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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 states “comprising a wound-type electrode assembly a stack of a negative electrode…” There appear to be words missing between “assembly” and “a stack” as the sequence is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current collector" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 states that “the uncoated portion; active material layer; and endothermic ceramic layer are on two opposing surfaces of the current collector”. However, claim 1 requires that these layers are on the same single surface of the current collector. It is not clear how the same layer (note the use of antecedent basis “the” with regard to the layers) are present on a “the same single surface” in claim 1, and then “on two opposing surfaces” in claim 6. It is unclear what is intended by “same single surface” in conjunction with “on two opposing surfaces” in claim 6. If coatings are provided on two opposing surfaces of the current collector, it is suggested to not refer to the same coatings cited in claim 1 and instead to refer to additional coatings.
Claims 7-8 refer to “wound-type”. It is not clear what scope is intended by “type” since the use of the term implies a scope beyond “wound”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outermost layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the outermost layer is one of the positive or negative electrodes of claim 7 or some other layer.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the positive electrode tab" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112993202 (Wang).
Wang discloses an electrode comprising foil considered a current collector (see examples where the coatings are provided on foil) with an uncoated portion (101), active layer (102) and ceramic layer A (103) and ceramic layer B (104). (Figures 1 and 2). Note in Figures 2 and 3 the ceramic layer A may be present on either side of active layer (102). Note that the claims do not preclude an additional ceramic layer in the claimed sequence. The ceramic coatings may comprise boehmite and a polymer where the ceramic is provided in amounts up to 95% by weight relative to the weight of the ceramic layer (ceramic layer A).
Claims 1, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,916,769 (Su). Su discloses a cathode comprising a current collector (11) coated with an uncoated portion, an active layer (12, 13) and an insulating layer (14) (Figure 1). The insulating layer (14) may comprise boehmite. Regarding claims 7 and 8, as shown in Figure 4B, the electrode may be part of a wound-type electrode assembly including a separator and anode and the insulating layer (14) is present on the outermost layer (Figure 4B and col. 9-10). Regarding claim 10, the battery may be a lithium-ion secondary battery and comprise an electrolyte (col. 12, lines 45-50, col. 12, lines 40-49).
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112993202 (Wang) OR US 10,916,769 (Su) in view of KR 20000075765 (KR ‘765).
Wang and Su discloses the electrodes discussed above and disclose positive electrode materials but do not specify materials with the formula claimed. KR ‘765 discloses a battery with a ceramic material provided on the electrode in a manner similar to Wang and further discloses an example of lithium mixed metal active materials but does not disclose the claimed formula. KR ‘765 discloses a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode material having an active material that may comprise LixM1(1-y)M11yO2 where M1 may be Ni and 0 <x ≦ 1.1, 0 ≦ y ≦ 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a known positive electrode active material such as that disclosed by KR ‘765 as the positive electrode active material of Wang or Su with a reasonable expectation of success based upon the disclosure of using the material for the same purpose.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20000075765 (KR ‘765) in view of CN 112993202 (Wang).
KR ‘765 discloses a battery with a ceramic material provided on the electrode where a foil (1a considered a current collector) is coated with an active material (1b) and 1a has an uncoated region (Figure 28). The ceramic material comes into contact with the surface on either side of the active material and is considered to be provided on the surface of the current collector. Note that the claims do not preclude the presence of additional layers on the surface. KR ‘765 discloses several materials that are useful as insulating materials and discloses ceramics such as porcelain and that the insulating material may be mixed with polymeric binders but does not disclose an endothermic ceramic material to form the insulating layer.
Wang discloses an electrode comprising foil considered a current collector (see examples where the coatings are provided on foil) with an uncoated portion (101), active layer (102) and ceramic layer A (103) and ceramic layer B (104). (Figures 1 and 2). Wang discloses that the ceramic coatings may comprise boehmite and a polymer binder where the ceramic is provided in amounts up to 95% by weight relative to the weight of the ceramic layer (ceramic layer A). It would have been obvious to use the ceramic insulating material boehmite of Wang as the ceramic insulating material in the insulating material of KR ‘765 with a reasonable expectation of providing the desired insulation properties to the electrode of KR ‘765 based upon the disclose insulation properties and use in a similar structure for providing said properties.
Regarding claim 5, KR ‘765 discloses a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode material having an active material that may comprise LixM1(1-y)M11yO2 where M1 may be Ni and 0 <x ≦ 1.1, 0 ≦ y ≦ 1.
Regarding claim 6, as shown in Figure 28, the layers may be provided on both sides of the current collector.
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 10, KR ‘765 discloses a wound type electrode assembly (Figures 4 (a) and (b)) and the endothermic layer is present in the outermost layer as shown in Figure 6 at 3C. A separator 3G may be interposed between negative and positive current collectors as shown in Figure 26. KR ‘765 describes a non-aqueous secondary battery comprising the anode, cathode and non-aqueous electrolyte (start of invention).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112993202 (Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,306,545 (Carlson).
Wang discloses an insulation layer but does not disclose pseudoboehmite. Carlson discloses a coating applied to a cathode for insulation thereof which comprises pseudoboehmite to prevent short circuits (col. 13, lines 3-25, col. 12 lines 36-67). It would have been obvious to use the pseudoboehmite layer of Carlson as the insulation layer of Wang to provide insulation and prevention of short circuits. Regarding claim 3, Carlson discloses that the layer may include binder in an amount of 5-70wt% of the pseudoboehmite in the layer (col. 12, lines 40-45).
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20000075765 (KR ‘765) in view of US 6,306,545 (Carlson).
KR ‘765 discloses a battery with a ceramic material provided on the electrode where a foil (1a considered a current collector) is coated with an active material (1b) and 1a has an uncoated region (Figure 28). The ceramic material comes into contact with the surface on either side of the active material and is considered to be provided on the surface of the current collector. Note that the claims do not preclude the presence of additional layers on the surface. KR ‘765 discloses several materials that are useful as insulating materials and discloses ceramics such as porcelain and that the insulating material may be mixed with polymeric binders but does not disclose an endothermic ceramic material to form the insulating layer.
KR ‘765 discloses a ceramic layer but does not disclose pseudoboehmite. Carlson discloses a coating applied to a cathode for insulation thereof which comprises pseudoboehmite to prevent short circuits (col. 13, lines 3-25, col. 12 lines 36-67). It would have been obvious to use the pseudoboehmite layer of Carlson as the insulation layer of Wang to provide insulation and prevention of short circuits. Regarding claim 3, Carlson discloses that the layer may include binder in an amount of 5-70wt% of the pseudoboehmite in the layer (col. 12, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 5, KR ‘765 discloses a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode material having an active material that may comprise LixM1(1-y)M11yO2 where M1 may be Ni and 0 <x ≦ 1.1, 0 ≦ y ≦ 1.
Regarding claim 6, as shown in Figure 28, the layers may be provided on both sides of the current collector.
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 10, KR ‘765 discloses a wound type electrode assembly (Figures 4 (a) and (b)) and the endothermic layer is present in the outermost layer as shown in Figure 6 at 3C. A separator 3G may be interposed between negative and positive current collectors as shown in Figure 26. KR ‘765 describes a non-aqueous secondary battery comprising the anode, cathode and non-aqueous electrolyte (start of invention).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20000075765 (KR ‘765) in view of CN 112993202 (Wang) OR US 10,916,769 (Su) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,306,545 (Carlson).
KR ‘765 and Wang and Su disclose an insulating layer but does not disclose pseudoboehmite. Carlson discloses a coating applied to a cathode for insulation thereof which comprises pseudoboehmite to prevent short circuits (col. 13, lines 3-25, col. 12 lines 36-67). It would have been obvious to use the pseudoboehmite layer of Carlson as the insulation layer of KR ‘765 or Su to provide insulation and prevention of short circuits. Regarding claim 3, Carlson discloses that the layer may include binder in an amount of 5-70wt% of the pseudoboehmite in the layer (col. 12, lines 40-45).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112993202 (Wang) OR Wang in view of Carlson OR US 10,916,769 (Su) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 102198496 (KR ‘496). Wang, Carlson and Su do not describe electrode tabs. KR ‘496 discloses an electrode tab formed on an uncoated portion of an electrode for a secondary battery. KR ‘496 further cleans the uncoated surface of the electrode by laser etching to remove impurities that may negatively affect the welding process of the electrode tab. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply a tab to the uncoated surface of the electrode of Wang or Su as demonstrated by KR ‘496 to better weld the tab to the electrode.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20000075765 (KR ‘765) in view of CN 112993202 (Wang) OR KR ‘765 in view of Carlson as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of KR 102198496 (KR ‘496). KR ‘765 and Wang do not describe electrode tabs. KR ‘496 discloses an electrode tab formed on an uncoated portion of an electrode for a secondary battery. KR ‘496 further cleans the uncoated surface of the electrode by laser etching to remove impurities that may negatively affect the welding process of the electrode tab. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply a tab to the uncoated surface of the electrode of KR ‘765 as demonstrated by KR ‘496 to better weld the tab to the electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 5712723066. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights