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) 1-2, 8-10, 13-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Li (US Pub No. 2019/0140328)
Regarding Claim 1, Li et al. teaches a modified current collector [10 and 12, Fig. 1, 0018] for a secondary battery, comprising a substrate [10, Fig. 2, 0018] and a conductive layer [12, Fig. 1, 0018] applied on one side or both sides of the substrate [Fig. 1], wherein the conductive layer comprises a conductive material [0028], a particulate material [inorganic filler, 0011], and a binder material [0019, Table 1-1, 0088-0089], wherein the binder material comprises a copolymer comprising a structural unit (a), wherein the structural unit (a) comprises one or more monomeric unit(s) with formula (1): and wherein each of R₁, R₂, R₃ and R4 in formula (1) is independently H, hydroxyl, alkyl, hydroxyalkyl, halogen, or alkyl halide [PVDF copolymer and/or PVDC copolymer, 0019, 0024].
Regarding Claim 2, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. teaches wherein the copolymer further comprises a structural unit (b), wherein the structural unit (b) comprises one or more monomeric unit(s) with formula (2): and wherein each of R₅, R6, R₇ and R₈ in formula (2) is independently H, alkyl, acyloxy, acyloxyalkyl, halogen, or alkyl halide [PVDF copolymer and/or PVDC copolymer, 0019, 0024].
Regarding Claim 8, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. teaches wherein the substrate is selected from the group consisting of stainless steel, titanium, nickel, aluminum, copper, platinum, gold, silver, chromium, zirconium, tungsten, molybdenum, silicon, tin, vanadium, zinc, cadmium, and alloys thereof, electrically-conductive resin, and combinations thereof [aluminum, 0054]
Regarding Claim 9, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. teaches wherein the conductive material is selected from the group consisting of carbon, carbon black, graphite, expanded graphite, graphene, graphene nanoplatelets, carbon fibers, carbon nano-fibers, graphitized carbon flake, carbon tubes, carbon nanotubes, activated carbon, Super P, KS6, vapor grown carbon fibers (VGCF), mesoporous carbon, and combinations thereof [carbon black, 0028].
Regarding Claim 10, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. teaches wherein the particulate material is selected from the group consisting of Fe2O₃, Fe₃O₄, FeO(OH), MnO₂, Al2O₃, AIO(OH), ZnO, La2O3, CeO2, RuO₂, SiO2, TiO2, ZrO₂, Mg(OH)₂, MgO, SnO₂, CaCO₃, BaSO4, TiN, AIN, Na₂OmTiO₂, nTiO₂, BaOx, MTiO₃, and combinations thereof; wherein m is 3 or 6; n is 1, 2, 4, 6, or 8; x is 1 or 2; and M is Ba, Sr, or Ca [at least aluminum oxide, 0035-0036].
Regarding Claim 13, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. teaches wherein the hydroxyalkyl is selected from the group consisting of hydroxymethyl, hydroxyethyl, hydroxypropyl, hydroxy (methyl) propyl, hydroxy (methyl) butyl, and combinations thereof [see rejection of claim 1, the hydroxyalkyl is not required in the claim].
Regarding Claim 14, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. teaches wherein the acyloxyalkyl is selected from the group consisting of acyloxymethyl, acyloxyethyl, acyloxypropyl, acyloxy (methyl) propyl, acyloxy (methyl) butyl, and combinations thereof [see rejection of claim 1, the acyloxyalkyl is not required in the claim 1].
Regarding Claim 15, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. teaches an electrode [10, 12, and 14, Fig. 1, 0018], comprising the modified current collector of claim 1 and an electrode layer [14, Fig. 1, 0018], wherein the electrode layer is located on the surface of the conductive layer, and wherein the electrode layer comprises an electrode active material and a binding agent [abstract, 0041, 0020].
Regarding Claim 16, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. teaches wherein the electrode active material is a cathode active material selected from the group consisting of LiCoO2, LiNiO₂, LiNi1.xMxO2, LiNixMnyO₂, LiCoxNiyO₂, LiNixCoyAl₂O₂, LiV₂O₅, LiTiS2, LiMoS2, LiMnO₂, LiCrO₂,
LiMn₂O₄, Li2MnO₃, LiFeO2, LiFePO4, and combinations thereof; wherein each X is
independently from 0.1 to 0.9; each y is independently from 0 to 0.9; each Z is independently
from 0 to 0.4; and wherein M is selected from the group consisting of Co, Mn, Al, Fe, Ti, Ga,
Mg, and combinations thereof [LiCoO2, 0047].
Regarding Claim 18, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. teaches wherein the electrode active material is an anode active material selected the group consisting of natural graphite particulate, synthetic graphite particulate, hard carbon, soft carbon, mesocarbon microbeads (MCMB), Sn particulate, SnO₂, SnO, Li4Ti5O12 particulate, Si particulate, Si-C composite particulate, and combinations thereof [natural graphite, 0049]
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) 3-7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Pub No. 2019/0140328)
Regarding Claim 3, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. is silent on wherein the proportion of the structural unit (a) in the copolymer is at least 90% by mole, based on the total number of moles of monomeric units in the copolymer. Li et al. teaches the weight percentage of the fluorinated polyolefin and/or chlorinated polyolefin polymer matrix is from 35 wt % to 75 wt % [0027].
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the copolymer, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the copolymer are changed, the precise parameters of the copolymer 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 proportion of the structural unit (a) in the copolymer is at least 90% by mole, based on the total number of moles of monomeric units in the copolymer.” 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 copolymer 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 4, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. is silent on wherein the proportion of the structural unit (a) in the copolymer is from about 90% to about 99.8% by mole, based on the total number of moles of monomeric units in the copolymer.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the copolymer, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the copolymer are changed, the precise parameters of the copolymer 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 proportion of the structural unit (a) in the copolymer is from about 90% to about 99.8% by mole, based on the total number of moles of monomeric units in the copolymer.” 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 copolymer 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, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. is silent on wherein the proportion of the structural wherein the proportion of the structural unit (b) in the copolymer is from about 0.1% to about 10% by mole, based on the total number of moles of monomeric units in the copolymer.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the copolymer, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the copolymer are changed, the precise parameters of the copolymer 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 proportion of the structural wherein the proportion of the structural unit (b) in the copolymer is from about 0.1% to about 10% by mole, based on the total number of moles of monomeric units in the copolymer.” 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 copolymer 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, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. is silent on wherein the molar ratio of structural unit (a) to structural unit (b) in the copolymer is from about 9 to about 1000.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the copolymer, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the copolymer are changed, the precise parameters of the copolymer 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 molar ratio of structural unit (a) to structural unit (b) in the copolymer is from about 9 to about 1000.” 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 copolymer 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 7, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. is silent on wherein the modified collector has a thickness of not more than about 5 µm to about 70 µm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the modified collector, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the modified collector are changed, the precise parameters of the modified collector 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 modified collector has a thickness of not more than about 5 µm to about 70 µm.” 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 modified collector 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 11, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. is silent on wherein the weight-average molecular weight of the copolymer is from about 10,000 g/mol to about 300,000 g/mol.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the copolymer, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the copolymer are changed, the precise parameters of the copolymer 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 weight-average molecular weight of the copolymer is from about 10,000 g/mol to about 300,000 g/mol.” 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 copolymer 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 12, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. teaches wherein the proportion of the conductive material in the conductive layer is from about 5 to 25 wt% overlapping the claimed 25% to about 75% by weight, based on the total weight of the conductive layer [0013]; wherein the proportion of the copolymer in the conductive layer is from about 35 to 75 wt% overlapping the claimed 25% to about 75% by weight, based on the total weight of the conductive layer [0013]; and silent on wherein the proportion of the particulate material in the conductive layer is from about 0.5% to about 5% by weight, based on the total weight of the conductive layer.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the particulate material, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the particulate material are changed, the precise parameters of the particulate 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 the proportion of the particulate material in the conductive layer is from about 0.5% to about 5% by weight, based on the total weight of the conductive 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 particulate 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).
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.
Claim(s) 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Pub No. 2019/0140328) in view of Park (US Pub No. 2015/0111097)
Regarding Claim 17, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. is silent on wherein the electrode active material is a cathode active material selected from the group consisting of NaCoO₂, NaFeO₂, NaNiO₂, NaCrO₂, NaVO₂, NaTiO2, NaFePO4, Na3V2(PO4)3, Na3V2(PO4)₂F₃, NMC-type mixed oxides, Prussian blue-type sodium compounds, and combinations thereof.
Park et al. teaches a cathode active material comprising NaCoO2 [0080].
Since Li et al. teaches the use of many cathode active materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the cathode active material of Li et al. with the electrode active material of Park et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 19, Li et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Li et al. is silent on wherein the binding agent comprises a polymer comprising one or more functional group(s) containing a halogen, O, N, S, or a combination thereof.
Park et al. teaches binder containing at least a halogen [0082].
Since Li et al. teaches the use of an binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the binder of Li et al. with the binder of Park et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 20, within the combination above, modified Li et al. teaches wherein each functional group is independently selected from the group consisting of carboxylic acid, carboxylic acid salt, sulfonic acid, sulfonic acid salt, sulfuric acid, sulfuric acid salt, phosphonic acid, phosphonic acid salt, phosphoric acid, phosphoric acid salt, nitric acid, nitric acid salt, amide, hydroxyl, nitrile, ester, epoxy, -NH₂, and combinations thereof [Park: at least an amide, 0085].
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