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 § 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, 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20150024270 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a positive electrode plate with a current collector and a graphene coating with a 1:1 weight ratio of coating to a binder (paragraph 0075; meets claimed cathode plate, current collector and a conductive coating having a weight content of 50% with a binder having a weight content of 50%). Park also teaches a nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (LiNi0.8 Co0.15 Al0.05 O2 ) powder as a positive active material as well as active material layer coated on the graphene layer (paragraph 0078; meets claimed at least one of lithium manganate-based cathode material, ternary cathode material a quaternary cathode material).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches that graphene layer made from graphene sheet (paragraph 0075; meets claimed conductive agent material of graphene nanosheet).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches an aluminum foil as electron current collector (paragraph 0077; meets claimed current collector made of aluminum foil).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches a nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (LiNi0.8 Co0.15 Al0.05 O2) powder as a positive active material (paragraph 0078; meets Formula (I)). (LiNi0.8 Co0.15 Al0.05 O2) meets the claimed Lia1Nix1Coy1Mlz1M2 1-x1-y1-z1O2-b1 Formula (I) with M1 as Al and a1 is 1, x1 is 0.8, y1 is 0.15, z1 is 0.05, b1=0, all of which are within the ranges mentioned in the instant application.
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 2, 3, 5 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20150024270 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches that binder used as a component to facilitate bonding include examples such as polyimide, phenolic resin and epoxy resin (paragraph 0049) and teaches that conductive material such as carbon black, acetylene black or carbon fiber can be provided to provide conductive pathway to positive active material to increase electrical conductivity (paragraph 48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used any of the binders taught by Park as binder used for the graphene layer as suitable to facilitate bonding and to have provided conductive material with the binder to provide conductive pathway to positive active material to increase electrical conductivity. By providing binder such as polyimide, phenolic resin or epoxy resin (same as in the current specification) with conductive material such as carbon black, acetylene black or carbon fiber (same as in the current specification), a binder having volume resistivity of ≤ 10-3 Ω•cm is provided.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches that binder used as a component to facilitate bonding include examples such as polyvinylidene fluoride, polyacrylonitrile, polyvinyl alcohol, styrene-butadiene rubber (paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used any of the binders taught by Park as binder used for the graphene layer as suitable to facilitate bonding. By providing binder such as polyvinylidene fluoride, polyacrylonitrile, polyvinyl alcohol, or styrene-butadiene rubber (same as in the current specification), a binder having volume resistivity of ≥1010 Ω•cm is provided.
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches a thickness of the graphene layer is about 1 nm to about 500 nm and the example thickness of 10 um, thus suggests thickness of 1 nm to 10 um are suitable for the graphene layer (paragraph 0014; meets claimed 0.5 µm to 5 µm). The claimed range overlaps with ranges disclosed by Park leading to a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches this invention relates to an electron collector structure and a lithium battery including the same (paragraph 0003; meets claimed secondary battery comprising cathode plate). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the positive electrode plate of example 1 in Park for a battery to increase conductivity (paragraphs 0045-0048).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches any lithium salt generally used in a lithium battery may be used as the lithium salt, and also a material that is capable of being thoroughly dissolved in the non-aqueous electrolyte, such as at least one material of LiCl, LiBr, LiI, LiClO4 , LiBF4 , LiB10Cl10 , LiPF6, LiCF3SO3 , LiCF3CO2 , LiAsF6 , LiSbF6 , LiAlCl4 , CH3SO3Li, CF3SO3Li, (CF3 SO2 )2 NLi, lithium-chloro-borate, lithium lower aliphatic carboxylic acid, tetraphenyl borate lithium, or imide may be used as the lithium salt (paragraph 0068; meets claimed lithium salt electrolyte). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to any lithium salts including any combination thereof such as lithium fluorine sulfonimide and lithium hexafluorophosphate for the electrolyte as taught by Park as suitable as generally used in lithium battery.
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches a thickness of the graphene layer is about 1 nm to about 500 nm and the example thickness of 10 um, thus suggests thickness of 1 nm to 10 um are suitable for the graphene layer and teaches any lithium salts including any combination thereof such as lithium fluorine sulfonimide and lithium hexafluorophosphate for the electrolyte as suitable as generally used in lithium battery. Providing the lithium salts in any relative concentration with graphene layer thickness taught by Park would meet or overlap the claimed relational expression between concentrations and thickness.
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches an organic solvent used as the non-aqueous electrolyte solution can include N-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone, propylene carbonate, ethylene carbonate, butylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, fluoride ethylene carbonate, ethylene methylene carbonate, methyl propyl carbonate, ethyl propanoate, methyl acetate, ethyl acetate, propyl acetate, dimethylacetate gamma-butyrolactone, 1,2-dimethoxyethane, tetrahydrofuran, 2-methyl tetrahydrofuran, dimethyl sulfoxide, 1,3-dioxolane, formamide, dimethyl formamide, dioxolane, acetonitrile, nitromethane, methyl formate, phosphoric acid triester, trimethoxy methane, dioxolane derivatives, sulfolane, methyl sulfolane, 1,3-dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone, propylene carbonate derivatives, tetrahydrofuran derivatives, ether, methyl propionate, or ethyl propionate. (paragraph 0065; meets claimed electrolyte of organic solvent and additive in secondary battery). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the positive electrode plate of example 1 in Park for a battery to increase conductivity (paragraphs 0045-0048).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches the negative active material may be anything that is generally used in the art; non-limiting examples of the crystalloid carbon include natural graphite or artificial graphite; non-limiting examples of the amorphous carbon include a soft carbon (a low temperature calcined carbon), a hard carbon, a mesophase pitch carbide, and calcined cokes (paragraph 0053-0056; meets claimed anode active material). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the positive electrode plate of example 1 in Park for a battery to increase conductivity (paragraphs 0045-0048).
Regarding claim 13, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a secondary battery in a battery module to address high capacity for applications as outlined in Park and batteries for such uses are conventionally provided as part of a module (paragraph 0073; meets claimed battery module comprising secondary battery). Regarding claim 14, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a battery module in a battery pack to address high capacity for applications as outlined in Park and batteries for such uses are conventionally provided as part of a pack (paragraph 0073; meets claimed battery pack comprising a battery module).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches the lithium battery is suitable for applications that require high capacity, high output, and high temperature drive, such as electric vehicles, conventional mobile phones, portable computers, and the like (paragraph 0073; meets claimed electric device comprising a secondary battery).
Regarding claim 16, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a battery module in an electric device since batteries for uses as outlined by Park are conventionally provided as part of a module (paragraph 0073; meets claimed electric device comprising a battery module).
Regarding claim 17, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a battery pack in an electric device since batteries for uses as outlined by Park are conventionally provided as part of a pack (paragraph 0073; meets claimed electric device comprising a battery pack).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MARGARET EVERITT whose telephone number is (571)270-0240. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/OLIVIA MARGARET EVERITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights