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 . 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Okafor et al. (US 2014/0210129 A1), hereinafter “Okafor.”
Regarding claim 1, Okafor discloses a method for preparing an electrode formulation comprising:
preparing a pre-mix comprising an active electrode material, in this case carbon (¶ [0051]) and a fluoropolymer, in this case polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (¶ [0021] & [0051]);
mixing the premix with a co-binder, in this case a second or additional binder may be added to the mix (¶ [0032] & [0037]); and
fibrillating the mixture obtained by extrusion, in this case the mixing materials are supplied to the extruder resulting in a fibrillated product (¶ [0048] & [0051], Fig. 1, ref. no. 100).
Regarding claim 2, Okafor further discloses a twin-screw type extruder (¶ [0048], Fig. 1, ref. no. 104).
Regarding claim 3, Okafor further discloses that the fluoropolymer is PTFE (¶ [0021] & [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Okafor further discloses that the fluoropolymer is PTFE (¶ [0021] & [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Okafor further discloses that the co-binder is poly(styrene-butadiene-styrene) (SBS), in this case styrene-butadiene rubber copolymers (¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Okafor further discloses an electrode formulation obtained by the method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above). Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that “’even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).” M.P.E.P. § 2113. I. Here, the limitation “able to be obtained with the method according to claim 1” is a product-by-process limitation. Okafor discloses all of the positively-recited structural limitations of the claim, and therefore anticipates it.
Regarding claim 13, Okafor further discloses that the electrode formulation is formed on a current collector (¶ [0063], Fig. 8, ref. nos. 502 & 504).
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Okafor as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Stevanovic (US 2008/0050654 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Okafor discloses the co-binder as set forth in claim 1, above, but does not specify that it is TPU. However, Stevanovic teaches an electrode comprising one or more binders selected from a group including PTFE and TPU (¶ [0041]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that PTFE and TPU would be workable together as binders and yield the predictable result of a functioning electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected TPU as the co-binder in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functioning electrode.
Regarding claim 6, Okafor discloses the co-binder as set forth in claim 1, above, but does not specify that it is TPU. However, Stevanovic teaches an electrode comprising one or more binders selected from a group including PTFE and TPU (¶ [0041]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that PTFE and TPU would be workable together as binders and yield the predictable result of a functioning electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected TPU as the co-binder in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functioning electrode.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Okafor.
Regarding claim 7, Okafor further teaches that the mixing step is performed at 25°C to the degradation temperature of the fluoropolymer, in this case 10°C to 50°C, room temperature, or 27°C (¶ [0054]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Okafor in view of Stevanovic.
Regarding claim 9, Okafor discloses an electrode formulation comprising:
an active electrode material, in this case carbon (¶ [0051]); and
a fluoropolymer, in this case PTFE (¶ [0021] & [0051]).
Okafor further discloses a co-binder, in this case a second or additional binder (¶ [0032] & [0037]), but does not disclose TPU. However, Stevanovic teaches an electrode comprising one or more binders selected from a group including PTFE and TPU (¶ [0041]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that PTFE and TPU would be workable together as binders and yield the predictable result of a functioning electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected TPU as the co-binder in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functioning electrode.
Regarding claim 10, Okafor further discloses that the formulation further comprises a conductive element, in this case the mixture may include carbon black as an additive (¶ [0032]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 11, Okafor further teaches that the formulation comprises:
80 wt% to 98.5 wt% active material, in this case at least 80 wt% activated carbon (¶ [0026]);
0.1 wt % to 5 wt% PTFE, in this case 1 wt% to 10 wt% of one binder (¶ [0031]); and
0.1 wt% to 5 wt% TPU, in this case 0.01 wt% to 5 wt% of an additional binder (¶ [0032]).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Okafor as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chae et al. (US 2021/0257602 A1), hereinafter “Chae.”
Regarding claim 12, Okafor further discloses that the formulation is porous (¶ [0025]), but does not specify the porosity. However, Chae teaches a negative electrode comprising carbon as the active material where the porosity is 20% to 45% and particularly 25% to 35% (¶ 0047]-[0048]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such a porosity would have lowered resistance during charging and discharging, thereby facilitating improved efficiency and cycle performance (¶ [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the formulation’s porosity to be between 15% and 35% in order to have facilitated improved efficiency and cycle performance.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Okafor as applied to claim 13, above, and further in view of Stevanovic and Ogi et al. (US 2023/0022950 A1), hereinafter “Ogi.”
Regarding claim 14, Okafor further discloses that the formulation comprises PTFE (¶ [0021] & [0051]) a co-binder, in this case a second or additional binder (¶ [0032] & [0037]), but does not disclose TPU. However, Stevanovic teaches an electrode comprising one or more binders selected from a group including PTFE and TPU (¶ [0041]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that PTFE and TPU would be workable together as binders and yield the predictable result of a functioning electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected TPU as the co-binder in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functioning electrode.
Okafor also discloses carbon black as a conductive element (¶ [0032]-[0036]), but does not disclose graphite. Stevanovic also teaches that graphite may be substituted for carbon black (¶ [0011], [0016], & [0038]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting graphite for carbon black would have yielded the predictable result of improving the electrical conductivity of the electrode. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the graphite of Stevanovic for the carbon black of Okafor in order to yield the predictable result of improving the electrical conductivity of the electrode.
Neither Okafor nor Stevanovic teaches a negative electrode. However, Ogi teaches that carbon may serve as an active material in a negative electrode (¶ [0027]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that the electrode would have served as a negative electrode upon selection of an appropriate material for a counter electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the electrode a negative electrode.
Regarding claim 15, Okafor does not disclose a lithium-ion type electrode. However, Ogi teaches that carbon may serve as an active material in a negative electrode (¶ [0027]) in a lithium ion battery (¶ [0004]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such an electrode in a lithium-ion battery would have a large chargeable/dischargeable capacity (¶ [0004]) and a large depth of charge (¶ [0009]). Therefore it would have been obvious to have included Okafor’s electrode in a lithium-ion battery in order to have provided both large capacity and depth of charge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights