ETAILED 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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/518104 filed on 11/22/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (US 20180047983 A1) and in view of Kim et al. (US 20220359869 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Mun et al. disclose a surface-treated cathode active material for an aqueous lithium secondary battery (abstract). The aqueous lithium secondary battery comprises a cathode. The cathode comprises the surface-treated cathode active material and a binder (par. 30). The surface-treated cathode active material (equivalent to dry electrode active material) is manufactured through a drying process (par. 29). The surface-treated cathode active material comprises:
a cathode active material (equivalent to a core) (par. 17); and
a metal fluoride (equivalent to a shell) as a stabilization material (par. 17), wherein the metal fluoride is uniformly on the cathode active material (par. 17).
The stabilization material can be AlF3 (par. 18).
Mun et al. fail to explicitly disclose an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) spectrum of a surface of the dry electrode active material, an amount of the at least one element is about 1 wt% to about 4 wt%. However, Mun et al. disclose the weight of the stabilization should be 0.001-10 wt% with respect to the weight of the cathode active material (par. 26). Mun et al. recognize as the polarization and surface stabilization of the cathode active material are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the metal fluoride (the stabilization material) in the coating layer (par. 18-20, 26). The surface stabilization increases as the amount of the metal fluoride is increased (par. 18-20), but the polarization decreases as the amount of the metal fluoride is increased (par. 83).Thus, the amount of the metal fluoride would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of the metal fluoride cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the metal fluoride in the Mun et al. to obtain the desired balance between the surface stabilization and the polarization as taught by Mun et al. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Mun et al. fail to explicitly disclose a dry electrode film comprising: a dry electrode active material; and a dry binder. However, Kim et al. disclose an electrode for secondary battery (abstract). The electrode comprises an electrode composition (equivalent to a dry electrode film). The electrode composition is a dry mixture of an active material (equivalent to a dry electrode active material) and a binder (a dry binder) (par. 9, 18). The electrode composition is prepared as a free-standing film, and the free-standing film may be attached on an electrode current collector (par. 16). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrode composition on the electrode current collector of Kim et al. as the cathode of Mun et al. because Kim et al. teach that this electrode for secondary battery can improve cohesion and resistance reduction effect (par. 7).
Claims 1-6, 12, 13, 15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170018767 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Park et al. disclose a composite cathode active material for a lithium battery (abstract). The lithium battery comprises a cathode (par. 100). The cathode comprises a cathode active material composition (par. 102). The cathode active material composition includes the composite cathode active material and a binder (par. 102-105). The cathode active material composition can be coated on a current collector and then dried to prepare a cathode or a film on a current collector (par. 104) (as the cathode active material composition on the current collector is manufactured through a dry process, the cathode active material composition is equivalent to a dry electrode film, the composite cathode active material is equivalent to a dry electrode active material, and a binder is equivalent to a dry binder). The composite cathode active material comprises:
a lithium composite oxide (10) (equivalent to a core) (par. 36, fig. 1); and
a coating layer (12) (equivalent to a shell) (par. 36, fig. 1) conforming to a surface of the lithium composite oxide (10),
wherein the coating layer (12) includes a metal oxide and a lithium fluoride (LiF) (equivalent to at least one element selected from among beryllium (Be), boron (B), and fluorine (F))(par. 36).
Park et al. fail to explicitly disclose in an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) spectrum of a surface of the dry electrode active material, an amount of the at least one element is about 1 wt% to about 4 wt%. However, Park et al. disclose a mole ratio of the metal oxide to the lithium fluoride in the coating layer (12) may be in a range of about 1:1 to about 1:6 (par. 38); and the metal oxide can be bismuth oxide (Bi2O3) (par. 42).
Examiner calculates the approximately weight percentage of fluorine (F) based on the total weight of Bi2O3 and LiF as following:
The weight ratio of Bi2O3 to LiF when the mole ratio of Bi2O3 to LiF is 1:1
= 465.96 x 1 : 25.94 x 1
= 17.96:1
(465.96 g/mol of the molar mass of Bi2O3 is evidenced by Zhang (CN 118026662 A) in page 53 of the English translation. 175. 25.94 g/mol of the molar mass of LiF is evidenced by Nlebedlm et al. (US 20230020052 A1) in Table 1).
The weight percentage of fluorine (F) in lithium fluoride (LiF)
= 19/(19+6.94) x100%
= 73.24%
(6.94 g/mol of the molar mass of Li is evidenced by YOKOYAMA et al. (US 20220158227 A1) in Table 2. 19 g/mol of the molar mass of F is evidenced by DUBOIS et al. (US 20190023574 A1) in par. 43).
The weight percentage of fluorine (F) relative to the total weight of Bi2O3 and LiF
= [0.73/(17.96+1)]x100%
=3.8 wt.%
In addition, Park et al. recognize as the cycle characteristics and rate characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the mole ratio of the metal oxide precursor to the fluoride precursor (par. 96) (the mole ratio of the metal oxide precursor to the fluoride precursor is related to the weight percentage of fluorine on the surface), with the cycle characteristics and rate characteristics both can be optimized by adjusting the mole ratio of the metal oxide precursor to the fluoride precursor, the precise mole ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed the mole ratio (equivalent to the weight percentage of fluorine in the shell) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the mole ratio (equivalent to the weight percentage of fluorine on the surface of the shell) in the coating layer (12) of Park et al. to obtain the desired cycle characteristics and rate characteristics as taught by Park. et al. (par. 96) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding to claim 2: Park et al. disclose the coating layer (12) (equivalent to a shell) includes a metal oxide and a lithium fluoride (LiF) (equivalent to at least one element selected from among beryllium (Be), boron (B), and fluorine (F)) (par. 36).
Regarding to claims 3, 4: Park et al. disclose the coating layer (12) (equivalent to a shell) includes a metal oxide and a lithium fluoride (LiF) (equivalent to an inorganic compound comprising LiF) (par. 36).
Regarding to claim 5: Park et al. disclose the coating layer (12) (equivalent to a shell) includes a metal oxide and a lithium fluoride (LiF) (par. 36).
Regarding to claim 6: Park et al. disclose the coating layer (12) may further include a carbonaceous material (par. 85). The carbonaceous material can be graphene (par. 87).
Regarding to claim 12: Park et al. disclose the total thickness of the coating layer may be in a range of about 1 nanometer (nm) to about 1 micrometer (μm) (par. 73). The coating layer may be in the form of a continuous layer (par. 71) (equivalent to a monolayer structure). Park et al. disclose the composite cathode active material having a coating layer is obtained by drying process at a temperature of about 400° C. for 5 hours in Example 1 (par. 146) (As dry process is comprised, the coating layer is equivalent to a dry-coating layer).
Regarding to claim 13: Park et al. disclose the lithium composite oxide can be
LiaNixCoyMnzMcO2-eAe Formula 1 (par. 44)
Wherein, in Formula 1, 1.0<a≦1.4, 0<x<1, 0≦y<1, 0<z<1, 0≦c<1, 0<x+y+z+c<1, and 0≦e<1; M is at least one selected from vanadium (V), magnesium (Mg), gallium (Ga), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), iron (Fe), chrome (Cr), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), and boron (B); and A is at least one anion element selected from F, S, Cl, and Br (par. 44) (LiaNixCoyMnzMcO2-eAe can be LiaNixCoyMnzO2-eAe when c=0. The composition of LiaNixCoyMnzO2-eAe overlaps the composition of the Formula 1 (LiaNixCoyMzO2-bAb) when M is Mn in the instant claim). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding to claim 15: Park et al. disclose the cathode active material composition may be further add a conducting agent (par. 103) (as the cathode active material composition on the current collector is manufactured through a dry process as described in paragraph 3 above, the conducting agent is equivalent to a dry conductive material). The conducting agent may include at least one selected from carbon black, natural graphite, artificial graphite, acetylene black, Ketjen black; carbon fibers; carbon nanotubes (par. 112) (as the aspect ratio of the instant claim can be either 10 or more or 10 or less, the aspect ratio of the conducting agent of Park et al. can read on either 10 or more or 10 or less). Park et al. disclose the composite cathode active material powder is prepared with a mixture of acetylene black, and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) in a weight ratio of 90:5:5 in Examples 12 to 21 (par. 154, 168) (equivalent to the dry conductive material is 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film).
Regarding to claim 17: Park et al. disclose the cathode active material composition (equivalent to a dry electrode film) can be coated on a current collector and then dried or a film on a current collector (par. 104).
Regarding to claim 20: Park et al. disclose a battery assembly may be prepared by disposing a separator between a cathode (equivalent to a first electrode) and an anode (equivalent to a second electrode) (par. 133, 134). The cathode is described above. The separator is impregnated with the electrolyte solution (equivalent to a liquid electrolyte) (par. 134).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170018767 A1) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Sheem et al. (US 8889299 B2).
Regarding to claim 7: Park et al. disclose the coating layer (12) as described in paragraph 3 above. Park et al. fail to explicitly disclose a first carbon-based material, the first carbon-based material comprises graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, or any combination thereof, and the first carbon-based material further comprises Be, B, F, or any combination thereof. However, Sheem et al. disclose a positive active material that includes a core particle and a coating layer (abstract). The coating layer (equivalent to the shell) includes the carbon-fluorine (C--F) bond of the coating material, and the carbon of the carbon-fluorine bond is derived from graphene, (col. 4, lines 10-15). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the carbon-fluorine (C--F) bond of the coating material of Sheem et al. into the coating layer (12) of Park et al. because Sheem et al. teach that this can improve the capacity retentions (col.14, lines 58-65, table 1).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170018767 A1) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Son et al. (US 20210376314 A1).
Regarding to claim 8: Park et al. disclose the coating layer (12) as described in paragraph 3 above. Park et al. fail to explicitly disclose one first metal oxide; and a first carbon-based material, and wherein the at least one first metal oxide is in a matrix of the first carbon-based material and is represented by formula MaOb (0<a≤3 and 0<b<4, and when a is 1, 2, or 3, b is not an integer), and M is at least one metal selected from among Groups 2 to 16 of the Periodic Table of the Elements. However, Son et al. disclose a composite cathode active material includes a core and a shell (abstract). The shell includes at least one first metal oxide represented by Formula MaOb (0<a≤3, 0<b<4, when a is 1, 2, or 3, b is not an integer), and carbonaceous material (equivalent to a first carbon-based material), wherein M is at least one metal selected from groups 2 to 13, group 15, and group 16 of the Periodic Table of Elements (par. 41). The first metal oxide is placed in a carbonaceous material matrix (par. 51). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the first metal oxide and the carbonaceous material of Son et al. into the coating layer (12) of Park et al. because Son et al. teach that this can improve the cycle characteristics and high-temperature stability of the lithium battery (par. 43).
Regarding to claim 9: Park et al. disclose the coating layer (12) as described in paragraph 3 above. Park et al. fail to explicitly disclose the at least one first metal oxide is at least one metal selected from among aluminum (Al), niobium (Nb), magnesium (Mg), scandium (Sc), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), vanadium (V), tungsten (W), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), palladium (Pd), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), zinc (Zn), antimony (Sb), and selenium (Se), and the at least one first metal oxide is at least one selected from among
PNG
media_image1.png
224
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Son et al. disclose a composite cathode active material includes a core and a shell (abstract). The shell includes at least one first metal oxide (par. 41). The first metal oxide may be at least one selected from
PNG
media_image2.png
262
954
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par.45).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the first metal oxide and the carbonaceous material of Son et al. into the coating layer (12) of Park et al. because Son et al. teach that this can improve the cycle characteristics and high-temperature stability of the lithium battery (par. 43).
Regarding to claim 10: Park et al. disclose the coating layer (12) as described in paragraph 3 above. Park et al. fail to explicitly disclose the shell further comprises a second metal oxide, and wherein the second metal oxide is represented by formula MaOc (0<a≤3 and 0<c≤4, and when a is 1, 2, or 3, c is an integer), the second metal oxide comprises a same metal as the at least one first metal oxide, a ratio (c/a) of c to a in the second metal oxide has a greater value than a ratio (b/a) of b to a in the at least one first metal oxide, and the second metal oxide is in a matrix of the first carbon-based material. However, Son et al. disclose a composite cathode active material includes a core and a shell (abstract). The shell may further include at least one kind of second metal oxide represented by MaOc (0<a≤3, 0<c≤4, when a is 1, 2, or 3, c is an integer). M is at least one metal selected from groups 2 to 13, group 15, and group 16 of the Periodic Table of Elements. For example, the second metal oxide includes the same metal as the first metal oxide, and the ratio (c/a) of c to a in the second metal oxide is greater than the ratio (b/a) of b to a in the first metal oxide (par. 46). The second metal oxide may be more uniformly distributed in the carbonaceous material matrix (par. 53). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the second metal oxide of Son et al. into the coating layer (12) of Park et al. because Son et al. teach that this can improve the cycle characteristics and high-temperature stability of the lithium battery (par. 43).
Regarding to claim 11: Park et al. disclose the coating layer (12) as described in paragraph 3 above. Park et al. fail to explicitly disclose the second metal oxide is selected from among
PNG
media_image3.png
129
955
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and the at least one first metal oxide is a reduction product of the second metal oxide. However, Son et al. disclose a composite cathode active material includes a core and a shell (abstract). Son et al. disclose the second metal oxide is selected from
PNG
media_image4.png
176
1245
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The first metal oxide is a reduction product of the second metal oxide (par., 46). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the second metal oxide of Son et al. into the coating layer (12) of Park et al. because Son et al. teach that this can improve the cycle characteristics and high-temperature stability of the lithium battery (par. 43).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170018767 A1) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Petrowsky et al. (US 20220006071 A1) and Nakanishi et al. (US 20220162364 A1).
Regarding to claim 14: Park et al. disclose the cathode active material composition includes the composite cathode active material and a binder (par. 102-105). The cathode active material composition can be a film which is laminated on a current collector (par. 104) (as the cathode active material composition on the current collector is manufactured through a dry process, the cathode active material composition is equivalent to a dry electrode film, the composite cathode active material is equivalent to a dry electrode active material, and a binder is equivalent to a dry binder). The binder can be polyvinylidene fluoride or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (equivalent to a fluorinated binder) (par. 113). Park et al. disclose the composite cathode active material powder is prepared with a mixture of acetylene black, and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) in a weight ratio of 90:5:5 in Examples 12 to 21 (par. 154, 168) (equivalent to the binder is 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film). Park et al. fail to explicitly disclose the dry binder comprises a fibrillized binder. However, Petrowsky et al. disclose an energy storage device can include a cathode, an anode, and a separator. At least one of the electrodes can include an electrode film prepared by a dry process (abstract). The dry electrode film includes a dry active material; a dry binder; and a dry electrolyte salt (par. 5). The binder material can include one or more fibrillizable binder components (par. 81). The binder of the cathode film comprising a material including sulfur active material is selected from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (par. 79). The cathode electrode film comprises about 1.5 weight % to about 3 weight % binder (par. 80). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fibrillized binder of Petrowsky et al. in the composite cathode active material of Park et al. because Petrowsky et al. teach that the fibrillized binder can provide desired mechanical support (par. 81).
The combination of Park et al. and Petrowsky et al. fail to explicitly disclose the dry binder has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of about 15 °C to about 100 °C. However, Nakanishi et al. disclose a composition, a slurry for a positive electrode (par. 1). The composition serves as a binder with excellent cycle capacity retention rate at high temperatures (par. 10). The composition has a glass transition temperature of 300 K to 340K (equivalent to 27 °C to 67 °C) (par. 45). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the glass transition temperature of 300 K to 340K of Nakanishi et al. as the glass transition temperature of the binder of Park et al because Nakanishi et al. teach that this range of the glass transition temperature can improve the cycle capacity retention rate at high temperatures (par. 45).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170018767 A1) as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220359869 A1).
Regarding to claim 16: Park et al. disclose the cathode active material composition as described in paragraph 3 above. Park et al. fail to explicitly disclose the dry electrode film is free of a residual processing solvent, and the dry electrode film has a tensile strength of about 500 kPa to about 5,000 kPa. However, Kim et al. disclose an electrode for secondary battery (abstract). The electrode composition is prepared as a free-standing film with a tensile strength of 9 kgf/cm2 to 20 kgf/cm2 (equivalent to 883 kPa to 1961 kPa)(par. 16, 17). The electrode composition cab be manufactured without a solvent (par. 46). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the solvent-free electrode composition of Kim et al. as the cathode active material composition of Park et al. because Kim et al. teach that this can prevent damage to an active material and improve the cell performance of the secondary battery (par. 25).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170018767 A1) as applied in claim 17 above and further in view of Yushin et al. (US 20200083542 A1).
Regarding to claim 16: Park et al. disclose the cathode in paragraph 3 above. Park et al. fail to explicitly disclose the electrode current collector comprises a substrate and an interlayer between the substrate and the dry electrode film, and the interlayer comprises a carbon-based conductive material. However, Yushin et al. disclose a Li-ion battery electrode (abstract). The Li-ion battery electrode comprises a conductive interlayer (202) arranged between a current collector (204) (equivalent to a substrate) and an electrode active material layer (201) (abstract, par. 74, fig. 2A). The interlayer (202) comprises suitable conductive additives (205) (e.g., carbon black or carbon nanotubes or carbon fibers). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the conductive interlayer (202) of Yushin et al. into the electrode current collector of Park et al. because Yushin et al. teach that the conductive interlayer can enhance electrode mechanical stability and adhesion to the current collection (par. 67).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20170018767 A1) as applied in claim 17 above and further in view of Peng et al. (US 20220407115 A1).
Regarding to claim 19: Park et al. disclose the current collector can be an aluminum foil (par. 154). Park et al. fail to explicitly disclose the electrode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on one side or opposite sides of the base film, the base film comprises a polymer, the polymer comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or any combination thereof, and the metal layer comprises indium (In), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg), titanium (Ti), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), lithium (Li), or an alloy thereof. However, Peng et al. disclose a lithium-ion secondary battery (abstract). The lithium-ion secondary comprises a positive electrode current collector (par. 69). The positive electrode current collector may be a metal foil or a composite current collector. The metal foil can be an aluminum foil. The composite current collector may comprise a high molecular material substrate layer (equivalent to a base film) and a metal layer formed on at least one surface of the high molecular material substrate layer. The composite current collector may be formed by forming a metal material (such as aluminum, aluminum alloy, nickel, nickel alloy, titanium, titanium alloy, silver, or silver alloy) on a high molecular material substrate (substrates such as polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polystyrene (PS), or polyethylene (PE)) (par. 69). Since the prior art of Peng et al. recognizes the equivalency of the metal foil and the composite current collector as the electrode current collector, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the aluminum foil of Park et al. with the composite current collector of Peng et al. as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent electrode current collector recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights