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 Group 1 (Claims 1-8, 10-14) in the reply filed on 05/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/26.
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, 5, 7, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Merchat, Léo et al. (FR 3107614 A1), hereinafter Merchat.
Regarding claim 1, Merchat teaches a positive electrode based on organic active material ([0003], [0166]), comprising:
An organic active material ([0001]),
An electronically conductive material ([0001]),
A current collector ([0023]),
The active material is a redox compound of Formula 1 ([0056]):
PNG
media_image1.png
222
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 are independently selected among ([0076]):
a hydrogen atom, a halogen, a group selected among:C1 to C50 linear or branched alkyl, C1 to C50 linear or branched fluoroalkyl, -CO2H, optionally in salified form, -SO2OH, optionally in salified form, -PO(OH)2, optionally in salified form, -PO(ORa)2 (Ra is a C1 to C10 linear or branched alkyl group), -CN, amine, -OH, -ORb (Rb is a C1 to C50 linear or branched alkyl group), -CHO, -CO-Rc, (Rc is a C1 to C50 linear or branched alkyl group);
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 are different from H ([0076]);
OR R1, R4, R5, R8 are H, and R2, R3, R6 and R7 are different from H ([0076]);
OR R1, R3, R4, R5, R7 and R8 are H, and R2 and R6 are different from H ([0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Merchat teaches the compound of Formula 1 is such that R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 are selected independently among ([0076]):
a hydrogen atom ([0076]);
a halogen ([0076]);
a group selected among ([0076]):
C1 to C10 linear or branched alkyl ([0076]);
C1 to C10 linear or branched fluoroalkyl ([0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Merchat teaches the compound of Formula 1 is selected among ([0076]):
PNG
media_image2.png
180
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
157
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Merchat specifically teaches the R groups may be made of hydrogen atoms, halogens (fluorine), and/or linear alkyl groups ([0076]).
Regarding claim 5, Merchat teaches the electronically conductive material is selected among carbon black, acetylene black, graphite, carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, and conductive organic polymers ([0157]).
Regarding claim 7, Merchat teaches the electrode comprises a binder ([0023]).
Regarding claim 7, Merchat teaches the electrode comprises a binder ([0023]).
Regarding claim 10, Merchat teaches a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0199]).
Regarding claim 11, Merchat teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte is a solution of a salt in an organic solvent ([0170]):
The salt being selected among LiPF6, LiClO4, and Li[N(FSO2)2] ([0199]);
The organic solvent being a carbonate-based solvent ([0199]).
Regarding claim 12, Merchat teaches the electrode comprises a binder selected among polyvinylidenes, polyethylenes, polyacrylates, alkide binders, glycerophtalic binders, polysiloxanes, polysiloxane-epoxides, polyurethanes, polysaccharides, latexes, carboxymethylcellulose and its derivatives, polyvinylidene fluoride, and polytetrafluoroethylene ([0153]).
Regarding claim 13, Merchat teaches the battery is a rechargeable battery ([0178-0179]).
Regarding claim 14, Merchat teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte is a solution of a salt in an organic solvent:
The salt being LiPF6 ([0199]);
The organic solvent being chosen from diethyl carbonate, ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, or a mixture of these solvents ([0199]).
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.
Claims 4, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merchat.
Regarding claim 4, Merchat teaches the redox compound of Formula 1 is present in the positive electrode in a content ranging from 20 to 80% by weight, relative to the total weight of the positive electrode excluding the current collector ([0151]). Specifically, Merchat teaches a positive electrode comprising a positive active material present in an amount greater than 60 wt% relative to the total weight of the positive electrode, including the current collector. Although Merchat does not expressly disclose that the weight percentage is calculated relative to the total weight of the positive electrode excluding the current collector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to express the active material content on either basis, i.e., including or excluding the current collector, because both calculations merely represent alternative methods of characterizing the composition of the positive electrode and involve routine calculations based upon known component weights.
Further, because the active material content disclosed by Merchat exceeds 60 wt%, and exclusion of the current collector from the denominator would necessarily increase the calculated active material weight percentage, the active material content would reasonably be expected to fall within the claimed range relative to the total weight of the positive electrode excluding the current collector.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective file date to select a wt% within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 6, Merchat teaches the electronically conductive material is present in the positive electrode in a content ranging from 10 to 60% by weight, relative to the total weight of the positive electrode excluding the current collector ([0161]). Specifically, Merchat teaches a positive electrode comprising a conductive material present in an amount less than 20 wt% relative to the total weight of the positive electrode, including the current collector. Although Merchat does not expressly disclose that the weight percentage is calculated relative to the total weight of the positive electrode excluding the current collector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to express the active material content on either basis, i.e., including or excluding the current collector, because both calculations merely represent alternative methods of characterizing the composition of the positive electrode and involve routine calculations based upon known component weights.
Further, because the conductive material content disclosed by Merchat is less than 20 wt%, and exclusion of the current collector from the denominator would necessarily increase the calculated active material weight percentage, the conductive material content would reasonably be expected to fall within the claimed range relative to the total weight of the positive electrode excluding the current collector.
It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective file date to select a wt% within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 8, Merchat teaches a binder ([0023]), wherein binder is present in the positive electrode. Although Merchat does not expressly disclose the claimed binder content range, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the amount of binder through routine experimentation to achieve a balance between electrode mechanical integrity, adhesion to the current collector, processability, and electrochemical performance. The determination of an appropriate binder concentration would have been recognized as a result-effective variable, and selecting a binder content within the claimed range would have been no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571) 431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights