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 Interpretation
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s ¶ 0016 in which the term “perforating” is defined to be the generation of at least one aperture extending through the entire thickness of a foil.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugikawa (US 6500582 B1).
With regards to claims 11 and 30, Sugikawa teaches a method of producing a cathode for a lithium-ion battery (col 1 ln 8-21, the method is for producing an electrode which includes positive or negative electrodes for lithium primary or secondary batteries, col 8 ln 1-34) comprising providing a carrier foil (10), applying a coating compound which comprises a particulate auxiliary material (20) to at least one main face of the foil and compressing the compound to form an electrode film on the carrier foil in which the foil is perforated by the particulate during compression (Fig. 1 shows the coating at rollers 22A/B and compression at rollers 30-33 to perforate as seen in Fig. 3A-3D).
With regards to claim 29, Sugikawa teaches using a foil with a thickness of 58 micrometers and a powder with an average particle size of 40 micrometers which is more than 0.5 times the thickness of the foil (col 12 ln 16-55).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12-19, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugikawa (US 6500582 B1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Iwasaki et al. (Pub No 2018/0083269).
With regards to claim 12, Sugikawa teaches that the particular powder material applies to the foil depends upon the battery type such that the powder applied may also including a conductive agent such as carbon (col 8 ln 1-27) but does not teach the materials listed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Iwasaki teaches that an improved electrode active material comprises a composite of active material particles and auxiliary particles (Abstract, Fig. 1) in which the auxiliary particles may include insulator particles such as boehmite (¶ 0069) or solid electrolyte particles such as lithium ion conductors (¶ 0072-0075). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have included such additional particles in the active material composition of Sugikawa. Both Sugikawa and Iwasaki relate to forming lithium battery electrodes, and Sugikawa teaches that the particle powder composition is not limited and is dependent upon the battery desired (col 8 ln 1-27). Doing so presents a simple substitution of one known active material composition for another yielding predictable results.
With regards to claims 13-14, Iwasaki teaches using Boehmite, the same suitable compound as applicant.
With regards to claim 15, Sugikawa teaches that it is known to include carbon and Iwasaki teaches including conductive agents such as graphite, nanotubes and carbon black (¶ 0080).
With regards to claim 16, Iwasaki teaches that it is known to include a binder such as PVdf (¶ 0082). While Sugikawa teaches that the method of producing the electrode does not require a binder (col 8 ln 1-27), it remains obvious to one of ordinary skill to include a binder if desired to aid in binding of the composite active material. It is within the skill of one in the art to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of binder that is known to improve adhesion while decreasing electrical conductivity predictably. Sugikawa teaches that both methods produce the part (Fig. 2A, 2B).
With regards to claim 17, Sugikawa teaches coating and pressing the coating compound (Fig. 1).
With regards to claims 18 and 19, Sugikawa in view of Iwasaki teaches that the compound includes a cathode active material as applied to claim 12 above.
With regards to claim 27, Iwasaki does not teach the particular shape of the auxiliary material particles; however, barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a non-perfectly spherical particle such that there exists at least one of the claimed features as mere changes in shape present a case of prima facie obviousness as discussed in MPEP 2144 and one would be motivated as perfectly spherical particles present a challenge in manufacturing.
With regards to claim 28, Iwasaki teaches that the auxiliary particles can be secondary particles that are agglomerated primary particles (¶ 0035).
Claim(s) 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugikawa (US 6500582 B1) in view of Iwasaki et al. (Pub No 2018/0083269) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (Pub No 2016/0211505).
With regards to claims 20, 21 and 24, Sugikawa in view of Iwasaki as applied to claim 19 teaches coating a current collector with a first coating compound, but does not teach a step of applying an active material coating compound temporally after the coating compound is applied.
In the same field of endeavor of electrodes for batteries Yamazaki teaches that it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to produce multi-layer electrodes by applying a layer comprising active material to an existing layer on an electrode utilizing a series of nozzles (Abstract, Fig. 3, ¶ 0017). This allows for different compositions to be applied as desired (¶ 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize a multi-layer deposition technique in Sugikawa in order to increase options available for varying the composition as such is a known technique in the art of electrode manufacturing presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so utilizes a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
With regards to claims 22 and 23, Yamazaki teaches that layers of a desired thickness can be formed (¶ 0087-0089) and barring a showing of unexpected results the mere changes in relative size or dimension present a case of prima facie obviousness as discussed in MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 PM 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights