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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Duong (US Pub No. 2015/0303481)
Regarding Claim 1 and 11, Duong et al. teaches a method [0076-0078] of forming a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery, the negative electrode [104, Fig. 1, 0072] comprising:
Forming a current collector [110, Fig. 1, 0076]; and
Forming a dry negative active material layer on the current collector [112 is electrode film which are interpreted as the dry negative active material layer, Fig. 1, 0078-0079], the dry negative
active material layer including a negative active material having a crystalline carbon
core and a non-conductive layer coated on a surface of the crystalline carbon core [0014, 0017, 0095, Fig. 1, graphite is an active material that is mixed with PVDF initially, and PTFE is added to form a second mixture], and a polytetrafluoroethylene binder [0014, 0017, 0095].
Regarding Claim 2, Duong et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Duong et al. teaches wherein the non-conductive layer includes a non-conductive polymer selected from polyvinylidene fluoride, a polyvinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer, or a combination thereof [polyvinylidene fluoride, 0025].
Regarding Claim 3, Duong et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Duong et al. teaches wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene binder includes fibrillated Polytetrafluoroethylene [0018].
Regarding Claim 7, Duong et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Duong et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; the limitation of “wherein the negative active material is prepared by coating a non-conductive polymer liquid, containing a non-conductive polymer in a solvent, on the crystalline carbon and drying it.” is considered a product by process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 8, Duong et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Duong et al. teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: the negative electrode as claimed in claim 1;
a positive electrode [102, Fig. 1, 0072]; and
a non-aqueous electrolyte [106, fig. 1, 0071, 0087].
Regarding Claim 12, Duong et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Duong et al. teaches wherein forming the negative active
material includes:
adding a non-conductive polymer into a solvent to form a non-conductive
polymer liquid [0007-0008];
coating the non-conductive polymer liquid on the crystalline carbon core [0014, 0017, 0095, Fig. 1, graphite is an active material that is mixed with PVDF initially, and PTFE is added to form a second mixture]; and
drying the non-conductive polymer liquid on the crystalline carbon core to form the negative active material [0014, 0017, 0095].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong (US Pub No. 2015/0303481)
Regarding Claim 4, Duong et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Duong et al. is silent on wherein the non-conductive layer has a thickness of about 1 nm to about 10 nm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the negative electrode, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the negative electrode are changed, the precise parameters of the negative electrode would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the non-conductive layer has a thickness of about 1 nm to about 10nm.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the negative electrode to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, Duong et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Duong et al. is silent on wherein an amount of the non-conductive layer is up 0.1 wt% to about 2.0 wt% based on 100 wt% of the negative active material.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the negative electrode, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the negative electrode are changed, the precise parameters of the negative electrode would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein an amount of the non-conductive layer is up 0.1 wt% to about 2.0 wt% based on 100 wt% of the negative active material” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the negative electrode to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 6, Duong et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Duong et al. is silent on wherein an amount of the polytetrafluoroethylene binder is up to 98% overlapping the claimed about 0.5 wt% to about 3.0 wt% based on 100 wt% of the dry negative active material layer.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the negative electrode, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the negative electrode are changed, the precise parameters of the negative electrode would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein an amount of the polytetrafluoroethylene binder is up to about 0.5 wt% to about 3.0 wt% based on 100 wt% of the dry negative active material layer” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the negative electrode to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 9, Duong et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Duong et al. is silent on wherein the rechargeable lithium battery has a height ratio of about 2:1 to about 20:1 of a peak related to polytetrafluoroethylene appearing at about 500 °C to about 600 °C and a peak related to a non-conductive polymer appearing at about 400 °C to about 500 °C when evolved gas analysis for the negative electrode is measured after formation charging and discharging the rechargeable lithium battery.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the rechargeable lithium battery has a height ratio of about 2:1 to about 20:1 of a peak related to polytetrafluoroethylene appearing at about 500 °C to about 600 °C and a peak related to a non-conductive polymer appearing at about 400 °C to about 500 °C when evolved gas analysis for the negative electrode is measured after formation charging and discharging the rechargeable lithium battery.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 10, Duong et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Duong et al. is silent on wherein the rechargeable lithium battery has a height ratio of about 5:1 to about 20:1 of a peak related to polytetrafluoroethylene appearing at about 500 °C to about 600 °C a peak related to a non-conductive polymer appearing at about 400 °C to about 500 °C when evolved gas analysis for the negative electrode is measured after formation charging and discharging the rechargeable lithium battery.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the battery, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the battery are changed, the precise parameters of the battery would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the rechargeable lithium battery has a height ratio of about 5:1 to about 20:1 of a peak related to polytetrafluoroethylene appearing at about 500 °C to about 600 °C a peak related to a non-conductive polymer appearing at about 400 °C to about 500 °C when evolved gas analysis for the negative electrode is measured after formation charging and discharging the rechargeable lithium battery.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the battery to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights