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 without traverse of Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 8/13/26 is acknowledged.
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.
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) 1-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2016/0329569) in view of Delanoy et al. (US 2003/0008125).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen meets the claimed,
A composite current collector for an electrode ([0010] teaches that the current collectors are for an electrode), […] a plurality of […] carbon fibers ([0012] teaches the use of carbon fibers); a polymer matrix material ([0011] teaches that the current collector comprises conductive filler and adhesive); and a conductive material dispersed in the polymer matrix material ([0011] teaches that the current collector comprises conductive filler and adhesive);
Chen does not teach the carbon fibers being directionally aligned
Delanoy is analogous as it teaches the use of carbon fiber to increase the structural strength of the current collector.
Delanoy meets the claimed,
[…] a plurality of directionally aligned carbon fibers ([0008] teaches a layer of aligned carbon fibers); […] wherein the directionally aligned carbon fibers are impregnated with the polymer matrix material including the dispersed conductive material ([0008] teaches the layer of carbon fibers being coated in a resin), the polymer matrix material forming a thin film that fills interstitial spaces between the directionally aligned carbon fibers ([0010] teaches that the carbon fibers are bound together in a polymeric matrix, which means that the spaces between the fibers must be filled, otherwise they wouldn't be bound together).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a more stable mechanical structure (See Delanoy [0011], “The unidirectional carbon fiber layer is used for carrying electrical current along a primary axis as well as creating mechanical stability along that axis”).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen meets the claimed,
The composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the composite current collector is free of metal ([0011] teaches that the current collector comprises conductive filler and adhesive, where the conductive filler can be carbon nanotubes and the adhesive can be polyvinylidene fluoride, which would make the collector free of metal. Further, the carbon fibers added by the combination of Chen and Delanoy would not add any metal as carbon fibers are not metal).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen meets the claimed,
The composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the polymer matrix material includes one of poly(L-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) ([0012] teaches the adhesive can be polyvinylidene fluoride).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen meets the claimed,
The composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the conductive material is present in an amount of approximately 1 wt.% to 70 wt.% relative to a total weight of the polymer and conductive material ([0120] teach a mass fraction of 30% to 95% of conductive filler compared to adhesive).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen meets the claimed,
The composite current collector of claim 1, wherein the conductive material is one of carbon nanotubes, vapor grown carbon fibers (VGCF), graphene platelets, and carbon black ([0012] teaches carbon nanotube as the conductive filler).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen does not specifically teach a thickness in the range of 5-50 µm. However, Chen teaches a thickness of 0.01 µm to 1000 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen does not specifically teach a thickness in the range of 7-15 µm. However, Chen teaches a thickness of 0.01 µm to 1000 µm. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, there exists a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen meets the claimed,
An electrode comprising ([0004] teaches an electrode suspension solution): the composite current collector of claim 1; and an electrode material coated on the composite current collector ([0039] and Fig. 2 teach a cathode suspension solution 26 directly contacting cathode current collector 21).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen meets the claimed,
The electrode of claim 8, wherein the electrode material is further defined as a cathode active material ([0039] and Fig. 2 teach a cathode suspension solution 26 directly contacting cathode current collector 21. [0004] teaches the solution contains cathode active material particles).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen meets the claimed,
The electrode of claim 8, wherein the electrode material is further defined as an anode active material ([0039] and Fig. 2 teach an anode suspension solution 27 directly contacting anode current collector 22. [0004] teaches the solution contains anode active material particles).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2016/0329569) in view of Delanoy et al. (US 2003/0008125) and further in view of Ho et al. (US 2014/0329126).
Chen/Delanoy do not specifically teach an electrode thickness in a range of 10 to 500 µm.
Ho is analogous as it teaches a lithium ion battery.
Ho meets the claimed,
The electrode of claim 8, wherein the electrode has a thickness in a range of 10 to 500 µm ([0002] teaches an electrode thickness of 100-200 micrometers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use an electrode of this thickness as thicknesses greater than this may result in unused capacity of active material, nonhomogeneous charging and discharging, and lower efficiency (See Ho [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwon et al. (US 2014/0370350) teaches a polymer current collector consisting of a carbon fiber or carbon nanotube mesh layered over a PVDF polymer substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW Y. HO whose telephone number is (571)842-1342. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 6:00, Mon - Thurs.
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, Xiao S. Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.Y.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
