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 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN-111769287-A (N).
Regarding claim 21, N teaches a positive electrode sheet [0025], comprising: a positive electrode current collector [0046]; and a positive electrode film disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector [0046] and comprising an additive ([0044] “acrylonitrile”, [0053] “humic acid”). Humic acid is polybasic and has the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
300
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is a C=C double bond, where each C has one H and a carbon chain attached. The number of C that aren’t the two carbons which are double bonded is 8. There are two carboxylic acid groups on the chain, making this a polybasic acid. Therefore, humic acid meets the structural requirements of the formula of claim 21 because each chain extending from the C=C structure is a saturated carbon chain with two carboxylic acid groups.
Therefore, claim 21 is unpatentable over N.
As some observations, the disclosure of the instant does not exclude other functional groups, nor does the claim language. This is because the disclosure only mentions dibasic and polybasic acids in two spots [0056], [0077], and provides no specific examples for these options, meaning this limitation is very broad.
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 1-6, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230187639-A1 (Ho) In view of US-20220006069-A1 (Harada)
Regarding claim 1, Ho teaches:A positive electrode sheet ([0205], “cathode electrode layer”) comprising:
a positive electrode current collector ([0205]); and
a positive electrode film ([0204], “homogenized cathode slurry”) disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector and comprising an additive ([0203], “binder material”), wherein the additive comprises a structural unit made from acrylonitrile ([0200]) and an acrylic acid ([0198]).
Acrylic acid meets the requirements of the structural unit of claim 1 of the instant because it is a structural unit made from a monomer represented by the formula of claim 1 of the instant, comprising R1, R2, and R3 which are hydrogens, and an R4 which is a saturated carboxylic acid group comprising 1 carbon atom.
Ho does not explicitly teach a lithium-rich additive where a weight proportion of the lithium-rich additive in the positive electrode film is greater than 0% and less than or equal to 15 wt%.
Harada teaches a positive electrode additive comprising Li5FeO4 [0017]. Harada teaches a mass percent of the additive with respect to the total mass of the positive electrode layer is between 0.1% and 5% [0016]. Harada teaches the benefit of the positive electrode additive is it can suppress the decrease in battery capacity due to irreversible capacity of the negative electrode [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to add the additive of Harada to the positive electrode sheet of Ho in order to achieve the benefit of suppressing the decrease in battery capacity. It would have been obvious to do because Harada teaches a clear benefit to the additive and adding the additive to the positive electrode layer of Ho would amount to no more than applying a known method of improving positive electrode layers to an invention that is a positive electrode layer.
The lithium rich additive of Harada meets the structural requirements of the formula of the instant claim 1. The mass percent range of Harada falls entirely inside the claimed range of the instant claim 1.
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Ho and Harada.
Regarding claim 2, the acrylic acid of Ho comprises a total number of carbon atoms of 3 (See structure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
305
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Ho teaches a weight proportion of the structural unit made from the monomer in the additive is in a range of 60-85% ([0127]).
Regarding claim 4, Ho teaches a weight proportion of the structural unit made from the monomer in the additive is in a range of 65-75% ([0127]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Ho teaches an additive that has the same ranges of acrylonitrile and acrylic acid concentrations as that which are claimed by the instant claims 3 and 4 (60-85% or 65-75%, respectively). Therefore, although Ho does not explicitly teach a weight-average molecular weight of the additive, it must fall in the same range as the claimed ranges of claims 5 and 6 of the instant.
Regarding claim 16, Ho teaches the lithium rich additive is Li5FeO4, which is one of the formulas from the list of formulas for the additive claimed by the instant claim 16, which renders claim 16 unpatentable.
Regarding claim 18, Ho teaches a secondary battery comprising the positive electrode sheet ([0228]).
Regarding claim 19, Ho teaches a battery pack comprising the secondary battery ([0085], “electrochemical apparatus”). The examples provided in [0083] clearly contain battery packs which are the same as the one disclosed in the instant Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 20, Ho teaches a power consumption apparatus, comprising the second battery ([0208], “a multi-channel battery tester”).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230187639-A1 (Ho) In view of US-20220006069-A1 (Harada)
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ho teaches a weight proportion of the additive in the positive electrode film is in a range of 1% to 5% based on a total weight of the solid portion of the electrode slurry ([0156]). This overlaps with the claimed ranges of claims 7 and 8 and therefore renders the claimed subject matter of the two claims unpatentable. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the claimed additive weight percent in order to arrive at a desired reduction of active material degradation.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230187639-A1 (Ho), US-20220006069-A1 (Harada)in further view of US-20220407075-A1, Iguchi.
Regarding claim 9, the teachings of Ho and Harada are outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Ho further teaches the additive may comprise PVDF/HFP ([0119]).
Ho does not teach the additive is a first additive or that the positive electrode film further comprises a second additive, the second additive being a vinylidene fluoride modified polymer having a vinylidene fluoride main chain and a C3-C10 unsaturated carboxylic acid group grafted on the vinylidene fluoride main chain.
However, Iguchi teaches a composition for a binder for a positive electrode ([0017]) comprising a second polymer which may be VdF/HFP ([0111]).
Iguchi further teaches a first polymer comprising a pentenoic acid modified PVDF ([0027]).
Iguchi teaches the benefit of the first polymer is an improved adhesion to the current collector and electrolytic swelling resistance is improved by the selection of a pentenoic acid unit ([0018]).
Iguchi further teaches the benefit of the combination of the first and second polymer is increased flexibility and a lower likelihood that the electrode mixture will increase in viscosity ([0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to combine the two inventions. This would be done by modifying the positive electrode film layer of Ho to comprise the pentenoic acid modified PVDF of Iguchi in addition to the acrylic acid/acrylonitrile copolymer of Ho. Ho teaches the equivalence of VdF/HFP and the acrylic acid/acrylonitrile copolymer ([0119]), so the addition of the modified PVDF of Iguchi would produce the same benefits of improved flexibility and electrolyte swelling resistance.
Pentenoic acid is an unsaturated carboxylic acid group comprising 5 carbons.
Therefore, the modified PVDF of Modified Ho would comprise a vinylidene fluoride modified polymer having a vinylidene fluoride main chain and a C3-C10 unsaturated carboxylic acid group grafted on the vinylidene fluoride main chain.
Modified Ho would therefore teach the claimed matter of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Modified Ho teaches a weight proportion of the C3-C10 unsaturated carboxylic acid group in the second additive is less than or equal to 1% (Iguchi, [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Ho teaches a weight proportion of the C3-C10 unsaturated carboxylic acid group in the second additive is in a range of 0.5-1% (Iguchi, [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Ho teaches a weight-average molecular weight of the second additive is in a range of 800,000-1500,000 (Iguchi, [0038])
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Modified Ho teaches a weight proportion of the first additive to the second additive is more preferably 50/50 (Iguchi, [0133]). Modified Ho teaches the binder comprises 1-5% of the total weight of the solid portion of the electrode slurry (Ho, [0156]). Therefore, the range of Modified Ho overlaps with the claimed ranges of claims 13 and 14 of the instant invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230187639-A1 (Ho) in view of US-20150083975-A1 (Y).
Regarding claim 22, Ho teaches
A positive electrode sheet ([0205], “cathode electrode layer”) comprising:
a positive electrode current collector ([0205]); and
a positive electrode film ([0204], “homogenized cathode slurry”) disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector and comprising an additive ([0203], “binder material”), wherein the additive comprises a structural unit made from acrylonitrile ([0200]) and an acrylic acid ([0198]).
Acrylic acid meets the requirements of the structural unit of claim 22 of the instant because it is a structural unit made from a monomer represented by the formula of claim 22 of the instant, comprising R1, R2, and R3 which are hydrogens, and an R4 which is a saturated carboxylic acid group comprising 1 carbon atom.
Ho teaches a weight proportion of the additive in the positive electrode film is in a range of about 1% to about 5% based on a total weight of the solid portion of the electrode slurry ([0156]). Ho further teaches the word “about” means variation of up to 20 percent is possible [0062].
Ho does not teach motivation to select a weight proportion below 1%.
Y teaches that the relative amount of binder needs to be decreased in an electrode in order to provide a lithium battery with high energy density and excellent life characteristics [0006].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention, when implementing the design of Ho, would have found motivation to select to use a weight proportion of the additive of 0.8% relative to the total weight of the solid portion of the electrode slurry in order to maximize energy density and life characteristics. It would have been obvious to do because 0.8% lies within the permissible error of “about 1%” according to Ho’s definition of the term “about” and because Y teaches there is sufficient motivation to try such a modification. Doing so would place the amount of the additive of Ho within the claimed range of the instant claim 22, which is between 0.01% and 0.8%, rendering claim 22 unpatentable over Ho.
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