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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the thickness of the positive electrode active substance layer " in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what thickness of the positive electrode active substance layer is being referred to an none has been positively claimed, and if the thickness in question refers to the thickness of a specific layer of the positive electrode active substance or the totality.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the porosity in an area of H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode substance material layer" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what porosity is being referred to, whether that be the porosity of a surface area of the positive electrode active substance, the porosity of an inner area of the positive electrode active substance, or a separate porosity altogether.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the porosity in an area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode substance material layer" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what porosity is being referred to, whether that be the porosity of the surface area of the positive electrode active substance, the porosity of the inner area of the positive electrode active substance, or a separate porosity altogether.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the thickness of the positive electrode active substance layer" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what thickness of the positive electrode active substance layer is being referred to, whether that be the thickness of the surface area of the positive electrode active substance, the positive electrode active substance, the area of H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode active substance, the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance, or the total thickness of the positive electrode active substance
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the average particle size of the positive electrode active material" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what average particle size is being referred to as none has been positively claimed.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the average particle size of the positive electrode active material" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what average particle size is being referred to as none has been positively claimed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "r1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “r1” is referring to, whether that be the r1 of claim 2 or a different r1 value altogether.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "r1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “r1” is referring to, whether that be the r1 of claim 2 or a different r1 value altogether.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the layer in the area of H/3 from the surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what layer is being referred to, whether that be the positive electrode active substance layer, a particular area defined as being within the positive electrode active substance layer, or a separate layer altogether.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the total weight" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “the total weight” is in reference to, whether that be the total weight of the positive electrode sheet, the positive electrode active substance layer, some portion of the positive electrode active substance layer, or another total weight altogether.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the layer " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what layer is being referred to, whether that be the positive electrode active substance layer, a particular area defined as being within the positive electrode active substance layer, or a separate layer altogether.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the area" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what area is being referred to, whether that be the surface area, the inner area, the area of H/3 from a surface, the area of H/3 from the current collector, or another area altogether.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the layer in the area of H/3 from the surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what layer is being referred to, whether that be the positive electrode active substance layer, a particular area defined as being within the positive electrode active substance layer, or a separate layer altogether.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the total weight" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “the total weight” is in reference to, whether that be the total weight of the positive electrode sheet, the positive electrode active substance layer, some portion of the positive electrode active substance layer, or another total weight altogether.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the layer " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what layer is being referred to, whether that be the positive electrode active substance layer, a particular area defined as being within the positive electrode active substance layer, or a separate layer altogether.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the area" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what area is being referred to, whether that be the surface area, the inner area, the area of H/3 from a surface, the area of H/3 from the current collector, or another area altogether.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the conductive agent" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what conductive agent is being referred to, whether that be the conductive agent in claim 8, the conductive agent in claim 9, or a separate conductive agent altogether.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the positive electrode active material " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what the positive electrode active material is being referred to as none has been positively claimed.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the xanthan gum" in lines 2, 3, and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what xanthan gum is being referred to as none has been positively claimed.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "polyethyleneimine" in lines 2, 3, and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what polyethyleneimine is being referred to as none has been positively claimed.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the average molecular weight Mn of the xanthan gum" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what” average molecular weight Mn of the xanthan gum” is being referred to as none has been positively claimed.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the average molecular weight Mn of the polyethyleneimine" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what ”average molecular weight Mn of the polyethyleneimine” is being referred to as none has been positively claimed.
Claims 3 and 5-7 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the porosity in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer is 10%-30% and/or the porosity in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is 5%-25%” and is dependent upon claim 2. Claim 2 recites the limitation “the thickness of the positive electrode active substance layer is H, a ratio of the porosity in an area of H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode substance material layer to the porosity in an area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is r1, and r1 is 1.05-6.5.” Using the porosity percentages of claim 3, r1 has a minimum value of 0.4 when the ratio of the porosity in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer is 10% and the porosity in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is 25%). The maximum value of r1 is 6 when the ratio of the porosity in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer is 30% and the porosity in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is 5%. This r1 range of 0.4-6.0 has a lower value that falls outside of the range specified in claim 2 of r1 = 1.05-6.5. Therefore, claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer is 0.8-2.5 µm and/or the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is 0.5-1.5 µm” and is dependent upon claim 4. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the thickness of the positive electrode active substance layer is H, a ratio of the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer to the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is r2, and r2 is 1.05-5.” Using the average particle sizes of claim 5, the minimum value of r2 is 0.53 when the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer is 0.8 µm and the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is 1.5 µm. The maximum value of r2 is 5 when the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer is 2.5 µm and the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is 0.5 µm. This r2 range of 0.53-5 has a lower value that falls outside of the range specified in claim 4 of r2 is 1.05-6.5. Therefore, claim 5 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a value of r1xr2 is 1.2 to 50” and is dependent upon claim 4. Claim 4 recites the limitation “r2 is 1.05-5” and claim 2 recites the limitation “r1 is 1.05-6.5.” In the case in which the r1 limitation of claim 6 is in reference to the r1 limitation of claim 2, the minimum value of r1xr2 is 1.2 when r1=r2=1.05. The maximum value of r1xr2=30 when r1=6.5 and r2=5. The range of r1xr2 being 1.2 to 50 of claim 6 has an upper value that falls outside of the range of r1xr2 values of 1.2-30 as dependent on the r1 range of claim 2 and the r2 range of claim 4. Therefore, claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 4.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jo et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0185707).
Regarding claims 1, 10-13, 15, and 17, Jo teaches an aqueous positive electrode sheet (multilayer electrode), comprising a current collector and a positive electrode active substance layer (electrode mixture layers) provided on at least one surface of the current collector (abstract). The positive electrode active substance layer comprising an aqueous binder ([0061]), which is both a methylcellulose and a soluble polysaccharide (carboxymethylcellulose).
A porosity of a surface area (second electrode mixture layer) of the positive electrode active substance layer is greater than a porosity of an inner area (first electrode mixture layer) of the positive electrode active substance layer ([0009]), and an average particle size of a positive electrode active material in the surface area is greater than an average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the inner area ([0011]).
The electrode active substance layers contain a conductive agent comprising one or more of carbon black, conductive graphite (artificial graphite and natural graphite), acetylene black, ketjen black, and carbon nanotubes ([0014]).
The electrode active substance layers further contain the positive electrode active material which comprises one or more of lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium nickel manganese oxide, lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, or lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide ([0059]).
The positive electrode sheet has a membrane resistance of 0.31 Ω (current collector active material contact resistance, page 11, Table 1). Since the prior art recites a resistance value within the claimed range, the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II).
Jo also teaches a secondary battery comprising the aqueous positive electrode sheet ([0008]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the thickness of the positive electrode active substance layer is H (the total thickness of the first and second electrode mixture layers, fig. 1 ref. #110 and #130). The porosity in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer (in the second electrode mixture layer) is 50%-90% ([0010]), and the porosity in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer (in the first electrode mixture layer) is 0%-30% ([0010]). The porosity in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer overlaps with the claimed range of 5%-25%. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). While the range of the porosity in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer does not overlap with the claimed range of 10%-30%, since it is an optional limitation Jo still anticipates claim 3.
A ratio of the porosity in an area of H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode substance material layer to the porosity in an area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is r1, and r1 is 1.667 or greater (as derived from the possible ratios of the porosities listed above). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 1.05-6.5. When there is sufficient overlap
and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer is 0.01-0.5 µm, and the average particle size of the positive electrode active material in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is 0.5-5 µm. The average particle size in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5-1.5 µm. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II). While the range of the average particle size in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer does not overlap with the claimed range of 0.8-2.5 µm, since it is an optional limitation Jo still anticipates claim 5.
A ratio of the average particle size in an area of H/3 from a surface in the positive electrode substance material layer to the porosity in an area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer is r2, and r2 is 1 to 500 (as derived from the possible ratios of the average particle sizes listed above). This range overlaps with the claimed range of 1.05-5. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II).
Regarding claim 6, a value of r1xr2 is 1.667 or greater. This is found using the established ranges of r1 and r2 presented above, and overlaps with the claimed range of 1.2 to 50. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II).
Regarding claim 7, a value of r1/r2 is 0.003 or greater. This is found using the established ranges of r1 and r2 presented above, and overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 to 1.5. When there is sufficient overlap and specificity of the prior art range, then the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.II).
Regarding claim 8, the positive electrode active substance layer comprises a conductive agent ([0008]). The layer in the area of H/3 from the surface in the positive electrode active substance layer comprises the aqueous binder of 2.5 parts by weight (2.5%) and the conductive agent of 1 part by weight (1%), based on the total weight of the layer in the area ([0065]). Since the prior art recites the parts by weight of the aqueous binder and conductive agent within the claimed range of 1 to 5 parts by weight for each the aqueous binder and conductive agent, the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.I).
Regarding claim 9, the positive electrode active substance layer comprises a conductive agent ([0008]). The layer in the area of H/3 from the current collector in the positive electrode active substance layer comprises the aqueous binder of 2.5 parts by weight (2.5%) and the conductive agent of 2.5 parts by weight (2.5%), based on the total weight of the layer in the area ([0064]). Since the prior art recites the parts by weight of the aqueous binder and conductive agent within the claimed range of 2 to 6 parts by weight for the aqueous binder and 1 to 5 parts by weight for the conductive agent, the claimed range is anticipated by the prior art (MPEP 2131.03.I).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the positive electrode active substance layer is formed by multi-layer die head extrusion coating process” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP 2113). Furthermore, there does not appear to be (a or an unobvious) difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Jo discloses an identical structure as claimed in claim 1.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0185707) in view of Li (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0108776).
Jo is relied upon as described above.
Jo does not explicitly teach the aqueous binder being a compound mixture of the xanthan gum and the polyethyleneimine with a ratio of the xanthan gum to the polyethyleneimine is 2:1-1:15, nor does Jo teach the average molecular weight Mn of the xanthan gum is 300000-2000000 g/mol, and the average molecular weight Mn of the polyethyleneimine is 2000-50000g/mol.
Li teaches a method of making a battery electrode with an active electrode material and a conductive additive in water (abstract). Li also teaches the aqueous binder is a compound mixture of xanthan gum ([0012]) and polyethyleneimine ([0020]). The ratio of the xanthan gum to the polyethyleneimine is ranges from 2.5:0-2.5:2 ([0089]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 2:1-1:15. 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).
Li also teaches the average molecular weight Mn of the polyethyleneimine is 25,000 g/mol ([0089]), but does not teach the average molecular weight Mn of the xanthan gum is 300,000-2,000,000 g/mol. As this part of the claim is optional, claim 14 is still considered obvious over Jo in view of Li.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the aqueous binder containing xanthan gum and polyethyleneimine of Li in place of the aqueous binder of Jo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this change as the binder of Li has reduced agglomeration via addition of the polyethyleneimine dispersant, in turn increasing suspension stability of the electrode active material ([0005]-[0006], and [0054]).
Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et. al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0185707) in view of Abe (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0356695).
Jo is relied upon as described above.
Jo does not explicitly teach battery pack comprising the aforementioned secondary battery, or a power consumption apparatus comprising the battery pack.
Abe teaches a battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator at least including a porous film, and an electrolyte (abstract). Abe also teaches a battery pack comprising the positive and negative electrodes, the separator, and the electrolyte ([0002]), and a power consumption apparatus (electronic apparatus) comprising the battery pack ([0173])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to use the secondary battery as taught by Jo in a battery pack, and the battery pack in a power consumption apparatus as taught by Abe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the secondary battery in this manner as inclusion in a battery pack allows for the secondary batteries to be wired together either in parallel or in series ([0163]), in turn allowing for either increased current or voltage as compared to the secondary battery alone. Inclusion of the battery pack in a power consumption apparatus allows for the battery pack to power a device without connection to a stationary energy providing device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Myles Alan Lovasz whose telephone number is (571)272-0214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/MAL/
Myles Alan LovaszExaminer, Art Unit 1788
02/12/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788