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
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0253618A1 (Li) in view of US2023/0207821 (Yamada).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6, Li teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery comprises a positive electrode current collector pre-coated with graphene or carbon ([0101]), which meets the claimed carbon layer and carbon material, and a positive electrode active material layer formed on the current collector (Figs 1A and 1B, [0066], [0068] and [0075]), wherein the positive electrode active material is exemplified as LiMn0.7Fe0.3PO4 ([0076] and([0110]), which meets the claimed formula 1 wherein x is 0.7 and y is 0.
Li teaches that the positive electrode active material layer further comprises a binder and an electrically conductive material such as carbon black, graphite, acetylene black ([0077]-[0078]), thus the embodiment wherein the conductive material and the carbon layer are different.
Li further teaches that the electrically conductive material may be present in the positive electrode in an amount, based on total weight of the positive electrode from about 0.5 wt. % to about 1 10 wt.% to provide an electron conduction path ([0077] and [0081).
Li does not teach the claimed relation 1 of the carbon content in the carbon layer relative to that in the positive electrode active material layer.
Yamada teaches that coating the surface of the current collector with a conductive aid such as carbon can reduce the electrical contact resistance between the current collector and the positive electrode active layer ([0131]), thus the carbon content in the current collector layer is a result effective variable.
One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the amount of carbon content in the positive electrode material layer relative to the carbon layer in the pre-coated current collector of Li in order to obtain effective electron conductivity and optimized electrical contact resistance between the current collector and the positive electrode active layer since Yamada teaches that the carbon content in the current collector layer contributes to optimized electrical contact ([0131]).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 7, Li teaches the positive electrode layer as a thickness of about 10 μm to less than or equal to about 300 μm ([0075]), which encompasses the claimed range.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found it obvious to adjust positive electrode layer to the instantly claimed thickness range since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside range disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Li does not discloses the thickness of the carbon layer coating on the current collector of claim 2, or the claimed ratio of the thickness of positive electrode active layer to the carbon layer of claim 7.
Yamada teaches that the thickness ratio of the positive electrode mixture to the current collector can be 20 or less for optimized battery capacity and heat generated during charge/discharge at high current densities ([0132]) .
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in adjust the thickness of the current collector relative to that of positive electrode active material layer of Li to a ratio of 20 or less as taught by Yamada. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Yamada that to do so would optimized battery capacity and heat generated during charge/discharge at high current densities ([0132]). Thus, at a ratio of 20, the current collector thickness including the carbon coating layer would be 0.5 μm, i.e., 500 nm estimated by the examiner based on a thickness of about 10 μm of the positive electrode layer (Li, [0075]), and the carbon coating layer on the current collector would be less than 500nm, consequently, the ratio of the thickness of positive electrode active layer to the carbon layer is greater than 20, which overlaps with the claimed thickness and ratio, respectively, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. See MPEP 2144.05, In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Hoeschele, 406 F2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches a lithium secondary battery comprises the positive electrode , a negative electrode, and a porous separator impregnated with an electrolyte which separates the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Figs 1A and 1B and [0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/ Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
