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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there exists no undue administrative burden for the Examiner to search and consider all claims in their entirety. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement was not based solely on administrative burden, but on the determination that the common feature shared between the claimed groups does not make a patentable contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/20/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20190044183 A1) in view of Hosokawa et al. (US 20030118904 A1) and Park et al. (High temperature stable lithium-ion polymer battery, Journal of Power Sources, Volumes 97–98, 2001, Pages 775-778, ISSN 0378-7753).
Yang, drawn to fabricating energy storage devices, discloses a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a negative electrode current collector layer (para 92, “conductive substrate”); a negative electrode active material layer (para 93,”electrode material”; fig 1); and an electrolyte solution dissolution layer (para 92, “sealant”), wherein the electrolyte solution dissolution layer has a thickness of 1 µm or more and 50 µm (para 61), and the electrolyte solution dissolution layer comprises a binder copolymer (para 92, “PVDF”).
Yang does not disclose the negative electrode active material layer on one surface or both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector layer; and an electrolyte solution dissolution layer on a surface of the negative electrode active material layer opposite to a surface of the negative electrode active material layer facing the negative electrode current collector layer.
However, Yang discloses the electrolyte solution dissolution layer on surface of the negative electrode current collector layer and the negative electrode active material layer on the electrolyte solution dissolution layer (fig 1). Yang further discloses the states layer structure “not only renders electrodes stable in ambient air, but also leads to uniform lithiation” (para 109).
It would have been obvious, at the time of the invention, to rearrange the layers of Yang such that the negative electrode active material layer is on one surface or both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector layer and the electrolyte solution dissolution layer is on a surface of the negative electrode active material layer opposite to a surface of the negative electrode active material layer facing the negative electrode current collector layer because the rearrangement merely changes the relative arrangement of known elements while each element continues to perform their known functions. Furthermore, since either arrangement achieves the same result, the rearrangement proposed above has a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the claimed arrangement represents a predictable rearrangement of known elements that yield no unexpected result. (MPEP 2144.04)
Yang also does not disclose binder copolymer comprises a monomer unit comprising a fluoro group wherein the monomer unit is present in an amount of 5 parts by weight or more and 20 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the binder copolymer.
Hosokawa, drawn to electrodes in lithium ion batteries, discloses using “PTFE, FEP (tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer), etc..” in conjunction with binder copolymer “to give flexibility to the electrode” (para 36). It would have been obvious, at the time of the invention, for binder copolymer of Yang to comprises a monomer unit comprising a fluoro group as taught by Hosokawa as doing such gives electrode flexibility (para 36).
Yang and Hosokawa do not explicitly disclose the monomer unit is present in an amount of 5 parts by weight or more and 20 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the binder copolymer.
Park, also drawn to lithium ion polymer battery, discloses “HFP enhances ionic conductivity but high level of HFP could also contribute to poor cycle life performance” (Introduction). Park notes 5% HFP level “significantly improved cycle life performance” (conclusion). It would have been obvious, at the time of the invention, for the monomer unit taught by Hosokawa to be present in an amount of 5 parts by weight or more and 20 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the binder copolymer as doing such significantly improves life cycle performance (conclusion). Additionally, the amount disclosed by Park lies inside the claimed range. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Hosokawa disclose the monomer unit comprises a perfluoro olefin (para 36).
Regarding claim 3, Hosokawa discloses the electrolyte solution dissolution layer further comprises an acrylic polymer (para 36, “polyacrylate”). Yang discloses the sealant comprises binder copolymer (PVDF) and conductive material (para 61-62). Yang further discloses the conductive material is present in an amount of up to 90% based on the combined weight of sealant and the conductive material (para 64). At the disclosed 90 wt.% conductive material embodiment, the remaining 10% necessarily comprises the binder copolymer. Accordingly, Yang disclose the binder copolymer is present in an amount of 1 part by weight or more and 20 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the electrolyte solution dissolution layer.
Regarding Claim 4, Yang discloses the negative electrode active material layer comprises: a silicon-containing active material (Si) ; a negative electrode conductive material (carbon black); and a negative electrode binder (PAA) and wherein the silicon-containing active material comprises SiOx, wherein x=0 (para 138).
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses the silicon- containing active material comprises Si nanoparticles and comprises 70 parts by weight or more of the SiOx, wherein x=0, based on 100 parts by weight of the silicon- containing active material. (para 138).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20190044183 A1), Hosokawa et al. (US 20030118904 A1) and Park et al. (High temperature stable lithium-ion polymer battery, Journal of Power Sources, Volumes 97–98, 2001, Pages 775-778, ISSN 0378-7753), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 20200227753 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses the negative electrode active material layer has a thickness of 1µm to 1mm (para 35). The claimed thickness range lies inside the thickness range disclosed by Yang. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Yang, Hosokawa and Park do not disclose the negative electrode current collector layer has a thickness of 1 pm or more and 100 pm or less.
Hong, drawn to negative electrode for lithium secondary battery, discloses “negative electrode current collector is formed to have a thickness of 3-500 μm” (para 40). It would have been obvious, at the time of the invention, to modify the current collector of yang by using the negative electrode current collector thickness taught by Hong as doing such would have been predictable use of known current collector thickness for its known purpose yielding no unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights