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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogiwara et al (JP 2013225413 A; note that references made herein are with respect to the 14 page English translation, submitted herewith).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ogiwara teaches an electrode active material, electrode, and a non-aqueous secondary battery (title), wherein the electrode active material consists of a layered structure comprising an organic skeleton layer including an aromatic compound as a dicarboxylic acid anion having a naphthalene skeleton structure and an alkaline metal element layer forming a skeleton with an alkaline metal element coordinated to oxygen contained in the carboxylic acid anion (abstract).
Regarding claims 2-4, 12, and 13, and further regarding claims 1 and 11, Ogiwara teaches use of lithium 2,6-naphthalenedicarboxylate as active material of Example 1 (Experiment 1, page 7/14). Note that the active material of Example 2 is prepared according to the same process as Experiment 1, only that lithium terephthalate was used instead of lithium 2,6-naphthalenedicarboxylate (Experiment 2, page 8/14). The electrode is prepared by mixing the active material into a slurry and coating upon a 1 micron thick copper foil current collector (Production of coated electrode, page 8/14).
Regarding claim 5, Ogiwara teaches that the electrode further comprises a conductive material and a binder (Production of coated electrode, page 8/14).
Claims 7-10 relate to the presence of a metal foil disposed upon the active material layer. The instant Specification and Examples do not show that this foil layer is actively applied during fabrication, but rather the claimed lithium foil appears to be the result of the charge/discharge cycle, wherein upon charging “lithium ions migrated to the negative electrode surface and lithium terephthalate undergo lithiation, which allows deposition of lithium metal on the negative electrode,” (par. 62) meaning “the lithium metal is uniformly deposited on lithium terephthalate in the form of foil” (par. 63). As Ogiwara teaches charge/discharge tests (pages 9/14 and 11/14) of a substantially identical electrode as the claimed invention, it is expected that the electrode material would exhibit substantially identical physical results, including the claimed disposition of a lithium metal foil.
“Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.” see MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 14, Ogiwara teaches that instead of the liquid ion conducting medium (ionic liquid electrolyte), a solid ion conducting polymer may be used, for example, a polymer gel can be used. Further, an ion conductive polymer and a non-aqueous electrolyte can be used in combination. In addition to the ion conductive polymer, an inorganic solid electrolyte, a mixed material of an organic polymer electrolyte and an inorganic solid electrolyte, an inorganic solid powder bound by an organic binder or the like can be used as the ion conductive medium (page 6/14, first full par.).
Regarding claim 15, Ogiwara teaches the use of a separator sandwiched between both the positive and negative electrodes (Production of bipolar evaluation cell, page. 8/14).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogiwara et al (JP 2013225413 A; note that references made herein are with respect to the 14 page English translation, submitted herewith) as applied to claim 1 above.
Ogiwara teaches an electrode for a metal battery according to instant claim 1, as shown above.
While Ogiwara teaches coating of a 10 micron thick copper foil current collector, as shown above, Ogiwara does not expressly limit the thickness of the active material layer.
Absent a showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine a suitable amount, and as such thickness, of the active material deposited upon the current collector, including the thickness of claim 6, in order to effectively form an operable electrode for use in a battery. Certainly, one of ordinary skill would recognize that a minimum amount of active material must be present to provide the base function of said active material, while at the same time avoiding use of excess material which could potentially degrade the function of the electrode, cause excess material costs, and/or unnecessarily increase the thickness of the electrode/battery assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights