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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-16 & 19-20, drawn to an electrode plate, classified in H01M 4/02, a secondary battery classified in H01M 10/0525 and an electrical device classified in H01M 10/62.
II. Claims 17-18, drawn to a method for making the 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 wherein the current collector and the active material layer are prepared separately and then laminated together.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Janet Cord on May 22nd 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-16 & claims 19-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 Objections
Claims 1 & 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because of the recitation “platecomprising” in line 1. Said recitation should read “plate comprising”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the recitation “a range of 0.02% to 3”. Said recitation should read “a range of 0.02% to 3%” as indicated in instant specification (P3/L16).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-4, 9-10 &12-16 are 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 3 & 4 recite the limitation “a ratio of a degree of polymerization”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if said ratio is the total ratio or a specific range of ratio. Additionally, “degree of polymerization” has inherent antecedent basis for the polymer. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been interpreted to mean “the ratio of the degree of polymerization”.
Claim 9 is indefinite because it recites the limitation “a weight-average molecular weight”. Said recitation “weight-average molecular weight” has inherent antecedent basis. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been interpreted to read “the weight-average molecular weight”.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it recites the limitation “a mass percentage”. Said recitation has inherent antecedent basis. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been interpreted to read “the mass percentage”.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it recites the limitation “a main chain”. Aliphatic alkylene has one main or parent chain and thus said recitation has inherent antecedent basis. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been interpreted to read “the main chain”.
Claims 13 & 14 are indefinite because they recite the limitation “a compaction density” said recitation has inherent antecedent basis. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been interpreted to read “the compaction density”.
Claims 15 & 16 are indefinite because they recite the limitation “a resistance”. Said limitation has inherence antecedent basis. For the purpose of this office action, the claim has been interpreted to read “the resistance”.
Further, claims 15-16 are indefinite because they recite a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation. 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, claims 15 & 16 recite the broad recitations “a resistance of the electrode plate is ≤ 1.5 Ω” and “a resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.05 Ω” respectively, and the claims also recite “the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.8 Ω; further optionally, the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.5 Ω” and “the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.02 Ω” respectively which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims 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 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 1-2 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (CN 110582872 A; see machine translation) as evidenced by Kieran et al (Effects of temperature, packaging and electron beam irradiation processing conditions on the property behavior of Poly(ether-block-amide) blends, Materials Science and Engineering: C, Volume 39, 2014).
Regarding Claim 1, Pan teaches an electrode plate (cathode or positive electrode layer with cathode current collector & anode or negative electrode layer with anode current collector, [0006]) comprising: a current collector (cathode current collector & anode current collector, [0006]); and an active material layer (cathode active material layer & anode active material [0006]) disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (cathode current collector & anode current collector, see [0047]), and comprising: an electrode active material (cathode active material & anode active material, [0070]); and a softener (highly elastic polymer, see [0020]-[0021] & [0024] which describe that cathode active material comprises an adhesive resin containing the highly elastic polymer and wherein highly elastic polymer serves to improve elasticity and lithium conductivity), comprising one or more of a diblock copolymer A-B and a triblock copolymer A-B-A (polyether block amide PEBA which reads on a diblock copolymer A-B, [0041]), wherein block A comprises a polyether segment (polyether block, [0041]), block B comprises one or more of a polyamide segment, a polyvinylpyrrolidone segment and a polyacrylonitrile segment (block B of polyether block amide is a polyamide as evidenced by Kieran, see P380/C1/L1-9 of Introduction, which describes that PEBA is synthesized using a polyamide such as nylon and a polyether such as polypropylene glycol, polytetramethylene ether glycol and polyethylene glycol).
Regarding Claim 2, Pan teaches wherein the polyether segment (polyether block, [0041]) comprises one or more of a polyethylene glycol segment, a polypropylene glycol segment, a polytetramethylene glycol segment and a polypentylene glycol segment (polypropylene glycol, polytetramethylene ether glycol and polyethylene glycol, see Kieran, P380/C1/L1-9 of Introduction).
Regarding Claim 19, Pan teaches all the limitations as set forth above and further teaches a secondary battery (lithium-ion battery, [0006]), comprising the electrode plate (cathode or positive electrode layer & cathode current collector, [0006]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 110582872 A; see machine translation) as evidenced by Kieran et al (Effects of temperature, packaging and electron beam irradiation processing conditions on the property behavior of Poly(ether-block-amide) blends, Materials Science and Engineering: C, Volume 39, 2014) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Konyukhova et al. (Melting of polyether block amide (Pebax): the effect of stretching, Thermochimica Acta 391 (2002) 271–277).
Regarding Claims 3-4, Pan teaches all of the limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly teach wherein the ratio of the degree of polymerization of the block A to the block B is (2~50): 1 (as required by claim 3), wherein the ratio of the degree of polymerization of the block A to the block B is (2~25):1 (as required by claim 4).
Konyukhova teaches a PEBAX polyether block amide with a general (A-B)n structure comprising of hard polyamide segments and soft polyether segments wherein both segments are short blocks (see Introduction/C1/L1-8). Konyukhova discusses the effect of the length of polymer block affecting physical features such as the melting point of the polymer and microphase separation of the polyamide and polyether segments (see Introduction), and further teaches that the ratio of the polyamide and polyether blocks controls the hardness and further teaches that the length of the polyamide block influences the melting point of the polymer (see Konyukhova, Introduction/C1/L11-12). Considering the degree of polymerization is understood to dictate overall chain length, molecular weight and physical properties of the copolymer by a person skilled in the art, the ratio of the polyamide and polyether block as taught by Konyukhova is interpreted as reading on the degree of polymerization.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the ratio of a degree of polymerization of the block A to the block B is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the hardness, as taught by Konyukhova, thus making the ratio of a degree of polymerization of the block A to the block B a result-effective variable.
Konyukhova and Pan are analogous art as both references are in the same field of polyether block amide copolymers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the highly elastic polymer of Pan such that the ratio of a degree of polymerization of the block A to the block B is (2~50): 1 (as required by Claim 3) and the ratio of a degree of polymerization of the block A to the block B is (2~25):1 (as required by claim 4) via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable hardness and melting point of the polymer.
Regarding Claims 7-8, Pan teaches all of the limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the degree of polymerization of the block B is in a range of 2 to 1000 (As required by claim 7) and wherein the degree of polymerization of the block B is in a range of 2 to 400 (as required by claim 8).
Konyukhova discloses that the length of the polyamide block influences the melting point of the polymer (see Introduction/C1/L12-13 of Konyukhova). Konyukhova discusses the effect of the length of polymer block affecting physical features such as the melting point of the polymer and microphase separation of the polyamide and polyether segments (see Introduction), and further teaches that the ratio of the polyamide and polyether blocks controls the hardness and further teaches that the length of the polyamide block influences the melting point of the polymer (see Konyukhova, Introduction/C1/L11-12). Considering the degree of polymerization is understood to dictate overall chain length, molecular weight and physical properties of the copolymer by a person skilled in the art, the ratio of the polyamide and polyether block as taught by Konyukhova is interpreted as reading on the degree of polymerization. Konyukhova further teaches that Pebax with long polyamide PA block (Mw > 2000) has a more disordered amorphous PA phase than the Pebax with short PA block (Mw < 2000) (see Introduction/C2/L3-5 of Konyukhova).
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the degree of polymerization of the block B is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting melting point and amorphous phase of the polymer, as taught by Konyukhova, thus making the degree of polymerization of the block B a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the highly elastic polymer of Pan such that the degree of polymerization of the block B is in a range of 2 to 1000 (as required by Claim 7) and the degree of polymerization of the block B is in a range of 2 to 400 (as required by claim 8) via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable melting point and amorphous phase.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 110582872 A; see machine translation) as evidenced by Kieran et al (Effects of temperature, packaging and electron beam irradiation processing conditions on the property behavior of Poly(ether-block-amide) blends, Materials Science and Engineering: C, Volume 39, 2014) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Peyravi et al (Study on the synthesis of poly(ether-block-amide) copolymer based on nylon6 and poly(ethylene oxide) with various block lengths, (2010), J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 118: 1211-1218)
Regarding Claims 5-6, Pan discloses all of the limitations as set forth above but is silent on wherein the degree of polymerization of the block A is in a range of 4 to 2000 (as required by claim 5), wherein the degree of polymerization of the block A is in a range of 4 to 800 (as required by claim 6).
Peyravi teaches a PEBA polyether block amide consisting of linear chain of hard polyamide segment interspaced with soft polyether segments. Peyravi teaches the effect of various polyamide (PA) to polyether (PE) weight ratios and further shows that the introduction of the long polyethylene oxide units into the nylon backbone causes crystalline defect which results in the rotation of the polymer chain (see P1216/C1/L1-5) wherein the degree of polymerization is known to a person skilled in the art to determine the length of the polymer block. Peyravi further teaches that the incorporation of polyethylene chains into the polyamide crystalline domains results in the deformation of polyamide chains thus resulting in a decrease in crystallinity (P1217/C1/L9-11).
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the degree of polymerization of the block A is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the extent of rotations of a polymer chain, as taught by Peyravi, thus making the degree of polymerization of the block A a result-effective variable.
Peyravi and Pan are analogous art as both references are in the same field of polyether block amide copolymers Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the highly elastic polymer of Pan such that the degree of polymerization of the block A is in a range of 4 to 2000 (as required by Claim 5) and the degree of polymerization of the block B is in a range of 4 to 800 (as required by claim 6) via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable degree of rotation of the polymer chain.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 110582872 A; see machine translation) as evidenced by Kieran et al (Effects of temperature, packaging and electron beam irradiation processing conditions on the property behavior of Poly(ether-block-amide) blends, Materials Science and Engineering: C, Volume 39, 2014) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Wasylenko (WO 2023/241955 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Pan teaches all of the limitations as set forth above but is silent on wherein a weight-average molecular weight of the softener ranges from 1000 Da to 200000 Da.
Wasylenko teaches a poly(ether-block-amide) copolymer PEBA comprising of polyether and polyamide blocks (see P10/L23-24). Additionally, Wasylenko discloses the weight average molecular weight of PEBA copolymer between 25,000 to 500,000 g/mol (see P12/L20-21) which overlaps with the claimed range for weight-average molecular weight of the softener ranges from 1000 Da to 200000 Da (wherein 1 Da is equivalent to 1 g/mol).
Wasylenko and Pan are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the field of polyether block amide polymers. When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I), and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for weight-average molecular weight of the softener with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a copolymer which has high mechanical durability and processability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 110582872 A; see machine translation) as evidenced by Kieran et al (Effects of temperature, packaging and electron beam irradiation processing conditions on the property behavior of Poly(ether-block-amide) blends, Materials Science and Engineering: C, Volume 39, 2014) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Fitie (WO 2019/158781 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Pan teaches all of the limitations as set forth above but is silent on wherein, in the active material layer, the mass percentage of the softener is in range of 0.02% to 3.
Fitie teaches a polymer composition for a solid polymer electrolyte comprising of a thermoelastic polymer made of polyamide hard segments and soft segments (see abstract). Fitie further teaches that the soft segment is made of polyethylene oxide (P3/L29-30). Additionally, Fitie teaches that said polymer composition can be used in electrodes as a binder and further teaches that the amount of binder used in the porous electrode may be between 2.5 – 20 wt% (P7/L18-30). Fitie teaches that the binder acts to bind particles of active components (see P7/L24-25).
Fitie and Pan are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the same field of polymer compositions for use in lithium batteries. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used of 2.5 – 20 wt% of the binder in the active material layer of Pan, as taught by Fitie, as doing so would amount to nothing more as using a known technique for its intended purpose in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result.
When the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I), and thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for mass percentage of the softener in the active material layer with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in properly binding particles of active components.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 110582872 A; see machine translation) as evidenced by Kieran et al (Effects of temperature, packaging and electron beam irradiation processing conditions on the property behavior of Poly(ether-block-amide) blends, Materials Science and Engineering: C, Volume 39, 2014) as applied to Claim 1 above further in view of Fitie (WO 2019/158781 A1) and further in view of Yang (CN 111725483 A; see machine translation).
Regarding Claims 13-14, Pan teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Further, Pan discloses that the electrode plate is a positive electrode plate (as set forth above), (as required by claim 13) but it does not disclose wherein the electrode plate is a negative electrode plate (as required by claim 14).
Fitie teaches that the polymer composition for a solid polymer electrolyte which can be used in electrodes as a binder can be used in both a cathode (P7/L20-21) and optionally in an anode (P7/L31-33). Fitie further teaches that the use of the polymer composition as a binder in an electrode allows for improved conductivity for ion compared to other ions thus increasing the output of the battery at low temperatures (P7/L21-23).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polymer composition of Fitie as set forth above as a binder in the negative electrode layer of Pan which would result in improved conductivity of ions and increased output of the battery at low temperatures.
Modified Pan is silent on the compaction density of the electrode plate is in a range of 2.40 g/cm3 to 3.75 g/cm3 (as required by claim 13) and the compaction density of the electrode plate is in a range of 1.50 g/cm3 to 1.80 g/cm3 (as required by claim 14).
Yang teaches a lithium ion battery comprising of a positive electrode sheet and a negative electrode sheet (see [0009]). Yang further teaches that the positive electrode sheet includes a positive current collector with a positive electrode active material layer disposed on the positive electrode current collector ([0014] and wherein the negative electrode sheet includes a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer formed on the surface of the negative electrode current collector [0017]. Yang further discloses that the compaction density of the positive electrode sheet is 3.7-3.8 g/cm³ [0016] which overlaps with the range in wherein the electrode plate is a positive electrode plate, and the compaction density of the electrode plate is in a range of 2.40 g/cm3 to 3.75 g/cm3 and further teaches the compaction density of the negative electrode sheet is 1.75-1.85 g/cm³ [0021] which overlaps with the range in wherein the electrode plate is a negative electrode plate, and the compaction density of the electrode plate is in a range of 1.50 g/cm3 to 1.80 g/cm3. Yang further teaches that when the compaction density of the positive electrode sheet is set to 3.7-3.8 g/cm³ and the compaction density of the negative electrode sheet is set to 1.75-1.85 g/cm³, the problems of poor electrolyte penetration and lithium-ion transport be effectively solved, ultimately improving the energy density, cycle life, rate performance, and service life of the lithium-ion battery (see [0046] & [0052]).
Pan and Yang are analogous art to the claimed invention as both references are in the same field of lithium ion batteries. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode plate of Pan with the positive and negative electrode sheets of Yang having a compaction density of 1.75-1.85 g/cm³ for the negative electrode sheet and a compaction density of 3.7-3.8 g/cm³ for the positive electrode sheet such that said electrode sheets with said compaction densities solves the problem of poor electrolyte penetration and lithium-ion transport ultimately improving the energy density, cycle life, rate performance, and service life of the lithium-ion battery.
Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). It therefore follows that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the compaction density of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in effectively solving the problems of poor electrolyte penetration and lithium-ion transport, ultimately improving the energy density, cycle life, rate performance, and service life of the lithium-ion battery.
Regarding Claims 15 & 16, Pan teaches all of the limitations above and further teaches that the electrode plate is a positive electrode (as set forth above) but is silent on wherein the electrode plate is a negative electrode plate, (as required by Claim 16).
Fitie teaches that the polymer composition for a solid polymer electrolyte which can be used in electrodes as a binder can be used in both a cathode (P7/L20-21) and optionally in an anode (P7/L31-33). Fitie further teaches that the use of the polymer composition as a binder in an electrode allows for improved conductivity for ion compared to other ions thus increasing the output of the battery at low temperatures (P7/L21-23).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polymer composition of Fitie as set forth above as a binder in the negative electrode layer of Pan which would result in improved conductivity of ions and increased output of the battery at low temperatures.
Modified Pan is silent on “the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤ 1.5 Ω; and optionally, the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.8 Ω; further optionally, the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.5 Ω” (as required by Claim 15) and the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.05 Ω; and optionally, the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.02 Ω (as required by Claim 16).
Yang teaches that increased electrode resistance, which is inherently dependent on the amount of active material, conductive agent, binder and thickener in the positive and negative electrode active material layer affects the battery life cycle (see [0045] & [0049]).
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the resistance of the electrode plate is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the battery life cycle, as discloses by Yang, thus making the resistance of the electrode plate a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode or positive electrode layer & cathode current collector combination of Pan which makes up the positive electrode plate such that the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤ 1.5 Ω; and optionally, the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.8 Ω; further optionally, the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.5 Ω (as required by Claim 15) and to modify the anode or negative electrode layer & anode current collector combination that make up the negative electrode plate such that the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.05 Ω; and optionally, the resistance of the electrode plate is ≤0.02 Ω (as required by Claim 16) via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving a suitable battery life cycle.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan (CN 110582872 A; see machine translation) as evidenced by Kieran et al (Effects of temperature, packaging and electron beam irradiation processing conditions on the property behavior of Poly(ether-block-amide) blends, Materials Science and Engineering: C, Volume 39, 2014) as applied to Claim19 above further in view of Yang (CN 111725483 A; see machine translation).
Regarding Claim 20, Pan teaches all of the limitations set forth above and further teaches the secondary battery (lithium-ion battery, [0006] of Pan) and further teaches that said batteries are ideal for high energy density applications ([0009]), and can be used in electric vehicles ([0015]) but is silent on “an electrical device comprising the secondary battery”.
Yang discloses an electrical appliance which comprises the lithium battery and further teaches that using lithium-ion batteries to power electrical equipment has advantages such as high energy density, good stability, good cycle performance, high safety and long service life and further ensures the safety of the electrical equipment (see [0066]).
It therefore would have been well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lithium battery of Pan in an electrical device of Yang which has the benefit of ensuring the safety of the electrical equipment due to the lithium battery exhibiting advantages such as high energy density, good stability, good cycle performance, high safety and long service life Doing so would amount to nothing more than a use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art references are considered to be Pan (CN 110582872 A; see machine translation) and Kieran et al. (Effects of temperature, packaging and electron beam irradiation processing conditions on the property behavior of Poly(ether-block-amide) blends, Materials Science and Engineering: C, Volume 39, 2014).
Regarding Claim 11, Pan discloses an electrode plate (cathode or positive electrode layer with cathode current collector & anode or negative electrode layer with anode current collector, [0006]) comprising: a current collector (cathode current collector & anode current collector, [0006]); and an active material layer (cathode active material layer & anode active material [0006]) disposed on at least one surface of the current collector (cathode current collector & anode current collector, see [0047]), and comprising: an electrode active material (cathode active material & anode active material, [0070]); and a softener (highly elastic polymer, see [0020]-[0021] & [0024] which describe that cathode active material comprises an adhesive resin containing the highly elastic polymer and wherein highly elastic polymer serves to improve elasticity and lithium conductivity), comprising one or more of a diblock copolymer A-B and a triblock copolymer A-B-A (polyether block amide PEBA which reads on a diblock copolymer A-B, [0041]), wherein block A comprises a polyether segment (polyether block, [0041]), block B comprises one or more of a polyamide segment, a polyvinylpyrrolidone segment and a polyacrylonitrile segment (block B of polyether block amide is a polyamide as evidenced by Kieran, see P380/C1/L1-9 of Introduction, which describes that PEBA is synthesized using a polyamide such as nylon and a polyether such as polypropylene glycol, polytetramethylene ether glycol and polyethylene glycol).
With respect to the limitation “wherein the softener is a polyether-polyamide-polyether block copolymer; optionally, the polyether segment comprises one or more of a polyethylene glycol segment and a polypropylene glycol segment; and optionally, the polyamide segment comprises one or more of an aliphatic polyamide segment and an aromatic polyamide segment”, Kieran teaches a thermoplastic elastomer made of poly(ether-block-amides) which is composed of a linear chains of hard polyamide (PA) blocks covalently linked to soft polyether (PE) blocks via ester groups (see Figure 1 & P381/C1/L6 of Materials & Methods – C2/L1-2). Accordingly, said structure reads on a diblock A-B copolymer wherein A is a polyether made from polyethylene glycol or polypropylene glycol and B is polyamide selected from nylon 6, nylon 66, nylon 11 (see Introduction/P1-9), thus Kieran does not teach a polyether-polyamide-polyether block copolymer as required by claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Pan teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses a PEBA copolymer wherein Kieran dives further into the structure of the PEBA copolymer.
With respect to said limitation “wherein the softener has a structure shown in formula I: wherein, each occurrence of R1 is independently selected from an aliphatic alkylene group having 2 to 5 carbon atoms in a main chain; occurrences of R2 and R3, at each time, are independently selected from one of an aliphatic alkylene group having 2 to 14 carbon atoms in the main chain and an aromatic alkylene group having 6 to 10 carbon atoms in the main chain, or a combination thereof, respectively; each occurrence of x is independently selected from any integer within a range of 4 to 800; and y is selected from any integer within a range of 2 to 400”, Kieran teaches a diblock copolymer wherein the first polymer block is a polyamide and second block is a polyether (PEBA (polyether-block-amide) 6333, P381/section 2.1 – Materials & Figure 1). Further, while the polyether group of Kieran possess an aliphatic alkylene wherein R1 comprises the main chain having 4 carbon atoms, the polyamide block in Kieran does not possess the bisamide group separated by an aliphatic alkylene as taught by instant application. Further Kieran does not disclose the number of occurrence of x and y.
In summary, while the disclosure of Pan and Kieran provide some of the structural aspect of the invention of Claims 11 and 12, such as the electrode plate and a diblock polyamide-polyether copolymer, Pan fails to disclose key element such as the triblock polyether-polyamide-polyether segment wherein polyamide segment comprises a bisamide separated by an aliphatic alkylene group. Furthermore, as the teachings of Pan and Kieran do not specify the chemical formula as represented by Claim 12, which further limits the structure of the polyamide segment of claim 11, such chemical formula would not be rendered obvious by the disclosure of Pan as evidenced by Kieran.
In conclusion, there is no teaching or motivation found in the above prior art references not any other references found by the examiner, that teach the cumulative limitations of Claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FIKI V OWHOSO whose telephone number is (571)272-3418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712725453. 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.
/F.V.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights