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 2, 3, 13, and 14 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.
Regarding claims 2, and 3, claim 1 recites the limitation: “the first polymer comprises a first monomeric unit represented by formula 1; a second monomeric unit comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of a monomeric unit represented by formula 2 and a monomeric unit represented by formula 3; a third monomeric unit comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of a monomeric unit represented by formula 4 and a monomeric unit represented by formula 5”. This means that the invention requires the third and fourth monomeric units.
Claim 2, however, recites that the mass percentage of the third and fourth monomeric units may be as low as 0%, which would fail to meet the requirements of claim 1. Similarly, claim 3 allows for the mass percentage of the third monomeric unit to be 0%. This renders the claims indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, because it is unclear if the first polymer as claimed requires the third and fourth monomeric units as per claim 1, or if they are allowed to be omitted as per claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claims 13, and 14, claim 12 recites the limitation: “the dispersant comprises a second polymer, and the second polymer comprises: a fifth monomeric unit represented by formula 7; a sixth monomeric unit comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of a monomeric unit represented by formula 8 and a monomeric unit represented by formula 9; and a seventh monomeric unit comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of a monomeric unit represented by formula 10 and a monomeric unit represented by formula 11”. This means that the invention requires the seventh polymeric unit.
Claims 13 and 14, however, recite that the mass percentage of the seventh monomeric unit may be as low as 0%, which fails to meet the requirements of claim 12. This renders the claims indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, because it is unclear if the second polymer as claimed requires the seventh monomeric unit as per claim 12, or if it is allowed to be omitted as per claims 13 and 14.
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 1-8, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210043928-A1, Yamamoto, in view of US-20160190584-A1, Wu, in further view of CN-103682266-A, Xiao, and in further view of US-20200395603-A1, Min.
Formulas 1-11 reference the formulas provided in the claims of the instant.
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 a positive electrode active material having a chemical formula of LiaAxMn1-yByP1-zCzO4-nDn, wherein A comprises one or more elements selected from Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Nb, Mo, and W, B comprises one or more elements selected from Ti, V, Zr, Fe, Ni, Mg, Co, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb, and Ge, C comprises one or more elements selected from B (boron), S, Si, and N, D comprises one or more elements selected from S, F, Cl, and Br, a is selected from a range of 0.9 to 1.1, x is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.1, y is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.5, z is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.1, n is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.1, and the positive electrode active material is electrically neutral;
However, Wu teaches a positive electrode active material for a Li-ION battery comprising LiMnxFe1-xP1-aSiMcO4-dFd in which, M is selected from at least one of As, B, Cl and S; 0.1≦x≦0.9, 0<b≦0.15, 0<c<0.1, 0<d<0.1, a=b+c, and d<2a (Paragraph 5). Wu teaches this material can reduce the relative volume change rate of the positive electrode material in insertion and deinsertion states of Li ions, and meanwhile can efficiently restrain Mn in the positive material from dissolving out during charging and discharging cycles, thereby improving the crystal structure stability of the positive electrode in the working state (Paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to combine the positive electrode plate of Yamamoto with the positive electrode active material of Wu by replacing the positive electrode active material of Yamamoto with that of Wu because of the result would be a positive electrode plate with an improved crystal structure stability in the working state.
Wu does not teach the positive electrode active material is doped with element A, wherein A comprises one or more elements selected from Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Nb, Mo, and W, nor that the subscript of a is x where x is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.1.
However, Xiao teaches an electrode material with the formula Li1-xAxMn1-yByPO4/C, where A and B are both positive divalent metal ions, and the positive divalent metal ions are magnesium, zinc, copper, nickel, iron or calcium ions, and 0.01<x<0.15 and x=y (Paragraph 4-5). Xiao teaches that the effect of replacing the Mn atom in the crystal structure is to reduce Ginger-Taylor deformation effect and improve the ability of electrons to transition in the lithium and manganese phosphate positive electrode material (Paragraph 15) . The inventions of both Wu and Xiao seek to improve cycling stability of the crystal structure of the active material.
While Xiao teaches a negative electrode active material, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant to dope the positive active material of Wu with one or more of the positive divalent metal ions A and B because the two inventions seek to solve similar problems in the same field of battery electrode active materials.
Regarding ranges, Wu teaches Li has a subscript 1; Xiao teaches x and y are in the range of 0.01 to 0.15; Wu teaches Mn has the subscript x, where 0.1≦x≦0.9; Wu teaches Fe has a subscript 1-x, where x is in the range of 0.1 to 0.9; Wu teaches c is taken from a range of 0 to 0.1 Wu teaches that the subscript of O is 4-d. Wu teaches d is taken from a range of 0 to 0.1. The ranges that Wu and Xiao teach overlap or encompass the claimed ranges for a, x, y and n.
Yamamoto does not teach the first polymer comprises a first monomeric unit represented by formula 1; a second monomeric unit comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of a monomeric unit represented by formula 2 and a monomeric unit represented by formula 3; a third monomeric unit comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of a monomeric unit represented by formula 4 and a monomeric unit represented by formula 5; and a fourth monomeric unit represented by formula 6, in which R1, R2, and R3 each independently represent H, a carboxyl, an ester group, and groups of substituted or unsubstituted C1-C10 alkyl, C1-C10 alkoxy, C2-C10 alkenyl, and C6-C10 aryl, R4 represents H, and groups of substituted or unsubstituted: C1-C10 alkyl, C1-C10 alkoxy, C2-C10 alkenyl, and C6-C10 aryl.
However, Min teaches a binder for use in a positive electrode active material layer that may consist of any of a list provided in Paragraph 20, some options of which comprise carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (H-NBR). While not used in an undercoating, this still teaches that these materials can be interchangeable in the art.
Since the cited prior art of Min recognizes the equivalency of CMC 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 instant invention to replace the CMC of Yamamoto with the H-NBR of Min 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.
As H-NBR is mentioned in the specification of the instant as an option for the first polymer (Paragraph 21), it must therefore meet the following limitations of claim 1:
the first polymer comprises a first monomeric unit represented by formula 1; a second monomeric unit comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of a monomeric unit represented by formula 2 and a monomeric unit represented by formula 3; a third monomeric unit comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of a monomeric unit represented by formula 4 and a monomeric unit represented by formula 5; and a fourth monomeric unit represented by formula 6, in which R1, R2, and R3 each independently represent H, a carboxyl, an ester group, and groups of substituted or unsubstituted C1-C10 alkyl, C1-C10 alkoxy, C2-C10 alkenyl, and C6-C10 aryl, R4 represents H, and groups of substituted or unsubstituted: C1-C10 alkyl, C1-C10 alkoxy, C2-C10 alkenyl, and C6-C10 aryl.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Yamamoto are in the rejection of claim 1, as well as the obvious modifications of Yamamoto in view of Wu and Min and Xiao. Those obvious modifications are recited regarding claim 2 as well.
Yamamoto does not teach, based on a total mass of the first polymer: a mass percentage content M1 of the first monomeric unit is 10%-55%; and/or a mass percentage content M2 of the second monomeric unit is 40%-80; and/or a mass percentage content M3 of the third monomeric unit is 0%-10%; and/or a mass percentage content M4 of the fourth monomeric unit is 0%-10%.
However, as H-NBR is mentioned in the specification of the instant as an option for the first polymer (Paragraph 21), it must therefore meet the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of Yamamoto are listed in the rejection of claim 1, as well as the obvious modifications of Yamamoto in view of Wu and Min. Those obvious modifications are recited regarding claim 3 as well.
Yamamoto does not teach M3/(M2 + M3) (defined in rejection of claim 2) is 0%-5%.
However, as H-NBR is mentioned in the specification of the instant as an option for the first polymer (Paragraph 21), it must therefore meet the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Yamamoto are listed in the rejection of claim 1, as well as the obvious modifications of Yamamoto in view of Wu and Min. Those obvious modifications include replacing the CMC of Yamamoto with H-NBR as a simple substitution of equivalent binders, as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto teaches the first water-based binder may comprise polyvinylidene fluoride (polyvinylidene fluoride, Paragraph 65).
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 6, Yamamoto teaches the first conductive agent may comprise carbon blacks (carbon blacks, Paragraph 49).
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 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 claimed limitations unpatentable as explained in the rejection of claim 1, because the resulting product of the combination of Yamamoto, Wu, Xiao, and Min, still meets the narrowed limitations of composition of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitations unpatentable as explained in the rejection of claim 1, because the resulting product of the combination of Yamamoto, Wu, Xiao, and Min, still meets the narrowed limitations for the ranges of subscripts of claim 20 for all variables of the instant claim 20, except for x.
The range of x and y taught by Xiao do not explicitly overlap with the range of x of the instant, however, if A and B of the instant are taken to be the same element, i.e. both are Mg, the combined range of subscript for Mg would be 0.011 to 0.505. Xiao teaches that the bivalent metal ions may both be magnesium and that the range for x and y is 0.01 to 0.15, meaning that the ranges of subscripts overlap.
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 subscript ranges in order to arrive at favorable undercoat structure.
Claims 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20210043928-A1, Yamamoto, in view of US-20160190584-A1, Wu, in further view of CN-103682266-A, Xiao, in further view of US-20200395603-A1, Min, and in further view of US-20230216022-A1, Iwashima.
Regarding claim 9, the teachings of Yamamoto in view of Wu, Xiao, and Min, are explained above in the rejection of claim 1.
Yamamoto, Wu, Xiao, and Min 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 H-NBR (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 H-NBR of Min 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 in view of Wu, Xiao, Min, and Iwashima are explained in the rejection of claim 8.
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.
Regarding claim 11, as explained in the rejection of 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 12-15, the teachings of Yamamoto in view of Wu, Xiao, Min, and Iwashima are explained in the rejection of claim 8. The instant’s specification lists that H-NBR is an option for the second polymer, therefore the H-NBR taught by the cited prior art must contain the monomeric units of Formulas 7-11 of the instant’s claim 12. They also must be present in the proportions of claims 13 and 14. Claim 15 explicitly claims H-NBR, so it is unpatentable.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12100834 (referred to as Ref. 1 from here forward) in view of US 20200395603 A1 (referred to as Ref. 2 from here forward).
Regarding claims 1 and 6 of the instant, the instant claims a positive electrode film layer comprising a positive electrode active material having a chemical formula of LiaAxMn1-yByP1-zCzO4-nDn, wherein A comprises one or more elements selected from Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Nb, Mo, and W, B comprises one or more elements selected from Ti, V, Zr, Fe, Ni, Mg, Co, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb, and Ge, C comprises one or more elements selected from B (boron), S, Si, and N, D comprises one or more elements selected from S, F, Cl, and Br, a is selected from a range of 0.9 to 1.1, x is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.1, y is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.5, z is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.1, n is selected from a range of 0.001 to 0.1, and the positive electrode active material is electrically neutral. Ref. 1, claim 1, claims a positive electrode active material having a core-shell structure, comprising a core, wherein the core has a chemical formula of LiaAxMni-yByPi-zCzO4-nD., in which A comprises one or more elements selected from Zn, Al, Na, K, Mg, Nb, Mo and W, B comprises one or more elements selected from Ti, V, Zr, Fe, Ni, Mg, Co, Ga, Sn, Sb, Nb, and Ge, C comprises one or more elements selected from B (boron), S, Si, and N, D comprises one or more elements selected from S, F, Cl, and Br, a is in a range of 0.9 to 1.1, x is in a range of 0.001 to 0.1, y is in a range of 0.001 to 0.5, z is in a range of 0.001 to 0.1, n is in a range of 0.001 to 0.1, and the core is electrically neutral. These compositions as claimed are the same between the instant and Ref 1.
The instant also claims a positive electrode plate, comprising a positive electrode current collector, a positive electrode film layer provided on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector, wherein the positive electrode film layer comprises a positive electrode active material. In Ref. 1, claim 21 claims a positive electrode plate comprising a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer provided on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector, wherein the positive electrode film layer comprises the positive electrode active material. These structures as claimed are the same between the instant and Ref. 1.
Ref 1. claims in claim 1 a first cladding layer covering the core and a second cladding layer covering the first cladding layer, wherein the cladding layer comprises a first polymer containing an electron withdrawing group; and wherein the second cladding layer comprises a second polymer, the second polymer comprises one or more of plant polysaccharides, marine polysaccharides and the derivatives thereof.
Ref. 1 claims in claim 4 the first polymer containing an electron withdrawing group comprises one or more selected from a list that contains polyvinylidene fluoride.
Ref. 1 claims in claim 6 the plant polysaccharides comprise one or more selected from a list containing carboxymethyl cellulose.
Ref 1. does not teach a conductive undercoat layer between the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode film layer. Ref. 1 does not teach the conductive undercoat layer includes a first polymer, a first water-based binder, and a first conductive agent, wherein the first polymer comprises a first monomeric unit represented by formula 1; a second monomeric unit comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of a monomeric unit represented by formula 2 and a monomeric unit represented by formula 3; a third monomeric unit comprising at least one selected from a group consisting of a monomeric unit represented by formula 4 and a monomeric unit represented by formula 5; and a fourth monomeric unit represented by formula 6, in which R1, R2, and R3 each independently represent H, a carboxyl, an ester group, and groups of substituted or unsubstituted C1-C10 alkyl, C1-C10 alkoxy, C2-C10 alkenyl, and C6-C10 aryl, R4 represents H, and groups of substituted or unsubstituted: C1-C10 alkyl, C1-C10 alkoxy, C2-C10 alkenyl, and C6-C10 aryl. Formulas 1-5 are defined in the claims section of the instant.
However, Ref. 2 teaches a first positive electrode mixture layer disposed on the positive electrode current collector and including a first positive electrode active material and a binder (Abstract). Ref. 2 teaches the first positive electrode mixture layer may comprise a conductive material, which may further comprise carbon nanotubes (Paragraphs 21, 22).
Ref. 2 also teaches that the binder may comprise at least one from selected from a list provided in Paragraph 20, which includes polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (H-NBR) and polyvinyl alcohol (Paragraph 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the PVDF of Ref. 1 with H-NBR or polyvinyl alcohol, as they are both listed as options to use as the material in the binder in Ref. 2, because doing so would be no more than a substitution of one material for another to achieve predictable and equivalent results. The same is true for replacing the CMC of Ref. 1 with either of H-NBR or polyvinyl alcohol, as Ref. 2 teaches they are equivalent.
H-NBR is in claim 4 of the instant as one of the options for the first polymer, so it meets the requirements for the first polymer of claim 1 of the instant. Polyvinyl alcohol is listed in claim 5 of the instant as an option for the first water-based binder of claim 1, so it meets the requirements of claim 1.
The first and second cladding layers claimed in claim 1 of Ref. 1 are located between the positive electrode active material and the current collector because they cover the core. This means that they form a structure equivalent to a conductive undercoat layer, so the claimed matter of Ref. 1 is the same as that of the instant.
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the carbon nanotubes as a conductive material of Ref. 2 to the first and second cladding layers of Ref. 1 because the carbon nanotubes used as a conductive material would improve electronic conductivity (Paragraph 38) of the binder material.
This means that claim 1 of the instant is an obvious modification of claims 1, 4, 6, and 21 of Ref. 1 in view of Ref. 2, rendering claim 1 unpatentable.
Claim 6 of the instant is also unpatentable because adding carbon nanotubes to the cladding layers of claim 1 of Ref. 1 is an obvious modification, as explained above.
Regarding claims 2-4, because the instant’s claim 4 claims the first polymer comprises one or more selected from hydrogenated nitrile rubbers, hydrogenated nitrile rubbers satisfy the ranges for the monomeric units claimed in claim 2. The same is true for the ranges of claim 3. As was stated when addressing claims 1 and 6, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first polymer of Ref. 1 by replacing it with H-NBR. This means that claims 2-4 of the instant are unpatentable because they are obvious modifications of claims 1, 4, and 6 of Ref. 1.
Claim 5 is unpatentable because modifying the first polymer of Ref. 1 to be polyvinyl alcohol is an obvious modification of claims 1 and 4 of Ref. 1, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 of the instant.
Conclusion
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