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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/18/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto et al. (US 2014/0093773 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Hashimoto teaches an electrode comprising a noncovalent (physical bonds and absorption are listed as alternatives to chemical bonding) hybrid comprising carbon nanotubes and anthraquinone [0054, 0062, 0064].
With regard to claim 2, Hashimoto teaches an active material [0086].
With regard to claim 3, Hashimoto teaches dihydroxy anthraquinone (1,2-dihydroxyanthraquinone) [0064].
With regard to claim 4, Hashimoto teaches the electrode may be a cathode (positive electrode) and the active material is a cathode active material comprising a lithium based material [0086].
With regard to claim 5, Hashimoto teaches lithium cobalt oxide [0086].
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Jang (US 2022/0255129 A1, hereafter Jang).
With regard to claim 6, Hashimoto teaches lithium metal oxides but does not explicitly teach lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jang teaches the use of lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide [0180]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide of Jang as the lithium metal oxide of Hashimoto since it is taught to be a desirable cathode active material [Jang 0179-0180].
Claim(s) 7-8, and 10-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Harutyunyan et al. (US 2020/0083560 A1, hereafter Harutyunyan).
With regard to claims 7-8, Hashimoto teaches an anode (negative electrode) [0086] but does not explicitly teach one of the claimed active materials. However, in the same field of endeavor, Harutyunyan teaches the use of graphite (claim 8) as an anode active material [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the graphite anode active material of Harutyunyan with the electrode of Hashimoto for the benefit of a flexible material capable of matching a lithium metal oxide cathode voltage [Harutyunyan 0004, 0027].
With regard to claim 10, Hashimoto does not teach the claimed thickness. However, in the same field of endeavor, Harutyunyan teaches an electrode with a thickness of 50 micrometers (which falls within the claimed range) [0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the electrode thickness of Harutyunyan with the electrode of Hashimoto for the benefit of needing less electrolyte to wet the electrode and allowing for increased energy storage density [Harutyunyan 0031, 0033].
With regard to claim 11, Hashimoto teaches a lithium-ion cell comprising an anode, a cathode and wherein at least one of the anode or the cathode comprises a noncovalent (physical bonds and absorption are listed as alternatives to chemical bonding) hybrid comprising carbon nanotubes and anthraquinone [0054, 0062, 0064, 0086]. Hashimoto does not explicitly teach a separator or electrolyte, however these are well known components in lithium-ion batteries as evidenced by Harutyunyan [0004, 0031] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use with the battery of Hashimoto since they are known to be effective in a flexible battery with electrodes that are prevented from shorting [Harutyunyan 0031, 0044].
With regard to claims 12-13, Hashimoto teaches the anode and cathode comprise the noncovalent hybrid and teaches the cathode comprises an active material [0054, 0062, 0064, 0086] but does not explicitly teach the claimed anode active materials. However, in the same field of endeavor, Harutyunyan teaches the use of graphite (claim 13) as an anode active material [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the graphite anode active material of Harutyunyan with the electrode of Hashimoto for the benefit of a flexible material capable of matching a lithium metal oxide cathode voltage [Harutyunyan 0004, 0027].
With regard to claims 14-15, Hashimoto teaches the cathode comprises a cathode active material comprising lithium cobalt oxide (claim 15) [0086].
With regard to claims 16-17, Hashimoto teaches the anode comprises the noncovalent hybrid and the cathode comprises a cathode active material and conductive material (conductive fibers) [0052, 0062, 0064, 0086]. Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the claimed anode active materials. However, in the same field of endeavor, Harutyunyan teaches the use of graphite (claim 17) as an anode active material [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the graphite anode active material of Harutyunyan with the electrode of Hashimoto for the benefit of a flexible material capable of matching a lithium metal oxide cathode voltage [Harutyunyan 0004, 0027].
With regard to claim 18, Hashimoto teaches the active material is a cathode active material comprising a lithium based material [0086].
With regard to claim 19, Hashimoto teaches lithium cobalt oxide [0086].
With regard to claims 20-21, Hashimoto teaches the cathode comprises the noncovalent hybrid and a cathode active material, and the anode comprises a conductive material (conductive fibers in hybrid material) [0052, 0062, 0064, 0086]. Hashimoto does not explicitly teach the claimed anode active materials. However, in the same field of endeavor, Harutyunyan teaches the use of graphite (claim 21) as an anode active material [0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the graphite anode active material of Harutyunyan with the electrode of Hashimoto for the benefit of a flexible material capable of matching a lithium metal oxide cathode voltage [Harutyunyan 0004, 0027].
With regard to claim 22, Hashimoto teaches the active material is a cathode active material comprising a lithium based material [0086].
With regard to claim 23, Hashimoto teaches lithium cobalt oxide [0086].
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto as applied to claims 1-5 above, further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2013/0187084 A1, hereafter Yoon), and further in view of Anada et al. (US 2009/0325069 A1, hereafter Anada).
With regard to claims 24-26 Hashimoto teaches a process of preparing an electrode according to claim 2 (as detailed in the rejection of claim 2 above) comprising:
providing a solution to contact conductive fibers (nanotubes) with an anthraquinone group containing compound in a first solvent [0054, 0062, 0064, 0068-0069, 0086]. Hashimoto does not explicitly teach sonicating the solution. However, in a field of endeavor relevant to the problem solved (nanotube preparation), Yoon teaches sonicating a solution of nanotubes and anthraquinone [0097]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the sonication of Yoon with the method of Hashimoto for the benefit of dispersing the nanotubes [Yoon 0097].
Hashimoto teaches that the electrode may be used in a secondary battery but does not teach typical methods of making the secondary battery. However, in the same field of endeavor, Anada teaches a method of making a secondary battery including adding conductive material (analogous to the conductive fibers of Hashimoto), active material, and a binder containing solvents to a dispersion and sonicating (ultrasonic dispersion treatment) the resulting mixture [0094, 0107]. Anada further teaches pressure filtering [0151] and using a roll press to apply (which would require separation from the roll press) the mixture (slurry) onto a current collector which may be aluminum or copper foil (claim 25-26) [0094, 0103]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the production method of Anada with the electrode materials of Hashimoto since it is known to produce batteries with excellent cycle properties and free from performance degradation [Anada 0037-0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
