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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in Paragraph [0039], reference is made to first electrode 110 and second electrode 120 in Fig. 1. Neither item is present nor labeled in Fig. 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the amended relocation of the phrase “after the step (S4)” confounds the intended meaning of the claim. By first reciting “the first electrolyte composition is disposed inside the electrode assembly” and then “after the step (S4)”, the claim reads as if the first electrolyte composition is again introduced into the electrode assembly after all steps (S1)-(S4) are completed. Step (S2) itself is already drawn to injecting a first electrolyte composition into the battery case. Is Claim 13 actually drawn to another injection of the first electrolyte after step (S4), or is it merely reciting the final status and configurations of the electrolytes after the last step (S4) is completed? In this Action, Claim 13 is interpreted as establishing the final status of the electrolytes in having the first electrolyte inside the electrode assembly and the second cured electrolyte outside the electrode assembly, upon completion of step (S4) as in Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the listed steps using alphabetical indices, step (d) is repeated after step (e) when the appropriate labeling should be (f). In this Action, the second (d)-labeled item is referred to as (f). Appropriate correction is required.
Note on References
Prior art references US 2021/0167392 A1 and US 2021/0202993 A1 are both attributed to inventor Won Kyung Shin et al. Hereinafter, “Shin” will refer to US 2021/0167392 A1 and “Shin (‘993)” will refer to US 2021/0202993 A1.
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 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2003/0003367 A1), further in view of Takeda et al. (US 2017/0098863 A1) and Shin et al. (US 2021/0167392 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 9, Roh teaches manufacturing a secondary battery with an electrode stack sealed in a battery case (Paragraph [0009]) and introducing a first liquid electrolyte substantially localized in an inner part of the electrode stack and a second gel-type electrolyte substantially filled in an outer part of the electrode stack (Paragraph [0015]), wherein the first liquid electrolyte may comprise an organic solvent and a lithium salt and the second gel-type electrolyte may comprise an organic solvent, a lithium salt, and a polymer (Paragraph [0018]). Roh does not teach the first electrolyte contains at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) and lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI), and the second electrolyte composition does not include lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) and lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (LiTFSI) but includes an oligomer and is cured.
Takeda teaches a first nonaqueous electrolytic solution having a configuration without lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, and lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate being dissolved, and accommodating a second nonaqueous electrolytic solution in the battery case that accommodates the electrode body and the first nonaqueous electrolytic solution, the second nonaqueous electrolytic solution having a configuration in which at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide, lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, and lithium trifluoromethanesulfonate is dissolved as the electrolyte in the nonaqueous solvent (Paragraph [0009]), wherein the first nonaqueous electrolytic solution of Takeda is analogous to the second electrolyte composition of the instant claim and the second nonaqueous electrolytic solution of Takeda is analogous to the first electrolyte composition of the instant claim.
Shin teaches a gel polymer electrolyte formed by polymerization of an oligomer (Paragraph [0016]) and conventional gel polymer electrolytes use a polymerization initiator to form the gel polymer electrolyte by curing a composition containing an oligomer (Paragraph [0112]).
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 Takeda in regards to one electrolyte having LiFSI and/or LiTFSI and the other not having LiFSI and/or LiTFSI and the teachings of Shin in regards to utilizing an oligomer in an electrolyte to be cured with the electrolyte configuration of Roh in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as improving adhesion between the gel polymer electrolyte and separator by utilizing an oligomer as taught by Shin (Paragraph [0018], [0025]) and preventing elution of aluminum from the positive electrode current collector foil in the positive electrode non-contact portion of the positive electrode sheet as taught by Takeda (Paragraph [0010]). 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 3, Roh does not teach the first electrolyte composition to further comprise an oligomer. Shin teaches another embodiment of a composition for a gel polymer electrolyte which may not include an initiator (Paragraph [0023]) thus distinguishing from the polymerizable composition taught in Claim 1 above, in which the composition for a gel polymer electrolyte may be composed of a lithium salt, a non-aqueous organic solvent, and an oligomer (Paragraph [0024]).
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 gel polymer electrolyte comprising an oligomer of Shin with the electrolyte configuration of Roh in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such improving adhesion between the gel polymer electrolyte and separator by utilizing an oligomer as taught by Shin (Paragraph [0018], [0025]). 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 Claims 6 and 7, Roh teaches exemplary lithium salts that may be used are LiClO4, LiBF4, LiPF6, LiCF3SO3, LiN(CF3SO2)2 and a mixture thereof (Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 12, Roh teaches injecting a second gel-type electrolyte in an outer part of the electrode stack (Paragraph [0015]) wherein the “outer part of the electrode stack” means a region excluding the inner side thereof a region in which the cathode and anode are facing each other and charge/discharge takes place (Paragraph [0016]), which encompasses or overlaps with a region outside of the inner electrode assembly.
Regarding Claim 13, Roh teaches the sequence of steps including encasing the electrode stack in a case having an inlet; evacuating the case and introducing the liquid electrolyte; introducing the gel-type electrolyte containing a polymer or an in situ polymerizable monomer; optionally conducting in situ polymerization of the monomer; and sealing the inlet (Paragraph [0017]) wherein the first liquid-type electrolyte is localized in an inner part of the electrode stack and a second gel-type electrolyte substantially filled in an outer part of the electrode stack as in Claims 1 and 12 above.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2003/0003367 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2017/0098863 A1) and Shin et al. (US 2021/0167392 A1) as in Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 above, further in view of Yamasaki et al. (US 2001/0024756 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Roh does not teach curing the first and second electrolyte compositions together or the order of steps in which the first electrolyte is cured after adding it in to the electrode assembly. Yamasaki teaches the first gel polymer electrolyte and the second gel polymer electrolyte are produced together by curing a pregel solution composed of a liquid electrolyte and a polymer precursor (Claim 3), and further teaches battery manufacturing method steps: the electrode unit is produced by inserting a porous membrane between a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate; the produced electrode unit is impregnated with a pregel solution composed of a liquid electrolyte and a polymer precursor; the pregel solution that is added into and affixed around the electrode unit is then cured (Paragraph [0021]).
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 electrolyte curing step in the order taught by Yamasaki with the electrolyte configuration of Roh in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as adhesion to edge parts of the electrode assembly to prevent the positive and negative electrode plates from contacting one another as taught by Yamasaki (Paragraphs [0043], [0053], [0054]). 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2003/0003367 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2017/0098863 A1) and Shin et al. (US 2021/0167392 A1) as in Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 above, further in view of Shin et al. (US 2021/0202993 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Roh does not teach the oligomer composition. Shin (‘993) teaches an oligomer containing fluorine elements (Paragraphs [0047]-[0050]; Formula 1).
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 fluorine-based oligomer of Shin (‘993) with the electrolyte configuration of Roh in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as suppressing heat generation and ignition of the battery due to the fluorine of the oligomer having excellent flame retardancy as taught by Shin (‘993) (Paragraph [0050]). 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).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2003/0003367 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2017/0098863 A1) and Shin et al. (US 2021/0167392 A1) as in Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 above, further in view of Yang et al. (US 2022/0320673 A1) and Fan et al. (US 2019/0058198 A1).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Roh does not teach the electrode tab to comprise aluminum, or injecting the first electrolyte composition as to not contact the electrode tab. Fan teaches that lithium batteries may often include an aluminum current collector which will corrode when exposed to some air stable lithium salts such as lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI), lithium bis(trifluoromethane sulfone)imide (LiTFSI), and/or the like (Paragraph [0059]). Yang further teaches the current collector not coated with the positive electrode active material layer protrudes from the current collector coated with the positive electrode active material layer, and the positive electrode current collector not coated with the positive electrode active material layer is used as a positive electrode tab wherein a material of the positive electrode current collector may be aluminum (Paragraph [0073]).
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 Yang to using aluminum as a current collector and electrode tab, the teachings of Fan to avoid contact between aluminum and LiFSI and/or LiTFSI, and the teachings of Takeda to use LiFSI and/or LiTFSI in an electrolyte as in Claim 1 above with the electrolyte configuration of Roh in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as utilizing a current collector material that is well-known in the art and the necessary precautions to prevent its corrosion as taught by Fan (Paragraph [0059]). 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).
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” to find a method of injecting the electrolyte having LiFSI and/or LiTFSI in a way that prevents corrosive contact with the aluminum current collector tabs as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2003/0003367 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2017/0098863 A1) and Shin et al. (US 2021/0167392 A1) as in Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 above, further in view of Zama et al. (US 2020/0243895 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Roh does not teach the method of manufacturing electrodes with separators and the application of adhesives with the separator. Zama teaches a method wherein the separator is continuously folded in such a way that it is interposed between the positive electrodes and the negative electrodes; in other words, the separator is folded in a zigzag shape to thread between the positive electrodes and the negative electrodes; to be specific, in the embodiment, the leading end of the belt-like separator is secured by an adhesive tape to the lower surface of the electrode in the lowermost layer of the group of electrodes of the stack (the negative electrode in the lowermost layer in the example of FIG. 3); the separator is then continuously folded sequentially from the lowermost layer to the upper layer; the upper surface and the lower surface of the electrode in each layer of the stack are covered in this manner (Paragraph [0051]).
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 manufacturing method with a continuous separator of Zama with the secondary battery of Roh in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as preventing deformation of separator folding at the end of electrodes by forming a battery electrode assembly with a continuous belt-like separator covering all around the group of electrodes as taught by Zama (Paragraphs [0008], [0011]). 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).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2003/0003367 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2017/0098863 A1) and Shin et al. (US 2021/0167392 A1) as in Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 above and Zama et al. (US 2020/0243895 A1) as in Claim 14 above, further in view of Yushin et al. (US 2019/0198837 A1) and Jeon et al. (US 2022/0223976 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Roh does not teach the composition of the separator in regards to wt% of the ceramic coating layer and binder. Yushin teaches porous and flexible ceramic separator layers deposited (as a coating) either on one of the electrode (or both electrodes) or on one (or both) surface of the separator membrane (Paragraph [0061]). Jeon teaches the ceramic coating may typically include ceramic particles in a binder or polymer matrix with 50% or more ceramic particles by volume or weight %, and respectively 50% or less binder or polymer matrix by volume or weight % (Paragraph [0019]).
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).
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 Yushin regarding a ceramic layer on both sides of a separator membrane with the teachings of Jeon regarding the % content of the ceramic and binder in the coating layer with the secondary battery of Roh in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as a thinner separator which is capable of mitigating thermal runaway as taught by Jeon (Paragraphs [0004]-[0007]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2003/0003367 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2017/0098863 A1) and Shin et al. (US 2021/0167392 A1) as in Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 above and Zama et al. (US 2020/0243895 A1) as in Claim 14 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0242538 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Roh does not teach applying an adhesive in the form of a plurality of patterns spaced apart from each other. Lee teaches the adhesive layer may be provided in various ways such as spraying, dot coating, and patterning of an adhesive material on the exposed surface of the separator (Paragraph [0120]).
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 patterned separator adhesive of Lee with the secondary battery of Roh in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as providing sufficient adhesive force to fix the positive electrode and separator and effectively adhering an electrode assembly to a pouch using an adhesive layer provided on an extension region of a separator as taught by Lee (Paragraphs [0008], [0108]). 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).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2003/0003367 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2017/0098863 A1) and Shin et al. (US 2021/0167392 A1) as in Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 12-13 above and Zama et al. (US 2020/0243895 A1) as in Claim 14 above, further in view of Persi et al. (US 2005/0260490 A1).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Roh does not teach the dissolving of the adhesive in the first electrolyte, or traces of adhesive remaining thereafter. Persi teaches the adhesive is substantially insoluble in the solvent so as to precipitate the adhesive component onto a surface of the separator; however, the polymer component of the adhesive could be soluble in the liquid electrolyte since adhesion is necessary mainly during the assembly process and less necessary after the cell is completed and the liquid electrolyte has been added (Paragraph [0012]).
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 Persi and Roh to optimize the amount of adhesive that is dissolved and the amount of adhesive that remains on the surface of the separator 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 extent of dissolving by the desire to initially have separator adhesive to enable the fabrication of electrochemical cells having a low rate of mechanical and thermal deformation, but also allow solubility in electrolyte since adhesion is less necessary after the cell is completed and the liquid electrolyte has been added, as taught by Persi (Paragraphs [0008], [0012]).
Regarding Claim 19, Roh does not teach the method of assembling an electrode by steps including (a) applying adhesive to at least a portion of the separator or first electrode, (b) bonding the separator and the first electrode, (c) folding one side of the separator to cover the first electrode, (d) applying adhesive on at least a portion of the separator or the second electrode, (e) bonding the separator and the second electrode, and (f) folding the other side of the separator to cover the second electrode.
Persi teaches first coating an adhesive formulation onto an anode surface of a separator (Paragraph [0059]) and then placing an anode with the anode surface of the separator for bonding (Paragraph [0060), and the same is done for cathodes. Zama teaches an assembly method in which the separator is continuously folded in such a way that it is interposed between the positive electrodes and the negative electrodes; in other words, the separator is folded in a zigzag shape to thread between the positive electrodes and the negative electrodes (Paragraph [0051]).
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 application of a separator with adhesive to an electrode as taught by Persi and the continuous threading separator assembly method as taught by Zama with the secondary battery of Roh in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as having separator adhesive to enable the fabrication of electrochemical cells having a low rate of mechanical and thermal deformation as taught by Persi (Paragraph [0008]) and preventing deformation of separator folding at the end of electrodes by forming a battery electrode assembly with a continuous belt-like separator covering all around the group of electrodes as taught by Zama (Paragraphs [0008], [0011]). 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).
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