CTNF 18/358,535 CTNF 87695 *** Withdraw the previous action mailed *** 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. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14-16, 19-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sera (US 2020/0136181 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0021009 A1), hereinafter “Li.” Regarding claim 14, Sera discloses a cathode comprising: a current collector, in this case the positive electrode current collector (¶ [0046], Fig. 3, ref. no. 9); and a cathode layer formed on the current collector and comprising a cathode material, in this case the positive electrode mixture layer (¶ [0046], Fig. 3, ref. no. 10); wherein the cathode material comprises a carbon material, in this case a conductive agent that may be carbon black, graphite, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes, and acetylene black (¶ [0088]-[0089] & [0118]), an electrolyte, in this case the slurry comprising a polymer, electrolyte salt, and molten salt that is dispersed in the slurry for forming the positive electrode (¶ [0119]), and a binder (¶ [0118]); wherein the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt, in this case the electrolyte salt is preferably a lithium salt (¶ [0070]-[0071], [0075], & [0119]), and an ionic liquid, in this case the molten salt (¶ [0079] & [0119]). Sera does not disclose that the cathode layer has a thickness of 700 μm to 1,000 μm. However, Li teaches a cathode layer that is between 1 μm to 1,000 μm thick (¶ [0036]). Furthermore, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have made the cathode layer thickness of sufficient thickness to support the operation of the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the cathode layer thickness to be 700 μm to 1,000 μm. Regarding claim 15, Sera further discloses that the carbon material comprises carbon nanotubes (¶ [0088]-[0089] & [0118]). Regarding claim 16, Sera discloses that the ionic liquid may be EMI-TFSI (¶ [0081]). Regarding claim 19, Sera further teaches that the amount of binder is 15 to 25 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon material, in this case the mass percentage of the binder and carbon material based on the weight of the positive electrode material layer are 1% to 15% each (¶ [0090] & [0092]). This results in an overlapping binder amount of approximately 6.7 to 100 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon material. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have provided these relative amounts of binder and carbon material in order to provide a functional cathode material. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 20, Sera further teaches that the mass ratio of the carbon material and the electrolyte is 1:2-20, in this case the mass percentage of the conductive agent relative to the positive electrode mixture layer is 1% to 15% (¶ [0090]) and that of the electrolyte salt and molten salt are 15% or less (¶ [0078]) and 25% or less (¶ [0087]), respectively. This results in an overlapping mass ratio of carbon to electrolyte of approximately 1:2.7-40. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have provided the carbon material and electrolyte at a mass ratio of 1:2-20 in order to provide a functional cathode material. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 21, Sera teaches a cathode manufacturing method, comprising: preparing a cathode slurry comprising a cathode material (¶ [0117]-[0118]); forming a cathode slurry layer by applying the cathode slurry on a current collector, in this case the positive electrode precursor is applied to the positive electrode current collector in slurry form (¶ [0118]); and heat-treating the cathode slurry layer, in this case the slurry layer is dried following deposition on the current collector (¶ [0118]); wherein the cathode material comprises a carbon material, in this case a conductive agent that may be carbon black, graphite, carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes, and acetylene black (¶ [0088]-[0089] & [0118]), an electrolyte, in this case the slurry comprising a polymer, electrolyte salt, and molten salt that is dispersed in the slurry for forming the positive electrode (¶ [0119]), and a binder (¶ [0118]); wherein the electrolyte comprises a lithium salt, in this case the electrolyte salt is preferably a lithium salt (¶ [0070]-[0071], [0075], & [0119]), and an ionic liquid, in this case the molten salt (¶ [0079] & [0119]); and Sera does not disclose that the cathode layer has a thickness of 700 μm to 1,000 μm. However, Li teaches a cathode layer that is between 1 μm to 1,000 μm thick (¶ [0036]). Furthermore, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have made the cathode layer thickness of sufficient thickness to support the operation of the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the cathode layer thickness to be 700 μm to 1,000 μm. Regarding claim 22, Sera discloses that that the solvent is N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) (¶ [0118]). Regarding claim 23, Sera further teaches that heat-treating is performed in a vacuum, in this case the positive electrode volatile component may be driven off with a vacuum desiccator (¶ [0153]). Sera is silent as to the temperature of the heat-treating step, but it can be reasonably inferred that it is conducted at room temperature. Sera also does not state the length of the vacuum step. However, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand that the amount of volatile component removed during this step would depend on the amount of time the slurry is exposed to the vacuum. In other words, it is well understood that increasing the length of vacuum exposure increases the amount of volatile component removed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have performed the vacuum step for 22 hours to 48 hours in order to ensure adequate volatile component removal. Regarding claim 24, Sera further teaches that the mass ratio of the carbon material and the electrolyte is 1:2-20, in this case the mass percentage of the conductive agent relative to the positive electrode mixture layer is 1% to 15% (¶ [0090]) and that of the electrolyte salt and molten salt are 15% or less (¶ [0078]) and 25% or less (¶ [0087]), respectively. This results in an overlapping mass ratio of carbon to electrolyte of approximately 1:2.7-40. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have provided the carbon material and electrolyte at a mass ratio of 1:2-20 in order to provide a functional cathode material. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 I. Regarding claim 26, Sera teaches a lithium-air battery, comprising: the cathode of claim 14 (¶ [0118]-[0122]; see rejection of claim 14, above; Fig. 2, item 6); an anode enabling deposition and dissociation of lithium, in this case the negative electrode (¶ [0046]; Fig. 2, item 8); and a polymer electrolyte interposed between the cathode and the anode, in this case the electrolyte layer (¶ [0046] & [0096]; Fig. 2, item 7) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sera as applied to claim 11 , above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2017/0125793 A1), hereinafter “Kim.” Regarding claim 17, Sera does not teach the carbon material loading of 3.0 g/cm 2 to 6.0 g/cm 2 . However, Kim teaches loading carbon material, in this case graphite, between 5 g/cm 2 to 12 g/cm 2 (¶ [0011] & [0025]). One with ordinary skill in the art would understand that providing the carbon material at this overlapping loading would reduce charging time without affecting battery lifespan (¶ [0006]). See M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have loaded the carbon material in the cathode between 3.0 g/cm 2 to 6.0 g/cm 2 in order to facilitate reduced charging time . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sera in view of Badding et al. (US 2020/0365897 A1), hereinafter “Badding.” Regarding claim 18, Sera teaches that polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) may serve as the binder (¶ [0091]), but does not teach that the binder comprises PDDA-TFSI. However, Badding teaches that PDDA-TFSI may be used in the alternative of PVDF in lithium battery applications (¶ [0048]). One with ordinary skill in the art would understand that substituting PDDA-TFSI for PVDF would obtain predictable results in terms of performance as a binder in a lithium battery electrode. See M.P.E.P. § 2143. I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected PDDA-TFSI as the binder as it would predictably similarly to PVDF . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sera as applied to claim 21 , above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0168950 A1), hereinafter “Park.” Regarding claim 25, Sera does not teach that the amount of solvent component is 50 to 250 mL per g of the carbon material. However, Park teaches a cathode material comprising NMP as a solvent (¶ [0146]) and a conductive agent that may be a carbon material such as carbon black (¶ [0145]). Park further teaches that the amount of carbon material may be 1 wt% to 30 wt% of the solid content of the positive electrode slurry (¶ [0144]) and that the solids make up 10 wt% to 60 wt% of the slurry (¶ [0146]). This results in a solvent amount of 40 wt% to 90 wt% and a carbon content of 0.1 wt% to 18 wt%. This further results in a solvent to carbon loading ranging from 2.2 mL per g carbon material 1 to 874 mL per g carbon material 2 . A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing 50 to 250 mL solvent per g carbon material in order to produce the predictable result of a functioning cathode material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the claimed solvent to carbon loading in order to yield the predictable result of a functioning cathode material. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm. 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. /SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/358,535 Page 2 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/358,535 Page 3 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/358,535 Page 4 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/358,535 Page 5 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/358,535 Page 6 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/358,535 Page 7 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/358,535 Page 8 Art Unit: 1729 Application/Control Number: 18/358,535 Page 9 Art Unit: 1729 1 Maximum carbon loading with minimum solvent loading. NMP solvent density 1.03 g/mL. 2 Minimum carbon loading with maximum solvent loading. NMP solvent density 1.03 g/mL.
Prosecution Insights