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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8 February 2024 and 30 June 2026 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and have been considered.
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification are to the published application US 20240274801 A1 unless otherwise stated. Additionally, any italicized, bolded, or underlined text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
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 1-20 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 1 recites the following phrase: “the second direction is perpendicular to a plane on which the first direction and the second direction lie.” The second direction cannot be perpendicular to the plane in which the second direction is located, which renders the claim indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand the complete scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, the phrase is being read as “the second direction is perpendicular to a plane on which the first direction and the third direction lie”. Furthermore, claim 1 sets forth “a negative electrode plate” but it is unclear as to whether the first or second electrode plate corresponds to the negative electrode plate. Applicant’s specification sets forth that “the first electrode plate is a negative electrode plate” ([0040]), and therefore, for the purpose of examination, the limitation is being read as “the first electrode plate”.
Claims 7 and 17 recite the limitations "the first active material layer" and “the second active material layer“ in the last two lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are being read as “the first active layer” and “the second active layer”, respectively. Claims 2-20 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy, the aforementioned deficiencies. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (CN 110137434 A, machine translation used hereafter, “Liu”) as evidenced by Official Notice.
Note: The numbering convention used between Liu and the instant application regarding the first and second denominations with respect to the coating layer (i.e. the active layer) are opposite to one another. Therefore, for explicit clarity, the first coating layer of Liu corresponds to the second active layer of the instant application, and the second coating layer of Liu corresponds to the first active layer of the instant application.
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Liu discloses a lithium battery (i.e. an electrochemical device, [0054]) wherein the lithium battery includes the lithium battery electrode described therein, which can be at least one of a positive electrode and a negative electrode (i.e. comprising a first electrode plate, a second electrode plate of different polarity from the first electrode plate, [0053] and [0054]). Liu does not explicitly disclose a separator; however, a separator is known to be an integral component of a lithium battery, and therefore the separator is taken to be an inherent component of the lithium battery as described by Liu. Where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied upon. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). Further, the separator is necessarily located between first and second electrode plate, so as to separate them in allowing the battery to function. See MPEP 2144.03.
The lithium battery electrode (i.e. the electrode plate, [0030]) compromises a current collector, which has a tab region extending out of the current collector ([0030], see 100 in Figure 2) and an electrode coating layer (i.e. the active layer, [0030]). The electrode coating layer is formed via a first mixed slurry (corresponding to the first coating layer, i.e. the second active layer) and a second mixed slurry (corresponding to the second coating layer, i.e. the first active layer), each consisting of an electrode active material, binder, and conductive agent, being disposed on the surface of the current collector (i.e. an active layer, provided on the surface of the electrode, comprising a first and second active layer; [0030], see 210 and 220 in Figures 1 and 2).
Along the width direction of the electrode (i.e. a first direction, see Figure 1), the second coating layer (i.e. the first active layer) is adjacent to the electrode tab, and on the other side, is adjacent to the first coating layer (i.e. the first active layer being located on a side of the second active layer facing the tab, and being adjacent to or partially overlapping the second active layer; see Figures 1 and 2). The first coating layer and second coating layers are arranged in a strip-like manner along the length direction of the current collector (i.e. in a second direction, the first active layer and the second active layer extend in a strip shape; see Figure 2).
As described above, the electrode coating layers (i.e. active layers) are formed via slurries consisting of an electrode active material, a binder (i.e. adhesive), a conductive agent and a thickener (i.e. the first active layer comprises a first active material and a first adhesive, the second active layer comprises a second active material and a second adhesive, [0030]). The content of binder/adhesive in the second mixed slurry (corresponding to the second coating layer) is higher than the content of binder in the first mixed slurry (corresponding to the first coating layer) (i.e. a mass fraction of the first adhesive in the first active layer is greater than a mass fraction of the second adhesive in the second active layer, [0009]).
The relationship between the mass fractions of the binder/adhesive correlates to the cohesive force of the aforementioned active layers. As applicant’s specification recognizes, if the mass fraction of the first adhesive in the first active layer is too small, it is not conducive to increasing the cohesive force of the first active layer ([0039] of applicant’s specification). This establishes the relationship between the mass fraction of the binder/adhesive and the cohesive force, such that the higher percentage of cohesive/binder present in the layer, the higher the cohesive force. As such, the active layers of Liu share this relationship, wherein the second coating layer (i.e. the first active layer) has a higher mass fraction of the binder present than the first coating layer (i.e. the second active layer). Therefore, in view of the teaching of applicant’s spec, this relationship is true in the electrode of Liu and is taken to be an inherent relationship. Where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied upon. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 2112. Liu further discloses an electrode that exists in three-dimensional space (i.e. a three-dimensional rectangular coordinate system, see Figure 2 annotated below). As the electrode is three dimensional, there exists a first direction which extends out of the current collector in the direction of the tab, a second direction which is the length of the electrode, and a third direction which is obfuscated as the figure shows a top-down representation of the electrode, however the third direction is perpendicular to the figure, and defines the thickness of the electrode (i.e. the first direction is a direction in which the tab extends out of the current collector, a third direction is a thickness direction of a negative electrode plate, and the second direction is perpendicular to a plane on which the first direction and the second direction lie, see Figure 2 below). As this is essentially an xyz coordinate system, the second direction is fundamentally perpendicular to the first-third direction plane.
PNG
media_image1.png
344
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, annotated by the Examiner
Regarding Claim 4, Liu establishes the relationship between the binder content of the slurry and the bonding force/adhesion of the layer, as Liu discloses the adhesion can be improved when using a slurry with a high binder content ([0009]). This is in agreement with the specification of the instant application, wherein applicant states “as the amount of adhesive in the first active layer increases, the cohesive force and the bonding force of the first active layer become greater” ([0088] of applicant’s specification). Therefore, it can be established that there is an inherent relationship between the binder content of the layer and the corresponding bonding force to the current collector. Where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied upon. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 2112.
Liu discloses the binder content in the second mixed slurry (corresponding to the second electrode coating layer) as being higher than that in the first mixed slurry (corresponding to the first electrode coating layer) ([0009]). Therefore, it can be established that the adhesion of the second electrode coating layer with the current collector is greater than the adhesion of the first electrode coating layer with the current collector, (i.e. a bonding force between the first active layer and the current collector is greater than a bonding force between the second active layer and the current collector, [0009]).
Regarding Claim 8. Liu discloses the positive electrode as comprising flake graphite as the conductive agent and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) as a binder, and the negative electrode as at least one of natural graphite, artificial graphite, silicon, silicon oxide, silicon alloy and silicon-carbon composite material as electrode materials, flake graphite (natural graphite) as a conductive agent, and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) as a binder (i.e. first active material and the second active material each independently comprises at least one of natural graphite, artificial graphite, mesophase microcarbon sphere, hard carbon, soft carbon, silicon, silicon-carbon composite, silicon oxide, Li-Sn alloy, Li-Sn-O alloy, Sn, SnO, SnO2, lithium titanate, Li-Al alloy or metallic lithium; the first adhesive and the second adhesive each independently comprises at least one of polypropylene alcohol, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylate, polyimide, polyamide-imide, styrene-butadiene rubber, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinylidene difluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinyl butyral, water-based acrylic resin or carboxymethyl cellulose salt; see [0040] and [0041]).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu discloses that the tab is formed by a die-cutting process, where at least a portion of the tab region and at least a portion of the second coating region are cut to form tabs, thereby obtaining a lithium battery electrode sheet, (i.e. the tab and the current collector are integrally formed, [0031]).
Regarding Claim 10, Liu discloses the positive electrode active material of the positive electrode plate can be at least one of lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, lithium cobalt oxide, or lithium iron phosphate (i.e. the first electrode plate is a positive electrode plate, the first active material and the second active material each independently comprises at least one of lithium cobalt oxide, lithium iron phosphate, lithium iron manganese phosphate, sodium iron phosphate, lithium vanadium phosphate, sodium vanadium phosphate, lithium vanadyl phosphate, sodium vanadyl phosphate, lithium vanadate, lithium manganate, lithium nickelate, lithium nickel cobalt manganese, lithium-rich manganese-based materials or lithium nickel cobalt aluminate, see [0040]).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
Regarding Claim 3, Liu discloses the width of the first coating layer (i.e. the second active layer) as being 50 to 1200 mm (i.e. a width of the second active layer is 10 mm to 300 mm, [0016]) and the second coating layer (i.e. the first active layer) as being 2 to 10 mm (i.e. a width of the first active layer is 5 mm to 20 mm, [0017]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-10 above, and further in view of Du et al. (WO 2021189406 A1, machine translation used hereafter, “Du”)
Regarding Claim 2, Liu discloses the electrochemical device comprising the first and second coating layers as discussed above but is silent regarding the cohesive force of the layers. Du discloses an electrochemical device wherein the negative electrode active material has a cohesive force that ranges from 5 N/m to 30 N/m (i.e. the cohesive force of the first active layer is 10 N/m to 20 N/m, and the cohesive force of the second active layer is 4 N/m to 8 N/m, [0035]).
Liu and Du each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention: electrodes within electrochemical devices. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cohesive force of the first and second coating layers of Liu so as to fall within that range. Du further discloses that when the cohesive strength of the negative electrode active material is within the above range, the particles of the negative electrode active material have appropriate adhesion, which can avoid powder shedding during the rolling and winding process, avoid the formation of micro short circuit sites inside the lithium-ion battery, and thus avoid safety hazards; it can also prevent the negative electrode active material from expanding in volume during the charging and discharging process, avoid incomplete lithium intercalation, and thus ensure the capacity of the electrochemical device ([0035]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to ensure the cohesion force for the second coating layer (i.e. first active layer) was in the upper part of the range disclosed by Du, so as to prevent demolding and powdering caused by the electrode die-cutting process, or in other words, prevent damage of the layer, ([0035] of Liu). Likewise, the cohesion force need not be as high for the first coating layer (i.e. second active layer), as it is removed from the die-cutting process and occupies most of the surface of the current collector ([0045 of Liu). Furthermore, as set forth by applicant’s specification, and discussed above in the analysis of Claim 1, the cohesive force of the layer is directly proportional to the mass fraction of the binder present ([see [0039] of applicant’s specification). Therefore, it is obvious to use less binder, and consequently have a lower cohesive force, in the first coating layer (i.e. the second active layer), as this is removed from the die-cutting process and is thus less likely to incur damage. As the first coating layer (i.e. second active layer) occupies most of the surface of the current collector ([0045] of Liu), having a lower cohesive force is beneficial, as it corresponds to a lower mass fraction of binder present, and consequently allows for more active material to be present, improving the performance of the battery (Liu sets forth this relationship between active material, binder, and battery performance in [0036]).
Ensuring the second coating layer (i.e. first active layer) is not damaged during the die cutting process would necessitate more binder being present which corresponds to a higher cohesion force, as outlined above. The first coating layer (i.e. second active layer) requires less binder, and therefore a lower cohesive force, as it is removed from the die cutting process, and as such, the range of 5 N/m to 30 N/m encompasses the ranges of the present claim (i.e. the cohesive force of the first active layer is 10 N/m to 20 N/m, and the cohesive force of the second active layer is 4 N/m to 8 N/m), and maintaining the relationship as established above regarding the cohesive forces of the layers, Liu in view of Du would overlap. It has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges 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.
Claims 5, 11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-10 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (CN 113437250 A, machine translation used hereafter, “Zheng”)
Regarding Claim 5, Liu discloses that the binding strength (i.e. bonding force) of the second coating layer is higher than that of the first coating layer, as when the content of binder in the second mixed slurry is relatively low, it cannot effectively improve its bonding strength, and thus cannot effectively solve the problem of electrode sheet demolding and powdering caused by the electrode die-cutting process ([0009], [0035], and [0036]). Liu additionally discloses that if the binder content in the second mixed slurry is too high, although the adhesion of the second mixed slurry will be improved accordingly, after coating, the tendency of high concentration binder in the second coating area to diffuse into the first coating area will also be increased accordingly, which will eventually lead to an increase in the overall binder content of the electrode and affect the performance of the electrode ([0035]). However, Liu is silent regarding an exact, numerical bonding strength of the layers.
Zheng discloses an electrochemical device which features a negative electrode with a first and second negative electrode active material layer ([0020]), wherein the bonding strength between the negative electrode active material layers and the current collector ranges from 3 N/m to 30 N/m ([0046]). Zheng further discloses that when the strength is less than 10 N/m, the bonding strength between the active material and the current collector is extremely weak. Rolling or slitting processes are prone to delamination and burrs, leading to potential safety hazards in the battery cell. When the strength is greater than 20 N/m, the bonding strength between the active material and the current collector is too high, and the ratio of binder to active material is too high, i.e., excessive binder. This results in high internal resistance of the battery cell, severe dynamic loss, and accelerated degradation of long-cycle performance ([0046]). Liu and Zheng each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention: electrode layers. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the binder content of the first and second layers of Liu, so as to fall within the range of 3 N/m to 30 N/m, maintaining the relationship wherein the second coating layer (i.e. the first active layer) has a higher binding force than the first coating layer (i.e. the second active layer), so as to prevent damaging of the first coating layer during the dye-cutting process while maintaining the desired characteristics of the electrode ([0035] of Liu and [0046] of Zheng). As such, the range of 3 N/m to 30 N/m encompasses the ranges of the claimed invention (i.e. a bonding force between the first active layer and the current collector is 8 N/m to 20 N/m, and a bonding force between the second active layer and the current collector is 1 N/m to 8 N/m), and maintaining the relationship as established above between the bonding forces of the layers, Liu in view of Zheng would overlap. Furthermore, it has been held that the discovery of the optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill in the art. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges 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. Regarding Claim 11, Liu is silent regarding an electronic device as comprising the lithium battery as described above. Zheng discloses an electronic device that includes the electrochemical device disclosed therein (i.e. an electronic device comprising the electrochemical device, see [0068] and [0069]).
Liu and Zheng each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention: lithium-ion battery electrodes. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the electrode of Liu within the electronic device of Zheng (see [0069] for a complete list of electronic devices). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Regarding Claims 13-16 and 18-20, Liu in view of Zheng discloses the limitations of the claims as discussed above, as using the electrochemical device of Liu in the electronic device of Zheng necessarily carries through the claimed properties and limitations.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-10 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 113498558 A, machine translation used hereafter, “X. Liu”)
Regarding Claim 7, Liu discloses the mass ratios for the first and second mixed slurries (corresponding to the first and second coating layers) wherein the first mixed slurry’s mass ratio of the electrode active material, the binder, and the conductive agent is (0.9-0.98):(0.01-0.05):(0.005-0.05), respectively (i.e. the mass fraction of the second adhesive in the second active material layer is 1% to 10%; as for example, using a scenario where the ratio is 0.98:0.05:0.01, the mass fraction of the binder is 4.8%, [0012]).
Liu however does not disclose the mass fraction of the first adhesive in the first active layer is 15% to 30%. Instead, Liu discloses that the second mixed slurry’s mass ratio of the electrode active material, the binder, and the conductive agent is (0.9-0.95):(0.03-0.15):(0.005-0.05), respectively (for example, using a scenario where the ratio is 0.9:0.15:0.005, the mass fraction of the binder is 14.2%, [0012]).
X. Liu discloses an electrochemical device comprising a positive electrode, the positive electrode comprising a current collector, a first material layer, and a second material layer (i.e. an electrochemical device, comprising a first electrode plate comprising a current collector and an active layer, [0007]) wherein the content of the first adhesive in the first material layer is 1 wt% to 20 wt% (i.e. the mass fraction of the first adhesive in the first active material layer is 15% to 30%, [0014]).
Lui and X. Lui each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention: active material layers. Therefore, in view of the combined teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive content in the second coating layer (i.e. first active layer), as when the content of the first binder is too low, the film-forming properties of the first positive electrode active layer are poor, which is not conducive to improving the coverage, and when the content of the first binder is too high the shrinkage of the first material layer during the drying and film-forming process increases, while the current collector does not shrink at all. The large difference in shrinkage rates between the two leads to a large area of the first material layer falling off from the current collector substrate ([0014]). As such, using a higher content of binder, such as 20 wt% as taught by X. Liu, in the second coating layer (i.e. first active layer) ensures that the first active layer is not damaged during the die cutting process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the mass fraction of binder for the intended application to reach the desired level of cohesion/adhesion, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one in ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 f.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Du as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Zheng as applied to claim 11 above. Regarding Claim 12, Liu in view of Du and Zheng discloses the limitations of the claims as discussed above, as using the electrochemical device of Liu in the electronic device of Zheng necessarily carries through the claimed properties and limitations. The arguments above with respect to claims 1, 2 and 11 apply and are incorporated by reference here.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, in view of X. Liu as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Zheng as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 17, Liu in view of Du and Zheng discloses the limitations of the claims as discussed above, as using the electrochemical device of Liu in the electronic device of Zheng necessarily carries through the claimed properties and limitations. The arguments above with respect to claims 1, 7, and 11 apply and are incorporated by reference here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MALONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1730. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30a-5p, F: 7:30a-4p.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MALONEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights