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
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.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102015206146A1) in view of Park et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20130123493).
Regarding claim 1, Lange et al. discloses an electrode (cathode or anode, shown below) for an electrochemical device (para. [0007]) shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
499
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lange et al. discloses the electrode comprises: an electrode current collector (anode collector 11 or cathode collector 11’); a conductive polymer layer (polymer coating 12 or 12’) that is located on at least one surface of the electrode current collector (Fig. 1 and shown above); and an electrode active material layer (anode material 13 or cathode material 13’) that is located on an upper surface of the conductive polymer layer (Fig. 1) and includes an electrode active material (para. [0027]); wherein the conductive polymer layer includes a poly(thiophene)-based polymer represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
254
806
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R1, R2, R3 and R4 are each independently hydrogen or a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and at least one of a total number of carbon atoms of R1 and R2 or a total number of carbon atoms of R3 and R4 is 3 or more (the combined total of R1 and R2 or R3 and R4 is 10 carbon atoms using 3-decylthiophene, para. [0040]), m and n are each independently an integer of 0 to 20,000, and m+n>0, and when m and n are each 1 or above,
PNG
media_image3.png
178
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
are different from each other (which is met by Lange et al. at least because Lange et al. discloses the polymer comprises a monomer, para. [0037], which may be 3-decylthiophene, para. [0040], whereby R1/R3 is hydrogen and R2/R4 has 10 carbon atoms and R1+R2 or R3+R4 has more than three carbon atoms and where m or n is 0).
Lange et al. does not explicitly disclose the electrode active material comprises a binder polymer.
However, Park et al. discloses an electrode for an electrochemical device (electrode for a battery, Abstract) having an electrode active material layer (layer 20, para. [0040]) and a polymer layer (layer 30) comprising a conductive polymer such as a polythiophene (para. [0027]) and Park et al. teaches the electrode active material layer comprises an electrode active material and a binder polymer (pars. [0041] and [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lange et al. wherein the electrode active material layer includes a binder.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to include a binder to achieve the predictable result of binding materials in the electrode active material layer and binding the electrode active material layer to other layers.
Regarding claim 4, Lange et al. discloses wherein: at least one of a total number of carbon atoms of R1 and R2 or a total number of carbon atoms of R3 and R4 is 5 or more (the combined total of R1 and R2 or R3 and R4 is 10 carbon atoms using 3-decylthiophene, para. [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Lange et al. discloses only one monomer may be used in the polymer (“at least one monomer may comprise or be 3-decylthiophene”, para. [0040]) such that either m or n is 0.
Regarding claim 7, Lange et al. discloses the conductive polymer layer further comprises a poly(aniline)-based polymer; a poly(pyrrole)-based polymer; a poly(phenylene)-based polymer; poly(acetylene)-based polymer; derivatives thereof; or two or more kinds thereof (“and/or”, para. [0020]).
It is noted that Park et al. also teaches the conductive polymer layer further comprises a poly(aniline)-based polymer; a poly(pyrrole)-based polymer; a poly(phenylene)-based polymer; poly(acetylene)-based polymer; derivatives thereof; or two or more kinds thereof (“at least one selected from the group consisting of polyacetylene, polyaniline, polypyrrole, polythiophene……”, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Lange et al. discloses wherein the electrode is a positive electrode (discloses both an anode and cathode, Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Lange et al. discloses an electrochemical device (para. [0007]) comprising a positive electrode (cathode, Abstract, cathode material 13’, Fig. 1), a negative electrode (anode material 13, Fig. 1), and a separator (separator 14) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Fig. 1), wherein the positive electrode or the negative electrode comprises the electrode for an electrochemical device according to claim 1 (either could comprise the electrode of claim 1 as both have a polymer layer 12/12’, see comments for claim 1 above).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102015206146A1) in view of Park et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20130123493) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ningbo Antemu New Energy Tech Co LTD (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 110718674A) hereinafter “Ningbo”.
Regarding claim 2, Lange et al. does not expressly disclose an adhesive strength.
However, Ningbo discloses a conductive polymer layer for an electrode (Abstract) where the conductive polymer layer comprises polythiophene (claim 3) and Ningbo further discloses an adhesive strength between the conductive polymer layer and the electrode current collector is 200 gf/20 mm or more (Example 1, using a polythiophene, 150.3 N/m, para. [0023], where 150.3 N/m = 0.1503 N/mm = 3.006 N /20 mm = 306.5 gf/20 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lange et al. wherein an adhesive strength between the conductive polymer layer and the electrode current collector is 200 gf/20 mm or more.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a mixture of binder, polymer, powder and a cross-linking component (Ningbo, para. [0005]) to achieve a higher adhesion strength (such as 306.5 gf/20 mm) in order to prevent increased impendence and increased temperatures within a battery/electrochemical system (Ningbo, para. [0007]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102015206146A1) in view of Park et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20130123493) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Faddeev et al. (attached non-patent literature) and Ryu et al. (US 20170214086).
Regarding claim 3, Lange et al. is silent as to an interface resistance, but the conductive polymer layer would be expected to have similar interface resistance to the claimed value as both the claimed invention and Lange et al. disclose the conductive polymers are polythiophenes having combined R-groups with more than 3 carbons as the conductive polymer.
Otherwise, Faddeev et al. teaches that conductive polymer composite materials may have improved resistance when resin content is decreased and when graphite filler is used and Faddeev et al. discloses the conductive polymer material has interfacial contacting resistance of 0.035 Ω·cm2 (Abstract).
Further, Ryu et al. discloses coating the electrode collector with a conductive polymer such as comprising polythiophenes (para. [0072]) and teaches reducing interfacial resistance by increasing contact area (para. [0176]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lange et al. by altering the contact shape (Ryu et al., e.g. using porous net shape, para. [0071]) to increase surface area and to select binders, fillers, resins, etc. in the conductive polymer layer which improve interface resistance such as to achieve a resistance less than 3.0 Ω·cm2 between the conductive polymer layer and the electrode active material layer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to decrease interfacial resistance in order to improve battery performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102015206146A1) in view of Park et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20130123493) as applied to claim 1 above and with or without Yanada et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2006310384A).
Regarding claim 6, Lange et al. discloses wherein: the conductive polymer layer has a thickness of 0.1 μm to 8 μm in that Lange et al. discloses an overlapping range (0.05-2 µm, para. [0024]).
Further, Yanada et al. discloses an electrode for an electrochemical device (para. [0001]) having a conductive polymer layer (conductive polymer layer 2) comprising a polythiophene (pars. [0021]-[0022]) and Yanada et al. also teaches an overlapping thickness range (0.05-10µm, para. [0033]) as a range not too thick to prevent stress (para. [0033]) and thin enough for a good resistance value (para. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lange et al. by selecting a thickness value in a range such as 0.1 μm to 8 μm to prevent stress and provide for a good resistance value.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Lange et al. or Lange et al. in view of Yanada et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102015206146A1) in view of Park et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20130123493) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20200044237).
Regarding claim 10, Lange et al. is silent as to a molecular weight.
However, Yamaguchi et al. discloses an electrode for an electrochemical device (Abstract) having a conductive polymer layer (active layer 113, para. [0028]) where the polymer may include polythiophene (para. [0029]) and Yamaguchi et al. teaches an overlapping molecular weight (1,000-100,000, para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lange et al. wherein the poly(thiophene)-based polymer has a weight average molecular weight (MW) of 10,000 g/mol to 100,000 g/mol.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select known ranges of conductive polymer to produce the expected result of providing a polymer with conductive properties. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Lange et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Assuming, arguendo, that the range is not disclosed by Lange et al. in view of Yamaguchi et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of molecular weight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the electrode of Lange et al. with the molecular weight recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hayashi et al. (US 20210057754) discloses an electrode for an electrochemical device (Abstract) and teaches using two or more conductive polymers (para. [0060]).
Zhu et al. (attached non-patent literature) discloses the use of poly(3,4-dihexylthiophene) in an anode-active material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights