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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction was based on a lack of unity in a national stage application when the application was a continuation of a national stage application. This argument is persuasive, however, in order to advance prosecution, applicants have elected group I of the restriction.
Since the election was made with traverse, the restriction will be treated in a similar manner to a provisional election being made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-9 and 19-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
To make the proper restriction of record, it is noted that the reason for restriction under US practice is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9 and 19-20, drawn to a negative electrode plate and a secondary battery comprising the plate, classified in H01M 4/622.
II. Claims 10-18, drawn to a method of preparing a negative electrode plate, classified in H01M 4/0404.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process such as spraying or dipping the film layer onto the current collector and removing (dissolving, scraping, etching, etc.) the edge regions of the plate.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fujiwara et al. (US 2011/0052954).
With regard to claims 1-2 and 19-20, Fujiwara teaches battery ([0002], lithium secondary battery, which goes through charge and power consuming discharge cycles) including a negative electrode plate, comprising a negative current collector; and a negative film layer located on a surface of the negative current collector ([0079], examples). The negative film layer has a length direction consistent with a length direction of the negative current collector and a width direction consistent with a width direction of the negative current collector (figures). A cross section of the negative film layer perpendicular to the length direction comprises a uniform thickness region located at a middle portion in the width direction of the negative film layer (figures 6-7 and corresponding text) and edge regions located at two ends in the width direction the negative film layer. The positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate is formed by laminating a composite material layer of the active material on a surface of a current collector plate, and a slope in a thickness direction (X/Z) of end surfaces of the composite material layer along longer sides of the current collector plate is 0.2 < (X/Z) < 1. The ratio of (X/Z) is equivalent to the claimed a/d ratio.
With regard to claim 3, the negative film layer comprises a negative active material, a conductive agent, a first binder comprises at least one of, cellulose ether (CMC) and the second binder comprises styrene butadiene rubber ([0079]).
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.
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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fujiwara et al. (US 2011/0052954).
With regard to claims 8-9, Fujiwara teaches battery ([0002], lithium secondary battery as previously described. The negative film layer comprises a negative active material, a conductive agent, a first binder comprises at least one of, cellulose ether (CMC) and the second binder comprises styrene butadiene rubber ([0079]). The positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate are identical in structure to each other and are made by the same method, while only the active materials therein are different from each other [0060].
Fujiwara is silent to the size of the binders used in the reference and therefore does not teach that the styrene butadiene rubber has a volume average particle size Dv50 satisfying: 80 nm ≤ Dv50 ≤ 200 nm. It would have been obvious to use styrene butadiene rubber having a average particle size of 80-200 nm in order to bind the anode materials. The electrode active material layers are on the um scale and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use small particles of binder to homogeneously bind the active material particles in the electrode (MPEP 2143 I).
Fujiwara does not teach that the first binder and the second binder have a mass content ratio ranging from 2:1 to 1:2. As the reference teaches a combination of two materials in the binder, it would have been obvious to use them in a range from 2:1 to 1:2 in order to bind the anode materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try various combinations of the two materials taught in the binder to determine optimal amounts of each (MPEP 2143 I.E.).
Claims 1-3, 9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsuchiya et al. (US 2015/0372338) in view of Fujiwara et al. (US 2011/0052954).
Tsuchiya teaches battery (lithium ion-secondary battery ([0038] and throughout) which goes through charge and power consuming discharge cycles) including a positive and negative electrode plate, comprising a current collector; and a active material film layer located on a surface of the current collector. The film layer has a length direction consistent with a length direction of the current collector and a width direction consistent with a width direction of the current collector (figures 1-10, claims 1-20, [0045, 0144-159]). A cross section of the film layer perpendicular to the length direction comprises a uniform thickness region located at a middle portion in the width direction of the film layer (figures 4-6 and corresponding text) and edge regions located at two ends in the width direction the film layer. Tsuchiya teaches the edge region has a thickness continuously decreasing in a direction from the uniform thickness region to the edge region ([0045], figure 4 and the corresponding text). Tsuchiya further teaches a width “a” of either of the edge regions and an average thickness “d” of the uniform thickness region satisfy the conditions that d ≤ 300 µm and a/d ≤ 1.5 (see claims 12-14 for example.) The examples have a uniform thickness region that has a thickness of 65 um ([0045], figure 4, examples in [0075]). The edges are taught to have values of 49 um and 92 um, which result in a/d values of 0.75 and 1.41. Tsuchiya does not teach that the negative electrode plate has the thickness described as the formation of the electrode is a positive electrode.
