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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 5/12/26. Claims 1 and 15 are amended. Claim 8 is canceled. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2020/0203767) in view of Dahl et al. (US 2019/0173084).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Cheng teaches a positive electrode, or cathode, for an electrochemical apparatus, or cell ([0039]-[0040]) comprising:
a current collector ([0039]);
a positive electrode active material layer comprising a positive active material ([0026]-[0027]) and graphene ([0028]), wherein the particle diameter volume average Dv50 is 0.1 to 50 µm ([0026]) and the sheet diameter D1 of the graphene is 10nm to 1 µm ([0028]-[0029]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of Dv50/D1 completely encompasses the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
With further regard to claim 1 and regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches Dv50 but is silent on Dv10.
Dahl teaches that the Dv10 for a particle size of cathode active material wherein the Dv50 is 3 to 25 µm (analogous to the range of Cheng discussed above), and wherein Dv10, Dv90, and the particle size distribution in general is result effective for processability of the battery electrode and for improvement of the volumetric energy density of the battery ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to optimize the particle size distribution, and therefore the Dv10 and Dv99 values, of the active material of Cheng such as suggested by Dahl in order to improve processability and volumetric energy density. It has been held that discovering optimum or workable ranges is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 II A
As for claims 3 and 17, Cheng teaches a range of Dv50 of 5 to 25 µm ([0026]).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Cheng teaches n is up to 30 ([0029]).
With regard to claims 5 and 19, the examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range completely encompasses the claimed range as discussed above with reference to claim 4. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claims 11-12, Cheng teaches that the active material is, for example, lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide ([0027]).
As for claim 13, Cheng teaches that the graphene is, for example, 1wt% (Table 1).
With regard to claim 20, Cheng teaches an electronic apparatus, e.g. a vehicle ([0002]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurose et al. (US 6,824,924).
The teachings of Cheng as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Cheng teaches that the active material layer further comprises a granular conductive agent such as carbon black ([0031]) but is silent on the particle size as required by claim 6.
Kurose teaches a carbon-based conductive agent, and further teaches that the particle diameter of the conductive agent is result effective for balancing capacity increase with cycle life (column 3 line 65 - column 4 line 4).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to optimize the particle size of the conductive agent of Cheng such as suggested by Kurose in order to balance capacity increase with cycle life. It has been held that discovering optimum or workable ranges is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 II A
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshima et al. (US 2019/0296351).
The teachings of Cheng as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Cheng teaches the electrode material layer of claim 1 but is silent on the sheet resistance.
Yoshima teaches that the sheet resistance of an active material layer is result effective for balancing improving output performance and life performance with energy density ([0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to optimize the sheet resistance of the active material layer of Cheng such as suggested by Yoshima in order to balance improving output performance and life performance with energy density. It has been held that discovering optimum or workable ranges is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 II A
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawa et al. (US 20220149435).
The teachings of Cheng as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Cheng is silent on the compacted and coating areal density of the active material layer.
Sawa teaches an active material layer wherein the density of the layer is result effective for balancing permeability of the electrolyte solution with good charge-discharge characteristics ([0226]-[0227]). The examiner finds that compacted and coating areal density are related and are optimized together.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to optimize the compacted and coating areal density of the active material layer of Cheng such as suggested by Sawa in order to balance permeability of the electrolyte solution with good charge-discharge characteristics. It has been held that discovering optimum or workable ranges is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 II A
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, beginning at the bottom of page 7 and continuing onto pages 8-9, that it would not have been obvious to the skilled artisan to optimize the particle size of the particles of Cheng such as suggested by Dahl. Applicant further argues, beginning at the bottom of page 8, that, based on Table 4, that the ratio of Dv99 to D1 is not “merely an optimization of particle-size distribution alone.” However, Applicant does not point to any specific data to support this point. Further, based on [0245] of the published specification, which is found directly below Table 4 in the published specification, in fact, the Applicants suggest that it is the active material particle size that creates the desirable, or optimized, sheet resistance when combined with a D1 of the graphene.
Further, it does not appear from Table 4 that Dv99 is a critical value for optimizing the particle size distribution. It appears merely to be the parameter Applicant chose to measure for quantifying particle size distribution.
While Applicant is not specifically arguing that the claimed range is critical, the examiner finds that the data in Table 4 show predictable sheet resistance based on the Dv99/D1 ratio, since the sheet resistance decreases as the ratio increases. Additionally, Applicant is reminded that, in order to show criticality of claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d) II
Finally, Applicant is reminded that the optimization rationale relied upon above states that, “wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (emphasis added by the examiner). The skilled artisan will easily understand that the teachings of Dahl to particle size distribution are within the scope of the generally conditions of the claim, and that the optimization rationale does not require the exact conditions of the claim (i.e., the exact parameters of the claimed ratio) in order for the skilled artisan to be capable of discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
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 ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights