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 Interpretation
Claims 2 and 12 recite Formula 1 or Formulas 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b. However, the text of each formula is represented as an unintelligible block (see portion of claim 2 and 12 reproduced below).
Claim 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
48
594
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 12:
PNG
media_image2.png
72
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The instant specification discloses formulas which are clear and intelligible. In the interest of compact prosecution, the formulas from the specification (as well as auxiliary pdf of the application) will be relied upon for this office action. The formulas are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
118
168
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
164
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is required that Applicant amends and corrects claims 2 and 12 in the next response to correctly include the numerical expression because the current set of claims is unreadable.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2019-110056, see machine translation) in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0260246).
Regarding claim 1, Goto discloses a resin composition [polymer] for an energy storage device electrodes ([0001]). The resin composition for electrodes comprises a polymer containing a constituent unit A [first structural unit] and constituent unit B ([0011]).
The energy storage device electrode comprises a current collector and a composite layer formed on the current collector, wherein the composite layer comprises an active material and the solid component of the resin composition ([0012]).
In an example, Goto discloses the constituent unit A as having a formula 5 ([0025]-[0027], reproduced below with annotations), which reads on the claimed formula 1.
PNG
media_image5.png
216
415
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Goto does not explicitly disclose the negative electrode plate including a lithium source.
Chen discloses a lithium-ion cell comprising an anode comprising an anode active material that is mixed with a conductive additive and/or resin binder to form a porous electrode structure, and is coated onto a current collector in a coating or thin film form (abstract). A lithium source is disposed in at least one of the anode or cathode (abstract). The lithium source comprises a lithium chip, lithium alloy chip, lithium foil, lithium alloy foil, lithium powder, lithium alloy powder, surface stabilized lithium particles, a mixture of lithium metal or lithium alloy with a lithium intercalation compound, lithium or lithium alloy film ([0051]). The lithium source provides the lithium to lithiate the electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine any of the lithium sources as taught by Chen with the negative electrode of Goto for the purpose of supplying the lithium ions.
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Goto discloses the constituent unit A having the formula below:
PNG
media_image5.png
216
415
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The compound reads on the claim limitations.
R1 | R14 can be hydrogen ([0027])
R3 and R4 | are hydrogen, as seen in the figure.
R2 is a carboxyl
M1 is a hydrogen
M2 and M3, one is a hydrogen and the other is a cycloalkyl containing heterocyclic atoms of N.
PNG
media_image3.png
118
168
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to the limitations of claim 3, it is noted that R1, R3, and R4 are not positively recited or required by the claim to be substituents (“when R1, R3, and R4 have…”), because the claim merely limits the substituents which can be an option in the choice of R1, R3, and R4 of claim 2. Therefore, because Goto teaches the limitations of claim 2 for the reasons above, modified Goto also meets the limitations of claim 3, which merely limits the substituents of R1, R3, and R4 in the selection between R1, R3, and R4 having substituents or not having substituents.
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitations of wherein a molecular weight of the olefin compound containing the substituted or unsubstituted ureido group ranges from (claim 4) 100 to 5000, or (claim 5) 300 to 1500; Goto discloses the constituent unit A having the formula 5, wherein R11 is preferably an alkylene group having 1 to 12 carbons, wherein R12 and R13 are each independently hydrogen or an alkyl group having 1 to 20 carbons, wherein R14 is preferably a hydrogen or methyl group ([0027]). When R11 is CH2, R12-R13 are hydrogen, and R14 is hydrogen, the molecular weight is about 238 (9 C, 10 H, 4 O, 4 N). When the R groups are longer (e.g., R12-R13 are each an alkyl group of 4 carbons, CH2CH2CH2CH3), the molecular weight is about 342 (17 C, 18 H, 4 O, 4 N). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select alkyl groups of 4 carbons of R12-R13 to obtain the benefits of the polymer.
Regarding claims 6-7, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen teaches that that lithium source is disposed in an anode (abstract, [0015]) or on the anode ([0051], Fig 3), and the lithium source is a powder or foil ([0051]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Goto teaches the number average molecular weight of the polymer is preferably 10,000 or more from the viewpoint of improving binding properties and stability of the coating, and preferably 1 million or less from the viewpoint of ease of synthesis and blendability when preparing electrode paste ([0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the average molecular weight (including in the range of 10,000 to 90,000) of the polymer of Goto for the purpose of obtaining the desired balance between binding, stability, easy of synthesis, and blendability.
Regarding claim 10, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Goto teaches that the amount of constituent unit A to constituent B is preferably 50/50 ([0040]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Goto teaches the polymer has a glass transition temperature ([0060]) which teaches that there is amorphous [non-crystalline] regions, Goto does not explicitly disclose wherein a degree of crystallinity of the polymer is less than or equal to 35%.
However, as Goto teaches that the glass transition temperature (and therefore amount of amorphous and crystalline regions) affects the binding properties and stability ([0060]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the degree of crystallinity of the polymer (including in the amount of less than or equal to 35%) of Goto for the purpose of obtaining the desired balance between binding and stability properties.
Regarding claim 12, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Goto discloses the constituent unit A which is a substituted or unsubstituted ureido group ([0025]-[0027]).
With regards to the limitations directed to the method of making the olefin compound (“reacting a solvent system containing a first isocyanate compound and a first amine compound or a solvent system containing a second isocyanate compound and a second amine compound to obtain the olefin compound containing the substituted or unsubstituted ureido group, wherein the first isocyanate compound meets a structure shown in Formula 2a, the first amine compound meets a structure shown in Formula 3a, and the first amine compound is a primary amine or secondary amine compound; and the second amine compound meets a structure shown in Formula 2b, the second isocyanate compound meets a structure shown in Formula 3b, and in Formula 3b, Mx is M2 or M3,”), it is noted that these limitations are interpreted as a product-by-process limitation, and therefore is not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113).
PNG
media_image4.png
164
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The structure implied by the process is the left side (formula 2a and 2b) joining the right side (formula 3a and 3b) with the structure of N-(C=O)-N-. Goto discloses this structure in formula 5 ([0025]-[0027], reproduced below with highlighted junction).
PNG
media_image6.png
224
456
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 13-14, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. It is noted that the compounds listed for formulas 2a, 3a, 2b, and 3b are part of the product-by-process selection of claim 12. That is, only the structure implied by the reactants is considered. As seen in formula 5 of Goto, the left side has a structure derivative of acryloyl isocyanate (claim 13) or carboxylic acid ester olefin compound (claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Goto teaches that the constituent unit B is a repeating unit derived from a hydrophilic unsaturated monomer having an oxyalkylene group ([0033]), and teaches that methacrylates can be used ([0037]), and polyethylene glycol methacrylate ([0038]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. In an embodiment, Goto teaches that the negative electrode plate has 94.8 mass% negative electrode active material, 2% polymer, 1% binder [thickener], and 1.7% conductive agent ([0098]). Therefore, the amounts of active material, binder, and conductive agents are within the claimed ranges, and the only difference is the amount polymer (2% instead of the claimed 1%). However, Goto does not explicitly disclose a polymer mass percent range to use within the electrode. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the amount of polymer in the electrode (including in the range of 0.001-1%) of modified Goto to obtain the desired balance between bonding, battery capacity, input/output characteristics ([0014], [0108]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Goto discloses the polymer ([0011]-[0012], [0025]-[0027]) and Chen teaches a lithium source ([0051]), modified Goto does not explicitly disclose wherein a mass ratio of the lithium source to the polymer is 1:(1-1000). However, as the amount of lithium source affects the amount of lithium ions that can be exchanged between electrodes (Chen at [0032]), and the amount of polymer affects the bonding, battery capacity, and input/output characteristics (Goto at [0014], [0108]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, by routine experimentation, the amount of lithium source, thereby affecting the relative amount of lithium source to polymer including the amount of 1:(1-1000), in the negative electrode of modified Goto for the purpose of determining the balance between capacity and bonding.
Regarding claim 18, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Goto discloses the current collector has a thickness of 20 µm ([0098]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Goto discloses the thickness of the negative electrode active layer is 27 µm ([0098]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Goto discloses the battery is lithium-ion secondary battery ([0074]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2019-110056, see machine translation) in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0260246), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 6,022,643).
Regarding claim 8, modified Goto discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Goto teaches that the negative electrode active material can include carbon materials and tin materials ([0076]) and Chen teaches that the lithium source can be a lithium intercalation compound ([0051]), modified Goto does not explicitly disclose wherein the carbon is a hard carbon or a lithium carbon material.
Chen teaches that the anode active material includes a conductive additive ([0051]), and the conductive additive can be selected from any electrically conductive material including graphite or carbon particles, carbon black, expanded graphite, graphene, carbon nanotube, carbon nano-fiber, carbon fiber, conductive polymer, or a combination thereof ([0089]). Chen further teaches the use of hard carbon among graphite worms, exfoliated graphite flakes, soft carbon, activated carbon, or a combination thereof for the positive electrode/cathode ([0058]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hard carbon in the negative/anode active material of Goto for the purpose of having a conductive additive to improve conductivity.
However, modified Goto does not explicitly disclose a lithium carbon material in the negative electrode active material.
Lee teaches that the anode material for a rechargeable battery can include lithium, lithium alloys, such as Li--Al, Li--Si, Li--Cd, lithium-carbon or lithium-graphite intercalation compounds, lithium metal oxide intercalation compounds (C4/L4-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the lithium carbon intercalation compound of Lee as the lithium source in Goto modified by Chen for the purpose of providing the lithium source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights