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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, et. al. (EPO Machine Translation of WO 2019026974 A1; original is included with IDS, EPO Machine Translation is attached and cited), in view of Stucky, et. al. (WO 2013003846 A2).
Regarding Claim 1, Kaneko teaches a current collector (current collector 1; “Aluminum foil is used as the current collector constituting the electrode (positive electrode or negative electrode) of the above electric storage device."), comprising a conductive body (“[p.4] the diameter DP of the through hole P formed in the aluminum foil 2 may be of such a size that ions (charge carriers) constituting the electrolyte can move and pass through the through hole P” ; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the movement of ions through the current collector reads on a “conductive body,”) having a three dimensional porous structure (“”All of the pores formed on the surface of the aluminum foil 2 may be the through holes P. However, a part of the pores formed on the surface of the aluminum foil 2 may be holes (non-through holes) not penetrating the aluminum foil 2”). Kaneka at [p.3-4]. Kaneka teaches a thickness of “an aluminum foil according to one aspect of the present invention is an aluminum foil having a thickness of more than 0 μm and 50 μm or less.” An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the meaning of 0.1 to 600 cc/cm2/sec, this is a measure of the cubic centimeters through a set area per second. Kaneka teaches the Gurley air permeability as “greater than 0 sec / 100ml and 10 sec / 100ml or less.” Id. at [p.4]. Because 1 cm3 = 1 mL, this is 100 cc. Kaneka teaches a “unit area of the aluminum foil,” is 1 mm2 as applied to the number of pores per unit area, but is silent as to the unit area applied to the air permeability test (beyond utilizing JIS P 8117). Id. Pre-conversion, Kaneka teaches a range of 10 cc / sec to > 100 cc / sec (given that “greater than zero” leads includes factions of a second). However, applying the previous unit area to convert from mm2 to cm2 indicates Kaneka teaches an air permeability range of ~ 0.1 cc / cm2 / sec to >10,000 cc /cm2 /sec, which completely encompasses the claimed range. However, Kaneka does not explicitly state the unit area utilized by the JIS P 8117 as utilized, even if this area was already utilized to assess the porosity and ion conduction properties. However, Kaneka strongly implies the unit area is the same because the air would logically permeate via the pores of the aluminum foil current collector.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date would find it obvious to modify the Gurley air permeability test of Kaneka, to make explicit the implication that the unit area is the same previously utilized, such that the Kaneka teaches an air permeability of ~ 0.1 cc / cm2 / sec to >10,000 cc /cm2 / sec, because Kaneka strongly implies this unit area is significant because it was applied to the pores which would be permitting air permeation, providing a benefit to assessing air permeability.
However, Kaneka is silent as to its three dimensional porous structure containing a conductive fiber structure with a metal coating.
Stucky teaches a 3D porous current collector, which forms a surface dendrite free lithium deposition created upon the “spatially heterogenous 3D current collectors.” Stucky at p.4. This deposition is “essentially lithium metal infiltration,” followed by an “insulating layer coating the line of sight surface, where the insulating allows access to the non-line of sight surfaces via the openings [i.e. pores] . . . [and] can be, but is not limited to, silicon oxide, graphene oxide, silicon carbide, hafnium oxide, zeolite, metal organic-ligand complexes, insulating organic materials including polyethylene oxides, polyethylene glycols, carbon hydrates, cellulose or biomass, metal sulfates, carbon nitride, non-metallic metal nitrides, metal phosphates, non-metallic metal phosphides, metal carbonates, non-metallic metal carbides, metal chlorates, metal fluorides, metal iodides, non- metallic metal arsenides, metal hydroxides, metal sulfides, metal bromides, metal selenides, metal borates, positive temperature coefficient thermistors (PTCT) including metal titanates, metal chromates, insulating ceramics, or other insulating polymeric materials.” Id. at p.5. Further, the metal deposited within the material may be sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, titanium, vanadium, silicon, tin, zinc, and aluminum. Id. at p.7. This structure has “a reduced dendrite density compared to a current collector lacking the insulating layer.” p.9.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the current collector of Kaneka, such that it comprises its active material (i.e. the metal deposited within the porous structure of the 3D current collector) within its 3D structure, and such that it comprises a metal coating as in Stucky, because Stucky teaches a benefit to reduced dendrite density.
Claim 1 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky.
Regarding Claim 13, Kaneka teaches a method of producing an electrode comprising:
Kaneka teaches a method of producing an electrode comprising: disposing an electrode material layer on at least one surface of a current collector comprising a conductive body(“[p.3.] In the step of forming the first active material layer 4 on the surface of the aluminum foil 2, a slurry containing an active material, a binder, a solvent and the like is applied to the surface of the aluminum foil 2.”) having a three-dimensional porous structure (“[p.4.] however, a part of the pores formed on the surface of the aluminum foil 2 may be holes (non-through holes) not penetrating the aluminum foil 2”). Kaneka at [p.3 - 4]. Kaneka teaches a thickness of “an aluminum foil according to one aspect of the present invention is an aluminum foil having a thickness of more than 0 μm and 50 μm or less.” An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the meaning of 0.1 to 600 cc/cm2/sec, this is a measure of the cubic centimeters through a set area per second. Kaneka teaches the Gurley air permeability as “greater than 0 sec / 100ml and 10 sec / 100ml or less.” Id. at [p.4]. Because 1 cm3 = 1 mL, this is 100 cc. Kaneka teaches a “unit area of the aluminum foil,” is 1 mm2 as applied to the number of pores per unit area, but is silent as to the unit area applied to the air permeability test (beyond utilizing JIS P 8117). Id. Pre-conversion, Kaneka teaches a range of 10 cc / sec to > 100 cc / sec (given that “greater than zero” leads includes factions of a second). However, applying the previous unit area to convert from mm2 to cm2 indicates Kaneka teaches an air permeability range of ~ 0.1 cc / cm2 / sec to >10,000 cc /cm2 /sec, which completely encompasses the claimed range. However, Kaneka does not explicitly state the unit area utilized by the JIS P 8117 as utilized, even if this area was already utilized to assess the porosity and ion conduction properties. However, Kaneka strongly implies the unit area is the same because the air would logically permeate via the pores of the aluminum foil current collector.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date would find it obvious to modify the Gurley air permeability test of Kaneka, to make explicit the implication that the unit area is the same previously utilized, such that the Kaneka teaches an air permeability of ~ 0.1 cc / cm2 / sec to >10,000 cc /cm2 / sec, because Kaneka strongly implies this unit area is significant because it was applied to the pores which would be permitting air permeation, providing a benefit to assessing air permeability.
However, Kaneka is silent as to its three dimensional porous structure containing a conductive fiber structure with a metal coating.
Stucky teaches a 3D porous current collector, which forms a surface dendrite free lithium deposition created upon the “spatially heterogenous 3D current collectors.” Stucky at p.4. This deposition is “essentially lithium metal infiltration,” followed by an “insulating layer coating the line of sight surface, where the insulating allows access to the non-line of sight surfaces via the openings [i.e. pores] . . . [and] can be, but is not limited to, silicon oxide, graphene oxide, silicon carbide, hafnium oxide, zeolite, metal organic-ligand complexes, insulating organic materials including polyethylene oxides, polyethylene glycols, carbon hydrates, cellulose or biomass, metal sulfates, carbon nitride, non-metallic metal nitrides, metal phosphates, non-metallic metal phosphides, metal carbonates, non-metallic metal carbides, metal chlorates, metal fluorides, metal iodides, non- metallic metal arsenides, metal hydroxides, metal sulfides, metal bromides, metal selenides, metal borates, positive temperature coefficient thermistors (PTCT) including metal titanates, metal chromates, insulating ceramics, or other insulating polymeric materials.” Id. at p.5. Further, the metal deposited within the material may be sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, titanium, vanadium, silicon, tin, zinc, and aluminum. Id. at p.7. This structure has “a reduced dendrite density compared to a current collector lacking the insulating layer.” p.9.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the current collector of Kaneka, such that it comprises its active material (i.e. the metal deposited within the porous structure of the 3D current collector) within its 3D structure, and such that it comprises a metal coating as in Stucky, because Stucky teaches a benefit to reduced dendrite density.
Claim 13 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky.
Claims 3-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, in view of Stucky. further in view of Shirotani, et. al. (US2017275793A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is obvious over modified Kaneka.
Kaneka is silent as to the average fiber diameter.
Shirotani teaches a copper plated non-woven fabric forming a conductive body having a three-dimensional porous structure, having an air permeability of “(F) an air permeability of less than or equal to 300 cc/cm2 /second,” and “a thickness from 5 μm to 50 μm.” Shirotani at [0014 – 26]. Shirotani teaches its structure provides the benefits of a lightweight, thin, “tenacious” construction, shielding against “electromagnetic waves.” Id. at [0012, 34]. However, the nonwoven fabric of Shirotani is not directly disclosed as being applied to a current collector.
Shirotani teaches “(A) an average fiber diameter from 0.1 μm to 5 μm.” Shirotani at [0017]. Therefore, Shirotani teaches a nonwoven fabric having an average fiber diameter of 5 μm or smaller.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to apply the copper plated non-woven fabric of Shirotani to the current collector of Kaneka, because Shirotani provides a benefit to lightweight and thin construction.
Claim 3 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky, and further in view of Shirotani.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kaneka.
Shirotani the conductive body comprises a fibrous structure having a basis weight of 1.0 to 15 g/m2. Shirotani at [0020]. An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 4 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky, and further in view of Shirotani.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kaneka.
Shirotani teaches a conductive body which comprises a nonwoven fabric structure.” Shirotani at [0014 - 23].
Claim 5 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky, and further in view of Shirotani.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kaneka.
Shirotani teaches a conductive body comprises a melt-blown nonwoven fabric of a thermotropic liquid crystal wholly aromatic polyester and a metal coating formed on the nonwoven fabric. Shirotani at [0015] (“a meltblown nonwoven fabric made from a melt liquid-crystal-forming wholly aromatic polyester . . . and a metal coating film formed on the meltblown nonwoven fabric”).
Claim 6 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky, and further in view of Shirotani.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is obvious over modified Kaneka.
Shirotani teaches the metal coating comprises at least one metal consisting of copper, nickel, gold, silver. Shirotani at [0025] (“the metal coating film is preferably made of any of copper, nickel, gold, silver, cobalt, tin, and zinc.”).
Claim 7 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky, and further in view of Shirotani.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 6. Claim 6 is obvious over modified Kaneka.
Shirotani teaches the metal coating comprises at least one metal consisting of copper, nickel, gold, silver. Shirotani at [0025] (“the metal coating film is preferably made of any of copper, nickel, gold, silver, cobalt, tin, and zinc.”).
Claim 8 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky, and further in view of Shirotani.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kaneka.
Shirotani teaches “(C) a breaking length in the warp direction of greater than or equal to 10 km and a breaking length in the weft direction of greater than or equal to 6 km,” ; because length and width are relative dimensions, this reads upon “wherein the conductive body comprises a fibrous structure having a breaking length of 10 kilometers or more in a length direction thereof and a breaking length of 6 kilometers or more in a width direction thereof.” Shirotani at [0019].
Claim 9 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky, and further in view of Shirotani.
Regarding Claim 10, Kaneko teaches a current collector (current collector 1; “Aluminum foil is used as the current collector constituting the electrode (positive electrode or negative electrode) of the above electric storage device."), comprising a conductive body (“[p.4] the diameter DP of the through hole P formed in the aluminum foil 2 may be of such a size that ions (charge carriers) constituting the electrolyte can move and pass through the through hole P” ; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the movement of ions through the current collector reads on a “conductive body,”). Kaneka at p.3-4. Kaneka teaches a thickness of “an aluminum foil according to one aspect of the present invention is an aluminum foil having a thickness of more than 0 μm and 50 μm or less.” An overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05. (I). Kaneka is silent as to a nonwoven structure, an average fiber diameter.
Shirotani teaches a copper plated non-woven fabric forming a conductive body having a three-dimensional porous structure, having an air permeability of “(F) an air permeability of less than or equal to 300 cc /cm2 / second,” and “a thickness from 5 μm to 50 μm.” Shirotani at [0014 – 26]. Shirotani teaches its structure provides the benefits of a lightweight, thin, “tenacious” construction, shielding against “electromagnetic waves.” Id. at [0012, 34]. Shirotani teaches “(A) an average fiber diameter from 0.1 μm to 5 μm.” Shirotani at [0017]. Therefore, Shirotani teaches a nonwoven fabric having an average fiber diameter of from 0.1 - 5 μm or smaller.
However, the nonwoven fabric of Shirotani is not directly disclosed as being applied to a current collector.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to apply the copper plated non-woven fabric of Shirotani to the current collector of Kaneka, because Shirotani provides a benefit to lightweight and thin construction.
Claim 10 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky, and further in view of Shirotani.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kaneka.
Kaneka teaches a current collector according to claim 1 and an electrode material layer disposed on at least on surface of said current collector. Kaneka at [p.3] (“The first electrode 6 has the aluminum foil 2 (first current collector) according to this embodiment and the first active material layer 4 covering the aluminum foil 2.”).
Claim 11 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky, and further in view of Shirotani.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Kaneka.
Kaneka teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte battery comprising an electrode according to claim 11. Kaneka at [p.3] (“The first electrode 6 has the aluminum foil 2 (first current collector) according to this embodiment and the first active material layer 4 covering the aluminum foil 2.”).
Claim 12 is obvious over Kaneka, in view of Stucky, and further in view of Shirotani.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko, in view of Stucky, Shirotani, further in view of Zhamu, et. al. (US2017077546A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 11. Claim 11 is obvious over modified Kaneka.
Modified Kaneka is silent as to “wherein the electrode material layer has a thickness of 10 to 200 m.”
Zhamu teaches “[0088 – 89] The cathode layer is composed of particles of a cathode active material (e.g. NaFePO4 particles), a conductive additive (e.g. carbon black particles), and a resin binder (e.g. PVDF). Both the anode and the cathode layers are typically 60-100 μm thick (no more than 200 μm) to give rise to a presumably sufficient amount of current per unit electrode area. Using an active material layer thickness of 100 μm and the solid (Cu or Al foil) current collector layer thickness of 10 μm as examples, the resulting battery configuration has a current collector thickness-to-active material layer thickness ratio of 10/100 or 1/10 for conventional Na-ion, K-ion, and Li-ion battery cells. [0089] This thickness range of 60-100 μm is considered an industry-accepted constraint under which a battery designer normally works under, based on the current slurry coating process (roll coating of active material-binder-additive mixture slurry). This thickness constraint is due to several reasons: (a) the existing battery electrode coating machines are not equipped to coat excessively thin or excessively thick electrode layers; (b) a thinner layer is preferred based on the consideration of reduced lithium ion diffusion path lengths; but, too thin a layer (e.g. <60 μm) does not contain a sufficient amount of an active alkali metal ion storage material (hence, insufficient current output); and (c) thicker electrodes are prone to delaminate or crack upon drying or handling after roll-coating of slurry. This constraint has made it impossible to freely increase the amount of active materials (those responsible for storing Na or K ions) without increasing the amounts of all non-active materials (e.g. current collectors and separator) in order to obtain a minimum overhead weight and a maximum sodium storage capability and, hence, a maximized energy density (Wk/kg or Wh/L of cell).” Zhamu at [0088-89]. This presents an overlapping range with 10 to 200 μm.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the electrode material layer of modified Kaneka, such that it is 60 to 100 μm, because this range presents a middle ground between preventing delamination and reduced lithium ion diffusion path lengths, and because an overlapping range presents a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 14 is obvious over Kaneko, in view of Stucky, Shirotani, further in view of Zhamu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Since the limitations of previous claim 2 have been added to claim 1 and the Office has not maintained the previous grounds of rejection of claim 2, this Office Action is made a second non-final rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights