DETAILED ACTION
Introductory Notes
Any paragraph citation of the instant is in reference to the U.S. published patent application.
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 .
Joint Inventors
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 Objections
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a thickness of the first material layer” in line 3 should read ‘the thickness’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (CN 209183641 U, supplied with an IDS, English translation used for citations) in view of SHEN (US 20090214946 A1) in view of MARUHASHI (US 20160118663 A1).
Regarding claim 1, WU discloses an electrode piece (“pole piece”, Abstract), comprising a current collector (“current collector”, Abstract), a first material layer (“liquid retention layer”, Abstract) and an active material layer (“active substance layer”, Abstract),
wherein the first material layer and the active material layer are provided on a surface of the current collector (as shown in Fig. 4, the active material layer 5 and liquid retention layer 6 are as a combination on the current collector 4), and the first material layer and the active material layer extend along a length direction of the current collector and are alternately arranged in a width direction of the current collector (Figs. 3 and 8 together establish WU teaches either orientation of extension and arrangement regardless of how length and width are interpreted);
wherein functional slurry is a slurry of the first material layer (“coating process … after the emulsion is dried, a liquid retaining layer 6 with a porous structure is formed” [0045]),
wherein the first material layer comprises a first material (“emulsion” [0045]), and the first material comprises an amphiphilic polymer (“binder (such as polyvinylidene fluoride)” [0045]) and a structural conductive polymer (“organic polymer (such as polyvinylpyrrolidone)” [0045]).
Regarding “amphiphilic”, which is both hydrophobic as well as hydrophilic segments, WU teaches the “adhesive is one or more of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose [CMC], styrene-butadiene rubber [SBR], polyvinylidene fluoride [PVDF], and sodium alginate” [0044], emphasis and initialisms added. Notably the inclusion of CMC as well as either SBR or PVDF leads to both hydrophobic as well as hydrophilic segments. While WU teaches the possible use of CMC with PVDF, WU does not expressly disclose the combination.
SHEN is directed to an electrode for a battery, like WU. SHEN discloses that a “binder is preferably a mixture of a hydrophobic binder and a hydrophilic binder” [0018] and that the choices for binder include PVDF and CMC per [0018]. SHEN teaches that any “suitable concentrations of the hydrophilic binder solution and the hydrophobic binder emulsion can be used, and can be adjusted according to the viscosity of the mixture and the operation requirements” [0018]. SHEN establishes the use of a mixture of hydrophobic and hydrophilic segments was well known in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize both a hydrophobic binder and a hydrophilic binder to match the operation requirements.
Therefore, modified WU discloses an amphiphilic polymer (as disclosed as a possible combination in WU and taught by SHEN).
Regarding particle sizes of the amphiphilic polymer and the structural conductive polymer, WU does not expressly teach the particle sizes. However, control of particle size is well established in the art as demonstrated by MARUHASHI.
MARUHASHI is directed to an electrode for battery utilizing a binder like WU.
MARUHASHI discloses that the polymers have “average particle size of preferably 50 nm or larger … preferably 500 nm or smaller” [0148]. MARUHASHI teaches proper by “setting the volume average particle size of the particles of the particulate polymer to 50 nm or larger, the stability of the slurry composition can be increased … by setting the volume average particle size of the particles of the particulate polymer to 500 nm or smaller, the binding capacity of the particulate polymer can be increased” [0148].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the particle sizing to balance stability and binding capacity.
Therefore, modified WU discloses particle sizes of the amphiphilic polymer and the structural conductive polymer are 10nm to 400nm (as taught by MARUHASHI).
Regarding claim 9, modified WU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and WU further discloses a battery cell (“electrode assembly”, Abstract), comprising a positive electrode piece and a negative electrode piece (“the electrode assembly comprises a first pole piece, a second pole piece and a diaphragm”, Abstract), wherein the positive electrode piece and/or the negative electrode piece are the electrode pieces according to claim 1 (as discussed in rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, modified WU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and WU further discloses a battery (“secondary battery”, Abstract), comprising the battery cell according to claim 9 (as discussed in rejection of claim 9).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, modified WU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and WU further discloses there are at least three first material layers and at least two active material layers (as shown in Figs. 3 and 8 which each show more than the claimed layers for each of the liquid retention layers and active material layers).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, modified WU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and WU further discloses a thickness of the first material layer is smaller than a thickness of the active material layer (as shown in Fig. 4, the thickness of the liquid retention layer 6 is smaller than the active material layer 5).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, modified WU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and WU further discloses a thickness of the first material layer is 5µm to 40µm (“the depth of the groove G can be 1μm to 100μm, preferably 10μm to 50μm” [0052], significantly overlapping with the claimed range).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, modified WU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and WU further discloses a width of the first material layer is 2mm to 6mm (“width of each groove G can be 0.1μm to 10mm” [0057], significantly overlapping with the claimed range).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, modified WU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, both WU as well as SHEN further discloses the amphiphilic polymer comprises a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) is formed by compounding a C-C or C-F main bond with a hydrophilic group; the hydrophilic group comprises at least one of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (in WU “adhesive is one or more of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose [CMC], styrene-butadiene rubber [SBR], polyvinylidene fluoride [PVDF], and sodium alginate” [0044]; and SHEN teaches the use of PVDF and CMC per [0018] as well as the teaching to include “a mixture of a hydrophobic binder and a hydrophilic binder” [0018]).
Notably “the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) is formed” is being interpreted to mean PVDF is mixed with another compound. Support for this interpretation may be found in instant [0074] wherein the PVDF itself is not prepared by a unique process, rather PVDF is mixed with CMC as well as PVP to form the functional slurry of the first material layer.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, modified WU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and WU further discloses the structural conductive polymer comprises at least one of … polyvinyl pyrrolidone (“organic polymer is one or more of … polyvinylpyrrolidone” [0044]).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU in view of SHEN in view of MARUHASHI in view of GUO (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 2386−2397).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, modified WU discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above and WU further discloses “the porosity of the liquid retention layer 6 can be controlled by adjusting the composition and forming process of the liquid retention layer 6” [0046]. As such WU establishes that the composition of components is a result effective variable. However, WU does not expressly teach the proportions of the polymers.
GUO is directed to the use of polymers for high porosity and electrolyte transport like WU. GUO discloses Table 1 in which the ratios of PVDF and PVP are given where for the four samples which have each of PVDF and PVP, the PVDF ranges from 50% to 77.2% and PVP ranges from 8.9% to 25% and that following any partial removal of PVP (pg. 2387 col. 2, par. 2) over half of the PVP remained (on average 51.2% of the 8.9% to 25% per Table 1 footnote). GUO teaches the combination of PVDF and PVP provides “a polar PVDF/PVP film with highly porous structures, which would serve as enhanced inner channels and support significant ion migration” (pg. 2387 col. 2, par. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the varying polymer ratios to achieve the desired porosity as alluded to in WU and taught in GUO to achieve a highly porous structure for enhanced inner channels and support significant ion migration.
Therefore, modified WU discloses a mass proportion of the structural conductive polymer in the first material is 5% to 25% (as taught by GUO).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
AKIRA (US 20230064681 A1) directed to alternating high-density regions with low-density regions as shown in Fig. 2.
LEE (US 20210399278 A1) directed to alternating high binder-containing regions with low binder-containing regions as shown in Fig. 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS L MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights