
However, Koo teaches a positive electrode active material layer including a dry binder ([0021]) in an amount of 2 wt % to 10 wt % based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material layer ([0034]), where the dry binder is polytetrafluoroethylene to improve adhesion of the positive electrode ([0034]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery of Ozawa to use the positive electrode active material layer of Koo to reduce capacity variation of the battery and improve lifespan (Koo: [0014]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US 2021/0083299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jung (JP 2013/533601).
Note: Jung (JP 2013/533601) uses citation from Jung (US 2013/0143126).
Regarding claim 10, Ozawa does not teach the carbon material is at least one selected from furnace black, channel black, thermal black, ketjen black, and acetylene black.
However, Ozawa teaches the easily adhesive layer may include conductive particles described in Jung (JP 2013/533601) (Ozawa: [0101]), and Jung teaches examples of suitable conductive material include Ketjen black (Jung: [0017]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the easily adhesive layer of Ozawa to include the Ketjen black of Jung to decrease internal resistance and prevent deteriorated operating characteristics of the battery (Jung: [0016]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US 2021/0083299) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaneda (US 2015/0072213).
Regarding Claim 11, Ozawa teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery, comprising: the electrode of claim 1 as a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte [(0483)].
Ozawa does not teach a separator between the positive electrode and negative
electrode.
However, Kaneda teaches a separator between a positive electrode and a negative electrode ([0195]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery of Ozawa to include a separator as taught by Kaneda between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Kaneda: [0195]) in order to prevent short circuit of the electrodes (Kaneda: [0195]) .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An Bach Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-7244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 ET.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571) 270-5256. 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.
/A.B.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724