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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-11, 13-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN110165219B (published 23 August 2019; using US20210408547A1 as English translation; cited in IDS filed 29 September 2023) in view of Paulsen US20120270104A1.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an electrochemical apparatus (Wang, [0027]), comprising
a positive electrode (Wang, [0028]), wherein the positive electrode comprises a current collector and a positive electrode mixture layer disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (Wang, [0029]), and the positive electrode mixture layer comprises a positive electrode active substance and a binder (Wang, [0030]),
a thickness of the current collector is 8 µm to 12 µm (Wang, [0118], 12 µm),
wherein the binder comprises a fluorine-containing polymer (Wang, [0031]),
PNG
media_image1.png
720
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and in an XRD diffraction pattern of the fluorine-containing polymer, a diffraction peak A appears at 25° to 27° (Wang, Fig. 1), and a diffraction peak B appears at 37° to 39° (Wang, Fig. 1)
wherein overlapping with 1≤A(111)/B(022) ≤4, A(111) is an area of the diffraction peak A and B(022) is an area of the diffraction peak B (Wang, as reasonably suggested by the area under peaks A and B in Fig. 1), see MPEP § 2144.03. While Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein peak A corresponds to a (111) crystal plane and peak B corresponds to a (022) crystal plane, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein peak A corresponds to a (111) crystal plane and peak B corresponds to a (022) crystal plane, as the product disclosed by Wang is a substantially similar material used in a substantially similar environment. See MPEP § 2112.01. Wang does not teach a diffraction peak C appears at 42° to 43° and corresponds to a (131) crystal plane.
Paulsen teaches a binder comprises a fluorine-containing polymer (Paulsen, [0067]) and in an XRD diffraction pattern of the fluorine-containing polymer, a diffraction peak A appears at 25° to 27° (Paulsen, Fig. 11, bottom portion), and a diffraction peak B appears at 37° to 39° (Paulsen, Fig. 11, bottom portion), a diffraction peak C appears at 42° to 43° (Paulsen, Fig. 11, bottom portion), which the skilled artisan would find obvious wherein peak A corresponds to a (111) crystal plane and peak B corresponds to a (022) crystal plane and peak C corresponds to a (131) crystal plane, as the fluorine-containing polymer taught by Paulsen is a substantially similar material used in a substantially similar environment. See MPEP § 2112.01. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product taught by Wang wherein fluorine-containing polymer XRD comprises peaks A, B and C, as taught by Paulsen, thereby binding the cathode material for a functioning device (Paulsen, [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang as modified by Paulsen further teaches wherein a weight-average molecular weight of the binder is 800000 to 1100000 (Wang, [0121], 912000).
Regarding claim 4, Wang as modified by Paulsen also teaches wherein a molecular weight distribution of the binder satisfies: 2≤Mw/Mn≤4 (Wang, [0033]), rendering obvious the claimed range of 2.05 ≤ Mw/Mn ≤ 3.6, see MPEP § 2144.05, wherein Mn is a number-average molecular weight of the binder, and Mw is a weight-average molecular weight of the binder, (Wang, [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang as modified by Paulen additionally teaches wherein the fluorine-containing polymer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of homopolymers or copolymers of vinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropylene, pentafluoropropylene, tetrafluoropropylene, trifluoropropylene, perfluorobutene, hexafluorobutadiene, hexafluoroisobutylene, trifluoroethylene, trifluorochloroethylene, and tetrafluoroethylene (Wang, [0036]; Paulsen, [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang as modified by Paulsen further teaches wherein the positive electrode satisfies at least one of the following characteristics: (e) a mass percentage of the binder in the positive electrode mixture layer is 1% to 5% (Wang, [0118], 3 mass percent).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses an electronic apparatus (Wang, [0112]), comprising an electrochemical apparatus (Wang, [0027], [0112]), the electrochemical apparatus comprises
a positive electrode (Wang, [0028]), wherein the positive electrode comprises a current collector and a positive electrode mixture layer disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (Wang, [0029]), and the positive electrode mixture layer comprises a positive electrode active substance and a binder (Wang, [0030]),
a thickness of the current collector is 8 µm to 12 µm (Wang, [0118], 12 µm),
wherein the binder comprises a fluorine-containing polymer (Wang, [0031]),
PNG
media_image1.png
720
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and in an XRD diffraction pattern of the fluorine-containing polymer, a diffraction peak A appears at 25° to 27° (Wang, Fig. 1), and a diffraction peak B appears at 37° to 39° (Wang, Fig. 1)
wherein overlapping with 1≤A(111)/B(022) ≤4, A(111) is an area of the diffraction peak A and B(022) is an area of the diffraction peak B (Wang, as reasonably suggested by the area under peaks A and B in Fig. 1), see MPEP § 2144.03. While Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein peak A corresponds to a (111) crystal plane and peak B corresponds to a (022) crystal plane, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein peak A corresponds to a (111) crystal plane and peak B corresponds to a (022) crystal plane, as the product disclosed by Wang is a substantially similar material used in a substantially similar environment. See MPEP § 2112.01. Wang does not teach a diffraction peak C appears at 42° to 43° and corresponds to a (131) crystal plane.
Paulsen teaches a binder comprises a fluorine-containing polymer (Paulsen, [0067]) and in an XRD diffraction pattern of the fluorine-containing polymer, a diffraction peak A appears at 25° to 27° (Paulsen, Fig. 11, bottom portion), and a diffraction peak B appears at 37° to 39° (Paulsen, Fig. 11, bottom portion), a diffraction peak C appears at 42° to 43° (Paulsen, Fig. 11, bottom portion), which the skilled artisan would find obvious wherein peak A corresponds to a (111) crystal plane and peak B corresponds to a (022) crystal plane and peak C corresponds to a (131) crystal plane, as the fluorine-containing polymer taught by Paulsen is a substantially similar material used in a substantially similar environment. See MPEP § 2112.01. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product taught by Wang wherein fluorine-containing polymer XRD comprises peaks A, B and C, as taught by Paulsen, thereby binding the cathode material for a functioning device (Paulsen, [0010]).
Regarding claim 13, Wang as modified by Paulsen further teaches wherein a weight-average molecular weight of the binder is 800000 to 1100000 (Wang, [0121], 912000).
Regarding claim 14, Wang as modified by Paulsen also teaches wherein a molecular weight distribution of the binder satisfies: 2≤Mw/Mn≤4 (Wang, [0033]), rendering obvious the claimed range of 2.05 ≤ Mw/Mn ≤ 3.6, see MPEP § 2144.05, wherein Mn is a number-average molecular weight of the binder, and Mw is a weight-average molecular weight of the binder, (Wang, [0033]).
Regarding claim 15, Wang as modified by Paulen additionally teaches wherein the fluorine-containing polymer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of homopolymers or copolymers of vinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropylene, pentafluoropropylene, tetrafluoropropylene, trifluoropropylene, perfluorobutene, hexafluorobutadiene, hexafluoroisobutylene, trifluoroethylene, trifluorochloroethylene, and tetrafluoroethylene (Wang, [0036]; Paulsen, [0067]).
Regarding claim 20, Wang as modified by Paulsen further teaches wherein the positive electrode satisfies at least one of the following characteristics: (e) a mass percentage of the binder in the positive electrode mixture layer is 1% to 5% (Wang, [0118], 3 mass percent).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN110165219B (published 23 August 2019; using US20210408547A1 as English translation; cited in IDS filed 29 September 2023) in view of Paulsen US20120270104A1 and further in view of Chen US20230163280A1.
Regarding claim 6, Wang as modified by Paulsen does not teach wherein an ultimate compacted density of the positive electrode mixture layer is 3.0 g/mm3 to 4.5 g/mm3.
Chen teaches wherein an ultimate compacted density of the positive electrode mixture layer is 3.5 to 3.7 g/cm3 (Chen, Table 2, embodiments 1-9), satisfying the claim limitation 3.0 g/cm3 to 4.5 g/cm3. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product taught by Wang as modified by Paulsen, wherein the compacted density is 3.5 to 3.7 g/cm3, as taught by Chen, thereby reducing the impedance of the battery and the rate of change in thickness of the battery during storage at high temperature (Chen, [0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Wang as modified by Paulsen does not teach wherein an ultimate compacted density of the positive electrode mixture layer is 3.0 g/mm3 to 4.5 g/mm3.
Chen teaches wherein an ultimate compacted density of the positive electrode mixture layer is 3.5 to 3.7 g/cm3 (Chen, Table 2, embodiments 1-9), satisfying the claim limitation 3.0 g/cm3 to 4.5 g/cm3. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product taught by Wang as modified by Paulsen, wherein the compacted density is 3.5 to 3.7 g/cm3, as taught by Chen, thereby reducing the impedance of the battery and the rate of change in thickness of the battery during storage at high temperature (Chen, [0054]).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN110165219B (published 23 August 2019; using US20210408547A1 as English translation; cited in IDS filed 29 September 2023) in view of Paulsen US20120270104A1 and further in view of Otsuka US20160079007A1.
Regarding claim 7, Wang as modified by Paulsen does not teach wherein an adhesion force between the positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector is 15 N/m to 35 N/m.
Otsuka teaches wherein an adhesion force between the positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector is 15 N/m to 31 N/m (Otsuka, [0241-0242]), satisfying the claim limitation 15 N/m to 35 N/m. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Wang as modified by Paulsen, wherein the adhesion force is 15 to 31 N/m, as taught by Otsuka, thereby the electrode active material layer is hardly separated from the collector (Otsuka, [0242]).
Regarding claim 17, Wang as modified by Paulsen does not teach wherein an adhesion force between the positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector is 15 N/m to 35 N/m.
Otsuka teaches wherein an adhesion force between the positive electrode mixture layer and the current collector is 15 N/m to 31 N/m (Otsuka, [0241-0242]), satisfying the claim limitation 15 N/m to 35 N/m. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Wang as modified by Paulsen, wherein the adhesion force is 15 to 31 N/m, as taught by Otsuka, thereby the electrode active material layer is hardly separated from the collector (Otsuka, [0242]).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang CN110165219B (published 23 August 2019; using US20210408547A1 as English translation; cited in IDS filed 29 September 2023) in view of Paulsen US20120270104A1 and further in view of Wu US20200028169A1.
Regarding claim 8, Wang does not disclose wherein a Dv50 of the positive electrode active substance is 0.5 µm to 35 µm.
Wu teaches wherein a Dv50 of the positive electrode active substance is 5 µm to 20 µm (Wu, [0031]), satisfying the claim limitation 0.5 µm to 35 µm. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Wang as modified by Paulsen, wherein Dv50 is 5 µm to 20 µm, as taught by Wu, thereby contributing to improve capacity, energy density, rate performance, and cycle performance (Wu, [0031]).
Regarding claim 18, Wang does not disclose wherein a Dv50 of the positive electrode active substance is 0.5 µm to 35 µm.
Wu teaches wherein a Dv50 of the positive electrode active substance is 5 µm to 20 µm (Wu, [0031]), satisfying the claim limitation 0.5 µm to 35 µm. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Wang as modified by Paulsen, wherein Dv50 is 5 µm to 20 µm, as taught by Wu, thereby contributing to improve capacity, energy density, rate performance, and cycle performance (Wu, [0031]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner notes that amending claims 1 and 11 to include the previously optional limitation of claims 10 and 20, respectively, the scope of the claims have been changed.
The examiner notes that applicant’s arguments that Wang's Table 1 (paragraph [0123]) tracks every single one of its customized polymers (PVDF-1A through PVDF-1J) and demonstrates that their signature peaks are strictly bounded between 35.8 and 36.8° and Wang completely lacks Applicant's required Peak B window (37 to 39°), meaning the claimed mathematical peak area ratio cannot physically exist in Wang. This appears to be only a partial reading of the full disclosure of Wang. As set froth above, and repeated again below for clarity, the device taught by Wang very clearly shows peaks in applicant’s A and B range and Wang Fig. 1 appears to reasonably suggest they would have overlapping ratios with that of the claimed range, satisfying the claim limitations as currently drafted, as no additional metes and bounds
PNG
media_image1.png
720
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
have been provided to further distinguish over the art that has been applied.
The examiner notes that the Courts have held that "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. See MPEP § 2112.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights