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 Interpretation
Claim 5 is interpreted in accordance with Fig. 4 and paragraph 0085 of the instant specification: the distance between the first and second points of contact in the width direction (depicted in Fig. 4 as “G”) is 30% or less than the thickness of the dry electrode film (depicted in Fig. 4 as “T”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9, 12, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20220285680 A1, cited in the 11/4/2024 IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a dry electrode film (0024, 0076) comprising:
a first region having a first side surface at one end of a width direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the dry electrode film and comprising a first dry electrode active material (0063 – first electrode active material layer);
a second region having a second side surface opposite to the first side surface and comprising a second dry electrode active material (0063 – second electrode active material layer);
and a third region between the first region and the second region and comprising a third dry electrode active material (0064 – third electrode active material) (Fig. 4 – parts 100a, b, and c),
wherein the third region has a third porosity less than a first porosity of the first region and less than the second porosity of the second region (0064 – the porosity of the third electrode active material layer may be the smallest).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. Lee does not teach a step (Fig. 4). Thus, the step would be 0% with respect to a thickness of the dry electrode film.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. The porosity of each active material layer is constant (0063-0064). This would mean that the porosity of the dry electrode film would decrease in a stepwise manner from the first side surface or the second side surface to a central portion of the third region (the porosity in the first or second region/active material layer decreases to the porosity of the third region/active material layer).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee teaches the dry electrode of Claim 1. The composition of the third dry electrode active material would necessarily either be the same or different from the compositions of the first and second electrode active materials. (0065).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee teaches the dry electrode of Claim 1. The dry electrode film has a third side surface at one end of a length direction perpendicular to the width direction and has a fourth side surface opposite to the third side surface, and the third region comprises at least a portion of each of the third side surface and the fourth side surface (Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. Lee also teaches a dry electrode (Fig. 4) comprising a dry electrode active material layer (part 100); and an electrode current collector on a first side of the dry electrode active material layer, wherein the dry electrode active material layer comprises the dry electrode film of Claim 1 (Fig. 4 – part 100).
Regarding Claim 19, Lee teaches the dry electrode of Claim 17. The electrode comprises an interlayer between the electrode current collector and the dry electrode active material layer (0079, Fig. 4 – part 250). The interlayer can comprise a carbon-based conductive material and/or a binder (0083, 0084).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1 and a lithium battery (Title) comprising a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode, wherein at least one of the cathode or the anode is a dry electrode, and wherein the dry electrode comprises the dry electrode film as claimed in Claim 1 (0124, Title).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue (US 20220037672 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Xue teaches a dry electrode film (0234 – the electrode is dried) comprising:
a first region having a first side surface at one end of a width direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the dry electrode film and comprising a first dry electrode active material (Fig. 17 – part 513);
a second region having a second side surface opposite to the first side surface and comprising a second dry electrode active material (Fig. 17 – part 515);
and a third region between the first region and the second region and comprising a third dry electrode active material (Fig. 17 – part 514),
wherein the third region has a third porosity less than a first porosity of the first region and less than the second porosity of the second region (0018, 0061-0063, 0231-0235: the positive electrode active material layer comprises three regions, with the middle region 514 having a higher compacted density as the side regions 513 and 515. As the regions are made of the same material, this would mean that the middle region, with a higher compacted density, would have a lower porosity).
Regarding Claim 2, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. The first region has a first width, from the first side surface to a first interface between the first region and the third region, the second region has a second width, from the second side surface to a second interface between the second region and the third region, and third region has a third width between the first interface and the second interface, and wherein the third width of the third region is greater than the first width W1 of the first region and greater than the second width of the second region (Fig. 17 – parts 513, 514, and 515).
Regarding Claim 3, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 2. The third width of the third region can range between 20 to 80 % of the total width of the active material layer, most specifically between 45 to 55% (0187). The widths of the first and second regions are preferably the same (0187), meaning that they can range from 10 to 40% of the total width, most specifically between 22.5% and 27.5%.
Regarding Claim 4, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. A first width of the first region and a second width of the second region are each greater than a thickness of the dry electrode film (0233 – the widths of the first and second regions are both 2.1 cm; Table 4 – the electrode active material layer has a thickness of 55 µm). The ratios of both the first width to the thickness (W1/T) and the second width to the thickness (W2/T) would both be about 381.8.
Regarding Claim 5, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. Xue does not disclose a step in the width direction, meaning that the step would be 0% with respect to a thickness of the dry electrode film.
Regarding Claim 6, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. The porosity of the dry electrode film, which is directly related to the compaction density, decreases in a stepwise manner in a direction from the first side surface or the second side surface to an interface or central portion of the third region (0235).
Regarding Claim 8, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. The dry electrode film has a third porosity gradient, which decreases in a width direction from the first side surface to a central portion of the third region, and a fourth porosity gradient, which decreases in a width direction from the second side surface to a central portion of the third region (0235, Fig. 17).
Regarding Claim 9, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. The composition of the third dry electrode active material is the same as the composition of the first and second dry electrode active materials (0232).
Regarding Claim 10, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. An amount of the third dry electrode active material in the third region is higher than an amount of the first dry electrode active material in the first region and higher than an amount of the second dry electrode active material in the second region (0233, 0235 – the third area is wider and has a higher compacted density than the first and second areas).
Regarding Claim 11, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. The third area is formed from coating at a high coating weight whereas the first and second areas are coated with low coating weight (0233). This would mean that the mixture density of the third area is higher than the mixture densities of the first and second areas.
Regarding Claim 12, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. The film has a third side surface at one end of a length direction perpendicular to the width direction and a fourth side surface opposite to the third side surface, and the third region comprises at least a portion of each of the third side surface and the fourth side surface (Fig. 17 – part 514).
Regarding Claim 17, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1 and a dry electrode comprising a dry electrode active material layer and an electrode current collector on a fist side of the dry electrode active material layer, wherein the dry electrode active material layer comprises the dry electrode film of Claim 1 (0231-0235; Fig. 17).
Regarding Claim 18, Xue teaches the dry electrode of Claim 17. The electrode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on at least one side of the base film (Abstract). The base film comprises a polymer such as polyimide, polyethylene, polypropylene, or polybutylene terephthalate (0093). The metal layer can comprise aluminum, copper, nickel, or titanium (0079, 0080). Specifically, the current collector can be a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) base film with an aluminum layer deposited on the film (0231).
Regarding Claim 19, Xue teaches the dry electrode of Claim 17. The dry electrode comprises an interlayer between the current collector and the dry electrode active material layer (Abstract – the current collector includes a support layer and a conductive layer disposed on at least one surface of the support layer). The interlayer/conductive layer can comprise a carbon-based conductive material (0079).
Regarding Claim 20, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1 and a lithium battery comprising a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode (0190), wherein at least one of the cathode or the anode is a dry electrode (0234), and wherein the dry electrode comprises the dry electrode film of Claim 1 (0190).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220285680 A1) in view of Kurihara (US 20050058907 A1) and as evidenced by Benchchem (An in-depth Technical Guide on the Thermal Stability and Degradation of Polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE)).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. The dry electrode film is a self-standing film (0076), and the dry electrode comprises a dry binder (0073, 0074), wherein the dry binder comprises a fibrillized binder (0073), the dry binder comprises a fluorinated binder (0074), and an amount of the dry binder with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film is about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% (0075).
Lee does not disclose the direction of fibrillation. However, the fibrillized binder acts like a matrix (0073) and would have to comprise at least some fibers in a length direction. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the fibrillation process using a blade mixer (0134) would produce at least some fibers in a length direction.
Lee discloses that the binder can be any binder suitable for use in a dry electrode but does not disclose the glass transition temperatures of any binders.
Kurihara teaches that a dry electrode (0006, 0090) can use polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE) as a binder (0131).
Lee and Kurihara are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely dry electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fluorinated binder of Lee to be the PCTFE taught by Kurihara as it is a known binder for a dry electrode. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a dry electrode with a binder suitable for use in a dry electrode (See MPEP 2143 B).
PCTFE has a glass transition temperature of 45° C (Benchchem: Pg. 2 – Glass Transition Temperature).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220285680 A1) in view of DuPasquier (US 20220158193 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. The film also comprises a dry conductive material (0077) that is a carbon-based conductive material (0077) in an amount between about 1 wt% and about 5 wt% (0078). The carbon-based conductive material can be a fiber like carbon nanotubes (0077).
Lee does not disclose the aspect ratios of the carbon-based conductive materials.
DuPasquier teaches carbon nanotubes as a conductive additive for electrodes (Abstract, 0010, 0017). The carbon nanotubes have an aspect ratio between 200 and 1000 (0051).
Lee and DuPasquier are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely electrodes with carbon-based conductive additives.
Therefore, it 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 aspect ratio of the carbon nanotubes of Lee to be 200 to 1000 as taught by DuPasquier as it is a known aspect ratio for carbon nanotube conductive additives. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of carbon nanotubes with a suitable aspect ratio for use as a conductive additive (See MPEP 2143 B).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220285680 A1) in view of Sudano (US 20040126663 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee teaches the dry electrode of Claim 1. Lee does not teach that the current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on at least one side of the base film.
Sudano teaches a current collector for an electrochemical cell (Title) comprising a polymer substrate film and, a conductive metal layer deposited on the surface of the polymer film, and a protective metallic layer (Abstract). The polymer film may comprise polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polypropylene (PP) (0027) and the metal can comprise aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), or nickel (Ni) (0028). The current collector can resist corrosion (0006, 0026).
Although Sudano teaches the current collector to be used with a polymer electrolyte (Abstract), Examiner notes that Lee teaches that the dry electrode may be used with any solid electrolyte (Lee: 0160).
Lee and Sudano are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode current collectors.
Therefore, it 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 current collector of Lee to be the current collector of Sudano to help resist corrosion.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (US 20220037672 A1).
Regarding Claims 7, 8, and 13, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. Although the embodiments disclosed by Xue only have three regions, Xue teaches that the film may comprise five regions (0156). The fourth region can be viewed as a region between the first region and the third region, and the fifth region can be viewed as a region between the second region and the third region.
Xue teaches that the areas have different compacted densities (0155), which are inversely related to the porosities of the areas, and that the middle (third region/area) has the greatest compacted density (0152) but does not disclose the relationship between the compacted densities/porosities of the fourth and first regions or the fifth and second regions.
However, Xue teaches that it is desirable for the middle area have a greater compacted density (lower porosity) than the sides to suppress curvature and warping of the current collector and electrode plate (0018). As such, the compacted density/porosity is a result-effective variable and it has been held that, “[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.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected compacted densities/porosities for the fourth and fifth areas/regions to be between the compacted densities/porosities of the first and second areas/regions and the third area/region through routine experimentation.
Furthermore, the first area and fourth area can together be viewed as a first region with a first porosity gradient, which decreases in a width direction from the first side surface to the third region (Claim 7), and the dry electrode film can be viewed as having a third porosity gradient, which decreases in a width direction from the first side surface to a central portion of the third region (Claim 8). Similarly, the second and fifth areas can together be viewed as a second region with a second porosity gradient that decreases in a width direction from the second side surface to the third region (Claim 7), and the dry electrode film can be viewed as having a fourth porosity gradient, which decreases in a width direction from the second side surface to a central portion of the third region (Claim 8).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (US 20220037672 A1) in view of Lu (US 20230369560 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Xue teaches the dry electrode film of Claim 1. The dry electrode film comprises a first layer, the first layer comprising the first region, the second region, and the third region (Fig. 17).
Xue does not teach a second layer on the first layer, the second layer comprising a sixth region, and wherein the sixth region has a sixth porosity, which is greater than the third porosity of the third region.
Lu teaches an electrode plate where the electrode active material has a maximum porosity on an outer surface side. This allows an increase in the infiltration rate of electrolyte (Abstract).
Xue and Lu are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely electrodes with active material layers.
Therefore, it 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 active material layer of Xue such that is has a maximum porosity on an outer surface as taught by Lu in order to increase the infiltration rate of an electrolyte.
The half of the active material layer closest to the current collector can be viewed as a first layer comprising the first, second, and third regions, and the half of the active material layer closest to the outer surface side can be viewed as a second layer comprising a sixth region with a sixth porosity that is greater than the third porosity of the third region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights