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
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority of PCT/CN2020/142272.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)’s submitted on 03/31/2023 and 04/25/2025 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, 8, 12, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadana et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190115626 A1) in view of Koo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200044257 A1) as further evidenced by Du et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200212421 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Claims 1 and 16 are independent claims. Sadana et al. discloses an electronic apparatus (computers, mobile phones, tracking systems, etc., [0003]) (as only required by Claim 16), comprising an electrochemical apparatus (rechargeable battery, [0002]), comprising (as required by Claims 1 and 16):
a positive electrode ([0007]);
the positive electrode comprises a current collector, a first material layer ([0026] discloses a lower portion of the cathode material layer formed of first particles 12), and a second material layer ([0039] discloses an upper portion of the cathode material layer composed of second particles 16) [AltContent: textbox (Sadana et al. (Fig. 3))]
PNG
media_image1.png
198
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0007], Fig. 3);
the second material layer is disposed on at least one surface of the current collector 10, the first material layer is disposed between the current collector and the second material layer ([0007], [0039]; Fig. 3);
It is well known in the field of endeavor for active material layers to be formed to have a uniform thickness throughout. Sadana et al. discloses a smoothing process using a roller or high pressure press ([0067]) in which is a well-known method in providing a uniform thickness within the active material layer; as further evidence, Du et al. teaches coating an active material slurry on a current collector by a rolling press to provide a uniform thickness in which allows the active material to be effectively bonded to the current collector in a solid and compact manner, thereby increasing the battery energy density ([0003]).
Sadana et al does not disclose that a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the thickness of the first material layer is less than or equal to 3 μm.
Koo et al. teaches a positive electrode active material layer with a minimized thickness deviation of 0.01 μm to 4 μm to reduce capacity variation and improve lifespan properties of a battery ([0015], [0021]).
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 positive electrode active material layer (comprising the first active material layer) to have a thickness deviation (in which includes the difference between a minimum and maximum thickness) of 0.01 μm to 4 μm as taught by Koo et al., within and overlapping the claimed range of less than or equal to 3 μm. "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)" (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to reduce capacity variation and improve lifespan properties of a battery as described above.
Therefore, implying that a uniform thickness is desirable based on the evidence in the prior art, it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to apply the thickness deviation taught by Koo et al. between any points of the active material layer including a minimum and maximum thickness. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (see MPEP 2144.01).
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, Claim 8 is dependent on Claim 1 and Claim 20 is dependent on Claim 16. Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 1 and 16 above. As required by Claims 8 and 20, Sadana et al. discloses that the thickness of the first material layer ranges from 10 μm to 100 μm ([0038]), within and overlapping the claimed range of 0.05 μm to 20 μm (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the disclosures of Sadana et al. useful in providing a faster charging battery ([0025]).
Regarding Claim 12, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Sadana et al. discloses that the second active material layer may have a thickness of 0.5 μm to 100 μm, within and overlapping the claimed range of 20 μm to 200 μm (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the disclosures of Sadana et al. useful in providing a cathode with superior features providing a faster charging battery ([0025]).
Regarding Claim 15, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Sadana et al. discloses a method for preparing the electrochemical apparatus comprising forming the first material layer and the second material layer in sequence on at least one surface of the current collector ([0026] discloses that the first material layer (first particle layer) is formed on the surface of the current collector and the second material layer (second particle layer) is subsequently formed). As applied to Claim 1, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. to include a thickness deviation (in which includes the difference between a minimum and maximum thickness) of 0.01 μm to 4 μm, within and overlapping the claimed range of less than or equal to 3 μm.
Claims 2-3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadana et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190115626 A1) in view of Koo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200044257 A1), and further in view of Sung et al. (KR Pat. No. 20060063371 A).
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Claim 2 is dependent on Claim 1 and Claim 17 is dependent on Claim 16. Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 1 and 16 above.
Sadana et al. does not disclose that the first material layer comprises a leveling agent, and that the leveling agent is a polymer with a weight-average molecular weight of less than or equal to 50,000.
Sung et al. teaches an electrode active material layer comprising a polyethylene glycol (PEG) additive with an average molecular weight of 200 to 1000, in an amount of 0.01 to 10% by weight (para. 9-10 of § “Tech-Solution”); the disclosed average molecular weight allows for the liquid phase of the PEG to be maintained; and allows the desired degree of hardening to be obtained to effectively suppress breakage of the electrode. The PEG also improves the structural stability and battery performance (§ “Tech-Problem”).
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). In this case, the claimed prior art products are substantially identical in structure and composition; as Sung et al. teaches an active material layer comprising PEG, an ether polymer, in an amount of 0.01 to 10 wt.% (equivalent to the claimed invention), the PEG is presumed to inherently function as a leveling agent.
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 first material layer of Sadana et al. to include PEG (in which can function as a leveling agent) in an amount of 0.01 to 10% by weight, in which PEG is a polymer with a weight-average molecular weight of 200 to 1000 as taught by Sung et al, within the claimed range of less than or equal to 50,000 (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to allow the desired degree of hardening to be obtained to effectively suppress breakage of the electrode; and further promote structural stability and battery performance as described above.
Regarding Claim 3, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. and Sung et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 2 above. As applied to Claim 2, the active material layer of Sadana et al. is modified by Sung et al. to include PEG in which is presumed to inherently function as a leveling agent; PEG is equivalent to an ether polymer. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claim 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadana et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190115626 A1) in view of Koo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200044257 A1) and Sung et al. (KR Pat. No. 20060063371 A), and further in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050019656 A1 as further evidenced by Inomata et al. (WO Pat. No. 2017038328 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 18, Claim 4 is dependent on Claim 2 and Claim 18 is dependent on Claim 17; Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. and Sung et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 2 and 17 above.
Sadana et al. does not disclose wherein the leveling agent comprises at least one of a sodium carboxylate polymer, a polymer of oxygen-containing propylene hydrocarbon derivatives, or polysiloxane.
Yoon et al. teaches an electrode fabrication method in which the polymer electrolyte is mixed in the active material slurry forming the active material layer ([0011]); the polymeric electrolyte can include polysiloxane (Claim 36). Yoon et al. specifies that the invention overcomes the problem of viscous liquid polymers and permits the polymers to wet (or spread) and effectively penetrate the bulk of the electrode ([0010]). As the compound recited is identical to that of the claims, a polysiloxane, the polysiloxane is deemed to inherently function as a leveling agent (see MPEP 2112.01). As further evidence, Inomata et al. teaches a leveling agent such as polysiloxane in which prevents surface irregularities (para. 6 of “Other Additives”).
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 leveling agent of Sadana et al. to include a polysiloxane as taught by Yoon et al. in evidence of Inomata et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification for effective penetration of the electrode as described above.
Claim 5-7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadana et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190115626 A1) in view of Koo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200044257 A1) and Sung et al. (KR Pat. No. 20060063371 A), and further in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Pat No. 20200227726 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 19, Claim 5 is dependent on Claim 2 and Claim 19 is dependent on Claim 17. Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. and Sung et al., teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 2 and 19 above. As required by Claims 5 and 19, Sadana et al. discloses the first material layer comprising an active material (first particle) and a binder ([0027], [0032]).
Sadana et al. does not disclose the first material layer comprising a conductive agent; wherein based on a total mass of the first material layer, a mass percentage of the active material ranges from 50% to 98.89%, a mass percentage of the binder ranges from 1% to 20%, and a mass percentage of the conductive agent ranges from 0.1% to 20%.
Suzuki et al. teaches based on a total mass of the active material layer, the content of the active material is 50 to 85% ([0065]), a mass percentage of the binder is 0.01% to 20% ([0141]), and a mass percentage of the conductive agent of 0.5% to 5% ([0091]). Suzuki et al. teaches improved binding property, ion conductivity, and electron conductivity when the active material layer composition is within said limits ([0091]).
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 first material layer (active material layer) of Sadana et al. by Suzuki et al. to include a conductive agent; wherein based on a total mass of the active material layer, a mass percentage of the active material ranges from 50 to 85%, within and overlapping the claimed range of 50 to 98.89%, a mass percentage of the binder is 0.01% to 20%, within and overlapping the claimed range of 1% to 20%, and a mass percentage of the conductive agent ranges from 0.5% to 5% ([0091]), within the claimed range of 0.1 to 20% (see MPEP 2144.05.I).
Sadana et al. does not disclose a mass percentage of the leveling agent ranging from 0.01% to 10%.
As applied to Claim 2, the active material layer of Sadana et al. is modified by Sung et al. to include PEG (presumed to inherently function as a leveling agent) in an amount of 0.01% to 10%, equivalent to the claimed range. Further, Sung et al. teaches that battery safety, electrode strength, battery capacity, and battery performance are improved when the PEG is present within said amount para. 9-10 of § “Tech-Solution”).
Regarding Claim 6, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al., Sung et al., and Suzuki et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above.
Sadana et al. does not disclose that the binder comprises at least one of a copolymer of propylene hydrocarbon derivatives, polyacrylates, an acrylonitrile multipolymer, or a carboxymethyl cellulose salt.
Koo et al. teaches that the binder can comprise polyacrylonitrile (a polyacrylate) ([0034]) to provide improved bonding between the positive active materials and adhesion between the positive electrode active material and the current collector ([0033]).
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 binder of Sadana et al. to include polyacrylates as taught by Koo et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved bonding between the positive active materials and adhesion between the positive electrode active material and the current collector as described above.
Regarding Claim 7, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al., Sung et al., and Suzuki et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. As applied to Claim 6, the binder used in the positive electrode active material layer of Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. to include polyacrylonitrile in which is inherently formed by polymerization of acrylonitrile with a motivation to provide improved bonding and adhesion. Further, “‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)” (see MPEP 2113(I)). As Koo et al. teaches polymer of acrylonitrile, the method of forming said polymer is not given patentable weight. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 14, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al., Sung et al., and Suzuki et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above.
Sadana et al. does not disclose that the conductive agent comprises at least one of graphene, reticular graphite fiber, carbon nanotubes, Ketjen black, graphite fiber, or nano-particle conductive carbon.
Suzuki et al. teaches an active material layer for a lithium ion battery comprising a suitable conductive agent such as graphene, nano-particle conductive carbon (carbon nanotubes), or Ketjen black ([0003], [0087]).
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 conductive agent of Sadana et al. to include a suitable conductive agent such as graphene, nano-particle conductive carbon (carbon nanotubes), or Ketjen black as taught by Suzuki et al. "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)" (see MPEP 2144.07). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select any suitable conductive agent of the prior art to effectively improve the electronic conductivity of electrodes in which is an inherent function of a conductive agent.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadana et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190115626 A1) in view of Koo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200044257 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumashiro et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20030068557 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Sadana et al. does not disclose that a resistance of a fully charged positive electrode is greater than 10 Ω.
Kumashiro et al. teaches that the resistance of a fully charged positive electrode is 15 Ω or less ([0202]) in which is a low resistance. Kumashiro et al. teaches that a reduced internal resistance is necessary to provide high output characteristics in a battery in which is largely affected by the electrode plate resistance ([0004]); it is further preferable to provide a positive electrode plate that has a low internal resistance to provide a battery with high power density ([0023]).
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 positive electrode of Sadana et al. to include a resistance of at full charge of 15 Ω or less, within and overlapping the claimed range of greater than 10 Ω, as taught by Kumashiro et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide high battery output characteristics and high power density as described above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadana et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190115626 A1) in view of Koo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200044257 A1), Sung et al. (KR Pat. No. 20060063371 A), and Suzuki et al. (U.S. Pat No. 20200227726 A1) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Li et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20250087686 A1, equivalent to CN 110518232 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al., Sung et al., and Suzuki et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above.
Sadana et al. does not disclose a median particle size Dv99 of the active material ranges from 0.01 μm to 19.9 μm.
Li et al. teaches a median particle size Dv99 of a positive electrode active material of 7 μm to 15 μm ([0055]). The disclosed particle size distribution provides a normal distribution of particles and improves the compaction density, capacity performance, and power performance of the positive electrode active material ([0053]).
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 active material of Sadana et al. to include a median particle size of 7 μm to 15 μm ([0055]) as taught by Li et al., lying inside the claimed range of 0.01 μm to 19.9 μm (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provides a normal distribution of particles and improved compaction density, capacity performance, and power performance of the positive electrode active material as described above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadana et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190115626 A1) in view of Koo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200044257 A1) and Sung et al. (KR Pat. No. 20060063371 A), and further in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Pat No. 20200227726 A1) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further evidenced by Yunjian et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180287158 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al., Sung et al., and Suzuki et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above. Similar to applicant’s invention ([0022] of applicant’s specification notes that the particular shape of the conductive agent is not limited), as applied to Claim 5 (in which the first material layer (active material layer) of Sadana et al. is modified by Suzuki et al. to include a conductive agent), Suzuki et al. teaches that the conductive agent is not particular limited to a particular shape, but is preferably a particle shape ([0092]). The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 4 7 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, the shapes of the conductive agent presented in the claimed list are deemed obvious absent unexpected results. Further, the particular shapes in which are claimed are well known in the field of endeavor; for example, as evidence, Yunjian et al. teaches a conductive agent comprising a zero-dimensional shape ([0045]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadana et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190115626 A1) in view of Koo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200044257 A1) and Sung et al. (KR Pat. No. 20060063371 A) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Rounds (U.S. Pat. No. 5245512 A) as further evidenced by Maeda (U.S. Pat. No. 20180254520 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Sadana et al. is modified by Koo et al. and Sung et al., teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 2 above.
Sadana et al. does not disclose that the leveling agent comprises polyethoxy propoxy propylene hydrocarbon.
Rounds teaches nonionic surfactants comprising polymers including ethoxy, propoxy, and alkyl groups (hydrocarbon); and propylene (para. 4 of “Description”). Use of the nonionic surfactants provide batteries with advantageous properties including high capacity (para. 31 of “Background/Summary”).
Maeda provides evidence of surfactants being used as leveling agents to improve smoothness of the positive and negative electrodes ([0063]).
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 leveling agent of Sadana et al. to be selected from a nonionic surfactant such as poly ethoxy, propoxy, alkyl groups, and propylene as taught by Rounds in which can function as leveling agents as evidenced by Maeda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide improved battery capacity and a smooth surface of the electrodes as described above.
Further, "it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it is deemed obvious to combine the leveling agents taught by Rounds to form a polyethoxy propoxy propylene hydrocarbon as all elements are individually deemed suitable for the same purpose: functioning as a nonionic surfactant for use in a battery composition as taught by Rounds in which can function as a leveling agent to provide a smooth electrode surface as taught by Maeda. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
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