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 § 112
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.
Claim 3 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation wherein the mass content of the polymer A in the primer coating layer is 5%-40%, and the claim also recites wherein the mass content of the polymer A in the primer coating layer is … [a)] optionally 5%-30%, and [b)] optionally 5%-20%, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “a polymer A” in “wherein the binder comprises a polymer A soluble in an oily solvent”. There is a question or doubt as to whether “a polymer A” is the same polymer in the primer coating layer as introduced in claim 1, or if the polymer A of claim 6 is a non-obvious patentably-distinct polymer from the “polymer A” of claim 1.
Claim 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7, which requires wherein the positive electrode film comprises the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of at least 7×105. However, claim 8 recites a broader weight average molecular weight of at least 1×105, which is a lower weight average molecular weight than claim 7 allows. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for reciting a limitation beyond the scope of a prior dependent claim.
Claim 10 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation wherein the mass content of the positive electrode active substance is 70%-99.5% and the claim also recites wherein the mass content of the positive electrode active substance is … optionally 88%-99.5%, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 7×105 - 1×106". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 is dependent on a claim 6. A polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 7×105 - 1×106 is not introduced in the claims of the instant disclosure until the later claim 7.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 1×105 – 2.5×105". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 is dependent on a claim 6. A polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 1×105 – 2.5×105 is not introduced in the claims of the instant disclosure until the later claim 8.
Claim 11 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the disclosure requires a) the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 7×105 - 1×106 or b) the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 1×105 – 2.5×105.
Claim 11 is considered indefinite because it is not clear if the positive electrode film may comprise a) the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 7×105 - 1×106 and b) the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 1×105 – 2.5×105 simultaneously within the same specie or if the claim limitation introduces a plurality of species, with examples a) and b) examples of non-obvious patentably-distinct species.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang CN-112701249, and further in view of Maeda US-20190312278-A1.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches:
A positive electrode plate comprising a current collector (100),
PNG
media_image1.png
424
1001
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a primer coating layer (200) provided on at least one surface of the current collector (100),
PNG
media_image2.png
424
1010
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a positive electrode film (300) provided on the primer coating layer (200),
PNG
media_image3.png
418
1010
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the primer coating layer contains a polymer A soluble in an aqueous solvent ((0033), "In some embodiments of the invention, the solvent comprises at least one of water and NMP"),
and the polymer A comprises a structural unit derived from a monomer containing a cyano group ((0022), "In some embodiments of the present invention, the nano-spherical hot-melt polymer material [of the primer coating layer 200] comprises at least one of polyacrylonitrile ... This can improve the safety of the electrode sheet").
The Examiner notes polyacrylonitrile comprises a R-C≡N cyano group.
A structural unit derived from a monomer containing an amide group ((0022), "In some embodiments of the present invention, the nano-spherical hot-melt polymer material [of the primer coating layer 200] comprises at least one of ... polyamide ... This can improve the safety of the electrode sheet").
The Examiner notes polyamide comprises a R-C(=O)-N(R')R"" amide group
And a structure unit derived from a monomer containing an ester group ((0022), "In some embodiments of the present invention, the nano-spherical hot-melt polymer material [of the primer coating layer 200] comprises at least one of ... polyacrylate ... This can improve the safety of the electrode sheet").
The Examiner notes polyacrylate comprises a R-C(=O)OR' ester.
The Examiner notes that Zhang is silent on a polymer A specifically comprising a cyano, amide, and ester group together,
Zhang, however, teaches the polymer may comprise one or more of a cyano, amide, and/or ester group (0022).
Moreover, Maeda teaches a cyano monomer such as acrylonitrile, an amide monomer such as acrylamide, and ester monomer such as vinyl acetate, may be copolymerizable together (see (0043)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine a cyano, amide, and ester group together in one polymer. This would benefit the system by improving battery production and performance (see Maeda, (0021)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 1 comprising a polymer A and primer coating layer, wherein the mass content of the polymer A in the primer coating layer is 10%-30% ((0019), “the mass ratio of the nanosphere-shaped hot-melt polymer material … in the porous conductive coating is (10-30)”) based on the total mass of the primer coating layer.
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the primer coating layer further comprises a conductive agent ((0013), "the porous conductive coating [primer coating 200] ... comprises... a conductive agent"),
and the conductive agent is selected from one or more of carbon black ((0031), "Super P") … carbon fiber ((0031), "carbon fibers") … and carbon nanotubes ((0031), "carbon nanotubes").
For added clarity, the Examiner notes that the broader text of Zhang discloses that "the conductive agent includes at least one of Super P ... carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers ...This can improve the conductivity of the electrode sheet)" in paragraph (0031).
The Examiner acknowledges that modified Zhang does not teach that the conductive agent is necessarily any of the materials recited in Claim 4. However, he teaches that some of the materials suitable for use as the conductive agent of his invention include carbon black (i.e. Super P), graphene, carbon nanotubes, and carbon fibers (paragraph 31). Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used any of these materials in primer coating layer, because (1) Zhang teaches that the primer coating layer may comprise a conductive agent (par 13), and because Zhang teaches that these are all suitable materials for the conductive agent in the devices of his invention.
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the positive electrode film comprises
a positive electrode active substance ((0053), "the positive electrode paste layer 300 includes a positive electrode active material"),
a binder ((0053), “the positive electrode paste layer 300 includes … a binder") and
a conductive agent ((0053), " the positive electrode paste layer 300 includes … a conductive agent"),
wherein the binder comprises a polymer A soluble in an oily solvent ((0052), "[in the primer coating layer 200,] the types of ... the solvent are not particularly limited, and can be selected by those skilled in the art according to actual needs, for example, ... the solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of water and NMP”).
The Examiner notes that the positive electrode film 300 comprises the same solvent as the primer coating layer 200 ((0053), "the types of ... solvent constituting the positive electrode slurry layer 300 are the same as those of the above porous conductive coating layer 200").
The Examiner further notes that the instant disclosure discloses NMP as an oily solvent, see (0093). Therefore, the solvent of Zhang, comprising NMP, may be considered an oily solvent.
Regarding the following limitations, the Examiner notes that Zhang teaches that the primer coating layer (200) and positive electrode film (300+400) comprise the same polymer ((0054), "It should be noted that the types of the nanosphere hot-melt polymer material, ... constituting the insulating layer 400 are the same as those of the porous conductive coating 200"). Therefore, the Examiner will cite limitations of the polymer in the primer coating layer (200) of Zhang as the same limitations are also applicable to the polymer of the positive electrode film (300+400) of Zhang.
Therefore, many of the same limitations of claim 1 (composition of primer coating layer (200) will apply to claim 6 (composition of positive electrode layer (300+400)).
Furthermore, the Examiner will consider the combination of the positive electrode film (300) and insulation (400) as one positive electrode film layer (300).
Regarding continued analysis of claim 6:
Modified Zhang teaches:
and the polymer A comprises a structural unit derived from a monomer containing a cyano group ((0022), "In some embodiments of the present invention, the nano-spherical hot-melt polymer material [of the primer coating layer 200] comprises at least one of polyacrylonitrile ... This can improve the safety of the electrode sheet").
The Examiner notes polyacrylonitrile comprises a R-C≡N cyano group.
A structural unit derived from a monomer containing an amide group ((0022), "In some embodiments of the present invention, the nano-spherical hot-melt polymer material [of the primer coating layer 200] comprises at least one of ... polyamide ... This can improve the safety of the electrode sheet").
The Examiner notes polyamide comprises a R-C(=O)-N(R')R"" amide group
And a structure unit derived from a monomer containing an ester group ((0022), "In some embodiments of the present invention, the nano-spherical hot-melt polymer material [of the primer coating layer 200] comprises at least one of ... polyacrylate ... This can improve the safety of the electrode sheet").
The Examiner notes polyacrylate comprises a R-C(=O)OR' ester.
The Examiner notes that Zhang is silent on a polymer A specifically comprising a cyano, amide, and ester group together,
Zhang, however, teaches the polymer may comprise one or more of a cyano, amide, and/or ester group (0022).
Moreover, Maeda teaches a cyano monomer such as acrylonitrile, an amide monomer such as acrylamide, and ester monomer such as vinyl acetate, may be copolymerizable together (see (0043)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine a cyano, amide, and ester group together in one polymer. This would benefit the system by improving battery production and performance (see Maeda, (0021)).
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 6, wherein the positive electrode active substance is a lithium-containing transition metal oxide ((0053), Zhang cites examples of positive electrode active materials such as NCM811, NCA, and NCM622; all of these examples are lithium containing transition metal oxides.
The Examiner notes that optional claim limitations in claim 9 of the instant disclosure will not be considered for patentability in this office action.
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 6 comprising a positive electrode active substance, wherein the mass content of the positive electrode active substance is 96% ((0074), “mixing a positive electrode active material lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM811), … according to the weight ratio of NCM811 … 96”) - 97% ((0070, 0078, 0080, 0082), “mixing a positive electrode active material lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM811), … according to the weight ratio of NCM811 … 97”), based on the mass of the positive electrode film.
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato EP-2838144-A1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 1, and a polymer A in the primer coating layer.
Modified Zhang is silent on:
Wherein the weight average molecular weight of the polymer A in the primer coating layer is 1.5×105 -2×105.
Kato teaches:
Wherein the weight average molecular weight of the polymer A in the primer coating layer is 1.5×105 -2×105. ((0024), "The weight average molecular weight of the acryl-based resin is, for example ... 15x104, 20x104 ... and may be in the range of two values selected from the values exemplified herein. When the molecular weight is too small, the flexibility of the resin layer 5 becomes low. In such case, when the current collector 1 is wound with a small radius of curvature, a crack may occur in the resin layer 5, resulting in decrease of the capacity of the battery and the like. When the molecular weight is too large, the adhesion property tends to become low").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify the disclosure of modified Zhang by limiting the weight average molecular weight of the polymer A in the primer coating layer to a finite range, as shown by Kato.
This modification would benefit the system by preventing decreased flexibility, formation of cracks, decreased battery compacity, and decreased adhesion properties.
Moreover, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of 1.5×105 -2×105 lies within the taught range of 3x104 to 100x104.
The Examiner notes that Kato teaches the polymer A comprising a cyano group ((0022), “acrylonitrile can improve the alkali resistance”), ester group ((0021), “Acrylic acid ester can improve the dispersibility of the carbon particles, and thus decrease the resistance of the resin layer”), and an amide group ((0021), “Acryl amide … can enhance the adhesion between the resin layer 5 and the conductive substrate 3, and the adhesion between the resin layer and the active material layer”). Therefore, the art of Kato would have been analogous art for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to consider when combining prior art.
Claim 5 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho US-2025034864-A2.
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 1 comprising a primer coating layer, where in the thickness of the primer coating layer is 0.5-10 μm.
Modified Zhang is silent on where in the thickness of the primer coating layer is 1-20 μm.
In further support of the entire claimed thickness range, Ho US-20250349864-A1 teaches:
The thickness of the primer coating layer is 1-20 μm ((0125), “Similarly, the thickness of the conductive layer affects the capacity of the final battery as it affects the total volume of the modified current collector. In some embodiments, the conductive layer in the modified current collector has a thickness of … from about 1 μm to about 20 μm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify the invention of Zhang by limiting the thickness of the primer coating layer to 1-20 μm, as suggested by Ho.
This modification, limiting the thickness of the primer coating layer, would benefit the system by improving the capacity of the battery.
The Examiner notes that Ho teaches a binder comprising one or more of an ester group, amide group, and nitrile group (0171). Therefore, the art of Ho would have been analogous art for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to consider when combining prior art.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Zhang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fujikawa US-20130143116-A1.
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 6 comprising a positive electrode film and polymer A.
Modified Zhang is silent on:
wherein the positive electrode film comprises the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 7×105 - 1×106 (700,000 – 1,000,000).
Fujikawa US-20130143116-A1 teaches wherein the electrode film comprises a polymer with a weight average molecular weight of 5×104 - 5×106 (50,000 – 5,000,000), see (0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify the disclosure of modified Zhang by limiting the weight average molecular weight of polymer A to a finite range of 5×104 - 5×106 (50,000 – 5,000,000), as shown by Fujikawa.
This modification, limiting the weight average molecular weight of polymer A to a finite range, would benefit the system by improving binding force, adherence between electrode layer and current collector, solubility, and ensuring good ability to coat the polymer on a layer (0088).
Moreover, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of 7×105 - 1×106 lies within the taught range of 5×104 - 5×106.
Fujikawa teaches the polymer comprises acrylonitrile (0053) from 50-60% based on molar content (0055), acrylate (0063), and amide (0068), as analogous to the polymer composition of the instant disclosure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to consider the prior art of Fujikawa when combing prior art.
Regarding claim 8, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 7, wherein the positive electrode film comprises the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 7×106 - 1×106.
Modified Zhang is silent wherein the positive electrode film comprises the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 1×105 -2.5×105.
As analyzed in claim 7, Fujikawa US-20130143116-A1 teaches wherein the electrode film comprises a polymer with a weight average molecular weight of 5×104 - 5×106 (50,000 – 5,000,000), see (0088).
Therefore, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify the invention of modified Zhang by further limiting the weight average molecular weight of polymer A to a finite range of 1×105 -2.5×105 (100,000 – 250,000), as suggested by Fujikawa and still within the range provided by Fujikawa.
This modification, further limiting the weight average molecular weight of polymer A to a finite range, would benefit the system by further improving binding force, adherence between electrode layer and current collector, solubility, and ensuring good ability to coat the polymer on a layer (0088).
Moreover, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of 1×105 -2.5×105 lies within the taught range of 5×104 - 5×106.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Zhang as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Fujikawa US-20130143116-A1.
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 6 comprising the polymer A in the positive electrode film is 3.5% by mass content (Zhang, (0078), “a polypropylene/polyethylene copolymerized nano spherical hot-melt high polymer material, …are mixed according to the weight ratio of … 3.5; also (0082), “EVA microsphere (ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer) nano spherical hot-melt high polymer material … are mixed according to the weight ratio of … 3.5”) – 10.5% ((0080), “styrene-divinylbenzene copolymerized nano spherical hot-melt high polymer material … are mixed according to the weight ratio of … 10.5”).
Modified Zhang is silent on:
wherein the polymer A has a weight average molecular weight of 7×105 - 1×106 and/or 1×105 - 2.5×105
Fujikawa teaches the mass content of the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 7×105 - 1×106.
Specifically, Fujikawa US-20130143116-A1 teaches wherein the electrode film comprises a polymer with a weight average molecular weight of 5×104 - 5×106 (50,000 – 5,000,000), see (0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify the disclosure of modified Zhang by limiting the weight average molecular weight of polymer A to a finite range of 5×104 - 5×106 (50,000 – 5,000,000), as shown by Fujikawa.
This modification, limiting the weight average molecular weight of polymer A to a finite range, would benefit the system by improving binding force, adherence between electrode layer and current collector, solubility, and ensuring good ability to coat the polymer on a layer (0088).
Moreover, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of 7×105 - 1×106 lies within the taught range of 5×104 - 5×106.
Fujikawa teaches the polymer comprises acrylonitrile (0053) from 50-60% based on molar content (0055), acrylate (0063), and amide (0068), as analogous to the polymer composition of the instant disclosure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to consider the prior art of Fujikawa when combing prior art.
Fujikawa further teaches wherein the positive electrode film comprises the polymer A with a weight average molecular weight of 1×105 -2.5×105.
Specifically, as analyzed in claim 7, Fujikawa US-20130143116-A1 teaches wherein the electrode film comprises a polymer with a weight average molecular weight of 5×104 - 5×106 (50,000 – 5,000,000), see (0088).
Therefore, the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify the invention of modified Zhang by further limiting the weight average molecular weight of polymer A to a finite range of 1×105 -2.5×105 (100,000 – 250,000), as suggested by Fujikawa and still within the range provided by Fujikawa.
This modification, further limiting the weight average molecular weight of polymer A to a finite range, would benefit the system by further improving binding force, adherence between electrode layer and current collector, solubility, and ensuring good ability to coat the polymer on a layer (0088).
Moreover, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of 1.5×105 -2×105 lies within the taught range of 5×104 - 5×106.
Claim 12 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP-2019526693-A.
As a gesture of acknowledgement, the Examiner thanks the authors of JP-2019526693-A for their contributions to science and the intellectual property community. While the Examiner would like to address the lead author by name to acknowledge their contributions, no verified translation of the lead author’s name from Japanese to this Office’s official correspondence language of English could be located by the Examiner after a good faith search attempt. As such, the referenced art will, with much respect given here to the authors, be referred to by application number only herein this correspondence.
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the monomer containing a cyano group in the polymer A is selected from one or more of acrylonitrile (Zhang, (0022), "the nano-spherical hot-melt polymer material comprises at least one of polyacrylonitrile") and crotonitrile;
Zhang teaches a monomer containing an amide group ((0022), "polyamide"), but is silent on wherein the ester group is selected from the group of compounds required by the instant limitation.
Zhang teaches a monomer containing an ester group ((0022), "polyacrylate"), but is silent on wherein the ester group is selected from the group of compounds required by the instant limitation.
Specifically, Zhang is silent on:
the monomer containing an amide group is selected from one or more of methacrylamide, N-methyl methacrylamide, N-ethyl methacrylamide, N-n-propyl methacrylamide, N-isopropyl methacrylamide, N-n-butyl methacrylamide, N-isobutyl methacrylamide, N,N-dimethyl acrylamide, N,N-dimethyl methacrylamide, N,N-diethyl acrylamide and N,N-diethyl methacrylamide;
and the monomer containing an ester group is selected from one or more of methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate, butyl acrylate, isoamyl acrylate, isooctyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, hydroxyethyl acrylate and hydroxypropyl acrylate.
JP-2019526693-A teaches a binder wherein:
The monomer containing a cyano group is selected from acrylonitrile, which adapts to changes and improves the energy density and cycle performance of lithium ion batteries (0006),
The monomer containing an amide group is selected from acrylamide, which increases the swelling degree of the binder (0030),
The monomer containing an ester group is selected from acrylate, which lowers the glass transition temperature of an acrylonitrile polymer (0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective time of filing to modify the disclosure of Zhang by inclusion of specific cyano, amide, and nitrile groups in order to allow the binder better adapt to changes, improve the energy density and cycle performance of lithium ion batteries, increase the swelling degree of the polymer, and lower the glass transition temperature of an acrylonitrile polymer, as suggested by JP-2019526693-A.
JP-2019526693-A teaches a polymeric binder comprising cyano, amide, and nitrile groups, analogous to that of the present disclosure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant disclosure to consider the prior art of JP-2019526693-A when considering prior art.
Claim 13 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP-2019526693-A.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches:
The positive electrode plate according to claim 1.
Zhang is silent towards:
Wherein the molar content of the structural unit derived from a monomer containing a cyano group in the polymer A is 50%-70%,
the molar content of the structural unit derived from a monomer containing an ester group is 10%-30%,
and the molar content of the structural unit derived from a monomer containing an amide group is 10%-30%,
based on the total molar content of structural units in the polymer A, respectively.
JP-2019526693-A teaches:
Wherein the copolymer binder comprises 78 to 95% acrylonitrile (cyano group), 1 to 10% acrylate (ester group), and 2 to 15% acrylamide (amide), by mass (0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective time of filing to modify the disclosure of Zhang by inclusion of specific concentrations of cyano, amide, and nitrile groups.
This modification, inclusion of specific concentrations of cyano, amide, and nitrile groups, would benefit the disclosure of modified Zhang by allowing the binder better adapt to changes, improve the energy density and cycle performance of lithium ion batteries (0006), increase the swelling degree of the polymer (0030), and lower the glass transition temperature of an acrylonitrile polymer (0030), as suggested by JP-2019526693-A.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious and routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify the relative amounts of these materials based on the desired properties of the final binder material.
For instance, varying the concentration of acrylonitrile monomer would allow the energy density and cycle performance of lithium ion batteries to be optimized (0006), while varying the concentration of acrylamide monomer would allow the swelling degree of the binder to be optimized (0030), while varying the concentration of arcylate monomer would allow the glass transition temperature of an acrylonitrile polymer (0030) to be optimized.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
As established above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the concentration of cyano, amide, and nitrile groups in order to allow the binder better adapt to changes, improve the energy density and cycle performance of lithium ion batteries, increase the swelling degree of the polymer, and lower the glass transition temperature of an acrylonitrile polymer, as suggested by JP-2019526693-A.
JP-2019526693-A teaches a polymeric binder comprising cyano, amide, and nitrile groups, analogous to that of the present disclosure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant disclosure to consider the prior art of JP-2019526693-A when considering prior art.
It would have further been within the capabilities for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to achieve a copolymer comprising the claimed range, or a routine optimization similar range, of a molar content of cyano groups, ester groups, and amide groups by selectively choosing known cyano, ester, and amide groups from a known list of cyano, ester, and, amide groups with known molecular weights.
As just one example, it would have been within the capabilities for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose acrylonitrile (molecular weight = 53.06 g/mol) as the cyano group as suggested in (0008) of JP-2019526693-A, methacrylamide (molecular weight = 85.10 g/mol) as the amide group as suggested in (0014) of JP-2019526693-A, and methyl acrylate (molecular weight = 86.09 g/mol) as the ester group as suggested in (0012) of JP-2019526693-A.
Therefore, using the mass ranges shown in (0030) of JP-2019526693-A, 78 g of acrylonitrile (cyano), 15 g of acrylamide (amide) and 7g of acrylate (ester), one obtains molar contents of the following structural units from the monomers listed in the table below in polymer A:
Cyano
78
53.06
78
53.06
+
7
86.09
+
15
85.10
=
85
.
1
%
Ester
7
86.09
78
53.06
+
7
86.09
+
15
85.10
=
4
.
71
%
Amide
15
85.10
78
53.06
+
7
86.09
+
15
85.10
=
10
.
2
%
While the Examiner acknowledges that the above example does not fit exactly in the claimed range limitation, it is provided as just one example of a combination and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could modify the type and amount of each monomer-derived structural unit to align with the claimed range limitation as a routine optimization to improve allow the binder to better adapt to changes, improve the energy density and cycle performance of lithium ion batteries (0006), increase the swelling degree of the polymer (0030), and lower the glass transition temperature of an acrylonitrile polymer (0030), as suggested by JP-2019526693-A.
In further support, as just one example of a possible routine optimization that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing that would fall within the claimed range limitation, Zhang (primary reference from claim 1) teaches:
the molar content of the structural unit derived from a monomer containing an ester group is 7%-20% ((0073), "The proportion in which the particulate polymer includes a (meth)acrylic acid ester monomer unit when all monomer units included in the particulate polymer are taken to be 100 mass % is ... more preferably 7 mass % or more, and is preferably 20 mass % or less").
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arai US-20210305573-A1.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches:
The electrode assembly comprises a positive electrode plate according to claim 1.
Zhang is silent on:
A secondary battery, comprising an electrode assembly and an electrolyte solution,
…
a separator
and a negative electrode plate.
Arai US-20210305573-A1 teaches:
A secondary battery ((0125), "secondary battery"), comprising an electrode assembly ((0126), "secondary battery electrode") and an electrolyte solution ((0159), "the presently disclosed electrical storage device may include … an electrolyte solution"),
a separator ((0159), "the presently disclosed electrical storage device may include ... a separator")
and a negative electrode plate ((0159), "the presently disclosed electrical storage device may include ... a negative electrode").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify the disclosure of Zhang by introducing a secondary battery to the electrode assembly of Zhang, as suggested by Arai.
This modification, introducing a secondary battery to the electrode assembly of Zhang, would benefit the system by improving electrical storage device performance ((0002), “secondary batteries … are used in a wide variety of applications. Consequently, in recent years, studies have been made to improve battery members such as electrodes for the purpose of achieving even higher electrical storage device performance”).
Regarding claim 17, modified Zhang teaches a power consuming device (Zhang, (0067), “a vehicle”), comprising a secondary battery according to claim 14.
Claims 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Zhang as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Matsuno US-20170271682-A1.
Regarding claim 15, modified Zhang teaches a secondary battery according to claim 14 (see Claim 14), but is silent on a battery module.
Matsuno teaches a battery module ((0131), "According to the battery module of the second embodiment, by including the lithium secondary battery according to the first embodiment, there can be provided a battery module that has high energy density, is excellent in charge and discharge efficiency and life performance, is inexpensive, and has high safety").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Zhang by inclusion of a battery module, as shown by Matsuno.
This modification would benefit the system by providing for high energy density, excellent charge and discharge efficiency and life performance, high safety, and being inexpensive.
Regarding claim 16, modified Zhang teaches a battery module (see claim 15) according to claim 15, but is silent on a battery pack.
Matsuno teaches a battery pack ((0138), "there can be provided a battery pack that has high energy density, is excellent in charge and discharge efficiency and life performance, is inexpensive, and has high safety").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of modified Zhang by inclusion of a battery pack, as shown by Matsuno.
This modification would benefit the system by providing for high energy density, excellent charge and discharge efficiency and life performance, high safety, and being inexpensive.
Regarding claim 19, modified Zhang teaches a power consuming device (Zhang, (0067), “a vehicle”), comprising a battery pack according to claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhang teaches a power consuming device (Zhang, (0067), “a vehicle”), comprising a battery module according to claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN M ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9302. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM U.S. EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
EVAN ABELSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/EVAN M ABELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights