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) 1-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al. (US2020/0091508A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ohsawa discloses a secondary battery [Abstract], an electrode assembly comprising an electrode and a separator which are alternately stacked ([0020] fig. 1);
a gel polymer electrolyte [0110]; and
a battery case accommodating the electrode assembly and the gel polymer electrolyte (Film (29), [0019] fig. 1),
wherein the separator comprises a porous substrate [0090] and a ceramic coating layer disposed on both sides of the porous substrate (The heat resistant insulating layer is a ceramic layer containing inorganic particles and a binder. For the heat resistant insulating layer-attached separator [0125] fig. 1),
wherein the ceramic coating layer comprises inorganic particles in an amount of 92 wt% or greater and less than 100 wt% and a binder in an amount of greater than 0 wt% and 8 wt% or less.( The content of the binder in the heat resistant insulating layer is preferably 2% to 20% by weight with respect to 100% by weight of the heat resistant insulating layer.[0130] Providing 98% - 80% of the inorganic particles which overlaps the claimed range, and it is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
wherein the electrode comprises a positive electrode (27) and a negative electrode (25) [0133] and
wherein the negative electrode comprises a silicon-based active material [0036]
Regarding claim 2, Ohsawa discloses the silicon-based active material comprises a compound represented by Formula 1: Formula 1, SiOx (0≤ x ≤2)
SiOx (0.3 ≤ x ≤ 1.6) [0045], it is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Ohsawa discloses the negative electrode further comprises a carbon-based material. ( The core portion contains carbonaceous negative electrode active material particles [0040])
Regarding claim 4, rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Ohsawa discloses the carbon-based active material comprises at least one type selected from the group consisting of artificial graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon, carbon black, graphene, and fibrous carbon. [0040]
Regarding claim 5, rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Ohsawa discloses the negative electrode comprises the silicon-based active material and the carbon-based active material in a weight ratio of 1:99 to 15:85. (the content of the silicon-based negative electrode active material particles and/or tin-based negative electrode active material particles with respect to 100% by mass of the content of the carbonaceous negative electrode active material particles is 2% to 20% by mass, [0048] Providing a ratio of silicon to carbon of 2:98 to 20:85 overlapping the claimed range, and it is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Ohsawa discloses the ceramic coating layer comprises inorganic particles (Inorganic particles [0125]) in an amount of 93 wt % to 98 wt % and a binder in an amount of 2 wt % to 7 wt %. (The content of the binder in the heat resistant insulating layer is preferably 2% to 20% by weight with respect to 100% by weight of the heat resistant insulating layer [0130] Providing a binder within the range of 2% to 20% by weight and inorganic particles within a range of 98% to 80% by weight, and it is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Ohsawa discloses the binder comprises an acryl-based binder. ( Polyacrylonitrile [0129], as exemplified by paragraph [0074] of the instant specification.)
Regarding claim 8, rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, Ohsawa discloses the acryl-based binder comprises at least one type selected from the group consisting of a copolymer of ethylhexyl acrylate and methyl methacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylhexyl acrylate, polybutyl acrylate, polyacrylonitrile [0129], and a copolymer of butyl acrylate and methyl methacrylate.
Regarding claim 10, Ohsawa discloses the separator has a thickness of 1 μm to 20 μm. (the thickness is preferably 5 to 200 μm [0124], and it is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al. (US2020/0091508A1), in view of Lee et al. (US2017/0214031A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ohsawa is silent on the ceramic coating layer has a thickness of 0.1 μm to 10 μm. In the same field of endeavor Lee discloses a secondary battery [Abstract] and teaches a thickness of 5 um [0132], and it is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Lee further teaches the present invention allows a battery to have excellent characteristics in a hot environment.[Abstract] and therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Ohsawa with the thickness as taught by Lee to achieve excellent characteristics in a hot environment.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al. (US2020/0091508A1), in view of Ihara et al. (US20080085454A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ohsawa is silent on the gel polymer electrolyte is a cured product of a gel polymer electrolyte composition comprising a lithium salt, a polymerization initiator, and an oligomer compound. In the same field of endeavor Ihara discloses a secondary battery [0015] fig. 1 and teaches the gel polymer electrolyte [0039] is a cured product (heating [0090]) of a gel polymer electrolyte composition comprising a lithium salt [0034-0037] a polymerization initiator [0089-0090], and an oligomer compound (polyhexafluoro propylene [0039]) and Ihara further teaches the gel electrolyte layer 36 is preferable because a high ionic conductivity can be obtained and liquid leakage of a battery can be prevented.[0086] and therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Ohsawa with the gel electrolyte as taught by Ihara to achieve high conductivity and prevent battery leakage.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, modified Ohsawa discloses the gel polymer electrolyte composition comprises the oligomer compound in an amount of 1 wt % to 20 wt %. (It is preferable that an amount of the polymeric compound equivalent to 5% by mass or more and less than 50% by mass of the electrolyte solution is usually added to the electrolyte solution, [Ihara, 0039]) and it is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, modified Ohsawa discloses the oligomer compound comprises at least one type selected from the group consisting of a fluorine-based oligomer (polyhexafluoro propylene [0039]), a polycarbonate-based oligomer, and a polysiloxane-based oligomer.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al. (US2020/0091508A1), in view of Yoshida et al. (US 6136471).
Regarding claim 14, Ohsawa is silent an application trace of an adhesive is formed on a surface of at least one of the electrode and the separator [0039], and wherein the application trace is a trace of the adhesive applied onto the surface of at least one of the electrode and the separator to form the electrode assembly, and then dissolved by a solvent in a gel polymer electrolyte composition for the gel polymer electrolyte. In the same field of endeavor Yoshida discloses a secondary battery [C1L6-13], and teaches an application trace of an adhesive is formed on a surface of at least one of the electrode and the separator [C10L16-35].
Regarding the limitation “the application trace is a trace of the adhesive applied onto the surface of at least one of the electrode and the separator to form the electrode assembly, and then dissolved by a solvent in a gel polymer electrolyte composition for the gel polymer electrolyte.” Is considered a 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).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohsawa et al. (US2020/0091508A1), in view of Yoshida et al. (US 6136471), in further view of Sato et al. (US2021/0036375A1).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, Ohsawa is silent on the adhesive applied onto the surface of at least one of the electrode and the separator in a form of a plurality of patterns spaced apart. In the same field of endeavor Sato discloses a secondary battery [Abstract] and teaches the adhesive is applied onto the surface of at least one of the electrode and the separator [Abstract] in a form of a plurality of patterns spaced apart (Dotted shape [Sato, 0079]), and further teaches dotted shape is preferable from a viewpoint of increasing injectability of electrolyte solution in production of a secondary battery using the laminate for a secondary battery. The dotted adhesive material may be disposed (formed) uniformly over the entirety of the affixing surface [Sato, 0079] and therefore it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Ohsawa with dotted shapes as taught by Sato to achieve higher productivity and uniform dispersion.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated, modified Ohsawa discloses an application area of the adhesive is greater than 0% and 1% or less with respect to an area of a surface in which the separator and the electrode are in contact. (The present disclosure is the amount of the adhesive material that is formed per unit area of the affixing surface and can be calculated by dividing the mass of the adhesive material that is formed on the affixing surface by the area of the affixing surface on which the adhesive material has been formed [Sato, 0012]…The amount of the adhesive material that is formed on the affixing surface is required to be not less than 0.1 g/m.sup.2 and not more than 100 g/m.sup.2 [Sato, 0067]… the formation area of the adhesive material formed on the affixing surface is preferably 25 μm.sup.2 or more,.. and is preferably 250,000 μm.sup.2 or less [0081] which provides a range of 0.1 g/m.sup.2 /25 μm.sup.2 and not more than 100 g/m.sup.2 / 250,000 μm.sup.2 yielding 0.004 to 0.0004 or 0.4 to .4% which overlaps the claimed range, and it is noted 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Doi et al. (US2021/0175546A1) Non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery.
Moon et al. (US2015/0140403A1) Dot shape adhesive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 EST.
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 T 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
