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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US Pub No. 2012/0135304)
Regarding Claim 1, Uchida et al. teaches an electrode, comprising:
a current collector [10, Fig. 4, 0037]; and
an active material layer on one or both sides of the current collector [20 is active layer material on current collector 10, Fig. 1 and 4, 0037],
wherein the active material layer comprises an electrode active material and
a particulate binder [See electrode active material 22 and binder 54, Fig. 1 and 5, 0037-0038],
Uchida et al. is silent on wherein the electrode comprises a network region and a blank region are observed on a surface of the current collector after a standard peel test, wherein the network region is a region comprising the particulate binder, and having a height of 3 times or more an average particle diameter of the particulate binder, wherein the blank region is a region that does not comprise the particulate binder or a region comprising the particulate binder, and having a height of 1.5 times or less the average particle diameter of the particulate binder, and wherein a ratio of an area occupied by the particulate binder on the blank region is 20% or less, and wherein the standard peel test is a process of attaching a tape on the active material layer and then peeled off the tape from the active material layer, which is repeated until no component from the active material layer is observed on the tape.
The claims are directed to an electrode, and Uchida et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the electrode in the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Uchida et al. has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the electrode of Uchida et al. meeting the limitation of “wherein the electrode comprises a network region and a blank region are observed on a surface of the current collector after a standard peel test, wherein the network region is a region comprising the particulate binder, and having a height of 3 times or more an average particle diameter of the particulate binder, wherein the blank region is a region that does not comprise the particulate binder or a region comprising the particulate binder, and having a height of 1.5 times or less the average particle diameter of the particulate binder, and wherein a ratio of an area occupied by the particulate binder on the blank region is 20% or less:, and wherein the standard peel test is a process of attaching a tape on the active material layer and then peeled off the tape from the active material layer, which is repeated until no component from the active material layer is observed on the tape.”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on wherein a ratio of an area occupied by the blank region on the surface of the current collector is 50% or more.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder are changed, the precise parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a ratio of an area occupied by the blank region on the surface of the current collector is 50% or more.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on wherein a content ratio (O/N) of oxygen to nitrogen on the surface of the current collector is 60 or less.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder are changed, the precise parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a content ratio (O/N) of oxygen to nitrogen on the surface of the current collector is 60 or less.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on wherein the surface of the current collector has a water contact angle of 15 degrees or less.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder are changed, the precise parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the surface of the current collector has a water contact angle of 15 degrees or less.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on wherein the network region has a height of 1.4 µm or more.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder are changed, the precise parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the network region has a height of 1.4 µm or more.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on equation 1,
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder are changed, the precise parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed limitations corresponding with equation 1 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on wherein a ratio D90/D10 of a 90% volume cumulative particle diameter D90 of the electrode active material to a 10% volume cumulative particle diameter D10 of the electrode active material is 15 or less.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder are changed, the precise parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a ratio D90/D10 of a 90% volume cumulative particle diameter D90 of the electrode active material to a 10% volume cumulative particle diameter D10 of the electrode active material is 15 or less.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on wherein a ration D1/D2 of an average particle diameter D1 of the electrode active material to an average particle diameter D2 of the particulate binder is from 10 to 1,000.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder are changed, the precise parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a ration D1/D2 of an average particle diameter D1 of the electrode active material to an average particle diameter D2 of the particulate binder is from 10 to 1,000.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 12, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on wherein the electrode active material is comprised in an amount of 1000 to 10000 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the binder.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder are changed, the precise parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the electrode active material is comprised in an amount of 1000 to 10000 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the binder.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the current collector, electrode active material, and particulate binder to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. teaches a electrochemical element, comprising the electrode of claim 1 as a negative electrode or a positive electrode [Fig. 1, 0020].
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode of claim 1 as a negative electrode or a positive electrode [Fig. 1, 0020].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US Pub No. 2012/0135304) in view of Kamine (US Pub No. 2022/0271338)
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on an amount of the binder included in the active material layer is from 0.5 weight% to 10 weight%.
Kamine et al. teaches a binder weight of 0.5 to 4 parts by weight overlapping the claimed 0.5 to 10 weight percent.
Since modified Uchida et al. teaches the use of a bind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the binder of Uchida et al. with the binder percentage of Kamine et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US Pub No. 2012/0135304) in view of Liang (US Pub No. 2021/0288329)
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on wherein the electrode active material is a particulate material having an average particle diameter in a range of 1µm to 100µm.
Liang et al. teaches battery comprising an active material with a particle size of 5 to 15 um [0106] overlapping the claims 1 um to 100 um.
Since modified Uchida et al. teaches the use of a electrode active material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the material of Uchida et al. with the particle sizes of Liang et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US Pub No. 2012/0135304) in view of Sasaki (US Pub No. 2014/0205904)
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on wherein the binder comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of PVDF (poly(vinylidene fluoride)), PVA (poly(vinyl alcohol)), polyvinylpyrrolidone, tetrafluoroethylene, polyethylene, polypropylene, an ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer (EPDM), a sulfonated EPDM, SBR (styrene-butadiene rubber), and fluororubber.
Sasaki et al. teaches a binder comprising materials such as PE or PVDF [0256-0257].
Since modified Uchida et al. teaches the use of a binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the binder material of Uchida et al. with the binder material of Sasaki et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional binder material in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US Pub No. 2012/0135304) in view of Kim (US Pub No. 2021/0135278)
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Uchida et al. is silent on wherein the active material layer has a thickness in a range of 10 um to 500 um.
Kim et al. teaches an active material layer with a thickness of 1 um to about 20 um [0094] overlapping the claim 10 um to 500 um.
Since modified Uchida et al. teaches the use of a active material layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the active material layer of Uchida et al. with the active material layer thickness of Sasaki et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728