Fujiwara teaches battery ([0002]) including a negative and a positive electrode plate, comprising a positive current collector; and a positive film layer located on a surface of the current collector as well as a negative current collector; and a negative film layer located on a surface of the negative current collector ([0079], examples). The negative film layer has a length direction consistent with a length direction of the negative current collector and a width direction consistent with a width direction of the negative current collector (figures). A cross section of the negative film layer perpendicular to the length direction comprises a uniform thickness region located at a middle portion in the width direction of the negative film layer (figures 6-7 and corresponding text) and edge regions located at two ends in the width direction the negative film layer. The positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate is formed by laminating a composite material layer of the active material on a surface of a current collector plate, and a slope in a thickness direction (X/Z) of end surfaces of the composite material layer along longer sides of the current collector plate is 0.2 < (X/Z) < 1. The ratio of (X/Z) is equivalent to the claimed a/d ratio.
As Fujiwara teaches a battery with the described electrode structure in both the positive and negative electrodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art to use the method of Tsuchiya to form negative electrodes in the same manner as in the formation of the positive electrodes.
With regard to claim 3, Tsuchiya teaches the negative film layer comprises a negative active material, a conductive agent, a first binder comprises at least one of, cellulose ether or salt thereof, or starch ether or salt thereof; and the second binder comprises styrene butadiene rubber ([0075]).
With regard to claim 9, Tsuchiya teaches the first binder and the second binder have a mass content ratio ranging from 2:1 to 1:2.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (US 2011/0052954), as applied above, in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0248191).
Fujiwara teaches battery ([0002], in which the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate is formed by laminating a composite material layer of the active material on a surface of a current collector plate. The negative film layer comprises a negative active material, a conductive agent, a first binder comprises at least one of, cellulose ether (CMC) and the second binder comprises styrene butadiene rubber ([0079]). With regard to claims 4-5, Fujiwara does not teach that the first binder comprises sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, the sodium carboxymethyl cellulose having a weight-average molecular weight of 400000 or less, or that the sodium carboxymethyl cellulose having a degree of substitution in a range of 0.65-0.8. However, Liu teaches lithium batteries having negative electrodes that use a variety of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose materials as a binder ([0015-0017, 0046-0050]). The cellulose contains a hydroxyl group capable of grafting , having a chemical formula of —OH , and the hydroxyl group has a mass fraction of 10-20 wt. % of the mass of the water-soluble cellulose.
It would have been obvious to use sodium carboxymethyl cellulose having a weight-average molecular weight of 400000 or less, or a sodium carboxymethyl cellulose having a degree of substitution in a range of 0.65-0.8 in order to bind the anode materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try various types of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose materials taught in the binder to determine optimal weights and substitution (MPEP 2143 I.E.).
With regard to claims 6-7, Fujiwara and Liu not teach that the first binder comprises sodium carboxymethyl starch having a polydispersity index (PDI) in a range of 2.0-5.5 or that the sodium carboxymethyl starch has a weight-average molecular weight of 400000 or more. It would have been obvious to use sodium carboxymethyl starch as the first binder of the modified Fujiwara reference as it has an equivalent sodium carboxymethyl unit. Further, both starch and cellulose are homopolymers composed solely of repeating glucose monomers. From this, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use sodium carboxymethyl starch as an electrode binder. Further it would have been obvious to use sodium carboxymethyl starches having a polydispersity index (PDI) in a range of 2.0-5.5 or that the sodium carboxymethyl starch has a weight-average molecular weight of 400000 or more to bind the anode materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try various types of sodium carboxymethyl starch materials taught in the binder to determine optimal weights and dispersity values (MPEP 2143 I.E.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Ruthkosky whose telephone number is (571)272-1291. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays. 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, Gregory Tryder can be reached at 571-272-1291.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights