DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11, 13 and 15-21 are pending, wherein claims 1 and 16 are amended. Claims 1-11, 13 and 15-21 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 13, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 105703010 A, hereafter Wu) in view of Takeda et al. (US 20180108903 A1, hereafter Takeda).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 15, Wu teaches an electrochemical apparatus (Title, Abstract), comprising a negative electrode,
wherein the negative electrode (See Fig. 1 or Fig. 2) comprises a current collector (“11”), a first coating (“122”), and a second coating (“121”); the second coating is provided on at least one surface of the current collector (See Figs.), and the first coating is provided between the current collector and the second coating (See Figs.).
Wu further teaches the first coating comprises inorganic particles (e.g., “aluminum oxide”, [0041]; “inorganic additive”, [0037]). Wu is silent on boehmite as one of the claimed inorganic particles. However, it is well known in the battery field that aluminum oxide (or alumina) and boehmite are functional equivalents as ceramic particles that are coated on a negative electrode current collector. The ceramic particles are usually much harder than a negative electrode active material (See, e.g., [0027], [0022], Takeda) and will contribute to peel strength and hardness of the negative electrode active material layer ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed boehmite as an alternative to aluminum oxide of Wu since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06). Furthermore, boehmite has a Mohs hardness of being 2 to 7 as instantly disclosed and claimed.
Wu in view of Takeda is silent as to the claimed coating weight. However, Wu discloses that the weight ratios of various components of the first coating are adjustable (See Examples 1-9), thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily arrived at the claimed range of coating weight through routine experimentations. This adjustment of weight involves ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art without any creative skills. See MPEP § 2144.05 II(A). In the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the coating weight is critical, the claimed range is not patentably distinguishable. Upon review of the entire initial disclosure, there does not appear to be any criticality to the claimed thickness.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation “an electronic resistance of the negative electrode is 30 m[Symbol font/0x57] to 60 m[Symbol font/0x57]” in claim 1 and the limitations in claims 10 and 15 represent characteristics or properties of the negative electrode. Since Wu in view of Takeda teaches substantially the same negative electrode as claimed. The claimed characteristics or properties are necessarily present. It is well settled that when a claimed product reasonably appears to be substantially the same as a product disclosed by the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics attributed to the claimed product, and that it is of no moment whether the rejection is based on § 102 or § 103 since the burden is on the applicant is the same. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,708 (Fed Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the inorganic particles may comprise silicon dioxide ([0041], Wu), which reads on the claimed quartz sand having a similar composition.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 8-9, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, and further teaches the first coating comprises a zero-dimensional conductive agent or a one-dimensional conductive agent (Wu: [0037]; “carbon black”, “carbon nanotubes”, [0045]), a binder (e.g., “styrene-butadiene rubber”, [0048]), and a dispersant (e.g., “sodium carboxymethyl cellulose”, [0048]). The mass ratio Based on a total mass of the first coating, the mass ratio of the inorganic particle may be in a range of 10% to 20%, the mass ratio of the conductive agent may be in a range of 45% to 72%, the mass ratio of the binder may be in a range of 18% to 35% ([0038]), and thus the remaining component of the dispersant may be in a range of less than 27%. The claimed ranges overlap the above ranges, respectively. 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 MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 11, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, and the thickness of the first coating may be in the range of 0.5 µm to 8 µm ([0033], Wu), overlapping the instantly claimed range. 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 MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 13, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a cover rate of the first coating is in a range of 50% to 100% (See Figs. 1 or 2), and the cover rate is an area ratio of a surface of the current collector that is covered by the first coating.
Regarding claim 16, Wu teaches an electronic apparatus (“electrochemical energy storage apparatus”, at least Title and Abstract) comprising an electrochemical apparatus (“electrochemical energy storage apparatus”, at least Title and Abstract), the electrochemical apparatus comprises a negative electrode,
wherein the negative electrode (See Fig. 1 or Fig. 2) comprises a current collector (“11”), a first coating (“122”), and a second coating (“121”); the second coating is provided on at least one surface of the current collector (See Figs.), and the first coating is provided between the current collector and the second coating (See Figs.).
Wu further teaches the first coating comprises inorganic particles (e.g., “aluminum oxide”, [0041]; “inorganic additive”, [0037]). Wu is silent on boehmite as one of the claimed inorganic particles. However, it is well known in the battery field that aluminum oxide (or alumina) and boehmite are functional equivalents as ceramic particles that are coated on a negative electrode current collector. The ceramic particles are usually much harder than a negative electrode active material (See, e.g., [0027], [0022], Takeda) and will contribute to peel strength and hardness of the negative electrode active material layer ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have employed boehmite as an alternative to aluminum oxide of Wu since the substitution of known equivalents for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06). Furthermore, boehmite has a Mohs hardness of being 2 to 7 as instantly disclosed and claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 16, and further teaches the first coating comprises a zero-dimensional conductive agent or a one-dimensional conductive agent (Wu: [0037]; “carbon black”, “carbon nanotubes”, [0045]), a binder (e.g., “styrene-butadiene rubber”, [0048]), and a dispersant (e.g., “sodium carboxymethyl cellulose”, [0048]). The mass ratio Based on a total mass of the first coating, the mass ratio of the inorganic particle may be in a range of 10% to 20%, the mass ratio of the conductive agent may be in a range of 45% to 72%, the mass ratio of the binder may be in a range of 18% to 35% ([0038]), and thus the remaining component of the dispersant may be in a range of less than 27%. The claimed ranges overlap the above ranges, respectively. 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 MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 19, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 16, and the claimed limitation in claim 19 represents characteristic or property of the negative electrode. Since Wu in view of Kim teaches the same negative electrode as claimed. The claimed characteristics or properties are necessarily present. It is well settled that when a claimed product reasonably appears to be substantially the same as a product disclosed by the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics attributed to the claimed product, and that it is of no moment whether the rejection is based on § 102 or § 103 since the burden is on the applicant is the same. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,708 (Fed Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 20, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 16, and the thickness of the first coating may be in the range of 0.5 µm to 8 µm ([0033]), overlapping the instantly claimed range. 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 MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Takeda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20190140280 A1, hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, but is silent as to the instantly claimed size of the inorganic particles. However, in a similar invention, Zhang discloses the use of a size of 100 nm to 10 µm ([0044]) for inorganic particles included in a safety coating (equivalent to the first coating as claimed) that is disclosed between an electrode current collector and an electrode active material layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used an average diameter of 100 nm to 10 µm taught by Zhang in order to improve conductive network blocking effect of the inorganic particles at a high temperature and thereby improve the response speed of the safety coating ([0044], Zhang). The claimed range of Dv50 of the inorganic particles lies inside the above range. 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 MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Takeda, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 111710832 A, hereafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 5, but is silent as to the instantly claimed size of the carbon black as the zero-dimensional conductive agent. However, a selection of a size of carbon black involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. For instance, in a similar invention, Zhu discloses a use of 300 nm ([0079]) of carbon black in the porous composite layer (equivalent to the claimed first coating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have selected a Dv50 of the zero-dimensional conductive agent being 300 nm taught by Zhu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07. Again, in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed size range is critical, it is not patentably distinguishable. Upon review of the entire initial disclosure, there does not appear to be any criticality to the claimed size range.
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 5, but is silent as to the instantly claimed size of the size of the one-dimensional conductive agent. However, a selection of a size of a one-dimensional agent, such as a carbon nanotube, involves merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. For instance, in a similar invention, Zhu discloses a use of 300 nm ([0095]) of a carbon nanotube in the porous composite layer (equivalent to the claimed first coating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have selected an average diameter of the one-dimensional conductive agent being 300 nm taught by Zhu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07. Again, in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed size range is critical, it is not patentably distinguishable. Upon review of the entire initial disclosure, there does not appear to be any criticality to the claimed size range.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Takeda, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 17, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 16, but is silent as to the instantly claimed size of the inorganic particles. However, in a similar invention, Zhang discloses the use of a size of 100 nm to 10 µm ([0044]) for inorganic particles included in a safety coating (equivalent to the first coating as claimed) that is disclosed between an electrode current collector and an electrode active material layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used an average diameter of 100 nm to 10 µm taught by Zhang in order to improve conductive network blocking effect of the inorganic particles at a high temperature and thereby improve the response speed of the safety coating ([0044], Zhang). The claimed range of Dv50 of the inorganic particles lies inside the above range. 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 MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Takeda, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 107437622 A, whose English machine translation is being employed here for citation purposes, hereafter Liu).
Regarding claim 21, Wu in view of Takeda teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, and the instantly claimed content of the inorganic particle can be arrived at by one of ordinary skill in the art since a selection of a specific amount of the inorganic particles would be an obvious matter of design choice and involves merely ordinary capabilities. For instance, Liu discloses a similar structure and composition as claimed, and further discloses an amount of inorganic particles being 3% to 20% by mass, based on a total mass of the first coating (claim 7, Liu). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the content of 3% to 20% by mass taught by Liu as an alternative to that of Wu in the absence of unexpected results or evidence that the claimed range is critical. As such, the claimed range of 1% to 6% overlaps the above range of 3% to 20%. 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 MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Aug. 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically,
1) With respect to the argument that it would not have been obvious to substitute boehmite for aluminum oxide of Wu, Applicant incorrectly interprets the recitation in MPEP § 2144.06(II) that “The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components” because the instant invention does not claim a Markush group. The instant claim 1 or claim 16 actually recites only boehmite, rather than a Markush group. As such, the argument in the Section “The Boehmite Limitation” of the Remarks is not persuasive.
Takeda explicitly discloses that both aluminum oxide and boehmite are ceramic particles that are usually much harder than a negative electrode active material and will contribute to peel strength and hardness of the negative electrode active material layer (i.e., functional equivalents). As such, they both can be coated on a negative electrode current collector to increase the mechanical strength (hardness) and suppress the compressive deformation of the negative electrode active material layer and thereby to achieve excellent high-rate cycle characteristic (functional equivalents and for the same purposes). See at least [0027] of Takeda. Also, it is noted that “an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious”. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). MPEP § 2144.06(II).
Additionally, even if the use of boehmite may cause somewhat better properties than that of aluminum oxide (not necessarily in this application, because the properties in Table 5 are obtained under different conditions, such as different coating weights for boehmite and aluminum oxide), no teachings in the prior arts explicitly or implicitly inhibit aluminum oxide from being replaced with boehmite as an alternative of ceramic particles in the negative electrode of Wu.
Finally, in response to applicant's arguments (paragraphs bridging pages 10 and 11) against the references individually (the Wu or Takeda reference), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
2) With respect to “coating weight”, Applicant incorrectly states “… the Office Action has not established that Wu, as modified by Takeda, would necessarily possess the presently claimed coating weight”. The office action did/does not state “… necessarily possess …”; rather, the office action describes that the claimed coating weight can be achieved by adjusting weight ratios of components.
As to the claimed “electronic resistance”, Applicant again does not correctly understand the office action. The office action did/does not state or imply that the electronic resistance is “an inherent property of boehmite”, “necessarily present … because boehmite is employed”, “an inherent consequence of merely employing boehmite”, etc. The electronic resistance as claimed is reasonably expected because Wu in view of Takeda teaches substantially the same negative electrode. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
3) In response to the argument associated with the conductive resistance layer 122 (page 13), it is noted that the rejection regarding the claimed electronic resistance is not based on this conductive resistance layer 122. Rather, the rejection is based on substantially the same composition and structure of the entire negative electrode. The argument is not commensurate and thus is not persuasive. Also, again, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually (in this case, the Wu reference) where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights