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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment the previous rejection is removed and a new rejection is made below.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment, new rejections are made and the arguments directed to the previous rejections are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SNYDER et al. (US 2013/0106029) in view of MIZUTANI et al. (US 2016/0072120).
Regarding claims 1 and 2,
SNYDER teaches a cathode that is made from powders that are pressed into a cathode body to result in a porosity of 5-60 vol% abstract and [0027]. The cathode material includes active material, electrolyte (solid electrolyte [0031]) and conductivity enhancer (conductive agent) [0026]. The reference teaches using the cathode in a battery which would implicitly require a current collector connected to the cathode, such as the one provided to improve capacity [0051]. In addition, MIZUTANI teaches that when making a cathode, a cathode mixture can be press formed directly onto a current collector or pressed into a sheet and attached to the current collector [0064]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cathode of SNYDER with a current collector as a known battery architecture.
The SNYDER reference teaches a porosity of 5-60 vol% but does not teach a porosity of 3.5-18%. However, the claimed range is overlapped by the prior art range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SNYDER et al. (US 2013/0106029) in view of MIZUTANI et al. (US 2016/0072120) further in view of MISSLING et al. (US 2002/0136948).
Regarding claim 3,
SNYDER teaches pressing a cathode powder mixture and including a current collector. The reference does not expressly teach a polymer solid electrolyte with lithium salt. However, MISSLING similarly teaches formation of cathode from dry mixture that can include active material, conductive material, ionically-conductive polymer and electrolyte salt [0017] with a pressing (calendaring) step [0056]. The ionically-conductive polymer can have electrolyte salt dissolved therein [0035]-[0037]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the solid electrolyte and lithium salt of MISSLING as a substitution of known electrolytes pressed into cathode layers with active material.
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,
Modified SNYDER teaches mixing the dry material but does not teach the formation of granules of the claimed size. However, the examiner notes that the dry mixture is only describing a precursor that is used to form an electrode with a claimed porosity. The 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 (granule) 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,
Modified SNYDER 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 SNYDER et al. (US 2013/0106029) in view of MIZUTANI et al. (US 2016/0072120) and MISSLING et al. (US 2002/0136948) further in view of FUJIKI et al. (US 2015/0147660).
Regarding claims 6 and 7,
Modified SNYDER 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 SNYDER 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.
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].
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 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
Prosecution Insights