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 Comments
It is noted that claim 1 contains no particulars as to the materials, composition percentages, etc. for the first and second materials. Thus, they could be the same.
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.
Claim 1 and those that depend therefrom 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 utilizes the term “distinguished from” which is relative and does not provide structural guidance?
Additionally, it is noted that the breath of claim 1 appears to encompass all positive and negative electrode materials and given the lengthy specification, it would be beneficial for applicant to explain on the record what materials are coved by the claims as it is currently unclear. For example, are conductive natural fibers included as a potential binder?
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by JP S58165246.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, JP246 teaches a lithium manganese dioxide battery and discloses electrode active material mixture comprising manganese oxide, graphite and a polytetrafluoroetheylene binder. It discloses passing the electrode sheet through a roller and it is fibrilized. It discloses at least two roll pressed electrode sheets arranged perpendicular onto each other (see claim 1 of translation).
It is noted that there are no claim differences in materials utilized for the first and second layers, they could be the same materials.
Claims 1, 3, 7-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Yoon et al. (US20250279407).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 11, Yoon teaches a battery comprising a dry electrode having an electrode film having fibrillized binder made by roll processing layered in antiparallel directions (see fig. 2 and 3; [0040-43; 54-58], see claim 1). Yoon teaches an MD and TD direction to the layers (claim 3). Yoon teaches adhering to a current collector (claim 11) [0007].
Regarding claim 7, Yoon teaches the use of a fluorine-based binder [0058-60] from about 0.5-15 parts. Given the same binder, absent unclaimed illimitations, it would have the same properties.
Regarding claim 8, Yoon teaches the use of a conductive carbon material in a weight percent 0.1-5% (see comparative example 1, [0065-66]).
Regarding claim 9, while this is a product-by-process limitation, Yoon teaches method is used to manufacture the dry electrode does not utilize solvent [0085].
Regarding claim 10, Yoon teaches the use of multiple layers of active material wherein one can be considered an interlayer [0024] and the layers contain a carbon material and a binder.
Regarding claim 17, the current collector can be a foil or nonwoven and be coated with a conductive coating [0076].
Claims 1, 2, 6-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Lee et al. (US20220285680).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6-15 and 20, Lee teaches (see claims 1-20, tables 1, 2, paragraphs [0019]-[0233] & figs.1-7C) a lithium-ion battery comprising, a cathode, an anode, an electrolyte and a method of preparing said cathode and the battery. The cathode comprises at least two self-standing active material layers, first and second (100a,b), each comprising an active material (92 wt.%) a dry conductive additive, e.g., carbon fibers and/or carbon black, e.g., 1-5 wt.% or 4 wt.%, and a dry fibrillated
fluorinated binder, e.g. PVdF or PTFE, e.g., 1-5 wt.% or 4 wt.%. (cf. figs.1-4,
[0019]-[0027], [0073]-[0078], [0189]-[0196]). The layers (100a) and (100b) have
an interlayer (100c) between them, which comprises a binder and carbon-based
conductive additive and when being sequentially laminated/calendered on a
current collector with an interlayer, made of carbon and binder, on top of it (cf.
[0083]-[0084], [0193]). When laminating these layers sequentially the orientation
of dry binder fibrils, which are oriented in MD, can be e.g., anti-parallel (180°) or
perpendicularly stacked (90°) (falls into claim 2 range), which is implicitly disclosed here, as stacking machines can stack/calender in all different ways. The thickness of the first cathode active material layer (100a) can be 15 μm and the thickness of the
second (100b) 20 μm (cf. [0196]). The geometric features of claims 12 and 13 are disclosed here as well (cf. claims 12, 13, figs.6-7C, [0110]-[0018]). The SAICAS is utilized to measure first ratio of change of vertical relative force (FvR) and first and second horizontal binding force (FHA1, FHA2) of first and second active material layers, respectively (cf. claims 1-4, 20, [0051]-[0058], [0131], [0210]-[0233]).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious by Lee et al. in view of Zou (US200601371589).
Regarding claims 3-5, Lee does not specifically teach the parameters recited in claims 3-5.
However, Zou teaches (see in particular tables 2, 3, paragraphs [0082]-[0088] & fig.1 a) a capacitor that uses a dry electrode film with binder having proportions as recited in Tables 2-3. Zou is in a related filed of capacitors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to utilize the parameters recited in claims 3-5 as taught by Zou in Lee in order to design a multi-layered electrode having improved stability.
Additionally, absent any particulars concerning materials, etc. all the claimed dimensions appear to be result effective variables. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 2, 4, 5 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoon et al. (US20250279407).
Regarding claim 2, Yoon teaches that the difference between the films is more than 0° and 90° or less, specifically 10° to 90°, which encompasses the claimed range [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to optimize the difference to be between 45-135 degrees measured in machine (MD) and transverse (TD) directions.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Yoon teaches that given the type, amount, ratio of active material, binder, etc. the MD and TD properties of the electrode film can be optimized.
Thus, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 12-16, Yoon teaches the dry electrode active material comprising a binder. Yoon does not teach the specifics of claims 12-16.
However, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date to optimize the electrode sizing and placement in order to obtain optimal performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious by Yoon et al. (US20250279407) in view of Horikawa (US 20200212499).
Regarding claim 6, Yoon does not specifically teach different thicknesses of each layer.
However, Horikawa teaches a dry cathode film (the positive- electrode active material include particulate and thin film shapes; [0066]), configured to be on a cathode current collector (all-solid battery includes a positive-electrode layer having a positive-electrode current collector and a positive-electrode mixture layer; See the Abstract), the dry cathode film comprising: a first dry cathode active material layer adjacent to the cathode current collector (first positive-electrode mixture layer 12a disposed closer to positive-electrode current collector 11; [0134]; Fig. 1); and a second dry cathode active material layer on the first dry cathode active material layer (second positive-electrode mixture layer 12b on first positive-electrode mixture layer 12a; [0134]; Fig. 1), wherein the first dry cathode active material layer and the second dry cathode active material layer each independently comprise a dry cathode active material (oxide active material (lithium-containing transition metal oxide) is used as positive-electrode active material 1; 1 is in layers 12a & 12b; Fig.1), and a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (sulfide-based solid electrolyte in positive-electrode mixture layer 12; [0070]), a dry binder (binder plays a role of binding between positive-electrode active materials 1 in positive-electrode mixture layer 12; [0078]; Fig.1), and a content of the dry cathode active material in the first dry cathode active material layer is greater than a content of the dry cathode active material in the second dry cathode active material layer (12a is thicker than 12b, thus more material; Fig. 1; the active material volume proportion may be larger from the boundary of the solid electrolyte layer of the positive-electrode mixture layer toward the boundary of the positive-electrode current collector, in the thickness direction of the positive-electrode mixture layer; [0019]; the local active material volume proportion of the portion closer to the positive-electrode current collector is larger than the local active material volume proportion of the portion closer to the solid electrolyte layer; [0019]), and a content of the dry solid electrolyte in the first dry cathode active material layer is less than a content of the dry solid electrolyte in the second dry cathode active material layer (in the portion close to the solid electrolyte layer of the positive-electrode mixture layer, the volume proportion of the solid electrolyte is relatively large; [0022]). The thickness of the first dry cathode active material layer is different from a thickness of the second dry cathode active material layer (12a is thicker than 12b; Fig, 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious sot one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have adjusted the thickness of the layers in Yoon as taught by Horikawa in order to improve stability.
With respect to a ratio of a thickness of the first dry cathode active material layer
to a thickness of the second dry cathode active material layer is in a range of about 9:1 to about 1:9, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoon et al. (US20250279407) in view of Kwak et al. (US 20230099713).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Yoon teaches the use of nonwovens, i.e. polymer material, and metals for a current collector but does not teach the materials recited in claims 18 and 19.
Kwak also teaches a bater and a current collector that utilizes insulating layers on the current collector of aluminum foil and prior to application of the dry electrode material is applied and applies a conductive primer [0108-0116].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the current invention to have utilized the current collector configurations in Kwak in Yoon with the expectation of the electrode film being utilized in a battery.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoon et al. (US20250279407) in view of Raman et al. (US20170256367).
Regarding claim 20, while Yoon discuses a battery, it does not specifically discuss the components in a battery; however, these are known.
However, Raman also teaches an energy storage device that has an anode, cathode, electrolyte and an electrode film having fibrilized binder (see abstract; [0032-33]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the current invention to have utilized the electrode film in Yoon in a device having an anode, cathode, and electrolyte like a battery discussed in Raman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see PTO-892 for any additional art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 EST.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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 Dieterle/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights