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 and 10 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the carbon nanotube structures”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the functional group ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2003/0099883A1 (Ochoa) , which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, as evidenced by Carbon Nanotube Datasheet of ALDRICH and “Assembling Structure of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Thin Bundles”, Wang et al., J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 8132–8135 (Wang)
Regarding claims 1 and 13-14, Ochoa teaches a lithium secondary battery comprises a cathode ([0009]), wherein the cathode comprises a film comprising an electrode active material, single wall carbon nanotubes ([0009]), and polyvinylidene fluoride ([0021]), wherein the single wall carbon nanotubes are single wall fullerene carbon nanotubes come in forms of bundles of nearly parallel tubes ([0003]), which meets the claimed carbon nanotube structure.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, single walled carbon nanotube units inherently bond side by side and interconnect due to van de Waals attractions as evidenced by Wang (p8132 and 8134).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ochoa teaches the diameter of the nanotube is in the range of 10 to 200 Å and preferably less than 2 nanometers ([0003] and [0018]), and exemplifies a Carbolex single walled nanotube ([0019]), which has a diameter of 12-15 Å, i.e., 1.2 to 1.5 nm, and a length of 1-100 microns as evidenced by Aldrich Datasheet of Carbolex single walled carbon nanotube, which meets the claimed diameter and length , respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Ochoa exemplifies Carbolex single walled nanotubes ([0019]), which consists of 10-200 individual nanotubes of average diameter of 13 Å per bundle as evidenced by Aldrich Datasheet of Carbolex single walled carbon nanotube, thus an average diameter of 13 nm to 260 nm, estimated by the examiner (i.e., 1.3X10 to 1.3X200), which meets the claimed range.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochoa as evidenced by Aldrich and Wang as applied to claims 1-6 and 13-14 above, and further evidenced by US2011/0017957A1(Gaillard).
The teachings of Ochoa are set forth above.
Ochoa does not expressly disclose the claimed specific surface area, however, it is known that a single walled carbon nanotube may even reach up to 1300 m2/g as evidenced by Gaillard ([0022]), which encompasses the claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to include single walled carbon nanotube of the instantly claimed specific surface area range since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochoa as evidenced by Aldrich and Wang as applied to claims 1-6 and 13-14 above, in view of US20150083975A1(Yeou), which is listed in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
The teachings of Ochoa are set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, while teaching polyvinylidene fluoride binder ([0014] and [0021]), Ochoa does not teach the claimed molecular weight of polyvinylidene fluoride.
Yeou teaches that stability of electrode active material slurry may be improved when a weight average molecular weight of a fluorine containing binder such as polyvinylidene fluoride is within the range of 300,000 to 100,000 ([0031], [0036], [0037] and [0040]), exemplified as 700,000 g/mol ([0113]), which meets the claimed range of claim 8.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a PVDF of molecular weight of Yeou in the electrode active material of Ochoa. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Yeou that to do so would improve the stability of the electrode active material slurry ([0040]).
Regarding claims 9-11, Ochoa does not teach modified polyvinylidene fluoride and amount, or the amount of the functional group.
Yeou teaches that the adhesion and flexibility of the electrode plater are improved when the binder further comprises 3 to 27 wt.% of a modified PVDF containing a polar functional group such as a carboxylic acid group ([0021], [0029], [0033] and [0114]), exemplified as a weight ratio of modified PVDF to unmodified PVDF of 10:80 ([0111]), i.e., 11 wt.% of the modified PVDF based on a total weight of the PVDF binder, which meets the claimed amount of claim 11, wherein the polar functional group is present in an amount of is in the range of 10 mol% or less ([0030]), which is equivalent to an amount of 0.45 wt.% or less estimated by the examiner based on a carboxylic acid group (formula mass 45) and a PVDF molecular weight of about 100,000 ([0031]), which overlaps with the claimed amount, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the carboxylic acid modified PVDF of Yeou in the electrode active material of Ochoa. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Yeou that to do so would improve adhesion and flexibility of the electrode plater ([0021] and [0030]).
Regarding the adhesion of claim 12, Ochoa and Yeou teach the same binder, absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill would have reasonable basis to expect that the claimed adhesion would naturally arise and be achieved by the binder of Ochoa and Yeou. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights