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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1) and/or (a)(2)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Deng et al. (CN103178241), hereinafter Deng.
Regarding Claim 1-4, and 20, Deng suggests an electronic apparatus (i.e., mobile device, large scale application) comprising an electrochemical apparatus (battery) comprising an electrode which is a negative electrode (i.e., anode), the electrode comprises a current collector (e.g., copper foil) and an active material layer (e.g., anode slurry) disposed on at least one surface of the current collector ([0031]).
Deng does not provide a thermogravimetric analysis of the active material layer. However, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, MPEP 2112.01, I. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The instant disclosure describes a negative electrode in which graphite (e.g., 85.6-99.5 wt%), binder (at least one styrene acrylate, SRB, etc., 0.8wt%-14wt%), conductive agent (e.g., CNT, 0-0.2 wt%) and thickener (CMC, 1 wt%) form a slurry coated on a current collector and the coated current collector is dried and subjected to a heat treatment of 360 °C for 10 minutes (instant published [0053, 0058], Examples 1-9 in Table 1). Like the instant disclosure, Deng suggests the active material layer is formed from a slurry comprising anode active material (e.g., graphite, [0018]), aqueous binder (e.g., at least one of SBR, styrene acylate, etc. [0017]), aqueous thickener (e.g., CMC, [0015]) and conductive agent (e.g., carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes, etc., [0018]) in a mass ratio of (85-98):(1-10):(1-2):(0-3), see e.g., [0011]; after coating the slurry on the current collector, the sheet is dried and heat treated at 250-450 °C for 1-60 minutes ([0019]). Considering the structural similarities of the elements forming the slurry and the overlapping nature of the heat treatment, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a mass change of the active material layer of Deng, at 200°C to 350°C, is 0% to 0.2% according to results of a thermogravimetric analysis performed on the active material layer in an inert atmosphere at a temperature rise rate of 10°C/min, a number of weight loss peaks of the active material layer at 200°C to 350°C is 0 according to the results of the thermogravimetric analysis, and a mass change of the active material layer at 350°C to 800°C is 0.77% to 3.4% according to the results of the thermogravimetric analysis.
Regarding Claim 5-7, Deng suggests a thickness of the active material layer comprising graphite on one side of the current collector is ≥10 μm, between 1500 µm to 15 µm, or 150 µm to 30µ m (i.e., 50-400 µm, [0012], e.g., 100 µm, [0031]).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Deng suggests the active material layer comprises a conductive agent, wherein the conductive agent comprises at least one of carbon nanotubes, carbon fibers, acetylene black, graphene, or conductive carbon black ([0018]), wherein based on a total mass of the active material layer, a mass percentage of the conductive agent in the active material layer is 0% to 2% (e.g., 0-3 wt%, [0011], 2wt% [0030]).
Regarding Claims 10-12, Deng suggests the active material layer comprises a polymer compound; wherein the polymer compound comprises at least one of at least one of polyethylene oxide, polypropylene oxide, polyvinylidene difluoride, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyacrylonitrile, polyimide, polysiloxane, polyacrylic acid, polypropylene derivative, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, lithium carboxymethyl cellulose, polymethylpyrrolidone, polyethylene pyrrolidone, styrene acrylate, or styrene-butadiene rubber, e.g., polyacrylic acid, sodium/lithium carboxymethyl cellulose, styrene acrylate, SRB, etc., [0015, 0017, 0030]; a mass percentage of the polymer compound in the active material layer is 0.22% to 14% based on a total mass of the active material layer, e.g., 2-12 wt%, [0011], 2 wt% in Example 1, [0030]; based on a total mass of the active material layer, a mass percentage of the polymer compound in the active material layer is 0.8% to 3.5%, i.e., 2-12 wt% ([0011]), 2 wt% in Example 1 ([0030]);.
Regarding claims 13-19, applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product (claim 1) by the process in which it was made, i.e., “a method of preparing the electrode according to claim 1”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same 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, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2113. All the positively recited structural features and expected thermogravimetric results in claims 13-19 have already been addressed in the rejection of claims 1-12 and 20, hence not repeated here.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee US 2023/0317955, electrode slurry with similar claimed elements, and includes a heating process, [0043-0044, 0053-0061, 0097-0098, 0122-0124]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights