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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a typographical error – “one of the two or more the electrode current collectors” should be “one of the two or more electrode current collectors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 9-10 recite the limitations "the first dry electrode active material" and “the second dry active material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It is noted that claim 8 recites a “first electrode active material” and “a second dry electrode active material”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13 includes the limitation “volume per unit volume of pores”. This limitation does not make sense and is not consistent with the specification and does not appear to be referring to anything different than the porosity. The specification at paragraph [0096] defines porosity as volume of pores relative to total volume of the structure multiplied by 100 and includes the about 10 vol% to about 90 vol% set forth in this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 11-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sohn (US Pub. No. 2020/0020954).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Sohn teaches an electrode 350 comprising an electrode active material layer 55, and three current collectors 53, 52 and 53 arranged along a thickness direction within the electrode active material layer, wherein the current collectors comprise an upper electrode current collector 53 adjacent a top surface of the electrode active material layer, a lower electrode current collector 53 adjacent a bottom surface of the electrode active material layer, wherein the electrode active material layer comprises an internal electrode active material layer between the upper electrode current collector and the lower electrode (portion of layer 55 between the current collectors) and an external electrode active material layer outside of the upper electrode current collector and the lower electrode current collector, and the electrode current collectors are a porous mesh structure (paragraphs [0090]-[0092]; figure 11).
Regarding claim 2, Sohn teaches that a thickness of the internal electrode active material layer is greater than a thickness of the external electrode active material layer (figure 11).
Regarding claims 12-13, Sohn teaches specific embodiments of aperture ratio % (claimed porosity %/volume per unit volume of pores) of 30%, 31%, 36%, 41% and 52% (paragraph [0106], table 1, embodiments a-f), falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Sohn teaches a second electrode current collector 52 between the upper and lower electrode current collectors (paragraphs [0090]-[0092]; figure 11).
Regarding claim 19, Sohn teaches a lithium battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (paragraphs [0132]-[0135]), where the negative electrode is the electrode set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Sohn teaches that the electrolyte may include a non-water electrolyte or a solid electrolyte (paragraphs [0136]-[0137]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon (US Pub. No. 2021/0296640).
Regarding claim 3, Sohn does not specifically disclose the thickness of the active material layers. Yoon teaches a thickness of each of a first and second active material layer of preferably 35 μm to 45 μm (paragraph [0051]), falling within the claimed range of thickness of the internal and external electrode active material layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thickness of 35 μm to 45 μm for each layer as taught by Yoon in the electrode of Sohn in order to control the resistance increase of the electrode (see Yoon at paragraph [0051]). With the three layers of Sohn, such results in a total thickness of about 105 μm to about 135 μm, falling within the total thickness range as claimed.
Claims 4-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US Pub. No. 2022/0209220).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Sohn does not specifically disclose that the electrode active material layer is a dry electrode film. Lee teaches using an electrode active material layer which is a dry electrode film, where the dry electrode film is a self-standing film and is free of a residual processing solvent (paragraphs [0058]-[0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a dry electrode film active material layer as taught by Lee for the active material layer and/or the internal and external active material layer of the electrode of Sohn in order to improve the room-temperature lifespan of the battery using the electrode (see Lee at paragraph [0217]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches that the dry electrode film comprises a dry electrode active material and a dry binder, and the dry binder can comprise a fibrillized binder and a fluorine-based binder (paragraphs [0058]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches that the amount of dry binder may be 1 wt% to 5 wt% with respect to the total weight of the dry electrode film (paragraph [0061]), and Lee teaches a substantial number of identical compounds in the dry binder (see paragraph [0060]) as to those of Applicant (see Specification at paragraph [0083]), thus numerous embodiments the dry binder of Lee would have a Tg within the claimed range of about 15 °C to about 150 °C.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches that the dry electrode film comprises a dry conductive material, that the dry conductive material comprises a carbon-based conductive material, where the carbon-based conductive material can include carbon fiber and/or carbon nanotubes, and/or carbon black, and/or graphite fine particles (fine particles being taken as having an aspect ratio of 5 or less) (paragraph [0062]), as well as specifically disclosing an aspect ratio of 10 or more for fibers used in the active material (paragraph [0059]), and an amount of the dry conductive material can be 1 wt% to 5 wt% (paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 9, the configuration set forth above where the entire active material layer is the dry electrode film, reads on the limitation of this claim that the first dry electrode active material is the same as the second dry active material.
Regarding claim 18, Sohn does not specifically disclose using an interlayer between the electrode active material layer and one of the two or more electrode current collectors. Lee teaches that an interlayer may be disposed directly on one or both sides of the electrode current collector (paragraph [0065]), as well as teaching that the interlayer may include a carbon-based conductive material (paragraph [0071]), with a specific embodiment using a carbon layer as an interlayer (paragraph [0169]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a carbon-based interlayer as taught by Lee between the electrode active material layer and one of the two or more electrode current collectors of the electrode of Sohn in order to improve the binding force between the electrode current collector and the electrode active material layer (see Lee at paragraph [0065]).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn in view of Lee as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Han (US Pub. No. 2011/0177378).
Regarding claim 10, Sohn does not specifically disclose using a different first dry electrode active material from the second dry active material. Han teaches using lithium manganese oxide (LMO) as an inner active material layer and a mixture of LMO and lithium nickel cobalt manganese (NCM) oxide or lithium cobalt oxide (LCO) as an outer active material layer (paragraph [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a first active material of LMO and a second active material of a mixture of LMO and NCM or LCO as taught by Han in the electrode of Sohn (combined) in order to obtain high power, improve over-charge stability, and prevent the battery using the electrode from deteriorating (see Han at paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 16, Sohn does not specifically disclose that a thickness of a region between the second electrode current collector and the upper and/or lower current collector is greater than the thickness of the external electrode active material layer above the upper electrode current collector and/or below the lower electrode current collector. Han teaches that the common electrode active material layer between two current collectors is double the thickness of those active material layers that are not between current collectors (paragraph [0064]; figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thickness of a region between the second electrode current collector and the upper and lower current collectors twice as thick as the thickness of the external electrode active material layer above the upper electrode and below the lower electrode current collectors as taught by Han in the electrode of Sohn as a known configuration of active material in a multi thickness layer current collector electrode with predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Liu (US Pub. No. 2020/0303768).
Regarding claim 15, Sohn does not specifically disclose that the second electrode current collector is free of a porous structure. Liu teaches an electrode with three current collectors, where all three current collectors including, the middle current collector 110b, can include or not include porosity (paragraph [0051]), where a specific embodiment has porosity on the outside current collectors 120b and 140b with porosity and the middle current collector 110 b does not have porosity (figure 2b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use outside current collectors with porosity and a middle current collector (claimed second electrode current collector) without porosity as taught by Liu in the electrode of Sohn as a known alternative configuration which significantly improves the performance of silicon anodes (see Liu at paragraph [0076]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US Pub. No. 2022/0093930).
Regarding claim 17, Sohn teaches that the current collectors can be a metal layer covering a non-conductive base material (paragraph [0131]), where the metal includes at least one of Al, Ti, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu and Zn (paragraph [0102]). Sohn does not specifically disclose the non-conductive base material. Kim teaches current collectors including a polymer film 101 (claimed base film) and a conductive material 102 (claimed metal layer on a side of the base film), where the polymer film is preferably made of an insulator material such as PE, PP, PBT, PI, or PET (paragraphs [0046]-[0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a specific polymer film as taught by Kim as the non-conductive base material of the current collector of the electrodes of Sohn as a known preferable material for a non-conductive base material (see Kim at paragraph [0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 August 26, 2026
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights