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 Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5 of claim 1, “by following formula:” is grammatically incorrect, the examiner suggests the following correction: “by a following formula:”.
In line 1 of claim 11, “tje” is misspelled and should read “the”.
In line 2 of claim 16, “selected (…)” is grammatically incorrect, the examiner suggests that “selected” be followed by “selected from a list comprising”.
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 10, 13, and 17 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.
Regarding claim 10, the range of the weight proportion of the C3-C10 unsaturated carboxylic acid group in the second additive makes the claim indefinite, because the range contains 0%. If the weight proportion is equal to 0%, then the claimed second additive according to claim 10 would lack an essential component of the claimed second additive of claim 9 on which claim 10 depends. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if the C3-C10 unsaturated carboxylic acid group in the second additive is optional or not, rendering claim 10 indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, the range of weight proportion of the second additive in the positive electrode film renders the claim indefinite, because the range contains 0%. If the weight proportion is equal to 0%, then the claimed positive electrode film of claim 13 would lack the second additive which is an essential component of the positive electrode film claimed by claim 9, on which claim 13 depends. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if the second additive is optional or not, rendering claim 13 indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, the range of the weight proportion of the lithium-rich additive in the positive electrode film renders the claim indefinite, because the range contains 0%. If the weight proportion of the lithium-rich additive in the positive electrode film is 0%, then the claimed positive electrode film layer claimed by claim 17 would lack the lithium-rich additive which an essential component of claim 15, on which claim 17 depends. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if the lithium-rich additive is optional or not, rendering claim 17 indefinite.
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.
(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 1-6, 15, 16, 18= 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-20230187639-A1, Ho.
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.
Regarding claim 2, the acrylic acid of Ho comprises a total number of carbon atoms of 3 (See structure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
640
media_image1.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 claims 15 and 16 Ho teaches the positive electrode film further comprises a lithium-rich additive ([0067], “LiNiO2”), which satisfies the formula of claim 15 of the instant and the requirement of claim 16.
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”).
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230187639-A1, Ho.
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 in view of US-20220407075-A1, Iguchi.
Regarding claim 9, the teachings of Ho 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.
Claims 17 is rejected rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20230187639-A1, Ho in view of US-20230299300-A1, Zhang.
Regarding claim 17, Ho teaches the lithium rich additive comprises the cathode active material ([0067]). Ho also teaches the lithium rich additive may comprise Li2MnO3 ([0073]).
However, Ho teaches the proportion of cathode active material in the solid portion of the water-based electrode slurry is above 60% ([0154]).
Zhang teaches a second positive electrode additive comprising Li2NiO2 which is present at 5% of the total positive electrode active material (See Table 1). Zhang teaches the second positive electrode additive improves fluidity of the positive electrode slurry by nature of its pH of 12.9 ([0026]). Zhang also teaches the additive may comprise Li2MnO3 ([0059]). This means the two options for additives are equivalent, and the Li2MnO3 of Ho could easily be replaced with Li2NiO2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to replace a portion of the positive electrode active material of Ho be with Li2NiO2 in order to improve the fluidity of the positive electrode slurry.
Furthermore, in absence of this modification, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could have easily envisioned a division of a positive electrode active material comprising Li2MnO3 into two parts, where one would serve as the second positive electrode additive and one would serve as the active material.
Either of these modifications would teach all of the positively recited limitations of claim 17 of the instant.Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12148932 (Reference 1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons explained in the table below.
Instant Application
Reference 1
1. A positive electrode sheet, comprising: a positive electrode current collector; and a positive electrode film disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector and comprising an additive, wherein the additive comprises a structural unit made from acrylonitrile and a structural unit made from a monomer represented by following formula (see Claim 1 Instant):
wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each independently selected from hydrogen, an alkyl group with 1-8 carbon atoms, or a saturated carboxylic acid group with 1-8 carbon atoms, and at least one of R1, R2, R3, or R4 is selected from the saturated carboxylic acid group with 1-8 carbon atoms.
1. An electrode plate, comprising: a current collector a bonding agent; an electrode active material layer
1. A positive electrode sheet, comprising: a positive electrode current collector; and a positive electrode film disposed on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector and comprising an additive, wherein the additive comprises a structural unit made from acrylonitrile and a structural unit made from a monomer represented by following formula (see Claim 1 Instant):
wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each independently selected from hydrogen, an alkyl group with 1-8 carbon atoms, or a saturated carboxylic acid group with 1-8 carbon atoms, and at least one of R1, R2, R3, or R4 is selected from the saturated carboxylic acid group with 1-8 carbon atoms.
7.
the bonding agent is selected from the group consisting of polyacrylic acidpolyacrylic-acid-polyacrylonitrile copolymer
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