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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/10/2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 5/10/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhan et al (CN 109494374 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhan discloses an electrochemical apparatus comprising a negative electrode plate, wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode current collector, a first coating, and a negative electrode active material layer [claim 1]. Zhan teaches that the first coating is disposed between the negative electrode current collector and the negative electrode active material layer [claim 1]; and the first coating comprises carbon nanotubes [example 3, paragraph 0031-0033], a first binder [paragraph 0013], and a first dispersant [example 3, paragraph 0031-0033]; a mass percentage of the carbon nanotubes in the first coating is 50-75% [claim 1; example 3, paragraph 0031-0033], a thickness of the first coating is 800 nm to 1 µm [example 3, paragraph 0031-0033].
Regarding claims 2-3 and 12-13, Zhan teaches that the thickness of the first coating is 1 µm [example 3, paragraph 0031-0033].
Regarding claim 11, Zhan teaches an electronic apparatus comprising the electrochemical apparatus [claim 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al (CN 109494374 A) as applied in claims 1&11 and further in view of Xu et al (US 20130004657 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Zhan remains silent about the diameter of the carbon nanotube. However, it is known in the art to utilize carbon nanotubes having a diameter in a range from about 40 nm to about 100 nm for coating a negative electrode as taught by Xu [paragraph 0074]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
11. Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al (CN 109494374 A) as applied in claims 1.
Regarding claims 5&15, Zhan remains silent about the value of ID/IG of the carbon nanotubes. It is also implicit that since electrode of Zhan is explicitly similar as claimed, the value of ID/IG of the carbon nanotubes should be similar and would have been obvious.
12. Claim(s) 6-8 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al (CN 109494374 A) as applied in claims 1&11 and further in view of Yang et al (CN 105895855 A).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Zhan remains silent about a coating on the top surface of the electrode material; Yang teaches a battery comprising a negative electrode wherein the top surface of the electrode material is coated with a conductive carbon layer, the conductive carbon layers are made of the pulp comprising 10-65 wt% of the conductive carbon, 0.5-10 wt% of the binder, and 20-60wt% of the solvent, and the conductive carbon may be selected from carbon nanotubes in order to have good conductivity and long cycle life [paragraph 0005-0013]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 7&17, Yang teaches that the thickness of the conductive carbon layer (second coating) is 0.01 to 20 micrometers (10 nanometer to 20000 nanometer) [paragraph 0008].
Regarding claims 8&18, Zhan teaches that the binder used for the carbon coating is styrene-butadiene rubber [paragraph 0012]. Therefore, binder for the second coating can be the same.
13. Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al (CN 109494374 A) in view of Yang et al (CN 105895855 A) as applied in claim 6 and further in view of Chen et al (US 20170288192 A1).
Regarding claims 9&19, Zhan teaches utilizing sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as dispersant/thickener but Zhan/Yang remains silent about utilizing sodium hydroxymethyl cellulose as dispersant/thickener. However, it is known in the art to utilize sodium hydroxymethyl cellulose as dispersant/thickener as taught by Chen [paragraph 0031, 0049]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
14. Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan et al (CN 109494374 A) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of Li et al (US 20220109180 A1).
Regarding claims 10&20, Zhan remains silent about the resistance of the negative electrode plate. It is also implicit that since electrode of Zhan is explicitly similar as claimed, the resistance of the negative electrode plate should be similar. Li also teaches a similar negative electrode plate having similar resistance [paragraph 0042]. Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights