CTNF 18/481,575 CTNF 88637 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This Office action is in response to Application No. 18/481,575 to Park et al ., assigned to Ford Global Technologies, LLC., Dearborn, U.S.A., filed 10/05/2023 and published as U.S. PG Publication 2025/0118727 A1 on 04/10/2025. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. All pending claims are under full consideration. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/05/2023 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner. A duly initialed and signed copy is attached herewith. Accordingly, information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by Examiner. Drawings The drawings filed on 10/05/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites, “…a lithium-manganese rich (LMR) positive electrode layer…”, claim 11 recites, “…the LMR positive electrode …”, claim 14 recites, “…a lithium-manganese rich (LMR) slurry…”, claim 15 recites “…the LMR rich slurry…”, and claim 20 recites “…an electrode with a lithium-manganese rich layer …”. The exact chemical composition of the “lithium-manganese rich (LMR) ” layer or slurry is unknown. Furthermore, the molar atomic ratio of the magnesium relative to lithium or to any other element in the composition that qualifies to be “lithium-manganese rich (LMR)” is unknown. The limitation “lithium-manganese rich” ,therefore, renders the claims indefinite. Claim 2, 14, 15, 20 recite, “…ultra-high BET carbon…”, which is not explicitly defined in the claims, and from the claims language it is not clearly known what “BET” stands for. In the absence of explicit definition of “BET” in the claim, the limitation “…a BET carbon is unknown and , therefore, renders the claims and their dependent claims are indefinite. Claim 8, 18 recite the limitation, “…wherein the acrylic acid is a modified polyvinylidene fluoride.”. It is not clear how the “acrylic acid” having formula COOHCH=CH2 is a modified polyvinylidene fluoride having formula –[-CF2-CH2-]- since both belongs to two different classes of organic compounds. This renders the claim indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1-3, 5-11, 14-15, 17-18, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0073006 A1) in view of Lee et al (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0082835 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , 14 , 20 Ho discloses an electrode assembly comprising a cathode, an anode, a separator and an electrolyte and a method of forming (Ho paragraph 0078, 0083, 0244). The electrode assembly comprise a cathode for a secondary battery formed by coating a slurry onto a current collector (Ho paragraph 0018), and the current collector is a metal current collector (Ho paragraph 0055, 0203). The current collector has an overlying conductive coating layer such a carbon based coating layer, carbon nanotubes (Ho paragraph 0055, 0204), and a binder to hold conductive agent in place and adhere them unto a conductive metal part (Ho paragraph 0027), that is between the metal current collector and the cathode active material, considered equivalent to the coating. Ho disclosed the carbon and carbon nanotubes among other forms of carbon including carbon black, graphite, expanded graphite, graphene, graphene nanoplatelets, carbon fibers, carbon nano-fibers, graphitized carbon flake, carbon tubes, carbon nanotubes, activated carbon, Super P, 0-dimensional KS6, 1-dimensional vapor grown carbon fibers (VGCF), mesoporous carbon, and combinations thereof (Ho paragraph 0204). Therefore, choosing carbon and carbon nanotubes as a combination of the carbon from among the other forms of carbon disclosed by Ho would have been obvious to try by a person or ordinary skill because it constitutes choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I E) . Ho discloses a current collector include a single conductive metal layer with an overlaying conductive coating layer of carbon (Ho paragraph 0055). Ho discloses the coating is performed by method such as doctor blade coater or a roll coater (Ho paragraph 0207) both methods involve pressing the coating carbon layer on the metallic current collector substrate as recited in claim 14 . Further Ho discloses coating the current collector with the electrode material (Ho paragraph 0018, 0024, 0215) and the coated cathode is then compressed mechanically (Ho paragraph 0219). Ho discloses the cathode active material include manganese-containing lithium-transition metal oxide compounds such as LiNi x Mn y O 2 , Li 1+z Ni x Mn y Co 1−x−y O 2 , ( where x is from 0.2 to 0.9, y is from 0.1 to 0.45), LiMnO 2 , LiMn 2 O 4 , Li 2 MnO 3 (Ho paragraph 0161). But Ho is silent that the cathode active material layer is a lithium-manganese rich (LMR). Lee discloses a positive electrode active material for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Lee paragraph 0005), including a lithium-transition metal composite oxide represented by a composition formula Li x Mn y Ni z Sr a M b O 2-c F c (wherein M is two or more elements selected from Ti, Co, Si, Al, Nb, W, Mo, P, Ca, Mg, Sb, Na, B, V, Cr, Fe, Cu, Zn, Ge, Zr, Ru, K, and Bi, 1.0<x≤1.2, 0.4≤y≤0.8, 0≤z≤0.4, 0<a<0.01, 0<b<0.03, 0<c<0.1, and x+y+z+a+b≤2).(Lee paragraph 0005, 0023). In one embodiment Lee discloses the compound Li 1.167 Mn 0.55 Ni 0.275 Sr 0.002 Co 0.002 Al 0.002 O 1.92 F 0.08 . (Lee paragraph 0036), which is a lithium-manganese rich (LMR) positive electrode material relative to the other metals in the compound. Lee teaches the disclosed lithium-excess compound (and also manganese rich) has high endurance and superior cycle characteristics (Lee paragraph 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the positive electrode material of Ho (Ho paragraph 0161) by the disclosure of Lee and have used the lithium-manganese-rich compound of Lee (Lee paragraph 0036) in the electrode of Ho for the benefit of having a battery that has high endurance and superior cycle characteristic (Lee paragraph 0007). According to the MPEP such as modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Ho discloses in one embodiment the cathode slurry further comprises a conductive agent selected from a group consisting of carbon black and carbon nanotubes, mentioned among other forms of carbon (Ho claim 25) considered equivalent to the electrode of claim 20 . As presented above the transition metal oxide of Ho (Ho paragraph 0161) modified by the transition metal oxide of Lee (Lee 0036) also meets the lithium-manganese rich layer of claim 20 . It would have also been obvious to have used acetylene black as the disclosed carbon black since acetylene black is a form of carbon black. Also as presented above Ho discloses a current collector include a single conductive metal layer with an overlaying conductive coating layer of carbon (Ho paragraph 0055) and coating the current collector with the electrode material (Ho paragraph 0018, 0024, 0215), the carbon material can be carbon, carbon nanotubes and mesoporous carbon (Ho paragraph 0204), and also as presented above the mesoporous carbon considered equivalent to the ultra-high BET carbon also meeting the limitation of claim 20. Regarding claim 2 , 15 Ho discloses the conductive layer comprises carbon materials that include mesoporous carbon (Ho paragraph 0204), considered equivalent to the ultra-high BET carbon, since the mesoporous carbon having pores size in the nanometer scale is considered to have ultra-high porosity, and consequently have ultra-high surface area, referred to as ultra-high BET. Ho disclosed the mesoporous carbon is disclosed among other forms of carbon including carbon, carbon nanotubes, carbon black, graphite, expanded graphite, graphene, graphene nanoplatelets, carbon fibers, carbon nanofibers, graphitized carbon flake, carbon tubes, carbon nanotubes, activated carbon, Super P, 0-dimensional KS6, 1-dimensional vapor grown carbon fibers (VGCF), and combinations thereof (Ho paragraph 0204). Therefore, choosing mesoporous carbon from among the other forms of carbon disclosed by Ho would have been obvious to try by a person or ordinary skill because it constitutes choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I E). Regarding claim 3 Ho is silent about the conductive coating further comprises acetylene black. Lee discloses a conductive agent included in the positive electrode may be acetylene black as recited in claim 3 (Lee paragraph 0022) and has identifying acetylene black to be conductive carbon material (Lee paragraph 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have modified the conductive coating of Ho (Ho paragraph 0055, 0204), by the disclosure of Lee and to have used acetylene black as a conductive material in the coating as recited in claim 3 . Such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Regarding claim 5 , 6 , Ho discloses the current collector can be in a form of a foil, and the foil can be aluminum (Ho paragraph 0203) mentioned among other five metals and alloys thereof. Choosing aluminum from among the other metals would have been considered obvious to try to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it is choosing from among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I E). Regarding claim 7 , 8 , 1 7 , 18 Ho discloses the binder is acrylic acid and its derivatives, and polyvinylidene fluoride (Ho paragraph 0009, 0125). Ho discloses a large group of alkyl acrylates as a binder (Ho paragraph 0140) which include perfluorooctyl acrylate (Ho paragraph 0140), which is one example of acrylic acid modified polyvinylidene recited in claim 8 and 18 . Choosing perfluorooctyl acrylate from among the other acrylate compounds disclosed by Ho (Ho paragraph 0140) would have been obvious to try by a person or ordinary skill because it constitutes choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I E). Lee also discloses the use of acrylic resins with conductive agents (Lee paragraph 0022). Regarding claim 10 Ho discloses the conductive layer has a thickness from about 0.5 µm to about 5.0 µm (Ho paragraph 0204), the disclosed range is included in the claim rage of 0.5 to 20 µm. Regarding the average particle size of claim 9 the particle size is considered to be within the range of the thickness of the coating layer of 0.5 to 5 µm, the range being included in the claimed range of 0.5 to 10 µm. Regarding claim 11 Ho discloses in one embodiment the cathode slurry further comprises a conductive agent selected from a group consisting of carbon materials (Ho claim 25, paragraph 0151). Ho, however, is silent about the cathode slurry comprises acetylene black. Lee discloses a conductive agent included in the positive electrode may be acetylene black (Lee paragraph 0022) and has identifying acetylene black to be conductive carbon material (Lee paragraph 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have modified the cathode slurry of Ho (Ho paragraph 0055, 0204) as modified by the lithium-manganese rich (LMR) positive electrode material of Lee (Lee paragraph 0036), to have used acetylene black as a conductive material in the cathode