DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending, wherein claims 1-2, 4, 13, 16, 18 are amended and claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-21 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Amendments
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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.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. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 105703010 A, hereafter Wu), as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 20170029682 A1, hereafter Kim), and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 107437622 A, hereafter Liu). The two CN references’ English machine translation are being employed for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, 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., “calcium carbonate”, [0041]; “inorganic additive”, [0037]). The calcium carbonate has a Mohs hardness of 3, as evidenced by, for example, Kim ([0028]).
Wu is silent as to the inorganic particles being those as listed in claim 1.
Wu further discloses a carbon-based material, such as carbon black, is included in the first coating (“122”) as a conductive agent ([0039]). However, in a prior art with similar structure and composition, Liu discloses that using spiky metal powder in the first coating has benefits/advantages over traditional conductive carbon, such as “improves the shortcomings of high conductivity and low PTC strength of the electrode at room temperature, and enhances the safety performance of lithium-ion batteries” ([0011]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have included a spiky metal powder, such as spiky aluminum powder ([0015]), in the first coating of Wu as a conductive agent, in order to achieve benefits/advantages stated above. Aluminum powder has a Mohs hardness being 2 to 7 as instantly discloses and claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Kim and Liu 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 Kim and Liu 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 ([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 claims 10 and 14-15, Wu in view of Kim and Liu teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, and the claimed limitations in claims 10 and 14-15 represent characteristics or properties of the negative electrode. Since Wu in view of Kim and Liu 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 11, Wu in view of Kim and Liu 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]), 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 12, Wu in view of Kim and Liu teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 1, but is silent as to the instantly 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 readily arrive at the claimed range of coating weight through routine experimentations. 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.
Regarding claim 13, Wu in view of Kim and Liu 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., “calcium carbonate”, [0041]; “inorganic additive”, [0037]). The calcium carbonate has a Mohs hardness of 3, as evidenced by, for example, Kim ([0028]).
Wu is silent as to the inorganic particles being those as listed in claim 16.
Wu further discloses a carbon-based material, such as carbon black, is included in the first coating (“122”) as a conductive agent ([0039]). However, in a prior art with similar structure and composition, Liu discloses that using spiky metal powder in the first coating has benefits/advantages over traditional conductive carbon, such as “improves the shortcomings of high conductivity and low PTC strength of the electrode at room temperature, and enhances the safety performance of lithium-ion batteries” ([0011]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have included a spiky metal powder, such as spiky aluminum powder ([0015]), in the first coating of Wu as a conductive agent, in order to achieve benefits/advantages stated above. Aluminum powder has a Mohs hardness being 2 to 7 as instantly discloses and claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Wu in view of Kim and Liu 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 ([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 Kim and Liu 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 Kim and Liu 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).
Regarding claim 21, Wu in view of Kim and Liu 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 disclose 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).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Kim and Liu, 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 Kim and Liu 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 Kim and Liu, 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 Kim and Liu 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 Kim and Liu 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 Kim and Liu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 17, Wu in view of Kim and Liu 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jan. 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
The newly added claim 21 has been addressed in the above rejections.
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