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 .
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation with Attorney James Proscia on March 9, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: a missing semi-colon. Appropriate correction is required. The following amendment is suggested: “The negative electrode of claim 1, wherein the ceramic particles are present in an amount from about 80 weight percent to about 99. 9 weight percent of the combined weight of the ceramic particles and the thermoset binder; the thermoset binder is present in an amount from about 0.1 weight percent to about 20 weight percent of the combined weight of the ceramic particles.”
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: The term "barium titanate" was previously used in Claim 6. Claim 15 should amended to replace "BaTiO3" with "barium titanate" to ensure consistent terminology throughout the claims.. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak, Thomas A. et. al. (US 20220255063 A1), herein after Yersak, in further view of Wang, Yong-Zhong et al. (CN 101884125 A), herein after Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Yersak teaches a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium-ion battery [0017] comprising:
A negative electrode current collector ([0055], negative electrode current collector (32));
A negative electrode active layer ([0063]):
disposed over the negative electrode current collector (Fig. 2A, disposed on current collector 32);
composed of negative electrode active material ([0063]);
A ceramic particle-containing layer ([0017], [0064]):
disposed over the negative electrode active layer (Fig. 2A, disposed on current collector 32);
composed of ceramic particles and a thermoset binder ([0020]).
Additionally, Yersak teaches the thermoset binder may include, but not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0073], [0077] binder 60). However, Yersak does not explicitly disclose that the thermoset binder is composed of cross-linkable monomers. Wang teaches that cross-linkable monomers may include, but are not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0056]). Yersak and Wang are analogous in the art of battery electrode coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention that the binders disclosed in Yersak are formed from cross-linkable monomers, as taught by Wang.
Regarding claims 2-10, Yersak and Wang teach all the limitations of claims 1, as stated above.
Regarding claim 2, Yersak teaches the thermoset binder may include, but not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0073], [0077] binder 60). However, Yersak does not explicitly teach cross-linkable monomers include multi-functional moieties. Wang teaches that cross-linkable monomers may include, but are not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0056]). Yersak and Wang are analogous in the art of battery electrode coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention that the binders disclosed in Yersak are formed from cross-linkable monomers include multi-functional moieties, as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 3, Yersak further teaches the thermoset binder may include, but not limited to, acrylic polymers, vinylic polymers, epoxy polymers, urethane, more specifically polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0073], [0077] binder 60).
Regarding claim 4, the claimed ceramic particle-containing layer thickness range of about 0.1 to 30 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 1 to 100 microns ([0023]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 5, the claimed ceramic particle-containing layer thickness range of about 0.3 to 10 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 1 to 100 microns ([0023]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 6, Yersak further teaches the ceramic particles may include, but not limited to, zirconia and alumina ([0023]).
Regarding claim 7, the claimed ceramic particles have an average size ranging from about 0.1 to 10 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 0.1 to 20 microns ([0018]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed ceramic particles have an average size ranging from about 0.2 to 2 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 0.1 to 20 microns ([0018]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 9, Yersak further teaches the binder (binder 60) may be present in an amount, based on the total weight of the ceramic particles and binder, with ranges from 1-40 weight percent ([0074]). Correspondingly, the claimed ceramic particle content ranges from 60-99 weight percent ([0074]). The claimed binder range of about 0.1-20 weight percent overlaps and falls within the range disclosed by Yersak. Correspondingly the claimed ceramic particles content of about 80-99 weight percent represent the complimentary portion of the composition and likewise falls within the ranges is inherently disclosed by Yersak. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 10, Yersak further teaches the negative active material is a carbon-based negative active material, a silicon-based negative active material, or a combination thereof [0063].
Regarding claim 11, Yersak further teaches a rechargeable lithium-ion battery cell, each cell including ([0006], Fig. 1, electrochemical cell (lithium-ion battery/battery) 10, Fig. 3):
A negative electrode ([0017]) comprising:
a negative electrode current collector ([0055], negative electrode current collector (32));
negative electrode active layer) ([0063]):
disposed over the negative electrode current collector (Fig. 2A, disposed on current collector 32);
composed of negative electrode active material ([0063]);
a ceramic particle-containing layer ([0017], [0064]):
disposed over the negative electrode active layer (Fig. 2A, disposed on current collector 32);
composed of ceramic particles and a thermoset binder ([0020]);
A positive electrode ([0055], positive electrode 22) including:
Positive active material ([0079]);
An electrolyte contacting the negative electrode and positive electrode ([0055], negative electrode 22, positive electrode 24, separator 26).
Additionally, Yersak teaches the thermoset binder may include, but not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0073], [0077] binder 60). However, Yersak does not explicitly disclose that the thermoset binder is composed of cross-linkable monomers. Wang teaches that cross-linkable monomers may include, but are not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0056]). Yersak and Wang are analogous in the art of battery electrode coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention that the binders disclosed in Yersak are formed from cross-linkable monomers, as taught by Wang.
Regarding claims 12-18, Yersak and Wang teach all the limitations of claims 11, as stated above.
Regarding claim 12, Yersak further teaches a separator interposed between the negative and positive electrode ([0055], negative electrode 22, positive electrode 24, separator 26).
Regarding claim 13, Yersak further teaches the thermoset binder may include, but not limited to, acrylic polymers, vinylic polymers, epoxy polymers, urethane, more specifically polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0073], [0077] binder 60).
Regarding claim 14, the claimed ceramic particle-containing layer thickness range of about 0.1 to 30 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 1 to 100 microns ([0023]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 15, Yersak further teaches the ceramic particles may include, but not limited to, zirconia and alumina ([0023]).
Regarding claim 16, the claimed ceramic particles have an average size ranging from about 0.1 to 10 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 0.1 to 20 microns ([0018]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed ceramic particles have an average size ranging from about 0.2 to 2 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 0.1 to 20 microns ([0018]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 18, Yersak further teaches the binder (binder 60) may be present in an amount, based on the total weight of the ceramic particles and binder, with ranges from 1-40 weight percent ([0074]). Correspondingly, the claimed ceramic particle content ranges from 60-99 weight percent ([0074]). The claimed binder range of about 0.1-20 weight percent overlaps and falls within the range disclosed by Yersak. Correspondingly the claimed ceramic particles content of about 80-99 weight percent represent the complimentary portion of the composition and likewise falls within the ranges is inherently disclosed by Yersak. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/
Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776