LITHIUM POLY(ACRYLIC ACID) BINDERS FOR ANODES OF FAST CHARGING LITHIUM ION BATTERIES
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on April 9, 2024 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-7 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “dissolved 15% weight by weight in water” is ambiguous, rendering the claim indefinite. The 15% can be interpreted in at least the following two ways: 1) the weight ratio of Li-PAA to water is 15%; and 2) the concentration of the solution formed by dissolving Li-PAA in water is 15%.
According to paragraph [0027] of the instant PgPub, it appears that 15% refer to the concentration of the solution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 20150118556 A1, hereafter Jeong).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong teaches a lithium poly(acrylic acid) (Li-PAA) powder having:
a polydispersity index (PDI) ranging from about 1 to about 4 (at least, [0044]), overlapping the range of “lower than five”,
a lithium content being more than 1% and less than 10% (at least, [0043]), and
a pH between about 8 to about 8.5 when dissolved 15% weight by weight in water (See [0050], [0036], [0057]) to form a 15 wt% of Li-PAA solution in wat (i.e., the “binder composition” comprising Li-PAA and water, see [0033], [0057]).
The claimed ranges of “lower than five” and “above 7%” overlap the above ranges of “about 1 to about 4” and “more than 1% and less than 10%”, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Also, the upper limit of “about 8 to about 8.5” is close to the lower limit of the range of “between 8.7 and 9.1” as claimed. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong teaches the Li-PAA powder of claim 1, and the instantly claimed PDI range of “lower than 4” overlaps that of “about 1 to about 4” disclosed by Jeong. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I);
Regarding claim 3, Jeong teaches the Li-PAA powder of claim 1, and the instantly claimed limitations represent product-by-process limitations. However, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong teaches the Li-PAA powder of claim 1, and discloses that the Mw (weight-average molar mass) of Li-PAA has no particular limit ([0049]). Jeong also teaches Mw/Mn ranges from about 1 to about 4 ([0076]), wherein Mn represents a number average molecular weight and ranges from 20,000 g/mol to about 100,000 g/mol ([0049]). Thus, Mw may range from about 20,000 to 400,000. The instantly claimed range of “between 300,000 and 500,000” overlaps that of about 20,000 to 400,000. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 5, Jeong teaches an electrode prepared using the Li-PAA powder of claim 1 as a binder (at least, [0079]).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong teaches the electrode of claim 5, configured as an anode (“negative electrode”, [0088]) with an anode material that comprises Si ([0088], [0081]), having about 1 wt% to about 50 wt% of the binder ([0080]). The instantly claimed “5-40 wt%” lies inside the range of about 1 wt% to about 50 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising, as at least one anode thereof, the electrode of claim 5 with anode (“negative electrode”, [0088]) material particles of Si, for example. See at least [0079], [0081].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks and Affidavit, filed on January 10, 2021, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments for claims 1-7 are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
Applicant’s arguments for claims other than claims 1-7 are moot because these claims have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/
ZHONGQING WEI, Ph.D.Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727