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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 4/10/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11, 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/10/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 7-8 of claim 1, “in irregular film-like distribution on surface” is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggests “in an irregular film-like distribution on a surface” as a correction.
In lines 11-12 of claim 1, “in irregularly shaped thin film-like distribution” is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggests “in the irregularly shaped thin film-like distribution” as a correction.
In line 13 of claim 1, “in single particle distribution nor in distribution of clusters composed of single particles” is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggests “in a single particle distribution nor in a distribution of clusters composed of single particles” as a correction.
In line 5 of claim 2, “along edge of a film-like structure” is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggests “along an edge of a film-like structure” as a correction.
In lines 3-4 of claim 4, “a total thickness of entire negative electrode film layer” is grammatically incorrect. The examiner suggests “a total thickness of the entire negative electrode film layer” as a correction.
In line 2 of claim 5, “mass percentage” should read “a mass percentage”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 5 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.
In lines 5-6 of claim 4, the limitation “a mass percentage of the emulsion-type binder in the entire negative electrode film layer” is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if this is the same mass percentage as recited in lines 4-5 or a different one.
In line 3 of claim 5, the limitation “mass percentage of the emulsion-type binder in an upper half layer” is indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if this is the same mass percentage as is recited in line 2 of claim 5 or a different one.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-111725508-A, WU.
All page numbers and line numbers are in reference to those provided in the furnished copy of the reference.
The process of making the negative electrode slurry of Example 4 of WU with obvious modifications meets all of the requirements of a process of making the negative electrode film layer of the instant. A detailed comparison is provided in the table below.
Instant
Reference Example 4
Instant Step (a) [0079]
90-98% negative electrode active material by weight of total solids [0082]
96.5 wt% negative electrode active material (p. 5, line 45)
0.5-2 wt% conductive agent [0082]
1.5 wt% conductive agent powder (p. 5, line 45)
0.5-2 wt% additive [0082], additive comprises the second binder, which may comprise CMC [0089-90]
2 wt% thickener CMC powder (p. 5, line 46)
Negative electrode active material may be graphite [0047]
Negative electrode active material is graphite (p. 5, line 45)
Conductive agent may be carbon black [0074]
Conductive agent is Super P (which is carbon black) (p. 5, lines 45-46)
Mixing to obtain a first mixture [0079], instant is silent to a required method outside of the non-limiting examples.
(1) Ingredients go through first stirring to obtain a first mixed powder (p. 5, lines 46-48)
Instant Step (b-1) [0080]
Adding the first mixture to the emulsion-type binder [0080] with a ratio of 1:4-4:1 SBR:CMC [0090].
(4) mixing the slurry of (3) with the binder (SBR) at a ratio of 2 parts SBR to 1 part CMC (p. 5, line 56-57).
Adding deionized water to adjust a mass fraction of solid components in the range of 63-68% by weight to obtain an initial slurry [0080]
(2) mixing the mixed powder of (1) with water to obtain a slurry of 60 wt% (p. 5, lines 50-51).
Instant Step (b-2) [0080]
Kneading and stirring the initial slurry obtained in step (b-1) [0080]; kneading time of 2-100 min, revolution speed is 20-200 rpm [0083].
(4) kneading at 20 rpm revolution for 40 minutes (p. 5, line 57).
Instant Step (b-3) [0080]
Adding DI water to adjust mass fraction of solid components to 50-60% to obtain a negative electrode slurry
(3) Mixing slurry of (2) with water to obtain a slurry with a solid content of 45% by weight (p. 5, line 53).
Formation of electrode plate
Instant is silent to method of application
Reference is silent to method of application.
As explained above, WU does not teach that the first mixed powder is added to the SBR before the dilution processes.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to switch the order of mixing of steps (4) and (2) and steps (2) and (3) because doing so would amount to no more than switching the order in which steps are executed with a reasonable chance of success doing so. WU is silent to reasons why this shouldn’t be done. Additionally, the instant does not provide a reason for the order of steps (b-1)-(b-3), nor does it provide a reason why the order may not be changed.
Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
The resulting step order would therefore be (1), (4), (2), (3), which teaches the actions of the instant in the prescribed order of the instant.
Additionally, WU teaches a final dilution of 45% solids at the end of (3), which is not within the instant’s range of 50-60%.
However, in Example 1, WU teaches a dilution in step (3) of 54 wt% solids (p. 5, line 9) and in Example 3, WU teaches a dilution in step (3) of 55 wt% solids (p. 5, line 33). WU teaches no reason why this could not be done for Example 4. WU further teaches a range of 45-55 wt% solids may be used (p. 3, lines 49-50).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to adjust the final dilution of the negative electrode slurry of WU to be in the range of 54% and 55% solids because doing so would amount to no more than modifying one example to have a different parameter taken from another example with a reasonable chance of success.
Alternatively, WU teaches Example 2, which has a dilution of 40 wt% solids at the end of step (3). WU teaches the electrochemical performance of Example 2 is poorer than that of Example 1 because the slurry is too wet (p. 6, lines 34-36). This suggests that higher wt% of solids at the end of (3) perform better. Additionally, the efficiency of Example 4 is lower than that of Examples 1 and 3 (Table 1, see p. 7-8 of original copy of WU).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to optimize the wt% of solids in Example 4 of WU to be higher in order to achieve a favorable wt% to improve electrochemical performance of the electrochemical cell using the negative electrode plate of WU. This would have been obvious to do because it would amount to no more than optimizing a result affective variable.
A negative electrode active material layer and negative electrode made through this method of preparation that meets the requirements of the method of making the negative electrode active material layer and negative electrode of the instant inherently would possess all of the claimed properties of the instant claims 1-5.
Modified WU is silent to the following claimed properties of claims 1-5 of the instant, but the following must be true of the product of Modified WU:
For claim 1, the emulsion-type binder is in irregular film-like distribution on surface of the negative electrode active material; and the irregular film-like distribution is a state in which, in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of the negative electrode film layer taken by a scanning electron microscope at a magnification of 10K, the emulsion-type binder is in irregularly shaped thin film–like distribution on the surface of the negative electrode active material, that is neither in single particle distribution nor in distribution of clusters composed of single particles.
For claim 2, on the surface of the negative electrode active material, in the SEM image of the negative electrode film layer taken by the scanning electron microscope at the magnification of 10K, a piece of the emulsion-type binder in irregular film-like distribution is arbitrarily selected, a closed region is constructed along edge of a film-like structure of the piece of the emulsion-type binder, and a radius of a standard circle normalized from the closed region is not less than 500 nm.
For claim 3, in the SEM image, given that an area sum of regions in which the emulsion-type binder is in irregular film-like distribution is A and that an area sum of regions in which the emulsion-type binder is in single particle distribution or in distribution of clusters composed of single particles is B, then a ratio of A to (A + B) is at least 10:100.
For claim 4, in a direction of an outer surface of the negative electrode film layer toward the current collector, given that a ratio of a longitudinal depth of the negative electrode film layer to a total thickness of entire negative electrode film layer is d, that a ratio of a mass percentage of the emulsion-type binder in the negative electrode film layer of the longitudinal depth to a mass percentage of the emulsion-type binder in the entire negative electrode film layer is x, that a total thickness of the entire negative electrode film layer is 1, and that a mass percentage of the emulsion-type binder in the entire negative electrode film layer is 1, then 0 < d < 1 and 0<x<1; and x and d satisfy: 1 < x/d ≤ 1.8.
For claim 5, a mass percentage of the emulsion-type binder in a lower half layer of the negative electrode film layer is less than mass percentage of the emulsion-type binder in an upper half layer of the negative electrode film layer by a difference of not more than 12%, the lower half layer and the upper half layer being bounded by 1/2 of thickness of the negative electrode film layer located on a same side of the current collector.
Regarding claim 1, WU additionally teaches a negative electrode plate (p. 6, line 18, “a negative electrode pieces”. The examiner asserts that the word “pieces” is a machine translation error and that it is meant to be “plates”), comprising: a current collector (p. 6, line 17, “a copper foil”); and a negative electrode film layer (p. 6, line 17, “the negative electrode slurry”) disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (p. 6, line 17, “was coated on copper foil”), the negative electrode film layer comprising a negative electrode active material (p. 5, line 1 “negative electrode active material”) and an emulsion-type binder (p. 5, line 12, “the binder SBR”, SBR is used as the emulsion-type binder in Example 1 of the instant [0129], so therefore SBR must be an emulsion-type binder).
Regarding claim 6, WU teaches the emulsion-type binder is SBR (p.5, line 12, “the binder SBR”).
Regarding claim 7, WU teaches a secondary battery, comprising: a positive electrode plate; the negative electrode plate; a separator; and a liquid electrolyte (p. 6, lines 17-20, all elements taught).
Regarding claim 10, WU teaches an electric apparatus (p. 6, line 22, “charge-discharge test” means that it was charged and discharged by an electric apparatus), comprising the secondary battery.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-111725508-A, WU, in view of US-20230231263-A1, LI.
Regarding claim 8, WU does not teach a battery module comprising the secondary battery.
LI teaches a battery (11, also referred to as a “battery module” in brief description of Fig. 4) made up of battery cells (111).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to use the batteries of WU into a battery module as seen in LI because doing so would amount to no more than the substitution of one type of battery cell for another that was known in the art to achieve the predictable result of a functioning battery module.
Regarding claim 9, WU does not teach a battery pack comprising the battery module.
LI teaches a battery pack (11, which is referred to as a battery pack in the brief description of Fig. 3). These terms are used interchangeably, meaning the battery pack of LI comprises the battery module of LI.
Therefore, the combination of WU and LI creates a battery pack comprising the battery modules of LI, which further comprise the batteries of WU. This teaches the claimed requirements of claim 9 of the instant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights