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 .
Examiner Note
Claim 16 refers to adhesion using units of gf/20mm this is understood to mean gram force for a strip 20mm wide. Gram force is technically a non-SI unit convertible to newtons (N).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 has a typo “of of” in line 2.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIKHA et al. (US 2016/0013480).
Regarding claim 1,
SIKHA teaches making a cathode for a battery with a desired porosity abstract. The cathode material contains active material, binder, conductive material and solvent [0053]. Deposition is on a conductive substrate (current collector) [0060]. The solvent is dried to obtain a cathode (dry mixture) with porosity of 15% or more [0057]-[0061]. The reference does not expressly teach a porosity of 3.5-18%. However, the claimed range is overlapped by the prior art range and considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MISSLING et al. (US 2002/0136948) in view of SIKHA et al. (US 2016/0013480)
Regarding claim 1,
MISSLING teaches a cathode mixture of active material, conductive material, ionically-conductive polymer and electrolyte salt in a dry mixture [0017]. The material is deposited onto a substrate such as a current collector [0057]. MISSLING further teaches calendaring [0056] but does not expressly teach obtaining a porosity of 3.5-18%. However, SIKHA teaches making a cathode for a battery with a desired porosity abstract. The cathode material contains active material, binder, conductive material and solvent [0053]. Deposition is on a conductive substrate (current collector) [0060]. The solvent is dried to obtain a cathode (dry mixture) with porosity of 15% or more [0057]-[0061]. By tailoring the porosity of various layers a higher power and longer cycle battery can be obtained [0024]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to tailor the porosity of the cathode material to achieve improved power and cycling characteristics. The reference does not expressly teach a porosity of 3.5-18%. However, the claimed range is overlapped by the prior art range and considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 2 and 3,
MISSLING teaches that a cathode mixture can include ionically-conductive polymer (solid electrolyte) to improve conductivity properties in addition to adhesion [0022]. The ionically-conductive polymer can have electrolyte salt dissolved therein [0035]-[0037].
Regarding claim 4,
MISSLING teaches the polymer can be polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and styrene-butadiene rubber [0035].
Regarding claim 5,
MISSLING teaches the salts are hexafluorophosphate and bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide among others [0037].
Regarding claims 8 and 9,
MISSLING teaches the salts are dissolved by the polymer material. Therefore the particle diameter of the salt incorporated with the polymer does not provide a meaningful limitation because salt of any size particle is dissociated.
Regarding claims 10 and 11,
MISSLING teaches the polymer (solid electrolyte) an be included at any amount from 0-50 wt% of the composition [0035]. The salt is used at 3-15 wt% [0037]. The ratio of polymer to salt therefore overlaps the claimed ratio and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 12 and 13,
MISSLING teaches mixing the dry material but does not teach the formation of granules of the claimed size. However, the examiner notes that the parent is directed to the porosity of the electrode layer, and applicant’s specification indicates this porosity is achieved by pressing. The formation of the intermediate granules of the claimed size therefore do not change the final product of the claimed materials in an electrode with the claimed porosity. Additional pertinent art below describes the effects of pressing on particle sizes.
Regarding claims 14 and 15,
MISSLING teaches the polymer (solid electrolyte) an be included at any amount from 0-50 wt% of the composition [0035]. The range overlaps the claimed range and is prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 16,
MISSLING teaches using the same polymer (solid electrolyte) at the same loading. Therefore it is reasonable to expect the same adhesive strength to be obtained.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MISSLING et al. (US 2002/0136948) in view of SIKHA et al. (US 2016/0013480) further in view of FUJIKI et al. (US 2015/0147660)
Regarding claims 6 and 7,
Modified MISSLING teaches including polymeric binder/solid electrolyte but does not particularly limit the molecular weight. However, FUJIKI teaches that when using binder of for example polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) the molecular weight should be at least 100,000 Da (g/mol) to ensure adhesive strength [0060]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manipulate the molecular weight of the binder/solid electrolyte in MISSLING to obtain sufficient adhesion of the electrode composition, MPEP 2144.05.II. In addition the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,224,424. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims fall within the scope of the patented claims of the parent application/patent.
Current claim 16 describes the measured adhesive properties of the product which are expected to be present when the same materials are used to make a layer of the same porosity described in the parent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, TAKAMATSU et al. (US 2015/0056511) teaches that when rolling a powder of cathode mixture, the particle size changes [0059].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712