DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, wherein claims 1, 4-5, 9 and 12-13 are amended. Claims 1-20 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 111710832 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Zhu), or in the alternative, further in view of Li et al. (US 20200152964 A1, hereafter Li).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Zhu teaches an electrode plate (e.g., “negative electrode sheet”, [0059]-[0061], Fig. 2), comprising a current collector (“2”, Fig. 2) and a membrane (“porous composite layer” plus “silicon-containing anode material layer”, [0012]-[0013]),
wherein the membrane comprises a primer layer (“porous composite layer”, [[0012]) provided on a surface of the current collector ([0014]; Fig. 2) and an active substance layer (“silicon-containing anode material layer”, [0013]) provided on a surface of the primer layer ([0014]; Fig. 2), and the primer layer comprises a first binder (“adhesive polymer material”, [0016]) and a first conductive agent (“inorganic conductive material”, [0016]), and
wherein an adhesion between the membrane and the current collector can be 0.5 N/m to 100 N/m ([0023]). The claimed ranges of “greater than or equal to 20 N/m” and “greater than or equal to 80 N/m” overlap that of 0.5 N/m to 100 N/m, respectively. 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 (I).
As to the claimed property or characteristic that “a compacted density of the membrane is 1.30 g/cm3 - 1.80 g/cm3”, since the claimed and Zhu’s membrane comprising a primer layer and an active substance layer are substantially identical in structure or composition (See the claimed or/and disclosed structure or composition in Zhu and in the instant specification), the said property or characteristic is necessarily present. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As an alternative rejection regarding the limitation of compact limitation, Li discloses that a compact density of a membrane (a negative electrode active material layer) disposed on a current collector is from 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 ([0026]). When using the compact density of 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3, the diffusion rate of manganese ions in the negative active material layer is low, thereby further reducing the ion exchange between the manganese ions and the lithium in the negative electrode, and suppressing the destruction of the negative electrode caused by manganese, improving the stability of the negative electrode ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have incorporated the teachings of Li into Zhu such that the compact density of the membrane of Zhou is 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 in order to achieve the above stated benefits/advantages. As a result, the claimed range of 1.30 g/cm3 - 1.80 g/cm3 overlaps that of 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3. 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 (I).
Regarding claims 2-3, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the primer layer can be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the first binder may comprise, for example, styrene-butadiene rubber ([0020]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein an average particle size (D) of the first conductive agent may be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0019]), and a thickness (H) of the primer layer may be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0017]). Thus, the ratio of D to H is 1, reading on the claimed ranges in claims 6-7.
Regarding claim 8, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the active substance layer comprises a second binder (“a binder” in [0027]) and an active substance, which may be a silicon-based material (e.g., “silicon-containing anode material”, [0012]-[0013], [0027]-[0028]), such as a “silicon-carbon composite materials” ([0028]).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Zhu teaches an electrochemical apparatus (“a lithium-ion secondary battery”, [0048]-[0049]) comprising:
a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (See [0049]),
wherein the negative electrode plate (e.g., “negative electrode sheet”, [0059]-[0061], Fig. 2) comprising a current collector (“2”, Fig. 2) and a membrane (“porous composite layer” plus “silicon-containing anode material layer”, [0012]-[0013]),
wherein the membrane comprises a primer layer (“porous composite layer”, [[0012]) provided on a surface of the current collector ([0014]; Fig. 2) and an active substance layer (“silicon-containing anode material layer”, [0013]) provided on a surface of the primer layer ([0014]; Fig. 2), and the primer layer comprises a first binder (“adhesive polymer material”, [0016]) and a first conductive agent (“inorganic conductive material”, [0016]), and
wherein an adhesion between the membrane and the current collector can be 0.5 N/m to 100 N/m ([0023]). The claimed ranges of “greater than or equal to 20 N/m” and “greater than or equal to 80 N/m” overlap that of 0.5 N/m to 100 N/m, respectively. 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 (I).
As to the claimed property or characteristic that “a compacted density of the membrane is 1.30 g/cm3 - 1.80 g/cm3”, since the claimed and Zhou’s membrane comprising a primer layer and an active substance layer are substantially identical in structure or composition (See the claimed or/and disclosed structure or composition in Zhou and in the instant specification), the said property or characteristic is necessarily present. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As an alternative rejection regarding the limitation of compact limitation, Li discloses that a compact density of a membrane (a negative electrode active material layer) disposed on a current collector is from 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 ([0026]). When using the compact density of 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3, the diffusion rate of manganese ions in the negative active material layer is low, thereby further reducing the ion exchange between the manganese ions and the lithium in the negative electrode, and suppressing the destruction of the negative electrode caused by manganese, improving the stability of the negative electrode ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have incorporated the teachings of Li into Zhou such that the compact density of the membrane of Zhou is 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3 in order to achieve the above stated benefits/advantages. As a result, the claimed range of 1.30 g/cm3 - 1.80 g/cm3 overlaps that of 1.5 g/cm3 to 1.75 g/cm3. 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 (I).
Regarding claims 10-11, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a thickness of the primer layer can be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the first binder may comprise, for example, styrene-butadiene rubber ([0020]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, wherein an average particle size (D) of the first conductive agent may be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0019]), and a thickness (H) of the primer layer may be, for example, 0.5 µm ([0017]). Thus, the ratio of D to H is 1, reading on the claimed ranges in claims 14-15.
Regarding claim 16, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the active substance layer comprises a second binder (“a binder” in [0027]) and an active substance, which may be a silicon-based material (e.g., “silicon-containing anode material”, [0012]-[0013], [0027]-[0028]), such as a “silicon-carbon composite materials” ([0028]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhu in view of Li teaches an electronic device (e.g., “electric vehicles”, [0004]) comprising the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Li, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20160359196 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 17-18, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 9, and the electrochemical apparatus comprises an electrolyte ([0052]) but is silent to an S=O double bond-containing compound as claimed.
However, Kim discloses an electrolyte comprising an S=O double bond-containing compound represented by the following formula ([0017]-[0020]):
PNG
media_image1.png
111
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A lithium secondary battery employing the above electrolyte has excellent high-temperature storage characteristics, excellent low-temperature discharge characteristics, high-rate charge and discharge characteristics, life cycle characteristics, etc. ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have included an S=O double bond-containing compound taught by Kim in the electrolyte of Zhu, in order to achieve advantages stated above. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07.
As a result, the formula shown above reads on claims 17-18.
Regarding claim 19, Zhu in view of Li teaches the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 18, and further teaches the mass percentage of the S=O double bond-containing compound in the electrolyte is adjustable ([0034]). Thus, the ratio of the said mass percentage to the porosity is also adjustable for a given porosity of the membrane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily adjusted the said mass percentage through routine experimentation to arrive at a desired ratio including the range as claimed. Absent persuasive evidence showing that the ratio is significant, selecting a ratio involves a merely ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Feb. 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding what “problems” Zhu and the instant invention address, the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
2) In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (the Kim reference), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
3) Applicant’s arguments with respect to criticalities of the range for “compact density” (page 10) and “each other value or range” (page 11) are not persuasive because the data do not prove the criticalities. Claims 17-19 would not be allowable even if a criticality is successfully demonstrated (note that the office does not concede there is a criticality), because claim 9, on which claims 17-19 depend, is not allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727