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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “poly(acetylene)-based polymer” in line 4 and it is recommended to change this to “a poly(acetylene)-based polymer” for consistency with the recitations of the other listed polymers in the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Applicant provided non-patent literature titled “Poly(3-butylthiophene)-based positive-temperature-coefficient electrodes for safer lithium-ion batteries”) in view of Park et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20130123492A), Maruyama et al. (US 20160006036) and Li et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Synergism of molecular weight, crystallization and morphology of poly(3-butylthiophene) for photovoltaic applications”) and with or without Nishizawa et al. (US 20180281366).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses an electrode (Abstract) for an electrochemical device (lithium-ion battery) comprising: an electrode current collector (Al foil, Abstract); a conductive polymer layer (poly (3-butylthiophene) (P3BT), Abstract) that is located on at least one surface of the electrode current collector (Abstract); and an electrode active material layer (electroactive Li[Ni0.5Co0.2Mn0.3]O2 layer, Abstract) that is located on an upper surface of the conductive polymer layer and includes an electrode active material (Abstract), wherein the conductive polymer layer includes a poly(thiophene)-based polymer (P3BT, Abstract) represented by Chemical Formula 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
181
499
media_image1.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, 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_image2.png
144
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
are different from each other in that Zhang et al. discloses poly(3-butylthiophene) where one of m or n is 0 and one Rn is hydrogen while the other has 4 carbon atoms such that 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.
Zhang et al. discloses the electrode-active material comprises a binder polymer (polyvinylidene fluoride, page 174, section 2) or otherwise 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 Zhang et al. wherein the electrode active material layer includes a binder polymer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a binder to achieve the predictable result of binding materials in the electrode active material layer and/or binding the electrode active material layer to other layers.
Zhang et al. does not expressly disclose a molecular weight for the poly(thiophene)-based polymer.
However, Zhang et al. cites Li et al. (see reference [30] of Zhang et al.) who disclose molecular weights of poly(3-butylthiophene) used by Zhang et al. and Li et al. teaches an overlapping range of 7000-50000 Da (Abstract, and 1 Dalton = 1 g/mol).
Further, Maruyama et al. discloses an electrode (Abstract) and teaches using a conductive polymer which is a poly(thiophene)-based polymer meeting Chemical Formula 1 (Poly(3-dodecylthiophene-2,5-diyl), para. [0090]) and further teaches the poly(thiophene)-based polymer has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 60,000 g/mol (para. [0090]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to select the poly(thiophene)-based polymer with a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 30,000-60,000 g/mol as a conventional molecular weight range of poly(thiophene)-based conductive polymers and which is a commercially available product (Maruyama et al., para. [0052]) which achieves adequate electrical conductivity (Maruyama et al., para. [0043]).
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 Li et al. or Maruyama et al. at least 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.
Further, Nishizawa et al. discloses conductive polymers which may include polythiophenes (para. [0047]) and which may be used with an electrode (para. [0046]) and Nishizawa et al. teaches an overlapping range and that increasing molecular weight of the polymer enhances adhesive strength (para. [0062]).
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 Zhang et al. wherein a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the conductive polymer is between 30,000-60,000 g/mol in order to achieve a desired level of adhesion.
Again, 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 Nishizawa et al. at least 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.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. discloses wherein: the m or n is 0 (P3BT, Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. at least discloses an overlapping range for the thickness of the conductive polymer layer (“less than 0.2 µm”, page 175).
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 Zhang et al. wherein: the conductive polymer layer has a thickness of 0.1 μm to 8 μm.
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 Zhang et al. at least 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.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. discloses the electrode is a positive electrode (cathode, page 174, section 2).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang et al. discloses an electrochemical device comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode (oxidative cathode and reductive anode, page 173, section 1), and a separator (polypropylene separator, page 174, section 2) and Zhang et al. presumably includes the separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the positive electrode or the negative electrode comprises the electrode for an electrochemical device according to claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above).
Assuming, arguendo, that Zhang et al. does not disclose the separator is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; Park et al. further teaches this configuration (para. [0054]).
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 Zhang et al. wherein the separator is interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a separator between the electrodes.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Applicant provided non-patent literature titled “Poly(3-butylthiophene)-based positive-temperature-coefficient electrodes for safer lithium-ion batteries”) in view of Park et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20130123492A), Maruyama et al. (US 20160006036) and Li et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Synergism of molecular weight, crystallization and morphology of poly(3-butylthiophene) for photovoltaic applications”) and with or without Nishizawa et al. (US 20180281366) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ningbo Antemu New Energy Tech Co LTD (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 110718674A) hereinafter “Ningbo”.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang 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 Zhang 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 Zhang et al. (Applicant provided non-patent literature titled “Poly(3-butylthiophene)-based positive-temperature-coefficient electrodes for safer lithium-ion batteries”) in view of Park et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20130123492A), Maruyama et al. (US 20160006036) and Li et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Synergism of molecular weight, crystallization and morphology of poly(3-butylthiophene) for photovoltaic applications”) and with or without Nishizawa et al. (US 20180281366) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Faddeev et al. (previously attached non-patent literature) and Ryu et al. (US 20170214086).
Regarding claim 3, insomuch as Zhang et al. is silent as to an interface resistance, the conductive polymer layer would be expected to have similar interface resistance to the claimed value as both the claimed invention and Zhang 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 Zhang 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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Applicant provided non-patent literature titled “Poly(3-butylthiophene)-based positive-temperature-coefficient electrodes for safer lithium-ion batteries”) in view of Park et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 20130123492A), Maruyama et al. (US 20160006036) and Li et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Synergism of molecular weight, crystallization and morphology of poly(3-butylthiophene) for photovoltaic applications”) and with or without Nishizawa et al. (US 20180281366) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lange et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102015206146A1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. discloses poly(3-hexylthiophene) may be used (page 177, section 4) such that 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 or otherwise Lange et al. discloses an electrode (cathode or anode, shown below) for an electrochemical device (para. [0007]) shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
499
774
media_image3.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 meeting Chemical Formula 1 and 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]).
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 Zhang et al. wherein 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 person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use other conductive polymers known to be used in a conductive polymer layer.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. does not expressly disclose wherein: 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.
However, Lange et al. (see above for claim 5) 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 (“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]).
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 Zhang et al. wherein 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.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known components for a conductive polymer layer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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