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 .
Applicants’ amendments were received on 4/13/26. Claims 1, 5, 9, 16-18 have been amended. Claims 22-24 are new. Claims 13-15 are cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
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 22-24 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. Specifically, the limitation, “like” in “thread-like” and “string-like” portions are unclear. It is unknown what specific property “like” pertains to of a thread or string i.e. the shape, melting temperature, color which would render the claims indefinite. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. in view of Yamazaki et al., on claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12 are withdrawn because the Applicants have amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. in view of Yamazaki et al. in further view of Sheem et al., on claims 13-21 are modified in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Sasaki et al. (JP2000149924) in view of Yamazaki et al. (JP2000-082466) in further view of Sheem et al. (US Patent 9093711).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 6, the Sasaki et al. reference discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a current collector, an active material layer and a carbon intermediate layer (film shape) comprising carbon material between the current collector and the active material layer. The carbon material comprises PVDF binder (adhesive to the current collector and active material layer) and one of graphite. The active material layer comprises an active material and a conductive additive (Abstract, P[0006]). The Sasaki et al. reference is silent in disclosing the active materials comprises a particle size distribution having two or more peaks, however, the Yamazaki et al. reference discloses active materials comprises a particle size distribution having two or more peaks in order to closely pack the active materials so as to improve performance of the secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate active materials comprises a particle size distribution having two or more peaks disclosed for the active material in order to densely pack the active layer by the Yamazaki et al. reference for the active material disclosed by the Sasaki et al. reference to provide an improved battery.
In addition, the Sasaki et al. reference discloses a lithium metal oxide active materials with conductive component but is silent in disclosing the conductive component comprises a plurality of pieces of graphene which is in contact with the surface of the active material. However, the Sheem et al. reference discloses graphene sheets on the surface of lithium metal oxide active material (Claim 10) improve electronic conductivity (3:50-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate graphene sheets on the surface of the lithium metal oxide material disclosed by the Sheem et al. reference for the lithium metal oxide disclosed by the modified Sasaki et al. reference in order to improve the conductivity in the battery.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the Sasaki et al. reference discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a current collector, an active material layer and a carbon intermediate layer (film shape) comprising carbon material between the current collector and the active material layer. The carbon material comprises PVDF binder (adhesive to the current collector and active material layer) and one of graphite. The active material layer comprises an active material and a conductive additive (Abstract, P[0006]). The Sasaki et al. reference does not explicitly teach 1) the carbon material configured to reduce interface resistance between the active material layer and 2) the current collector active materials comprises a particle size distribution having two or more peaks.
However, since the Sasaki et al. reference discloses the carbon material is a binder, it is inherent that increase adhesion between the current collector and active layer will result in reduction in layer separation interfacial resistance caused by gaps or voids.
In addition, the Yamazaki et al. reference discloses active materials comprises a particle size distribution having two or more peaks in order to closely pack the active materials so as to improve performance of the secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate active materials comprises a particle size distribution having two or more peaks disclosed for the active material in order to densely pack the active layer by the Yamazaki et al. reference for the active material disclosed by the Sasaki et al. reference to provide an improved battery.
Furthermore, the Sasaki et al. reference discloses a lithium metal oxide active materials with conductive component but is silent in disclosing the conductive component comprises a plurality of pieces of graphene which is in contact with the surface of the active material. However, the Sheem et al. reference discloses graphene sheets on the surface of lithium metal oxide active material (Claim 10) improve electronic conductivity (3:50-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate graphene sheets on the surface of the lithium metal oxide material disclosed by the Sheem et al. reference for the lithium metal oxide disclosed by the modified Sasaki et al. reference in order to improve the conductivity in the battery.
Regarding claim 4, 8, 12, the Sasaki et al. reference discloses the active material to comprise 88 wt%.
Regarding claims 16-18, the Sasaki et al., in view of Yamazaki in further view of Sheem et al. discloses the piece of graphene is in surface contact with at least one of a plurality of particles of the active material.
Regarding claims 19-21, the Sasaki et al. reference discloses the active material is lithium cobalt oxide (Examples).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue,
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
556
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant argues, “
PNG
media_image4.png
158
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”
However, Yamazaki reference was not used in the rejection to show graphene and therefore, the argument is moot.
The Applicant argues, “
PNG
media_image5.png
164
586
media_image5.png
Greyscale
”
However, Sheem reference was not used in the rejection to show graphene and therefore, the argument is moot.
The Applicant argues, “
PNG
media_image6.png
184
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
164
582
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Again, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached on 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights