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 § 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) 1-4, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub No. 2021/0234159)
Regarding Claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a positive electrode material for an electric device [Fig. 1, 0024-0025, Abstract], the positive electrode material comprising:
composite material particles [sulfur carbon composite, Fig. 1, abstract, 0066] containing a positive electrode active material containing sulfur in pores of a porous conductive material [0007, claim 1]; and
an electronic conductor coating [coating layer, Fig. 1, Abstract, 0048] a surface of the composite material particles [0041, 0066],
wherein the porous conductive material is particulate [0066], an average primary particle size of the porous conductive material 10-50 um overlapping the claimed 2 um to 50 µm [0066],
the electronic conductor is at least one selected from a group consisting of carbon fiber,
graphene, and carbon nanotube [0127],
the positive electrode active material containing sulfur is in contact with the porous
conductive material in the pores of the porous conductive material [Fig. 1, claim 1],
the porous conductive material is in contact with the electronic conductor [Fig. 1, claim 1], and by the electronic conductor being physically absorbed onto the surface of the composite material particles [Fig. 1, claim 1]
a coating film [the point contact binder and CNT shell in figure 1 is the coating film, Fig. 1, 0127] containing the electronic conductor is formed on the surface of the composite material particles [0124-0128]
The limitation of “by dry coating,” is/are considered 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).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Kim et al. teaches the positive electrode material further comprising a solid electrolyte in the pores of the porous conductive material [0037, 0111].
Regarding Claim 3, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Kim et al. teaches wherein a mass ratio of the electronic conductor to the porous conductive material is more than 0 and less than 1 [0128].
Regarding Claim 4, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Kim et al. teaches wherein a shape of the electronic conductor is a fibrous shape [0048],
and silent on a ratio of a pore size of the porous conductive material to an average fiber length of a fibrous electronic conductor is more than 0 and less than 1, or a shape of the electronic conductor is a sheet shape, and a ratio of a pore size of the porous conductive material to an average longest diameter of a sheet-shaped electronic conductor in a surface direction is more than 0 and less than 1.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the positive electrode material, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the positive electrode material are changed, the precise parameters of the positive electrode material 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 “a ratio of a pore size of the porous conductive material to an average fiber length of a fibrous electronic conductor is more than 0 and less than 1, or a shape of the electronic conductor is a sheet shape, and a ratio of a pore size of the porous conductive material to an average longest diameter of a sheet-shaped electronic conductor in a surface direction is more than 0 and less than 1” 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 positive electrode material 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, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Kim et al. teaches wherein the average primary particle size of the porous conductive material is 10-50 um overlapping the claimed 5 um to 50 µm [0066].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Kim et al. is silent on wherein a mass ratio of the electronic conductor to the porous conductive material 0.01 or more and 0.5 or less.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the electronic conductor and porous conductive material, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the electronic conductor and porous conductive material are changed, the precise parameters of the electronic conductor and porous conductive material 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 a mass ratio of the electronic conductor to the porous conductive material 0.01 or more and 0.5 or less.” 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 electronic conductor and porous conductive material 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 8, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Kim et al. teaches the positive electrode comprising the positive electrode material for an electric device according to claim 1 [Abstract, 0022, 0011].
Regarding Claim 9, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Kim et al. teaches an electric device comprising the positive electrode for an electric device according to claim 8 [Abstract, 0006, 0123].
Regarding Claim 10, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Kim et al. teaches wherein the electric device is an all-solid lithium secondary battery [0111, 0101].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Pub No. 2021/0234159) in view of Dohata (JP2020/161288, Machine translation)
Regarding Claim 5, Kim et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Kim et al. is silent on wherein at least a part of the solid electrolyte and at least a part of the positive electrode active material containing sulfur are disposed inside the pores of the porous conductive material to be in contact with each other.
Dohata et al. teaches a sulfur cathode composite where the sulfur and the solid electrolyte are enclosed within the pores [0022]. The configuration of Dohata et al. suppresses the decrease in the contact area between sulfur and the solid electrolyte over cycles, thereby suppressing the decline in capacity retention rate [0022].
Since Kim et al. teaches the use of a sulfur composite electrode material with a solid electrolyte, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the sulfur and solid electrolyte of Kim et al. to be enclosed within the pores of the porous conductive material in order to suppress the decrease in the contact area between sulfur and the solid electrolyte over cycles, thereby suppressing the decline in capacity retention rate [0022].
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