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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-8 are pending and presented for examination on the merit.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/098822 to Yachi et al. (cited and provided by Applicant), in view of US 2020/0044280 to Modeki et al.
Regarding claim 1, Yachi et al. teaches an electrode sheet for lithium ion secondary batteries, the electrode sheet comprising at least an active material for lithium ion batteries, e.g. a negative electrode active material ([0072]; [0102]; [0108]), fibrous carbon ([0072]; [0084]; [0093]), and a fluorine- based polymer, e.g. polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0072]; [0117]), the electrode sheet for lithium ion secondary batteries having a thickness of from 50 to 1000 μm ([0072]; [0074]), the fibrous carbon having an average fiber diameter of, particularly preferably in a range of 200 to 400 nm ([0093]), wherein a content of the fibrous carbon in the electrode sheet for lithium ion secondary batteries is from 0.5 to 3.0 % by mass ([0023]; [0127]; [0128]).
Yachi et al. does not expressly teach that the electrode sheet has a tensile breaking strength of 0.20 (N/mm2) or more.
Modeki et al. also relates to an electrode for lithium ion secondary batteries, for example, a negative electrode, and teaches that the negative electrode ([0030]) comprises at least an active material ([0030]; [0031]), a conductive agent, e.g. carbon fiber ([0032]; [0035]), and a binder, e.g. polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0036]), wherein the negative electrode has a tensile strength of 17.6 N/mm2 or more and 20.0 N/mm2 or less, preferably 18.8 N/mm2 or more and 19.6 N/mm2 or less ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed tensile breaking strength, because Modeki et al. demonstrates that the tensile strength of the electrode, which directly relates to the claimed tensile breaking strength, can be changed as appropriate in accordance with the negative electrode active material and the kind and quantity of the binder to be used ([0038]) and that the disclosed range of tensile strength is correlated with the peel strength between the negative electrode active material layer and the negative electrode current collector foil from the viewpoint of improving the cycle characteristic of the lithium ion secondary battery ([0045-50]). That is, the skilled artisan would have obtained the claimed tensile breaking strength range based on Modeki’s teachings of tensile strength through routine optimization. With regards to numerical ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. 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[R-5].
Regarding claim 2, Yachi et al. teaches a carbon-based conductive aid other than the fibrous carbon, for example, carbon black ([0099]; [0100]).
Regarding claim 3, Yachi et al. teaches that the fibrous carbon has an average fiber length of, for example, 15 to 70 μm ([0087]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. 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[R-5].
Regarding claim 5, Yachi et al. teaches that the fluorine- based polymer is, e.g. polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0072]; [0117]).
Regarding claim 6, Yachi et al. teaches that the electrode sheet has a porosity of preferably from 15 to 60%, and more preferably from 20 to 50% ([0078]).
Regarding claim 7, since Yachi et al. and Modeki et al. render obvious the claimed tensile breaking strength in claim 1 and Yachi et al. teaches an overlapping range of thickness ([0072]; [0074]), a product of the tensile breaking strength (N/mm2) and the thickness (mm) would have fallen within or overlapped with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Yachi et al. teaches that the electrode sheet has an electrical conductivity of, for example, 9.2 x 10-4 (S/cm) in a thickness direction (Example 3 Table 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yachi et al. and Modeki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WO 2017/135406 to Yachi et al., hereinafter Yachi II (English equivalent US 2021/0143427 used for citation).
Regarding claim 4, Yachi et al. does not expressly teach that the fibrous carbon packed at a packing density of 0.8 (g/cm3) has a powder volume resistivity of 4.00 x 10-2 (Ω∙cm) or less.
Yachi II also relates to carbon fibers used in an electrode sheet ([0001]) and teaches that a carbon fiber aggregate, having an average fiber diameter of 10 to 900 nm, has a powder volume resistivity of 4.00×10-2 Ω∙cm or less at a packing density of 0.8 g/cm3 (abstract; [0011]; [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed property in the prior art electrode sheet, because Yachi II teaches that the carbon fiber aggregates with high conductivity in a state of low packing density can impart conductivity at lower addition concentrations and that the taught powder volume resistivity balances the required amount of carbon fibers and desired improved conductivity ([0051]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights