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 claim(s) 1-20 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
Claims 1, 21, and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, when defining the values of the subscripts, the applicant clarifies that in cases where more than one element is present of the A, B, C and D groups, the respective subscripts are equal to the sum of the stoichiometric numbers of the elements in each group [0080] at least. While this does not render the claims indefinite in view of the specification, the examiner recommends adding this information in the listed claims for added clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7, 8, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210043928-A1 (Yamamoto), in view of US-20140138591-A1 (Yoon), US-20130209886-A1 (O), and WO-2020206606-A1 (H).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a positive electrode plate (11), comprising a positive
electrode current collector (11A), a positive electrode film layer (31) provided on at least one surface of
the positive electrode current collector, and a conductive undercoat layer (32) between the positive
electrode current collector and the positive electrode film layer, wherein: the positive electrode film
layer comprises a positive electrode active material having a chemical formula of LitN1-x-yCOxAlyO2
(wherein 0.95≤t≤1.15, 0≤x≤0.3, 0.1≤y≤0.2, and x+y<0.5) (Paragraph 79); and the conductive undercoat
layer includes a first polymer (“a binder”, Paragraph 15), a first water-based binder (“a polymer
particle”, Paragraph 65), and a first conductive agent (Paragraph 14), wherein the first polymer
comprises carboxymethylcellulose (Paragraph 51).
Yamamoto does not teach the positive active material claimed in the instant claim 1.
Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material comprising an olivinic phase lithium iron manganese phosphate compound [0092]. Yoon teaches a specific example of such a material where the formula is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
41
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoon teaches the Mn may have a stoichiometric number of 0.5 or less [0093]. Yoon teaches the sum of the stoichiometric numbers of the Mn, Fe, and other dopants (which includes Co, Nb and V in this case) add to 1 [0092]. Yoon teaches PO4- may have a stochiometric number of “about 1.000 greater than to about 1.025” [0102]. Yoon teaches the dopants compensate for deficiencies at the Li, M, and O-sites [0105]. Yoon teaches doping with Nb or V improves the electronic conductivity of the olivine powder and allowing for full sintering of the olivine particles to allow full lithium capacity during fast charge and discharge [0133]. Yoon teaches O deficiencies may be filled by halogens (such as F) [0105].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention, in the process of optimizing for maximum lithium capacity and completeness of sintering, would have found it obvious to adjust the stoichiometric ratios of the components of the equation in [0128] in order to balance the benefits of the individual components which are taught above.
In the process of doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived to a substance with stoichiometric ratios that fall inside the claimed ranges of the instant claim 1. In the specific case of Mn, while the subscript in [0128] is 0.450, it is specified in other examples to be 0.500 [0114], meaning there is no reason to not adjust this value during optimization within the provided bounds of 0.350 to 0.5 [0093]. Similarly, Fe, V, Co, Nb and F may be adjusted within their respective ranges specified in [0094-100].
Yoon does not teach the doping of the P-site.
O teaches an olivine cathode active material where the P-site is doped with Si, enabling the volume change during deintercalation of Li to be suppressed and suppressing the capacity decrease during charging and discharging [0025-0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to dope the P-site of the positive active material of Yoon with Si in order to achieve the benefit of suppressing capacity decreases during charging and discharging. It would have been obvious because both Yoon and O teach olivine structured cathode active materials with PO4 groups and O teaches a clear benefit of reducing the capacity decrease during charging and discharging. In doing so, this would bring the subscript of P into line with the claimed range of that of the instant because O teaches a subscript y for Si which is in the range of 0 and 0.5 [0028], P has a subscript of 1-y. Finally, the subscript of O in the final substance of the combination of Yoon and O would be adjusted proportionally to the subscript of F, because F is a halogen doping the O site (Yoon [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to substitute the positive active material of Yoon and O for the positive active material of Yamamoto in order to achieve the taught benefits of increased electronic conductivity and reduced loss of capacity over charging and discharging. It would have been obvious to do because doing so would amount to no more than the substitution of one known cathode active material for another in order to achieve a taught benefit.
Yamamoto, Yoon, and O do not teach an undercoat layer comprising a polymer with the functional groups claimed in the instant claim 1.
H teaches a cathode with a binder that is HNBR with an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid (p6/l31-p7/l4). H teaches the benefit of the binder is an optimal balance of resistivity and peel strength (p4/l16-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the CMC of Yamamoto with the HNBR of H in order to achieve the benefits of an optimal balance of resistivity and peel strength. It would have been obvious to do so because HNBR is a known alternative for electrode binder in the art of batteries with taught benefits that may predictably be achieved through such a substitution.
H teaches the HNBR has an acrylonitrile group (p6/l11) which meets the requirements of formula 1 and therefore monomer 1 of the instant. H teaches the HNBR has a conjugated diene unit (p6/l25), which meets the requirements of formula 4 and therefore monomer 3 of the instant. H teaches the HNBR has a carboxylic acid group (p7/l5) which meets the requirements of formula 6 and therefore monomer 4 of the instant. H teaches the diene is preferably hydrogenated to 95% or more (p10/l23-28), which means that the HNBR would have a group meeting the requirements of formulas 2 or 3 of the instant and therefore monomer 2.
The combination of the cited references as justified and applied above render the instant claim 1 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 2, H teaches the HNBR has a mass percentage of the nitrile group of 10 to 60%, which corresponds to M1 of the instant. H teaches the HNBR has a mass percentage of the diene group of 40 to 90%, and that it is preferably 95% saturated or more. This means that the mass percentage of the monomers that meet the requirements of formulas 2 or 3 is 38-90%, which corresponds to M2 of the instant. Conversely, the percentage of monomers that meet the requirements of formulas 4 or 5 of the instant is 0-4.5%, which corresponds to M3 of the instant. See p11/l5-20 for citations for the previous numbers. H teaches the carboxylic acid group has a mass percentage of 3-10% (p6/l32-35) which corresponds to M4 of the instant. These ranges all overlap the ranges of the instant claim 2, rendering claim 2 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 3, S teaches M3/(M2+M3) is between 0 and 10.5%, which encompasses the claimed range of the instant.
Regarding claim 4, S teaches a binder comprising HNBR with a weight-average molecular weight of 110,000-150,000 g/mol (p9/l1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the first water-based binder may comprise
polyvinylidene fluoride (polyvinylidene fluoride, Paragraph 65). Yamamoto teaches the first conductive agent may comprise carbon blacks (carbon blacks, Paragraph 49).
The examiner is interpreting claim language “and/or” to mean that the limitation “the first
water-based binder has a weight-average molecular weight of 200,000-1,500,000.” to be optional and will not address this limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto teaches the undercoat layer comprises, based on a total mass of
the undercoat layer, 5 to 20 mass% conductive agent (Paragraph 49), corresponding to X3 of the instant, 3 to 20 mass% first polymer (Paragraph 51), corresponding to X1 of the instant, and 5 to 40 mass% first water-based binder (Paragraph 67), corresponding to X2.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of X1 being 5%-20%.
However, the range corresponding to X1 Yamamoto teaches encompasses the claimed range.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the
overlapping portion of the claimed first polymer range in order to arrive at favorable undercoat
composition.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of X2 being 30%-80%.
However, the range corresponding to X2 Yamamoto teaches overlaps with the claimed range.
While Yamamoto teaches that the more preferred range is 10 to 20% (Paragraph 67), Yamamoto does not teach the overlapping portion from 30 to 40% would be discouraged.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the
overlapping portion of the claimed first water-based binder range in order to arrive at favorable
undercoat composition.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of X3 being 10%-50%.
However, the range corresponding to X3 Yamamoto teaches overlaps with the claimed range.
Yamamoto does not the overlapping portion from 10 to 20% would be discouraged.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the
overlapping portion of the claimed conductive agent range in order to arrive at favorable undercoat
composition.
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto teaches the thickness of the undercoat layer is preferably 0.2 to
20 μm (Paragraph 47).
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the claimed range of undercoat layer thickness being 1-
20 μm.
However, the range of undercoat layer thickness Yamamoto teaches encompasses the claimed
range.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the
overlapping portion of the undercoat layer thickness range in order to arrive at favorable undercoat
structure.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yoon and O teaches a positive electrode active material with a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
41
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the modification of O replaces the phosphorus with Si. This is explained in full in the rejection of claim 1. The only difference between claim 19 and claim 1 is the addition of Zn and Mg as options of “A” in the instant formula, as well as requiring two “B” dopants. The “A” dopant of Yoon is Nb, and the “B” dopants of Yoon are Fe, Co, and V. Si is the “C” dopant and F is the “D” dopant. Claim 19 does not modify the subscript ranges. Therefore, claim 19 is unpatentable over the cited references.
Regarding claim 20, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention, in the process of optimizing for maximum lithium capacity and completeness of sintering, would have found it obvious to adjust the stoichiometric ratios of the components of the equation in [0128] in order to balance the benefits of the individual components which are taught above.
In the process of doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived to a substance with stoichiometric ratios that fall inside the claimed ranges of the instant claim 20. In the specific case of Mn, while the subscript in [0128] is 0.450, it is specified in other examples to be 0.500 [0114], meaning there is no reason to not adjust this value during optimization within the provided bounds of 0.350 to 0.5 [0093]. Similarly, Fe, V, Co, Nb and F may be adjusted within their respective ranges specified in [0094-100]. This process of optimization, which was previously explained in the rejection of claim 1, would still render the narrowed ranges of claim 20 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 21, Yamamoto teaches a positive electrode plate (11), comprising a positive
electrode current collector (11A), a positive electrode film layer (31) provided on at least one surface of
the positive electrode current collector, and a conductive undercoat layer (32) between the positive
electrode current collector and the positive electrode film layer, wherein: the positive electrode film
layer comprises a positive electrode active material having a chemical formula of LitN1-x-yCOxAlyO2
(wherein 0.95≤t≤1.15, 0≤x≤0.3, 0.1≤y≤0.2, and x+y<0.5) (Paragraph 79); and the conductive undercoat
layer includes a first polymer (“a binder”, Paragraph 15), a first water-based binder (“a polymer
particle”, Paragraph 65), and a first conductive agent (Paragraph 14), wherein the first polymer
comprises carboxymethylcellulose (Paragraph 51).
Yamamoto does not teach the positive active material claimed in the instant claim 21.
Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material comprising an olivinic phase lithium iron manganese phosphate compound [0092]. Yoon teaches a specific example of such a material where the formula is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
41
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoon teaches the Mn may have a stoichiometric number of 0.5 or less [0093]. Yoon teaches the sum of the stoichiometric numbers of the Mn, Fe, and other dopants (which includes Co, Nb and V in this case) add to 1 [0092]. Yoon teaches PO4- may have a stochiometric number of “about 1.000 greater than to about 1.025” [0102]. Yoon teaches the dopants compensate for deficiencies at the Li, M, and O-sites [0105]. Yoon teaches doping with Nb or V improves the electronic conductivity of the olivine powder and allowing for full sintering of the olivine particles to allow full lithium capacity during fast charge and discharge [0133]. Yoon teaches O deficiencies may be filled by halogens (such as F) [0105].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention, in the process of optimizing for maximum lithium capacity and completeness of sintering, would have found it obvious to adjust the stoichiometric ratios of the components of the equation in [0128] in order to balance the benefits of the individual components which are taught above.
In the process of doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived to a substance with stoichiometric ratios that fall inside the claimed ranges of the instant claim 21. In the specific case of Mn, while the subscript in [0128] is 0.450, it is specified in other examples to be 0.500 [0114], meaning there is no reason to not adjust this value during optimization within the provided bounds of 0.350 to 0.5 [0093]. Similarly, Fe, V, Co, Nb and F may be adjusted within their respective ranges specified in [0094-100].
Yoon does not teach the doping of the P-site.
O teaches an olivine cathode active material where the P-site is doped with Si, enabling the volume change during deintercalation of Li to be suppressed and suppressing the capacity decrease during charging and discharging [0025-0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to dope the P-site of the positive active material of Yoon with Si in order to achieve the benefit of suppressing capacity decreases during charging and discharging. It would have been obvious because both Yoon and O teach olivine structured cathode active materials with PO4 groups and O teaches a clear benefit of reducing the capacity decrease during charging and discharging. In doing so, this would bring the subscript of P into line with the claimed range of that of the instant because O teaches a subscript y for Si which is in the range of 0 and 0.5 [0028], P has a subscript of 1-y. Finally, the subscript of O in the final substance of the combination of Yoon and O would be adjusted proportionally to the subscript of F, because F is a halogen doping the O site (Yoon [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to substitute the positive active material of Yoon and O for the positive active material of Yamamoto in order to achieve the taught benefits of increased electronic conductivity and reduced loss of capacity over charging and discharging. It would have been obvious to do because doing so would amount to no more than the substitution of one known cathode active material for another in order to achieve a taught benefit.
The “A” dopant of Yoon is Nb, and the “B” dopants of Yoon are Fe, Co, and V. Si is the “C” dopant and F is the “D” dopant.
Yamamoto, Yoon, and O do not teach an undercoat layer comprising a polymer with the functional groups claimed in the instant claim 21.
H teaches a cathode with a binder that is HNBR with an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid (p6/l31-p7/l4). H teaches the benefit of the binder is an optimal balance of resistivity and peel strength (p4/l16-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the CMC of Yamamoto with the HNBR of H in order to achieve the benefits of an optimal balance of resistivity and peel strength. It would have been obvious to do so because HNBR is a known alternative for electrode binder in the art of batteries with taught benefits that may predictably be achieved through such a substitution.
H teaches the HNBR has an acrylonitrile group (p6/l11) which meets the requirements of formula 1 and therefore monomer 1 of the instant. H teaches the HNBR has a conjugated diene unit (p6/l25), which meets the requirements of formula 4 and therefore monomer 3 of the instant. H teaches the HNBR has a carboxylic acid group (p7/l5) which meets the requirements of formula 6 and therefore monomer 4 of the instant. H teaches the diene is preferably hydrogenated to 95% or more (p10/l23-28), which means that the HNBR would have a group meeting the requirements of formulas 2 or 3 of the instant and therefore monomer 2.
The combination of the cited references as justified and applied above render the instant claim 21 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 22, Yamamoto teaches a positive electrode plate (11), comprising a positive
electrode current collector (11A), a positive electrode film layer (31) provided on at least one surface of
the positive electrode current collector, and a conductive undercoat layer (32) between the positive
electrode current collector and the positive electrode film layer, wherein: the positive electrode film
layer comprises a positive electrode active material having a chemical formula of LitN1-x-yCOxAlyO2
(wherein 0.95≤t≤1.15, 0≤x≤0.3, 0.1≤y≤0.2, and x+y<0.5) (Paragraph 79); and the conductive undercoat
layer includes a first polymer (“a binder”, Paragraph 15), a first water-based binder (“a polymer
particle”, Paragraph 65), and a first conductive agent (Paragraph 14), wherein the first polymer
comprises carboxymethylcellulose (Paragraph 51).
Yamamoto does not teach the positive active material claimed in the instant claim 22.
Yoon teaches a positive electrode active material comprising an olivinic phase lithium iron manganese phosphate compound [0092]. Yoon teaches a specific example of such a material where the formula is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
41
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoon teaches the Mn may have a stoichiometric number of 0.5 or less [0093]. Yoon teaches the sum of the stoichiometric numbers of the Mn, Fe, and other dopants (which includes Co, Nb and V in this case) add to 1 [0092]. Yoon teaches PO4- may have a stochiometric number of “about 1.000 greater than to about 1.025” [0102]. Yoon teaches the dopants compensate for deficiencies at the Li, M, and O-sites [0105]. Yoon teaches doping with Nb or V improves the electronic conductivity of the olivine powder and allowing for full sintering of the olivine particles to allow full lithium capacity during fast charge and discharge [0133]. Yoon teaches O deficiencies may be filled by halogens (such as F) [0105].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention, in the process of optimizing for maximum lithium capacity and completeness of sintering, would have found it obvious to adjust the stoichiometric ratios of the components of the equation in [0128] in order to balance the benefits of the individual components which are taught above.
In the process of doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived to a substance with stoichiometric ratios that fall inside the claimed ranges of the instant claim 22. In the specific case of Mn, while the subscript in [0128] is 0.450, it is specified in other examples to be 0.500 [0114], meaning there is no reason to not adjust this value during optimization within the provided bounds of 0.350 to 0.5 [0093]. Similarly, Fe, V, Co, Nb and F may be adjusted within their respective ranges specified in [0094-100].
Yoon does not teach the doping of the P-site.
O teaches an olivine cathode active material where the P-site is doped with Si, enabling the volume change during deintercalation of Li to be suppressed and suppressing the capacity decrease during charging and discharging [0025-0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to dope the P-site of the positive active material of Yoon with Si in order to achieve the benefit of suppressing capacity decreases during charging and discharging. It would have been obvious because both Yoon and O teach olivine structured cathode active materials with PO4 groups and O teaches a clear benefit of reducing the capacity decrease during charging and discharging. In doing so, this would bring the subscript of P into line with the claimed range of that of the instant because O teaches a subscript y for Si which is in the range of 0 and 0.5 [0028], P has a subscript of 1-y. Finally, the subscript of O in the final substance of the combination of Yoon and O would be adjusted proportionally to the subscript of F, because F is a halogen doping the O site (Yoon [0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to substitute the positive active material of Yoon and O for the positive active material of Yamamoto in order to achieve the taught benefits of increased electronic conductivity and reduced loss of capacity over charging and discharging. It would have been obvious to do because doing so would amount to no more than the substitution of one known cathode active material for another in order to achieve a taught benefit.
The “A” dopant of Yoon is Nb, and the “B” dopants of Yoon are Fe, Co, and V. Si is the “C” dopant and F is the “D” dopant.
Yamamoto, Yoon, and O do not teach an undercoat layer comprising a polymer with the functional groups claimed in the instant claim 22.
H teaches a cathode with a binder that is HNBR with an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid (p6/l31-p7/l4). H teaches the benefit of the binder is an optimal balance of resistivity and peel strength (p4/l16-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace the CMC of Yamamoto with the HNBR of H in order to achieve the benefits of an optimal balance of resistivity and peel strength. It would have been obvious to do so because HNBR is a known alternative for electrode binder in the art of batteries with taught benefits that may predictably be achieved through such a substitution.
H teaches the HNBR has an acrylonitrile group (p6/l11) which meets the requirements of formula 1 and therefore monomer 1 of the instant. H teaches the HNBR has a conjugated diene unit (p6/l25), which meets the requirements of formula 4 and therefore monomer 3 of the instant. H teaches the HNBR has a carboxylic acid group (p7/l5) which meets the requirements of formula 6 and therefore monomer 4 of the instant. H teaches the diene is preferably hydrogenated to 95% or more (p10/l23-28), which means that the HNBR would have a group meeting the requirements of formulas 2 or 3 of the instant and therefore monomer 2.
H teaches the carboxylic acid group has a mass percentage of 3-10% (p6/l32-35) which corresponds to M4 of the instant. This overlaps the range of the instant claim 22, rendering claim 22 unpatentable.
The combination of the cited references as justified and applied above render the instant claim 22 unpatentable.
Claims 9, 10, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210043928-A1 (Yamamoto), in view of US-20140138591-A1 (Yoon), US-20130209886-A1 (O), and WO-2020206606-A1 (H), and in further view of US-20230216022-A1 (Iwashima) and US-20200395603-A1 (Min).
Regarding claim 9, the teachings of Yamamoto, Yoon, O and H, are explained
above in the rejection of claim 1.
Yamamoto, Yoon, O and H do not teach the positive electrode film layer further comprises
one or more selected from an infiltration agent and a dispersant.
However, Iwashima teaches a composite active material for a lithium secondary battery
comprising a polymer film (Paragraph 26). The polymer film comprises a dispersant (Paragraph 26)
which may comprise polyvinylpyrrolidone (Paragraph 128).
Iwashima teaches the benefit of the dispersant is that it accelerates polymerization (Paragraph
128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of
the instant invention to add the dispersant of Iwashima, polyvinylpyrrolidone, to the positive cathode
film layer of Yamamoto to accelerate polymerization.
Yamamoto teaches the positive electrode film layer comprises a binder which may comprise
PVDF (Paragraph 90).
Yamamoto does not teach the positive electrode film layer comprises a binder comprising H-
NBR.
However, Min teaches a binder for a positive electrode active material may be selected from a
list containing both PVDF and HNBR (Paragraph 20).
Since the prior art of Min recognizes the equivalency of PVDF and H-NBR in the field of positive
electrode binder materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to replace the PVDF of Yamamoto with the HNBR of H as it is merely the selection of
functionally equivalent binders recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a
reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
While these components are not named as specifically dispersant and infiltration agents, they
are present in the same amounts as those of the instant and are formed from the same claimed
components of the instant, therefore the instant is still obvious over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 10, the teachings of Yamamoto, Yoon, O, H, Min, and Iwashima are
explained in the rejection of claim 9.
Iwashima does not teach an infiltration agent wherein: the infiltration agent has a surface
tension of 20 mN/m-40 mN/m; and/or the infiltration agent comprises at least one of functional groups
of: -CN, -NH2, -NH-, -N-, -OH, -COO-, -C(=O)-O-C(=O)-.
However, Iwashima teaches a dispersant comprising polyvinylpyrrolidone (Paragraph 128),
which is one of the options given for the infiltration agent in the instant’s specification (Paragraph 35).
Therefore, polyvinylpyrrolidone must have the intrinsic properties which meet the
requirements of the instant’s claim 10.
Iwashima teaches the polymer film comprises polyvinylpyrrolidone, which is listed as one of the options for low weight polymers in the instant specification (Paragraph 35).
Regarding claims 12 the teachings of Yamamoto, Yoon, O, H, Min, and Iwashima are
explained in the rejection of claim 8. Formulas 1 and 7 of the instant are the same, so H teaches the fifth monomer, see the rejection of claim 1. Formulas 2 and 8 and formulas 3 and 9, are the same, so H teaches the sixth monomer, see the rejection of claim 1. Formulas 10 and 11 are the same as formulas 4 and 5, so H teaches the seventh monomer, see the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is unpatentable because the HNBR of H meets all of the requirements of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the concentrations of the equivalent monomers to the monomers of the instant claim 1 were explained in the rejection of claim 2. As explained above, the fifth, sixth and seventh monomers are the same as the first, second and third monomers of the instant, so the equivalent of M1 in H is also equivalent to M5, the equivalent of M2 in H is equivalent to M6, and the equivalent of M3 is equivalent to M7. These values still overlap so claim 13 is unpatentable.
Regarding claim 14, because the values overlap M3/(M2+M3) must be equal to M7/(M6+M7), making claim 14 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 15, H teaches a binder comprising HNBR with a weight-average molecular weight of 110,000-150,000 g/mol (p9/l1-5).
Regarding claim 16, Yamamoto teaches the first polymer comprises 3 to 20 mass% (Paragraph
51) of the total mass of the undercoat layer. Yamamoto teaches the second polymer comprises 1 to 10%
of the total solid component of the electrode mixture layer (Paragraph 90). Yamamoto teaches the solid
component comprises 65 wt% of the total positive electrode mixture layer (Paragraph 113). Therefore, the ratio of first polymer to second polymer is a maximum of 1.62, which lies within the claimed range
of 1.5-5. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the
overlapping portion of the concentrations of first and second polymers in order to arrive at favorable
positive electrode plate composition.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Iwashima teaches the concentration of the dispersant
(corresponding to the concentration of the infiltration agent, Y1, of the instant) is preferably 0.01 to 2
wt% (Paragraph 129). Yamamoto teaches the concentration of the second polymer (corresponding to
the concentration of the dispersant, Y2, of the instant) is 1% to 10 wt%. These ranges overlap with the
claimed ranges of claim 17. These correspond to a Y1/Y2 value ranging from 0.001 to 2, which overlaps
with the claimed value of claim 18.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the
overlapping portion of the concentrations of the dispersant of Iwashima and second polymer of
Yamamoto in order to arrive at favorable positive electrode film composition.
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 LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights