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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: only one period is allowed per claim, and must be at the end of the claim statement. The instant claim includes an additional period between the word “thereof” and Formula 5, wherein the only correct period is the one following Formula 16. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata et al. (US 2023/0378537 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0373347 A1), Kim et al. (KR 102240873 B1), and Kotato et al. (US 2012/0115042 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishihata teaches an electrolyte solution solvent as ionic liquid (Paragraph [0076]) as well as forming a gel polymer electrolyte for use in a lithium secondary battery by dissolving an electrolyte salt in a solvent onto a polymer film formed by a known method to impregnate the polymer film with the electrolyte salt and the non-aqueous solvent so that the polymer film supports the electrolyte salt and the non-aqueous solvent (Paragraph [0077]), and Lee teaches that a polymer electrolyte may further include a liquid electrolyte (Paragraph [0244]). Nishihata also teaches a lithium salt (Paragraph [0040]) and further teaches fluorine-containing borate-based lithium salts such as LiBF4 (Paragraph [0043]). As claimed, there is nothing that differentiates the first and second lithium salts such that they are required to be different compounds or forms.
Nishihata does not teach that the liquid electrolyte also comprises butyronitrile. Kotato teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising nitrile compounds (Paragraph [0018], (4)) wherein butyronitrile is an example of such a nitrile compound (Paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a butyronitrile-containing electrolyte of Kotato with the electrolyte of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as using a substance such as butyronitrile in an electrolyte to improve storability as taught by Kotato (Paragraph [0095]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D). The nonaqueous electrolyte of Kotato is recognized to satisfy the same purpose as a liquid electrolyte of the instant disclosure and of Nishihata, and the functionality of the nitrile compound would be expected to achieve a similarly desirable result. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) and MPEP §2144.06.
Nishihata does not teach the gel polymer as a crosslinked product of a first polymerizable monomer and a second polymerizable monomer in which the first polymerizable monomer is a polyfunctional acryl-based monomer having three or more polymerizable functional groups and the second polymerizable monomer is one or more selected from among a urethane acryl-based monomer, a monomer which contains a PFPE unit, and a combination thereof. Kim teaches a copolymer of a crosslinkable precursor comprising a urethane group-containing polyfunctional acrylic monomer and a polyfunctional block copolymer (Paragraph [0013]), in which the polyfunctional block polymer may be an acryl-based monomer having three or more polymerizable functional groups (Paragraph [0053]). Additionally, Lee teaches perfluoropolyether (PFPE)-dimethacrylate (Paragraph [0338]), and PFPE is analogous to Formula 3-1 of the instant claim.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crosslinked product of a polyfunctional acryl-based monomer having three or more polymerizable functional groups and a urethane acryl-based monomer having two or more polymerizable functional groups as taught by Kim and/or a polymerizable monomer having two or more polymerizable functional groups and containing a PFPE unit as taught by Lee with the gel polymer electrolyte assembly of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as improving ion conductivity by enabling free movement of lithium ions in the resulting polymer having low crystallization and high mechanical strength and elasticity due to the inclusion of urethane moiety as taught by Kim (Paragraphs [0036] and [0042] respectively) and increased solubility of lithium ions along with the polymerization product easily prepared on a large scale at reduced cost as taught by Lee (Paragraph [0144]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Regarding Claim 2, Nishihata does not teach that the liquid electrolyte also comprises butyronitrile nor the amount of butyronitrile with respect to the total electrolyte. Kotato teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte comprising nitrile compounds (Paragraph [0018], (4)) wherein the nitrile compound in an electrolyte is present in the amount of 0.001% by weight to 5% by weight (Paragraph [0018], (17)), wherein butyronitrile is an example of such a nitrile compound (Paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
It would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the weight fraction of butyronitrile in the electrolyte to arrive at the claimed configuration or range since it has been held that, 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As in Claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a butyronitrile-containing electrolyte of Kotato with the electrolyte of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as using a substance such as butyronitrile in an electrolyte to improve storability as taught by Kotato (Paragraph [0095]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D). The nonaqueous electrolyte of Kotato is recognized to satisfy the same purpose as a liquid electrolyte of the instant disclosure and of Nishihata, and the functionality of the nitrile compound would be expected to achieve a similarly desirable result. See Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) and MPEP §2144.06.
Regarding Claim 3, Nishihata does not teach a polyfunctional acryl-based monomer having three or more polymerizable functional groups. Kim teaches a polyfunctional block polymer may be an acryl-based monomer having three or more polymerizable functional groups, such as trimethylolpropane ethoxylate triacrylate, ditrimethylolpropane tetraacrylate, dipentaerythritol pentaacrylate, and dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate (DHPA) (Paragraph [0053]).
As in Claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crosslinked product of a polyfunctional acryl-based monomer having three or more polymerizable functional groups (such as the compounds above) and a urethane acryl-based monomer having two or more polymerizable functional groups taught by Kim and/or a polymerizable monomer having two or more polymerizable functional groups containing a PFPE unit as taught by Lee with the gel polymer electrolyte assembly of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as improving ion conductivity by enabling free movement of lithium ions in the resulting polymer having low crystallization and high mechanical strength and elasticity due to the inclusion of urethane moiety as taught by Kim (Paragraphs [0036] and [0042] respectively) and increased solubility of lithium ions along with the polymerization product easily prepared on a large scale at reduced cost as taught by Lee (Paragraph [0144]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Regarding Claim 4, Nishihata does not teach a urethane acryl-based monomer having two or more functional groups or a polymerizable monomer having two or more polymerizable functional groups and containing a PFPE unit. Kim teaches a urethane group containing a polyfunctional acrylic monomer may include a diurethane dimethacrylate represented by Formula 1 (Paragraphs [0039]-[0041]), wherein Formula 1 of Kim is analogous to Formula 2 of the instant claim. Lee teaches perfluoropolyether (PFPE)-dimethacrylate (Paragraph [0338]), and PFPE is analogous to Formula 3-1 of the instant claim.
As in Claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the crosslinked product of a polyfunctional acryl-based monomer having three or more polymerizable functional groups and a urethane acryl-based monomer having two or more polymerizable functional groups (such as the compound above as taught by Kim) and/or a polymerizable monomer having two or more polymerizable functional groups and containing a PFPE unit (such as the compound above as taught by Lee) with the gel polymer electrolyte assembly of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as improving ion conductivity by enabling free movement of lithium ions in the resulting polymer having low crystallization and high mechanical strength and elasticity due to the inclusion of urethane moiety as taught by Kim (Paragraphs [0036] and [0042] respectively) and increased solubility of lithium ions along with the polymerization product easily prepared on a large scale at reduced cost as taught by Lee (Paragraph [0144]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Regarding Claim 5, Nishihata does not teach the proportions of liquid electrolyte and gel polymer electrolyte.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nishihata and Lee to optimize the parts by weight of liquid electrolyte in a total weight of the gel polymer electrolyte and the parts by weight of gel polymer in a total weight of the gel polymer electrolyte to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the concentrations of liquid electrolyte and gel polymer by the desire to control reactivity to the lithium electrode as taught by Lee (Paragraph [0138]).
Regarding Claim 16, Nishihata does not teach the material of the anode current collector. Kotato teaches examples of the current collector for the negative electrode include copper, nickel, and stainless steel (Paragraph [0153]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the anode current collector material of Kotato with the lithium secondary battery of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as providing an effective conductive material for electrons to flow between the anode active material and an external circuit as its commonly known function in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 17, Nishihata does not teach the ionic conductivity of the gel polymer electrolyte. Kotato teaches the concentration of electrolytes in the non-aqueous electrolyte affects conductivity (Paragraph [0029]), but does not disclose absolute ranges in mS/cm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kotato and Nishihata to optimize the electrolyte conductivity by the electrolyte concentration in order to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the electrolyte conductivity by the desire to optimize battery performance as taught by Kotato (Paragraph [0029]).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata et al. (US 2023/0378537 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0373347 A1), Kim et al. (KR 102240873 B1), and Kotato et al. (US 2012/0115042 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0202993 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Nishihata teaches fluorine-containing borate-based lithium salts such as LiBF4 (Paragraph [0043]) and fluoroboric acid compounds that fulfill Chemical Formula 3: LiBFb(CnF2n+1)4-b where 0≤b≤4 and 1≤n≤4 (Paragraph [0040]). Shin further teaches LiBF2(C2O4), also known as LiDFOB (Paragraph [0046]) which is analogous to Formula 7 of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 7, Nishihata does not teach the concentration of the lithium salt. Shin teaches the lithium salt may be included in a concentration of 1.6 M to 5 M (Paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings regarding lithium salt concentrations of Shin with the lithium salt-containing electrolyte of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as controlling lithium ion transference and thus battery output as taught by Shin (Paragraph [0044]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 8, Nishihata does not teach the mixing weight ratio of LiBF4 and LiDFOB.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shin and Nishihata to optimize the weight ratio of LiBF4 and LiDFOB to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the weight ratio of LiBF4 and LiDFOB by the desire to control the high-temperature safety issues of the battery that may result from lithium deintercalation by using high-concentration lithium salt to react with free solvents and suppress exothermic reactions as taught by Shin (Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 9, Nishihata does not teach a mixing weight ratio of FEC to DEC or the amount of FEC in the electrolyte. Shin teaches an organic solvent used in an electrolyte for a lithium secondary battery such as a linear carbonate compound, cyclic carbonate compound, or a mixture of two or more thereof (Paragraph [0106]), and FEC and DEC are provided as examples of a cyclic carbonate compound and a linear carbonate compound respectively (Paragraph [0107]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the organic solvents of cyclic carbonate FEC and linear carbonate DEC of Shin with the electrolyte of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as high electrical conductivity when a cyclic carbonate is mixed with a linear carbonate in an appropriate ratio as taught by Shin (Paragraph [0108]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shin and Nishihata to optimize the mixing weight ratio of FEC to DEC and the amount of FEC in the electrolyte to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the mixing weight ratio of FEC to DEC and the amount of FEC in the electrolyte by the desire to improve electrical conductivity as taught by Shin (Paragraph [0108]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata et al. (US 2023/0378537 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0373347 A1), Kim et al. (KR 102240873 B1), and Kotato et al. (US 2012/0115042 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Tiruvannamalai et al. (US 2023/0369640 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Nishihata does not teach the gel polymer electrolyte as being in an electrolyte layer that is between the cathode and anode current collector of a lithium battery. Tiruvannamalai teaches an electrochemical cell that includes an active-metal anode that includes a current collector and an active metal electrically coupled to the current collector; a cathode located in operative relation to the active-metal anode; a non-solid electrolyte in operative ionic contact with the cathode; a composite layer located between the active metal of the active-metal anode and the non-solid electrolyte, wherein the composite layer is provided to inhibit dendrite growth on the active-metal anode and to function as an active-metal-ion conductor between the active metal and the non-solid electrolyte and comprises a polymer gel electrolyte containing at least one polymer and a liquid electrolyte; and solid-electrolyte particles dispersed in the polymer gel electrolyte, wherein the solid-electrolyte particles are provided to conduct ions of the active metal during operation of the electrochemical cell (Paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the placement of a non-solid electrolyte and a composite layer of a polymer gel electrolyte between the cathode and anode current collector of Tiruvannamalai with the lithium secondary battery of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as reducing the formation of dendritic or mossy active metal on the active-metal anode by facilitating a uniform active-metal deposition and stripping as taught by Tiruvannamalai (Paragraph [0036]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata et al. (US 2023/0378537 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0373347 A1), Kim et al. (KR 102240873 B1), and Kotato et al. (US 2012/0115042 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Ogata et al. (US 2023/0378436 A1).
Regarding Claims 11-13, Nishihata does not teach a lithium metal layer between the anode current collector and the electrolyte layer. Ogata teaches examples of a negative electrode active material such as lithium metal, an alloy containing lithium metal, a carbon-based material, a metal oxide, a metal alloyed with lithium, an alloy containing the metal, and the like (Paragraph [0043]) wherein the metal alloyed with lithium may be silicon, germanium, tin, lead, aluminum, gallium, and the like (Paragraph [0043]), and Ogata further clarifies that the lithium metal battery means a lithium battery having lithium metal foil in the negative electrode before initial charge (at the time of assembly of the battery) (Paragraph [0048]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the lithium metal features for an anode of Ogata with the lithium secondary battery of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as providing a lithium element and a host material for the lithium element for the oxidation-reduction reactions at the negative electrode as taught by Ogata (Paragraph [0042). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata et al. (US 2023/0378537 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0373347 A1), Kim et al. (KR 102240873 B1), and Kotato et al. (US 2012/0115042 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Hidaka et al. (US 2023/0387465 A1).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, Nishihata does not teach a porous substrate as a separator. Hidaka teaches a separator in the form of a porous sheet or a nonwoven fabric which is formed from a material stable to the composition (electrolytic solution) of the disclosure, such as resin, glass fiber, or inorganic matter (Paragraph [0689]) wherein examples of the material of a resin or glass-fiber separator include polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene (Paragraph [0690]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the porous separator of Hidaka with the lithium secondary battery of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as achieving good permeability of the electrolytic solution and a good shut-down effect as taught by Hidaka (Paragraph [0690]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata et al. (US 2023/0378537 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0373347 A1), Kim et al. (KR 102240873 B1), and Kotato et al. (US 2012/0115042 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Song et al. (KR 2019/0118811 A).
Regarding Claim 18, Nishihata does not teach an anode active material and/or a protective layer between the anode current collector and the electrolyte layer. Song teaches forming a surface protection layer on the surface of an electrode active material (Paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electrode protective layer of Song with the lithium secondary battery of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as accommodating the volume expansion of the electrode active material due to charging and discharging, and furthermore, by inducing improved adhesion with the solid electrolyte layer, the electrode resistance can be reduced, thereby ensuring electrode stability, particularly thermal stability and high voltage stability, significantly increasing electrode capacity, and realizing excellent capacity retention characteristics, cycle characteristics, and long-term life characteristics as taught by Song (Paragraph [0038]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Regarding Claim 19, Nishihata does not teach a protective layer on the anode wherein the protective layer comprises a crosslinked polymer of a first polymer and a second polymer. Song teaches a fluorine-containing polyimide copolymer represented by Formulas 3 and 4, which are analogous to the structures of the composite in Formula 19 of the instant claim. Song also teaches “a” and “b” subscripting the polyimide copolymer repeating units of Formulas 3 and 4 respectively as integers ranging from 2 to 200, wherein the polyimide copolymer molecular weight is approximated (Paragraph ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electrode protective layer having a fluorine-containing polyimide copolymer of Song with the lithium secondary battery of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as increasing adhesion with a conductive material and an electrode active material, and simultaneously improving adhesion at the interface between the electrode and the current collector as taught by Song (Paragraph [0051]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Song does not teach the subscripts as mole fractions of a corresponding repeating unit wherein subscript “n” corresponding to Formula 4 of Song is 0<n≤ 1 and subscript “m” corresponding to Formula 3 of Song is 0≤m<1, and n+m=1.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Song and Nishihata to optimize the repeating unit count of the polyimide copolymers to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the repeating unit count of the polyimide copolymers by the desire to satisfy a range of molar ratios for repeating units which would apply to improve battery performance, including high rate, high capacity, and cycle life characteristics as well as ensuring thermal stability and stability at high voltage as taught by Song (Paragraph [0052]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihata et al. (US 2023/0378537 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0373347 A1), Kim et al. (KR 102240873 B1), and Kotato et al. (US 2012/0115042 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Shon et al. (KR 2022/0151898 A).
Regarding Claim 20, Nishihata does not teach a cathode current collector comprising a base film which further comprises a polymer, and a metal layer on a side of the base film. Shon teaches a base film of a polymer material constituting the polymer matrix of a current collector (Paragraph [0076]) wherein the polymer material may be polyester resin such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) (Paragraph [0047]). Shon also teaches forming a metal layer on the base film by deposition, wherein the metal layer material may be one or more selected from a group which includes copper, titanium, iron, nickel, and aluminum (Paragraph [0077]) which are also presented in the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the current collector having a base film with a polymer and deposited metal layer of Shon with the lithium secondary battery of Nishihata in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as improving mechanical properties by promoting metal particle bonding to the base film by which deposition is superior to the case of metal particles simply dispersed inside the film, as taught by Shon (Paragraphs [0078] and [0135]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights