DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-15 are pending and are examined herein.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 101937983 to Li et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Anderson (US Patent No. 7,427,316 to Anderson et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches:
an anode slurry production process wherein a negative electrode slurry composed of active material, a binder, a thickener, and deionized water as a solvent is combined in a slurry mixture (p. 1)
wherein the thickener is carboxymethyl cellulose that includes a cellulosic preservative (p. 2)
Li does not explicitly teach:
a preservative as claimed with a tropone-like ring structure
Anderson, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a cellulosic preservative (column 2 lines 16-23), teaches the use of tropolone or hinokitiol as a preservative in combination with a metal salt (column 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a tropolone-like molecule, as discussed in Anderson, as the preservative in Li, since they were known cellulosic preservatives in the art. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 2-5, Anderson renders obvious:
hinokitiol (column 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a tropolone-like molecule, as discussed in Anderson, as the preservative in Li, since they were known cellulosic preservatives in the art. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6, Li teaches:
wherein the preservatives are 0.01-10 wt% of the aqueous solvent (page 2)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Li teaches:
a method for manufacturing a negative electrode by applying the slurry onto a current collector, and forming a lithium ion secondary battery (e.g. p. 3)
Regarding Claim 9, Li teaches:
a negative electrode slurry composed of active material, a binder, a thickener, and deionized water as a solvent is combined in a slurry mixture (p. 1)
wherein the thickener is carboxymethyl cellulose that includes a cellulosic preservative (p. 2)
wherein the slurry is coated onto a copper foil to form an electrode (p. 3)
Li does not explicitly teach:
a preservative as claimed with a tropone-like ring structure
Anderson, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a cellulosic preservative (column 2 lines 16-23), teaches the use of tropolone or hinokitiol as a preservative in combination with a metal salt (column 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a tropolone-like molecule, as discussed in Anderson, as the preservative in Li, since they were known cellulosic preservatives in the art. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 10-13, Anderson renders obvious:
hinokitiol (column 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a tropolone-like molecule, as discussed in Anderson, as the preservative in Li, since they were known cellulosic preservatives in the art. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 14, Li teaches:
wherein the preservatives are 0.01-10 wt% of the aqueous solvent (page 2)
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]).
Regarding Claim 15, Li teaches:
a lithium ion secondary battery (e.g. p. 3)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights