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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9, the use of “preferably”, “optionally”, and “most optionally” render the claims indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Also in claim 1, “each R” is indefinite because it is unclear to exactly which R groups are being referred to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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 1-3, 5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Aoki et al. (“Aoki”, US 2018/0233750 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10 and 11, Aoki discloses a slurry for a positive electrode of a lithium-ion secondary battery (abstract). Aoki teaches the positive electrode slurry is coated on a current collector to produce a positive electrode ([0006]).
Aoki teaches using a thickening dispersant for increasing the binding property, increasing dispersibility, and improving the stability of the slurry ([0072]). The thickening dispersant (D) contains a polyalkylene oxide having a phenyl group in the side chain ([0073]-[0074]), which is considered to read on the polyether polyol as claimed in claim 1 and 2. See formula (I) in [0074]).
As to claim 3, Aoki teaches multiple examples of thickening dispersants with a Mw of 80,000 (see Table 1).
As to claim 5, Aoki teaches examples of the positive electrode active material include a lithium cobalt oxide, inter alia ([0039]).
Claims 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki.
As to claim 4, Aoki teaches the content of the polyalkylene oxide having a phenyl group in the side chain is 5 parts by mass or more, with respect to 100 parts by mass of the thickening dispersant ([0092]), and the content of the thickening dispersant (D) is 0.2 to 5.0 parts by mass with respect to the positive electrode material ([0090]), which overlaps the claimed range. [0.05 x 0.2 = 0.04]
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 6, Aoki does not teach the gel state factor G of the positive electrode slurry ranges from 0 to 1.
However, Aoki teaches keeping the viscosity of the positive electrode slurry at a desired range such that the coating properties of the slurry on the current collector is excellent ([0089]).
Based on the teachings of Aoki considering the thickness, viscosity, and dispersion to maintain excellent binding and coating properties, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the viscosity, thickness, or “gel state” through routine experimentation for excellent binding and coating properties.
As to claim 7, Aoki teaches application of the positive electrode slurry to the current collector ([0111]).
Aoki does not teach the mass of the positive electrode film layer per unit area.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the mass of the positive electrode film layer for optimal battery performance, as appropriately setting the thickness, length and width of the coating layer ([0111]) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claims 8 and 9, Aoki does not teach the specific results claimed involving no cracks produced and an infiltration increase rate.
However, since Aoki teaches all the limitations of the positive electrode slurry, including the polyether polyol claimed, the resulting properties would be presumed to be substantially identical.
See MPEP 2144.09. A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights