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 1-20 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 1 recites there is NO binder in the second electrode active material; dependent claim 17 recites a binder (polyurethane resin, polyvinyl resin) in the second electrode active material. It is unclear whether there is binder in the second electrode active material or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20140363736), in view of Moriuchi (JP 2002270180), and Sato (JPH09185960), hereinafter Kim, Moriuchi, and Sato.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Kim suggests an electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a current collector (e.g., 10; 20); a first electrode active material layer (e.g., 11; 13) comprising a first electrode active material, arranged on a surface of the current collector; and a second electrode active material layer (e.g., 12; 14) comprising a second electrode active material, arranged on a surface of the first electrode active material layer (see e.g., Fig. 1, [0019]); wherein the first electrode active material layer comprises a binder (e.g., PVDF, [0052-0053, 0055, 0057-0059]), and a ratio of the thickness of the first electrode active material layer (e.g., 11; 13) to the thickness of the second electrode active material layer (e.g., 12; 14) is 0.108 or less (e.g., 11:12 is 10:90 or about 0.1, see e.g., [ 0027, 0040]).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim suggests a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode (100) comprising: a positive electrode current collector (10); a first positive electrode active material layer (11) disposed on the positive electrode current collector and comprising a first positive electrode active material; and a second positive electrode active material layer (12) disposed on the first positive electrode active material layer and comprising a second positive electrode active material, a negative electrode (200) comprising: a negative electrode current collector (20); a first negative electrode active material layer (13) disposed on the negative electrode current collector and comprising a first negative electrode active material; and a second negative electrode active material layer (14) disposed on the first negative electrode active material layer and comprising a second negative electrode active material, a separator (30) between the second positive electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer; and an electrolyte ([0063]), see e.g., Fig. 1, [0019-0023, 0031-0039]; and a ratio of the thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer to the thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer is 0.108 or less, while a ratio of the thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer to the thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer is 0.107 or less (see rejection of claim 1 and [0027, 0040]).
Kim does not explicitly state whether the binder (e.g., PVDF) in the first layer (e.g., 11; 13) of either electrode (anode or cathode) is in a crystallized state. However, Moriuchi suggests the active layer coated on the current collector is held more firmly on the current collector, thereby improving charge/discharge cycle characteristics, when the PVdF binder is crystallized. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the binder in the first electrode active material layer (of the anode or the cathode) includes a binder in a crystallized state with the expectation of firmly holding the first active material layer on the current collector, as suggested by Moriuchi.
Kim does not state the second electrode active material layer (of the anode or cathode) does not comprise a binder (i.e., binder is 0 wt%). However, Kim suggests the amount of binder is typically, e.g., 1 wt%, which does not overlap with that claimed, but 1 wt% is “close” to that claimed (i.e., 0 wt%), hence obvious, see e.g., MPEP 2144.05, I. Further, Sato suggests a multilayer electrode including a current collector, first coating, and subsequent coatings, in that order. The subsequent coatings include lower amounts of binder from the standpoint of improved battery capacity, since the amount of nonactive material (i.e., binder), which does not contribute to capacity, is reduced, see e.g., [0006, 0013]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further reduce the amount of binder in the second electrode active material layer (of either the anode or the cathode) from the standpoint of improving capacity by increasing active material through the reduction of the amount of non-active material component (i.e., binder). Finally, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05, II., A. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce binder (e.g., <1 wt%) in the second electrode active material (of the anode or the cathode) through routine experimentation, thereby reducing nonactive material component (i.e., binder), from the standpoint of improving capacity to discover another workable range.
Kim does not suggest a thickness of the second electrode active material layer (of the anode or cathode) is 150 micron or more, and a total thickness of the first electrode active material layer and the second electrode active material layer is 250 micron or more (or 250 micron or more and 750 micron or less). However, Sato discloses electrodes having a total thickness of 250 micron, and suggests the thickness of electrodes is increased from the standpoint of extending charge/discharge cycle life and achieving a high energy density, see e.g., [0003, 0014]. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the total thickness of the electrodes of Kim are 250 microns with the understanding that increasing the thickness of an electrode leads to the extension of cycle life and high energy density, as suggested by Sato. Modifying Kim’s electrodes, which includes the thickness ratio (i.e., 10:90, or about 0.1), with Sato’s suggested of the total electrode thickness (i.e., 250 microns) suggests the thickness of two layers is 250 microns, while the thickness of the second electrode active material layer is 150 microns or more (250 x 0.9 = 225 micron, which is 150 microns or more). Thus, the prior art suggests thickness values which overlap with that claimed or are close, hence obvious, see MPEP 2144.05, I. Further, Sato has recognized the presence of a known result-effective variable (i.e., thickness is a result effective variable for cycle life and energy density), which would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process, see MPEP 2144.05, II. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for Kim to increase the total thickness of the electrode, i.e., the thickness of the first electrode layer and second electrode layer, of the anode or cathode, from the standpoint of improving cycle life and energy density, as suggested by Sato.
Regarding Claim 2, as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1 and 3, Kim was modified by Sato to suggest the total thickness (i.e., 250 microns); further, Sato has recognized the presence of a known result-effective variable (i.e., thickness is a result effective variable for cycle life and energy density), which would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process, see MPEP 2144.05, II. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for Kim to increase the total thickness of the electrode (i.e., >250 microns, thereby approaching the claimed thickness of 300 microns or more) from the standpoint of improving cycle life and energy density, as suggested by Sato.
Regarding Claim 4, as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1 and 3, Kim was modified by Sato to suggest the total thickness (i.e., 250 microns); the modification of the total thickness of the electrode (i.e., 250 microns) in view of Kim’s thickness ratio (10:90, [0027, 0040]) results in a first layer having a thickness of 25 microns (i.e., 250 x 0.1 = 25) and a second layer having a thickness of 225 microns (250 x 0.9), thereby suggesting the thickness of the first electrode active material layer is 100 microns or less, i.e., 25 microns
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Kim does not provide the size of the active material particles. However, Sato suggests active material particles are typically 1-100 microns, thereby allowing the active material to disperse uniformly in the coating layer, [0012]; Moriuchi suggests active material particles are between 1-25 microns from the viewpoint of preventing abnormal battery reactions and to reduce the resistance of the active material layer, page 3/10. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the active material particles of Kim are 1-100 microns to uniformly disperse the active material in the coating layer, to prevent abnormal battery reactions, and to reduce the resistance of the active material layer, as suggested by Sato and Moriuchi.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Kim suggests the electrode is a positive electrode and the first electrode active material or the second electrode active material comprises a lithium transition metal composite oxide (see e.g., [0021-0023]); Kim suggests the electrode is a negative electrode and the first electrode active material or the second electrode active material comprises a carbon material, lithium transition metal composite oxide, a metal, or lithium alloy (see e.g., [0031-0039]).
Regarding Claims 8-9, and 18-19, Kim suggests the first electrode active material layer and the second electrode active material layer further comprises a conductive fiber, present at 2% to 20% by mass, relative to a total solids content of the first (or the second) electrode active material layer, wherein the conductive fiber is a carbon fiber, see e.g., [0053-0054].
Regarding Claims 10-12, Kim suggests the particles of the first electrode active material are coated with a coating agent comprising a coating resin, the coating resin comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of polyurethane resins and polyvinyl resins, [0055], wherein the binder of the first electrode active material layer comprises a fluorine-based resin (i.e., PVDF, see rejection of claim 1), and wherein the binder of the first active material layer is present at 1% to 10% by mass, relative to a total solids content of the first electrode active material layer, [0055].
Regarding Claims 15, Kim suggests each layer having a density in a range of 2.1-3 g/cm3, see e.g., claim 13, para. [0042].
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Moriuchi, and Sato, further in view of Abdelsalam et al. (US 2015/0280221), and Thomas-Alyea (US 2012/0328942), hereinafter Abdelsalam and Thomas.
Regarding Claims 13-14, Kim does not disclose the porosity of either layer. However, Abdelsalam suggests the use of multi-layered electrode, where the porosity of the first active layer (closes to the current collector, 203a, [0103]) is 20-25 vol% and the porosity of the second active layer (203b, which is on the first active layer 203a, [0103]) is 30-70 vol%, which is expected to improve both capacity retention and cycle life, abstract and [0027-0034, 0132-0133]; Thomas explains porosity of the electrode is preferably higher at the separator side compared to the current collector side because higher porosity closer to the separator will facilitate diffusion and migration of the ions from the electrolyte, which in turn results in beneficial cell properties such as rate capacity and cycle life. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the porosity of the first active material layer (which is closest to the current collector) is lower than the porosity of the second active material layer (which is closest to the separator), wherein the porosity of the second active material layer is between 30-50 %, with the expectation of improved battery cell properties (e.g., cycle life) due to improved diffusion and migration of ions, as suggested by Thomas, and Abddelsalam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729