slurry. Such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0073006 A1) in view of Lee et al (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0082835 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 14, and further in view of Yeon et al . (KR 101101153; cited in IDS filed 10/05/2023, and the filed English language machine translation is used here; hereafter called KR ‘153) The discussion of Ho and Lee as applied to claim 1 and 14 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section. Regarding claim 4 and 16 Ho discloses an electrode assembly comprise a cathode for a secondary battery formed by coating a slurry onto a current collector (Ho paragraph 0018). Ho further discloses the current collector has an overlying conductive coating layer such a carbon based coating layer, carbon nanotubes (Ho paragraph 0055, 0204), and a binder to hold conductive agent in place and adhere them unto a conductive metal part (Ho paragraph 0027). Ho, however, is silent about the carbon nanotubes comprise of multi-wall carbon nanotubes and single-wall nanotubes. KR ‘153 discloses a current collector for a secondary battery having a coating layer of carbon nanotubes is provided (KR ‘153 Abstrac t). The current collector according to the disclosed invention can greatly improve the adhesion between the electrode mixture and the current collector through chemical bonding by the reactor of the carbon nanotubes, thereby reducing dust generation, peeling of the electrode active material, increased internal resistance of the battery, and battery characteristics (KR ‘153 Abstract , page 4, 5, 7). The carbon nanotubes can be single-walled and double walled (KR ‘153 page 5). KR ‘153 also discloses the single-walled carbon nanotube layer contains in addition multi-walled carbon nanotubes (KR ‘153 page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the single-walled and double-wall carbon nanotubes disclosed by KR ‘153 in the conductive layer of Ho (Ho paragraph 0027) for the benefits discloses since it constitutes using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12, 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0073006 A1) in view of Lee et al (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0082835 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 14, and further in view of Ahn et al . (U.S. PG Publication 2019/0131617) The discussion of Ho and Lee as applied to claim 1 and 14 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section. Regarding claim 12 , 13 and 19 Ho discloses the current collector has an overlying conductive coating layer (Ho paragraph 0055, 0204), and a binder to hold conductive agent in place and adhere them unto a conductive metal part (Ho paragraph 0027), but is silent that the binder further comprise a polymer bead and BaTiO 3 . Ahn discloses a lithium ion battery including a dielectric layer coated on a surface of a negative electrode (Ahn paragraph 0015, 0062), and the coating comprise BaTiO3 and a binder (Ahn paragraph 0016, 0017), and the dielectric layer suppresses the formation of lithium dendrites (Ahn paragraph 0022) and enhancing the lifetime and electrochemical performance of a lithium ion battery (Ahn paragraph 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have included in the conductive coating layer of Ho (Ho paragraph 0055, 0204) the dielectric material BaTiO 3 and a binder in order to suppress the formation of lithium dendrites as taught by Ahn (Ahn paragraph 0016 0017, 0020) since such a modification is considered the use of a known of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Ahn discloses the compound BaTiO 3 among a number of other dielectric compounds (Ahn paragraph 0017, 0026, 0036). However, selecting BaTiO 3 from among the other compounds would have been obvious to try by a person of ordinary skill since it constitutes choosing from among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143 I E). Ho discloses a large group of alkyl acrylates as a binder (Ho paragraph 0140) which include perfluorooctyl acrylate (Ho paragraph 0140), which is one example of acrylic acid modified polyvinylidene, which the instant specification recognizes as polymer beads. Thus, the perfluoro acrylate binder of Ho (Ho paragraph 0140) is a polymer bead and meets the limitation of polymer beads recited in claim 12 and 19 . Ahn discloses in several working examples the dielectric material BaTiO 3 and the binder as present in amount of 100 part by weight and 623 parts by weight respectively (Ahn Table 1), which is equal to 16% of BaTiO 3 . This value is included in the claimed range of 10% to 80% of claim 13. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 pm. 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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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. /JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/481,575 Page 2 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/481,575 Page 4 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/481,575 Page 5 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/481,575 Page 6 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/481,575 Page 7 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/481,575 Page 8 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/481,575 Page 9 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/481,575 Page 10 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/481,575 Page 11 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/481,575 Page 12 Art Unit: 1722
Prosecution Insights