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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 16-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20230042207-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kang’ in view of (US-20260074211-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nishino’
Regarding Claim 1,
Kang teaches a method of preparing a dry electrode film (Kang, “Disclosed is a method for manufacturing a dry electrode”, see Abstract), the method comprising: providing a dry mixture comprising a dry electrode active material and a dry binder; and processing the dry mixture into a dry electrode film by utilizing a rolling device (Kang, “through a high-shear mixing process, such as jet milling, and then the resultant mixture is subjected to calendering to form a film shape, thereby providing a free-standing film. Then, the free-standing film obtained after the calendering is laminated onto a current collector to obtain a dry electrode.”, see [0007]) comprising a first calender roll and a second calender roll, the first calender roll having a first rotational speed, and the second calender roll having a second rotational speed, wherein, a ratio of the first rotational speed to the second rotational speed is in a range of 1: greater than 1 to about 1:6 (Kang, “the two rollers in at least one of the roll press unit may have a rotation speed ratio controlled to 1:1-1:3.”, see [0116]),
Kang does not teach a first electrode active material and a second electrode active material, and a particle diameter of the first electrode active material is different from a particle diameter of the second electrode active material.
Nishino teaches a first electrode active material and a second electrode active material, and a particle diameter of the first electrode active material is different from a particle diameter of the second electrode active material (Nishino, “The positive electrode active material layer may include first active material particles having a first average particle diameter D1 and second active material particles having a second average particle diameter D2 (D1>D2).”, see [0050]).
Nishino teaches that this improves the charge-discharge capacity (Nishino, “On the other hand, the D2 may be less than 10 μm, may be 8 μm or less, may be 6 μm or less, and may be 5 μm or less. In view of improving the charge-discharge cycle”, see [0067]).
Kang and Nishino are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery material to include two different active materials with different particles sizes.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Kang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, The first electrode active material is a large-diameter electrode active material having a larger particle diameter than that of the second electrode active material, the second electrode active material is a small-diameter electrode active material having a smaller particle diameter than that of the first electrode active material(Nishino, “The positive electrode active material layer may include first active material particles having a first average particle diameter D1 and second active material particles having a second average particle diameter D2 (D1>D2).”, see [0050]). , and a ratio of an area occupied by particles of the first electrode active material in a surface of the dry electrode film to a total area of the surface of the dry electrode film is in a range of about 30 % to about 90 %. (Nishino, “To a positive electrode mixture containing the active material particles (D1=13 μm), acetylene black, and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) in a mass ratio of 95:2.5:2.5, NMP was added, and stirred, to prepare a positive electrode slurry.”, see [0109])(Nishino, “The ratio D1/D2, for example, may be set to, 2”, see [0067]) (Nishino, “containing at least nickel as a transition metal may be included. The proportion of the composite oxide N in the positive electrode active material is, for example, 70 mass % or more, may be 90 mass % or more, and may be 95 mass % or more.” , see [0053]) (The examiner notes that if the ratio were 2, then 47.5% of the area would be the first material, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Kang is silent wherein a loading level of the dry electrode film is lower than a loading level of a comparable dry electrode film processed by utilizing the rolling device in which the ratio of the first rotational speed to the second rotational speed is 1:1.
Kang teaches that increasing the speed ratio increases the fibrilization of the binder (Kang, “When the dry electrode film shows a crystallinity of higher than 10%, the crystallinity may be controlled by adjusting the gap or speed ratio between the two rollers of the roll press unit. For example, the fibrilization degree of the binder may be increased by reducing the gap and/or by increasing the speed ratio.”, see [0119])
Kang teaches loading is a function of the amount of active material in the electrode (Kang, “Herein, the electrode active material loading amount is a value calculated according to the following Mathematical Formula 3: electrode Active material loading amount (mAh/cm2)=Capacity (mAh/g)of electrode active material×Weight ration (wt%) of electrode active material in dry electrode film×Weight per unit area (g/cm2)of dry electrode film
”, see [0128]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the loading would decrease as the amount of binder is finely divided over a greater area and in turn decreasing the amount of active material, as a matter of inherency (see MPEP 2163.07(a)).
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Kang is silent to wherein a ratio (LL1/LL2) of a loading level (LL1) of the dry electrode film to a loading level (LL2) of a comparable dry electrode film processed by utilizing the rolling device in which the ratio of the first rotational speed to the second rotational speed is 1:1 is 0.9 or less.
Kang teaches that increasing the speed ratio increases the fibrilization of the binder (Kang, “When the dry electrode film shows a crystallinity of higher than 10%, the crystallinity may be controlled by adjusting the gap or speed ratio between the two rollers of the roll press unit. For example, the fibrilization degree of the binder may be increased by reducing the gap and/or by increasing the speed ratio.”, see [0119])
Kang teaches loading is a function of the amount of active material in the electrode (Kang, “Herein, the electrode active material loading amount is a value calculated according to the following Mathematical Formula 3: electrode Active material loading amount (mAh/cm2)=Capacity (mAh/g)of electrode active material×Weight ration (wt%) of electrode active material in dry electrode film×Weight per unit area (g/cm2)of dry electrode film
”, see [0128]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the loading would decrease as the amount of binder is finely divided over a greater area and in turn decreasing the amount of active material, as a matter of inherency (see MPEP 2163.07(a)).
Regarding Claim 6,
Kang is silent on wherein a packing density of the dry electrode film is lower than a packing density of a comparable dry electrode film processed by utilizing the rolling device in which the ratio of the first rotational speed to the second rotational speed is 1:1.
Kang teaches that the porosity can be controlled by the calendaring process (Kang, “The porosity of the dry electrode film according to the present disclosure may be determined by the calender and the lamination roll”, see [0141]).
Kang teaches that when the porosity is too low that electrolyte cannot impregnate the electrode (Kang, “Ohe other hand, when the porosity is excessively low beyond the above-defined range, it is difficult to impregnate the dry electrode film with an electrolyte, see [0124]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porosity to be higher using the speed of the calendar, and in turn decreasing the packing density, as a matter of optimization of result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 7,
Kang is silent on wherein a ratio (P1/P2) of a surface porosity (P1) of the dry electrode film to a surface porosity (P2) of a comparable dry electrode film processed by utilizing the rolling device in which the ratio of the first rotational speed to the second rotational speed is 1:1 is 1.1 or more
Kang teaches that the porosity can be controlled by the calendaring process (Kang, “The porosity of the dry electrode film according to the present disclosure may be determined by the calender and the lamination roll”, see [0141]).
Kang teaches that when the porosity is too low that electrolyte cannot impregnate the electrode (Kang, “Ohe other hand, when the porosity is excessively low beyond the above-defined range, it is difficult to impregnate the dry electrode film with an electrolyte, see [0124]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the porosity to be higher using the speed of the calendar, as a matter of optimization of result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding Claim 8,
Kang teaches method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dry electrode film has a surface porosity of about 8 % to about 30 % (Kang, “electrochemical device as defined in any one of the first to the third embodiments, wherein the electrode film has a porosity of 20-50 vol%.”, see [0016])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 20-50 vol% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 8 % to about 30 %. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9,
Kang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a ratio (d1/d2) of a particle diameter (d1) of the first electrode active material to a particle diameter (d2) of the second electrode active material is in a range of more than 1 to about 6 (Nishino, “The ratio D1/D2, for example, may be set to, 2 or more and 6 or less, and may be set to 3 or more and 5 or less.”, see [0067]).
Regarding Claim 10,
Kang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a particle diameter of the first electrode active material is in a range of about 10 μm to about 40 μm (Nishino. “the D1 is, for example, 10 μm or more, may be 11 μm or more, may be 12 μm or more, and may be 15 μm or more. ”, see [0067]), and a particle diameter of the second electrode active material is in a range of about 1 μm to about 10 μm (Nishino, “the D2 may be set to 1 μm or more, and may be 3 μm or more. ”, see [0067]).
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Kang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dry electrode active material has a bimodal particle size distribution which comprises, in a particle size distribution diagram, a first particle size peak corresponding to the first electrode active material, and a second particle size peak corresponding to the second electrode active material (Nishino, “The ratio D1/D2, for example, may be set to, 2 or more and 6 or less, and may be set to 3 or more and 5 or less.”, see [0067])(The examiner notes that Nishino does not teach a diagram, but considering the particle size ranges are independent and separate, the particle distribution would be bimodal).
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Kang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the first electrode active material to the second electrode active material is in a range of about 90:10 to about 60:40 (Nishino, “The ratio D1/D2, for example, may be set to, 2 or more and 6 or less, and may be set to 3 or more and 5 or less.”, see [0067]). (The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range would be 80:20, to 83:17, as ratio, which is within the claimed range)
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Kang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dry electrode active material comprises a lithium transition metal oxide, and the lithium transition metal oxide is represented by a formula selected from among Formulas 1 to 8: Formula 1 LiaNixCoyMzO2-bAb wherein, in Formula 1, 1.0≤a≤1.2, 0≤b≤0.2, 0.8≤x<1, 0≤y≤0.3, 0<z≤0.3, x+y+z=1, M is manganese, niobium, vanadium, magnesium, gallium, silicon, tungsten, molybdenum, iron, chromium, copper, zinc, titanium, aluminum, boron, or a combination thereof, and A is fluorine, sulfur, chlorine, bromine, or a combination thereof, Formula 2 LiNixCoyMnzO2 Formula 3 LiNixCoyAlzO2 wherein, in Formula 2 and Formula 3, 0.8≤x≤0.95, 0≤y≤0.2, 0<z≤0.2, and x+y+z=1 (Kang, “LiNi1-xMxO2 (wherein M is Co, Mn, Al, Cu, Fe, Mg, B or Ga, and x is 0.01-0.3),”, see [0083]), Formula 4 LiNixCoyMnzAlwO2 wherein, in Formula 4, 0.8≤x≤0.95, 0≤y≤0.2, 0<z≤0.2, 0<w≤0.2, and x+y+z+w=1, (Kang, “First, Li(Ni, Co, Mn, Al)O2 as a positive electrode active material,”, see [0146])
Regarding Claim 16,
Modified Kang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dry electrode film is free of a residual process solvent and has a tensile strength of about 500 kPa to about 5,000 kPa (Kang, “In addition, according to the present disclosure, the dry electrode film preferably has a tensile strength of 0.5 MPa or more in the machine direction (MD). ”, see [0052])(The examiner notes that 0.5MPa is 500 kPa).
Regarding Claim 17,
Modified Kang teaches a dry electrode comprising: an electrode current collector; and a dry electrode film on at least one surface of the electrode current collector, the dry electrode film being prepared through the method as claimed in claim 1 (Kang, “Then, according to the present disclosure, a lamination step of forming the dry electrode film on at least one surface of the current collector may be carried out,”, see [0125]).
Regarding Claim 18,
Modified Kang teaches the dry electrode as claimed in claim 17, wherein an area occupied by pores in a surface of the dry electrode film relative to a total area of the surface of the dry electrode film is in a range of about 8 % to about 30 % (Kang, “According to the fourth embodiment of the present disclosure, there is provided the electrode for an electrochemical device as defined in any one of the first to the third embodiments, wherein the electrode film has a porosity of 20-50 vol%.”, see [0016])(The examiner notes that Kang does not teach a microscopic SEM, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known measurement of porosity on the surface, see (MPEP 2143 (I)(D))
Regarding Claim 19,
Modified Kang teaches the dry electrode as claimed in claim 17, wherein the electrode current collector comprises a substrate and an interlayer between the substrate and the dry electrode film, and wherein the interlayer comprises a carbon-based conductive material (Kang, “Further, the current collector may be totally or partially coated with a conductive primer in order to reduce the surface resistance and to improve the adhesion. Herein, the conductive primer may include a conductive material and a binder. The conductive material is not particularly limited, as long as it has conductivity, and particular examples thereof include carbonaceous materials.”, see [0103]).
Regarding Claim 21,
Modified Kang teaches a lithium battery comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode; and an electrolyte between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein at least one of the first electrode or the second electrode is the dry electrode as claimed in claim 17 (Kang, “ including the positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator is received in a battery casing together with a lithium-containing non-aqueous electrolyte.”, see [0031]).
Regarding Claim 22,
Modified Kang teaches the lithium battery as claimed in claim 21, wherein the electrolyte comprises a liquid electrolyte, a solid electrolyte, a gel electrolyte, or a combination thereof (Kang, “ including the positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator is received in a battery casing together with a lithium-containing non-aqueous electrolyte.”, see [0031]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20230042207-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kang’ in view of (US-20260074211-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nishino’ as evidenced by ‘The state-of-the-art in lithium iron phosphate LiFePO4 synthesis: A review of methods and optimizations’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Pikalova’
Regarding Claim 5,
Kang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dry electrode film has a loading level (LL1) of about 20 mg/cm2 to about 30 mg/cm2 (Kang, “In addition, the electrode active material loading amount of the dry electrode film may be 3-15 mAh/cm2, particularly 4-10 mAh/cm2.”, see [0127])(The examiner notes that the capacity of LFP at 94% (Kang, see [0147) is 170 mAh/g as evidenced by Piklova (Piklova, “Olivine structured LiFePO4 (LFP) possesses the theoretical capacity of 170 mAh/g (with practical capacity ranged 120–160 mAh/g),”, see Introduction). 3 &15 /170*.94 = the loading of the cell (Kang, see [0128]). Therefore, the range of loading is 18.773 mg/cm2 -93.4 mg/cm2, which overlaps the claimed range) .
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20230042207-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kang’ in view of (US-20260074211-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nishino’ as evidenced by ‘PTFE as a high-performance engineering material: properties, applications and future prospects’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Linseis’
Regarding Claim 14,
Kang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dry binder comprises at least one of a fibrillized binder or a fluorine-based binder, wherein a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the dry binder is in a range of about 15 °C to about 100 °C (The examiner notes that the Tg of PTFE is in the range as evidenced by Linsies, “Particularly noteworthy is the glass transition temperature which varies between -100°C and 134°C depending on the measurement method. ” ) and an amount of the dry binder is in a range of about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film (Kang, “First, lithium iron phosphate (LFP) as a positive electrode active material, activated carbon and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) were introduced to a blender at a weight ratio of 94:1.5:4.5, ”, see [0149]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20230042207-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kang’ in view of (US-20260074211-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nishino’ in view of (US-20220223877-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Brahim’
Regarding Claim 15,
Modified Kang teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dry electrode film comprises a dry conductive material, wherein the dry conductive material comprises a carbon-based conductive material, the carbon-based conductive material comprises a fibrous (Kang, “the group consisting of activated carbon, graphite, carbon black and carbon nanotubes, and more particularly, activated carbon”, see [0086]), or a combination thereof, and an amount of the dry conductive material is in a range of about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film (Kang, “conductive material and the binder resin may be 80-98 wt% : 0.5-10 wt% : 0.5-10 wt% (active material : conductive material: binder),”, see [0087]).
Modified Kang does not teach carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of 10 or more, a particulate carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of less than 10
Brahim teaches carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of 10 or more, a particulate carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of less than 10 (Brahim, “rise to a high aspect ratio characteristic. Since the typical diameter of an individual SWCNT is 5-50 times smaller than the diameter of an individual MWCNT, SWCNT have significantly higher aspect ratio than MWCNT.”, see [0005]).
Brahim teaches that high aspect ratio carbon nanotubes are beneficial (Brahim, “The use of high aspect ratio purified SWCNT generally affords a reduction in the total conductive additive content in the cathode to lower overall levels than when using only carbon black, particularly in the case of LiB power cells. This feature allows a higher percentage of active material which results not only in increased capacity but also in better utilization of cell capacity compared to standard LiB cells.”, see [0054]).
Modified Kang and Brahim are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon as taught in modified Kang to be high aspect ratio carbon nanotubes in order to improve the cell utilization.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20230042207-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kang’ in view of (US-20260074211-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nishino’ in view of (US-20240079594-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Su’
Regarding Claim 20,
Modified Kang teaches The dry electrode as claimed in claim 17, wherein the electrode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on at least one surface of the base film, wherein the base film comprises a polymer, the polymer comprising polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutylene terephthalate, polyimide , or a combination thereof, and wherein the metal layer comprises indium, copper, magnesium, titanium, iron, cobalt, nickel, zinc, aluminum, germanium, lithium, or an alloy thereof (Kang, “current collector include stainless steel, aluminum, nickel, titanium, baked carbon, copper or stainless steel surface-treated with carbon, nickel, titanium, silver, or the like”, see [0129]).
Modified Kang does not teach that the base film is the polymer comprising polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutylene terephthalate, polyimide , or a combination thereof (Su, “The polymer may be selected from the group including: epoxy, polyimide (polyamic acid), polyester, vinyl ester, thermoplastic polymers, such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyamide, siloxane, acrylic, and combinations thereof.”, see [0108])
Su teaches that these polymers resist solvents and provide good adhesion (Su, “Thus, the electroactive film formed in accordance with the present disclosure can be attached to the current collector via the electrically conductive adhesive layer. The electrically conductive adhesive layer may comprise a polymer that can resist solvents and/or provides good adhesion between the current collector and electroactive film.”, see [0108]).
Modified Kang are Su are analogous as they are both of the same field of dry electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer as taught in Kang to be the polymer as taught in Su in order to improve the adhesion to the electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights