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 . 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.
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 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arishima et al. (US 2016/0043373 A1), hereinafter “Arishima.”
Regarding claim 1, Arishima discloses a lithium battery secondary electrode comprising:
an electrode current collector, in this case the metal foil (¶ [0029]);
an electrode mixture layer provided on the electrode current collector and containing an electrode active material, in this case the electrode mixture layer (¶ [0029], Figs. 6 & 7, ref. no. 1a); and
an auxiliary coating layer provided on the electrode current collector at the end of the electrode mixture layer, in this case the insulating layer (¶ [0029], Figs. 6 & 7, ref. no. 5).
Arishima is silent as to the lengths of the electrode mixture layer in contact with the current collector and that of the opposite side, as well as the absolute value of the difference between these two measurements. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the active material layer appropriately in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning electrode.
Regarding claim 6, Arishima further discloses that the auxiliary coating layer has a structure surrounding the end surface of the electrode mixture layer and forms a single layer (see Figs. 6 & 7, ref. nos. 1a & 5).
Regarding claim 7, Arishima teaches that the auxiliary coating layer’s thickness is less than or equal to that of the electrode mixture layer (¶ [0038]). Applicant is reminded that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the auxiliary coating layer’s thickness to be 70% to 100% of that of the electrode mixture layer.
Regarding claim 8, Arishima is silent as to the inclination angle of the electrode mixture layer’s end. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the active material layer appropriately, including the angle of the auxiliary layer (see Figs. 6 & 7, ref. no. 5), in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning electrode.
Regarding claim 9, Arishima discloses a method of manufacturing a lithium secondary battery electrode comprising:
preparing of an electrode having an auxiliary coating layer disposed at an end of an electrode mixture layer containing an electrode active material by simultaneously coating an electrode slurry containing the electrode active material and an auxiliary coating composition on an electrode current collector, in this case the materials are coated in tandem on the current collector (¶ [0019] & [0037]; Figs. 6 & 7).
Arishima is silent as to the lengths of the electrode mixture layer in contact with the current collector and that of the opposite side, as well as the absolute value of the difference between these two measurements. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the active material layer appropriately in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning electrode.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arishima as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2021/0151732 A1).”
Regarding claims 14-17, Arishima does not disclose the apparatus for simultaneously coating the electrode slurry and auxiliary coating composition. However, Ahn teaches a die coater for electrode production that includes slot dies, shims, and other standard components (e.g. ¶ [0039]-[0040], Fig. 1). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to utilize such a well-known apparatus to produce the desired electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have utilized a conventional die coater in order to have yielded the predictable result of coated electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no prior art reference could be found that fairly teaches or suggests an auxiliary coating layer for an electrode comprising an inorganic particle, a phenolic compound, and a binder as set forth in claims 1 and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729