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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claim 9 is currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there would have been no motivation for a skilled artisan to modify the composite film of Lo to include the lignocellulose (taught by Hikima), as Lo discloses that the composite film “containing overly high amount of the inorganic clay (similar to having an overly low amount of the organic polymer binder) easily peels due to insufficient adhesion, thereby losing its protective effective for the cell” and “containing overly low amount of the inorganic clay (similar to having an overly high amount of the organic polymer binder) cannot have enough mechanical strength and may increase the internal impedance of the cell” [Lo 0017, 0023]. Thus, the addition of lignocellulose would decrease the inorganic clay ratio and increase the internal impedance of the cell or decrease the organic binder ratio and insufficient adhesion.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lo discloses that containing overly high amount of inorganic clay (or overly low amount of polymer binder) will cause the film to peel and containing overly low amount of the inorganic clay (i.e., overly high amount of polymer binder) will provide insufficient mechanical strength and may increase the internal impedance of the cell. In this regard, Hikima teaches that the weight amount of lignocellulose is preferably 0.1 to 10% by mass relative to the total mass of the film composition [Hikima 0117], which is a relatively small amount and is not expected to drastically change the composition of the composite film to include overly high or low amount of polymer binder (or inorganic clay).
Applicant further argues that Williamson discloses a lignocellulose binder mixture of lignocellulose substrate, complexed metal catalyst, complexing agent, and oxidant, where the complexing agent (e.g., EDTA) is used to combine with the metal catalyst (e.g., Fe, Cu, Mn) to form complexed metal catalyst, rather than to modify the lignocellulose as claimed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Williamson teaches in [0016, 0223-0224] that the complexed metal catalyst is mixed with the complexing agent to form the lignocellulose binder mixture, so the argument that the complexing agent is used to form complexed metal catalyst is not found persuasive.
Williamson further teaches wherein one or more components (e.g., complexing agent) of the binder composition can be sprayed, poured or brushed onto the lignocellulose substrate [0147], wherein such spraying, pouring or brushing is expected to modify the lignocellulose substrate (note: “modify” broadly interpreted as to make changes; e.g., spraying the complexing agent on the lignocellulose substrate would change the surface structure of the lignocellulose substrate).
Williamson further teaches that the complexing agent binds metal [0158]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified composite film of Lo (modified by Hikima to include lignocellulose) to include the lignocellulose modified with complexing agent such as EDTA to bind the metal (e.g., Fe, Cu, Mn) [0158] and prevent the metal from travelling within the battery.
Ritschkoff (WO2001023154A1, copy attached) also teaches wherein lignocellulose-based material is treated with a complexing agent (e.g., EDTA) to bind transition metals (abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified lignocelluose of modified Lo, such that the lignocellulose is modified with a complexing agent such as EDTA, with a reasonable expectation to bind and prevent any transition metals from travelling within the battery.
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.
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) 1-4, 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (US20130157126A1, previously cited), in view of Hikima (CN108059733A, previously cited). Regarding claims 1,2,4, Lo discloses an organic-inorganic composite film (i.e., composite film in Example 12) comprising a composite coating comprising:
montmorillonite clay {claim 2} and PVDF (i.e., a first binder) {claim 4} in a weight ratio of 80:20 ([0056][0026]).
When recalculated based on 100 parts by weight of clay, it is equivalent to clay:PVDF in a weight ratio of 100:25, which falls within the claimed weight ratio of 100 parts by weight of clay and 25-270 parts by weight of a first binder.
However, Lo does not disclose wherein the composite film comprises 3 to 35 parts by weight of lignocellulose.
In this regard, Hikima teaches an insulating membrane comprising hydrophobically modified insulating fibers (A) such as lignocellulose [0036], adhesive resin (B) such as PVDF [0122], and microparticles (C) such as montmorillonite [0129], wherein the hydrophobically modified insulating fibers such as lignocellulose has excellent wettability with electrolytes allowing rapid permeation of the electrolyte [0029] and further has good insulating properties [0035].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added lignocellulose in the composite film of Lo, with a reasonable expectation to improve insulation between the cathode and anode plate while allowing rapid permeation of electrolyte [0029, 0035].
Regarding the weight amount of lignocellulose, Hikima discloses that preferably 0.1 to 10% by mass relative to the total mass of the composition to form a membrane through which electrolyte and lithium ions can permeate even when the insulating fiber is tightly entangled [0117].
Hikima further recognizes that binder resin such as PVDF provides excellent film-forming properties [0126], and inorganic microparticles such as montmorillonite provides excellent mechanical strength and dimensional stability in a membrane [0128]
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of lignocellulose, PVDF, and montmorillonite by way of routine experimentation, such that the composite film comprises 3 to 35 parts by weight of lignocellulose, to arrive at a desired balance between mechanical/dimensional stability of the composite film, while also improving insulation between cathode and anode and permeation of electrolyte [0117, 0126, 0128].
Regarding claim 3, modified Lo discloses the organic-inorganic composite film as claimed in claim 1, wherein the clay has a diameter <0.5 μm (see Example 12 that uses the composite coating of Example 1 [Lo 0026]), which falls within the claimed range of “less than or equal to 1 micrometer”.
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Lo discloses the organic-inorganic composite film as claimed in claim 1. However, Lo does not disclose wherein the composite film “further comprises 0.1 to 15 parts by weight of oxide nanopowder”, as claimed.
In this regard, Hikima further discloses that the membrane may comprise inorganic oxide particles such as boehmite, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, silicon oxide [0129-0130] in preferably 0.05 to 20% by mass, relative to 100 parts by mass of the hydrophobically modified insulating fiber (A), wherein the fiber (A) is preferably 0.1 to 10% by mass, relative to the total mass of the composition [0116] (i.e., the range of the inorganic oxide particles is 0.005 to 2% by mass, relative to the total mass of the composition), which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.1 to 15 part by weight of oxide nano powder”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have further added the overlapping amount of inorganic oxide particles with a reasonable expectation to improve mechanical strength and dimensional stability of the membrane [0134 Hikima].
Regarding claim 9, modified Lo discloses the organic-inorganic composite film as claimed in claim 7, wherein the oxide nanopowder has a diameter of 0.1 to 200 μm [Hikima 0133] (i.e., 100-200000nm), which overlaps with the claimed range of “1 nm to 200 nm”. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the overlapping diameter with a reasonable expectation to provide microparticles that provides insulating properties while also improving mechanical strength and dimensional stability of the membrane [Hikima 0131, 0133-0134].
Regarding claim 10, modified Lo discloses the organic-inorganic composite film as claimed in claim 1, wherein the organic-inorganic composite film has a thickness of less than 0.1 μm (Example 12; [0056]), which is close enough to the claimed range of 0.1 micrometers to 10 micrometers, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness [MPEP 2144.05(I)].
Alternatively, Lo further discloses that the composite coating may have a thickness of 0.1 μm to 10 μm [0017] and further discloses that the cell with an overly thick composite film has poor electrical properties such as reduced cell capacitance, and the cell with an overly thin composite film cannot efficiently separate the anode and the cathode such that an internal short-circuit occurs [0017 Lo]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the claimed range with a reasonable expectation to provide good electrical properties while also preventing internal short-circuit [0017 Lo].
Regarding claim 11, Lo discloses a lithium battery, comprising:
a positive electrode plate (cathode plate 15 [0018, 0020]);
a negative electrode plate (anode plate 11 [0018, 0020]);
an electrolyte disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate [0018, 0020];
a separator disposed in the electrolyte (separator 13 [0018, 0020]);
the organic-inorganic composite film as claimed in claim 1 disposed on the surface of the negative electrode plate, the surface of the separator (see Fig 3)
Regarding claim 12, Lo discloses the lithium battery as claimed in claim 11, wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a lithium metal composite oxide (LiCoO2 [0024]), a first conductive additive (i.e., an electrical conductivity enhancer of carbon material or “KS-6” [0024]), and a second binder (PVDF binder [0024]);
Regarding claim 13, Lo discloses the lithium battery as claimed in claim 11, wherein the separator comprises polyethylene (“polyethylene separator” [0057]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Lo discloses the lithium battery as claimed in claim 11, wherein the negative electrode plate is graphite negative electrode plate (i.e., mesocarbon [0025]).
Regarding claim 16, Lo discloses the lithium battery as claimed in claim 14, wherein the graphite negative electrode plate comprises graphite negative electrode active material (i.e., mesocarbon Micro beads [0025]), a second conductive additive (an electrical conductivity enhancer of carbon material or Super-P [0025]), and a third binder (PVDF binder [0025]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (US20130157126A1, previously cited), in view of Hikima (CN108059733A, previously cited) and Williamson (US20150284567A1, previously cited), and further evidenced by Ritschkoff (WO2001023154A1, copy attached).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Lo discloses the organic-inorganic composite film as claimed in claim 1. However, Lo does not disclose wherein the lignocellulose is modified by a chelating agent, and the lignocellulose and the chelating agent have a weight ratio of 100:0.1 to 100:20.
In this regard, Williamson is directed to a method for making lignocellulose composite products wherein a lignocellulose mixture includes lignocellulose substrates and a chelating or complexing agent such as EDTA, DTPA, wherein the components (e.g., complexing agent) of the composition can be sprayed, poured, brushed onto the lignocellulose substrates [0147], which would necessarily change modify the lignocellulose (note: modify is interpreted to make changes; e.g., spraying the complexing agent would change the surface structure of the lignocellulose substrate). Williamson further teaches wherein the chelating or complexing agent is in an amount of 0.005 wt% to about 5 wt% based on the weight of the lignocellulose [0014], which overlaps with the claimed lignocellulose to chelating agent weight ratio of 100:0.1 to 100:20. Williamson further teaches wherein the complexing agents bind metal (e.g., Fe, Cu, Mn) [0158]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the lignocellulose of modified Lo with a complexing agent such as the claimed EDTA in the overlapping wt%, with a reasonable expectation to provide a lignocellulose having high internal bond strength [0203] and to trap any metal traveling inside the battery [0158].
Ritschkoff also teaches wherein a lignocellulose-based material is treated with a complexing agent (e.g., EDTA) to bind transition metals (abstract; pg 5, lines 25-28). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect that when such lignocellulose treated with a complexing agent (e.g., EDTA) is used in the composite film of Lo, it would bind and prevent any transition metals from travelling within the battery.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights