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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “a cathode active material composition comprised of a cathode active material and a first binder” and “an anode active material composition comprised of an anode active material and a second binder”. Here, the recitation of “comprised of” is interpreted as “comprising” (i.e. open-ended language; see MPEP 2111.03) since the claims later indicate that the active material compositions include additional components (e.g. carbon nanotubes; see Claim 10).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 13-14 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 10, 13-14 and 16-18 each recite either “active material” or “active-material”. For the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion, the claims should consistently recite either “active material” or “active-material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “A lithium ion battery, comprising: an anode comprising a cathode active material composition comprised of a cathode active material and a first binder, and a cathode comprising an anode active material composition comprised of an anode active material and a second binder” (emphasis added). Although the instant specification supports a lithium ion battery wherein the anode comprises an anode active material, and the cathode comprises a cathode active material (instant specification: [0004, 0038, 0054, 0088, 00116-00118, 00168]), the instant specification does not appear to support a lithium ion battery comprising an anode comprising a cathode active material composition and a cathode comprising an anode active material composition. As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-5, 10-18 and 23 are rejected as introducing new matter.
Claim 23 recites, “the conductive polymer is ionically bound to the cellulose-based compound to form PEDOT:CMC” (emphasis added). Although the instant specification supports that the conductive polymer and the cellulose-based compound are electrically bound [0065], the instant specification does not support that the electrical bond is an ionic bond. Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks filed 10/23/2025, Pgs. 9-11) suggest that mixing a cellulose based compound, monomers of a conductive polymer, and an oxidizing agent (i.e. as disclosed in the instant specification: [0058, 00125]) does not necessarily result in an ionic bond. Furthermore, Exhibit 1 provided by Applicant (see Remarks filed 10/23/2025) evidences that electrical conductivity can be accomplished by the presence of free ions (H+) generated in solution even when a hydrogen bonding network is primarily present (see Pgs. 18-21 of Remarks; Section 3.2 - Section 3.3). Accordingly, Claim 23 is rejected as introducing new matter.
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 1-5, 10-18 and 23 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.
Claim 1 recites, “A lithium ion battery, comprising: an anode comprising a cathode active material composition comprised of a cathode active material and a first binder, and a cathode comprising an anode active material composition comprised of an anode active material and a second binder” (emphasis added). Since the instant specification indicates that the anode comprises an anode active material, and the cathode comprises a cathode active material (instant specification: [0004, 0038, 0054, 0088, 00116-00118, 00168]), it is unclear in light of the instant specification whether the claim should be interpreted as written, or whether the claims contains a typographical error and should read “a cathode comprising a cathode active material composition comprised of a cathode active material and a first binder, and an anode comprising an anode active material composition comprised of an anode active material and a second binder” (emphasis added). As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-5, 10-18 and 23 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the second interpretation will be applied, as supported by the instant specification (instant specification: [0004, 0038, 0054, 0088, 00116-00118, 00168]).
Claims 10, 11 and 13 recite the limitation “the active-material composition”. Examiner notes that the antecedent basis for this limitation was removed from Claim 1, which now recites both “a cathode active material composition” and “an anode active material composition”. Therefore, the limitation “the active-material composition” does not have appropriate antecedent basis in the claims, and it is unclear which active material composition is referenced. Furthermore, Claim 13 recites “an anode active-material composition”. Since this limitation has been incorporated into Claim 1, it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to introduce a distinct anode active-material composition, or whether this limitation is intended to reference the previously recited anode active material composition. As such, Claims 10, 11, 13 and dependent Claims 12 and 14-18 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that “the active-material composition” refers to either active material composition, as supported by the amendment to Claim 1, and it will be interpreted that “an anode active-material composition” as recited in Claim 13 is intended to refer to the previously recited anode active material composition of Claim 1.
Claim 23 recites, “The battery anode of claim 1”. Examiner notes that Claim 1 is drawn towards “A lithium-ion battery”, and that, although Claim 1 recites “an anode”, there is no antecedent basis for “The battery anode”. Therefore it is unclear what structure Claim 23 is referencing, and Claim 23 is rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that this limitation should read “The lithium-ion battery of claim 1”, as supported by the wording of other claims which depend from Claim 1 (e.g. Claim 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawakami et al. (JP-2017199639-A; see also attached English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawakami discloses a lithium-ion battery (electricity storage device; [0019-0020, 0029, 0052, 0086] comprising:
a cathode (positive electrode; [0032, 0037, 0049]; see 112(b) interpretation, above) comprising a cathode active material composition comprised of (interpreted as “comprising”; see Claim Interpretation, above) a cathode active material (positive electrode active material layer; [0031, 0035, 0039, 0048-0049]) and a first binder (graft polymer; [0024, 0027, 0038-0039, 0075-0076]); and
an anode (negative electrode; [0032, 0037, 0049]; see 112(b) interpretation, above) comprising an anode active material composition comprised of (interpreted as “comprising”; see Claim Interpretation, above) an anode active material (negative electrode active material; [0030, 0035, 0039, 0047, 0049]) and a second binder (graft polymer; [0024, 0027, 0038-0039, 0064-0069]).
Kawakami discloses a graft polymer [0020-0022]. The graft polymer uses a water soluble polymer as a backbone and polymerizes a conductive polymer onto the water soluble polymer [0021, 0025, 0027-0028, 0032, 0036, 0038-0044], thereby forming the graft polymer [0024, 0034, 0038]. Kawakami discloses that the water soluble polymer can be selected from a group of polymers which include cellulose-based polymers [0041], and in specific examples (Example P1, Example P2) Kawakami discloses the use of a cellulose-based polymer (i.e. sodium carboxymethyl cellulose) as the water soluble polymer [0075-0076], thereby anticipating with sufficient specificity the use of a cellulose-based polymer as the water soluble polymer. Accordingly, the graft polymer formed using a cellulosed-based compound reads on the recited limitation of:
wherein at least one of the first binder and the second binder comprises:
a cellulose-based conductive polymer binder (corresponds to graft polymer; [0020-0021, 0041, 0075-0076]) comprising
a cellulose-based compound (water soluble polymer selected to be sodium carboxymethyl cellulose; [0041, 0075-0076]), and a
conductive polymer synthesized from monomers (corresponds to monomer to be grafted onto the water-soluble polymer; [00027-0028, 0042, 0075-0076]).
Although Kawakami does not specifically disclose that the cellulose-based compound “serves as a negatively charged template” or that the conductive polymer “has a positive charge and is electrically bound to the cellulose-based compound”, the Examiner notes that sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (NaCMC) is understood to be a salt of carboxymethyl cellulose (i.e. Na+CMC-). Therefore, when sodium carboxymethyl cellulose is dissolved in a solvent (as disclosed by Kawakami; [0040, 0075-0076]), it is understood to form a cation (i.e. Na+) and a “negatively charged template” (i.e. CMC-) in solution. Furthermore, the conductive polymers disclosed by Kawakami in specific examples (aniline, 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene; [0075-0075]) read on a conductive polymer that “has a positive charge” as evidenced by dependent Claim 4 and the instant specification [instant specification: 0019, 0052, 0065, 00125]. Kawakami discloses that the conductive polymer is polymerized onto the water soluble polymer [0024, 0034, 0038-0039], and that the graft polymer (i.e. cellulose-based conductive polymer) is a conductive polymer [0025]. Therefore, it is understood that the conductive polymer is necessarily “electrically bound to the cellulose-based compound”.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the process of forming the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder appears to be the substantially similar to the process disclosed in the instant application. Specifically, the instant application indicates that that a cellulose-based compound, conductive polymer monomers, and an oxidizing agent are combined in a solution, and that the resulting polymer composite includes a negatively charged CMC compound and a positively charged conductive polymer, wherein the CMC compound and the conductive polymer are electrically bound [instant specification: 0058, 0065, 0125-00127]. Since Kawakami discloses that a cellulose-based compound (i.e. Na-CMC), conductive polymer monomers (i.e. aniline, 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and an oxidizing agent (corresponds to polymerization initiator [0044]; i.e. ammonium persulfate) are combined in solution [0075-0076], the prior art is understood to inherently form “a cellulose-based conductive polymer binder comprising a cellulose-based compound that serves as a negatively charged template, and a conductive polymer synthesized from monomers, wherein the conductive polymer has a positive charge and is electrically bound to the cellulose-based compound” as required by Claim 1 (see MPEP 2112.01, I-II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kawakami et al. (JP-2017199639-A; see also attached English translation).
Regarding Claim 23, Kawakami discloses all of the limitation as set forth, above. Kawakami further discloses a specific embodiment (Example B1; [0086]) which used a positive electrode (Example P2; [0076]) wherein “the conductive polymer is poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT)” (i.e. 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene is used as the conductive monomer [0076] and is understood to polymerize in solution to form PEDOT [0038-0039, 0042, 0044]).
Kawakami discloses that the cellulose-based compound is sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (Na-CMC) [0076]. Since Kawakami further discloses that Na-CMC is dissolved in a solvent [0040, 0076], the Na-CMC is understood to be in a dissociated state (i.e. in solution Na-CMC will dissolve to form sodium (Na+) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC-)). Therefore, the use of Na-CMC is broadly and reasonably interpreted as reading on “the cellulose-based compound is carboxymethyl cellulose”, since the resulting cellulose-based compound only contains CMC.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that Na-CMC does not result in a structure wherein “the cellulose-based compound is carboxymethyl cellulose”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the Na-CMC disclosed by Kawakami for carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), since Kawakami discloses CMC as a suitable water soluble polymer, and an alternative to Na-CMC [0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the Na-CMC taught by Kawakami for CMC with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful water soluble polymer (MPEP 2144.06, II).
Although Kawakami does not specifically disclose that the conductive polymer is “ionically bound” to the cellulose-based compound to form PEDOT:CMC, Kawakami does disclose that the raw monomers of the conductive polymer are polymerized onto the water-soluble polymer [0038], and that the graft polymer is a conductive polymer [0025]. Therefore, it is understood that the conductive polymer is necessarily “ionically bound to the cellulose-based compound to form PEDOT:CMC”.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the notes that the process of forming the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder appears to be the substantially similar to the process disclosed in the instant application. Specifically, the instant application indicates that that a cellulose-based compound, conductive polymer monomers, and an oxidizing agent are combined in a solution, and that the resulting polymer includes the conductive polymer “ionically bound to the cellulose-based compound to form PEDOT:CMC” [instant specification: 0058, 0065, 0125-00127]. Since Kawakami discloses that a cellulose-based compound (i.e. Na-CMC or CMC), conductive polymer monomers (i.e. 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and an oxidizing agent (i.e. ammonium persulfate) are combined in solution [0076] to polymerize the conductive monomers to form a conductive polymer [0038-0039, 0042], the prior art is understood to inherently result in a structure wherein the conductive polymer is “ionically bound to the cellulose-based compound to form PEDOT:CMC” as required by Claim 23 (see MPEP 2112.01, I-II).
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) 10 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (JP-2017199639-A; see also attached English translation).
Regarding Claim 10, Kawakami anticipates the product of Claim 1, as laid out above. Kawakami further discloses that conductive additives (conductive auxiliary materials), including carbon nanotubes, can be added to the electrode active materials [0025, 0035, 0039, 0045].
Therefore, although Kawakami does not disclose a specific example wherein the active-material composition further comprises carbon nanotubes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added carbon nanotubes to the cathode and/or anode active material composition with a reasonable expectation that such an addition would result in a successful cathode or anode active-material composition for a lithium-ion secondary battery. Although Kawakami does not specifically disclose that the carbon nanotubes are added “in order to increase a density and a conductivity of an electrode layer”, the Examiner notes that this is a functional limitation. Modified Kawakami renders obvious the recited carbon nanotubes, and therefore the prior art is understood to render obvious the structure necessary to perform the claimed function of increasing density and conductivity of an electrode layer (MPEP 2173.05(g)).
Regarding Claim 13, Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that carbon nanotubes can be added to either the cathode and/or anode active material compositions (see rejection of Claim 10, above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have added carbon nanotubes to the anode active material composition, thereby reading on the recited limitation of “wherein the active-material composition is an anode active-material composition” (see 112(b) interpretation, above).
Kawakami further discloses that the active-material composition comprises an anode active material containing a silicon component as an active ingredient [0030, 0061-0067].
Regarding Claim 14, Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Kawakami discloses a specific example wherein the silicon component of the anode active material is silicon (i.e. silicon powder; [0063, 0067]), wherein an amount of the silicon in the anode active material composition is 60 parts by weight [0067], thereby anticipating 60 wt% silicon with sufficient specificity, which is within the claimed range of “10-85 wt%”.
Regarding Claim 15, Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that the anode active material is silicon (see rejection of Claims 13-14, above). The broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 13 has “an anode active material in which graphite is contained in the silicon component” claimed in the alternative. Similarly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 14 has “when the anode active material is the anode active material in which graphite is contained in the silicon or silicon oxide” recited in the alternative. Since Claim 15 recites, “the silicon or silicon oxide that is mixed with graphite” and therefore appears to only limit previously present silicon or silicon oxide mixed with graphite, Claim 15 is interpreted as serving to further narrow an alternative limitation which is not required. Therefore, Kawakami, under broadest reasonable interpretation, meets the limitations of Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. The Examiner notes that the limitation, “a total solid content of an anode active-material slurry in an anode active-material slurry composition including the anode active-material composition is 5-60 wt%” is a product-by-process limitation, since it is understood that solvent is dried to form the claimed product (i.e. the electrode), as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 00136]. Therefore, although the structure implied by the process is considered, “determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” (see MPEP 2113, I). Here, Kawakami discloses a slurry comprising the anode active material, which is coated on a current collector and dried to form a negative electrode [0064, 0067]. Therefore, since the solvent is removed from the slurry to form the electrode in both the prior art and the instant application [instant application: 00136], the product-by-process limitation is not interpreted as further limiting the structure of the final product. Thus, the product formed is rendered obvious.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that the limitation “a total solid content of an anode active-material slurry in an anode active-material slurry composition including the anode active-material composition is 5-60 wt%” does impart structure to the resulting product, the Examiner notes that such a limitation would still have been obvious in light of the disclosure of Kawakami, since Kawakami discloses a specific example wherein an anode active material slurry comprises 60 wt% of silicon [0067]. Examiner notes that any slurry reads on the limitation “an anode active material slurry composition including the anode active material composition” so long is it comprises the anode active material composition. Therefore, it is interpreted here that the claimed slurry is the combination of silicon and water [0064, 0067], and therefore has a solid content of 60 wt%, which is within the claimed range.
Kawakami discloses a specific example wherein the anode has a thickness of 30 µm [0064, 0067], which is within the claimed range of 2-50 µm.
Regarding Claim 17, Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that the anode active material is the anode active material containing the silicon component alone as the active ingredient (see rejection of Claim 13, above; [0067]). Kawakami further discloses that a thickness of the anode is 30 µm [0064, 0067], which is within the claimed range of 5-40 µm.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (JP-2017199639-A; see also attached English translation) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Yoo et al. (WO-2017082546-A1; see English equivalent US-20180358622-A1 for citations).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Kawakami anticipates the product of Claim 1, as laid out above. Kawakami discloses that the water soluble polymer preferably has one or more functional groups, including a hydroxy group and a carboxylic acid [0026], which read on groups which enable dissolution in water.
Therefore, although Kawakami does not disclose a specific example wherein the cellulose-based compound (water soluble polymer selected to be sodium carboxymethyl cellulose) is substituted with a component that enables dissolution in water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the cellulose-based compound such that it is substituted with a component that enables dissolution in water (i.e. a functional group), with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful cellulose-based compound.
Kawakami discloses that the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder (graft polymer) provides adhesion and has conductive properties [0020-0022], and is particularly effective for silicon-based electrode active materials [0030, 0033]. Although Kawakami renders obvious a cellulose-based compound (water soluble polymer) which is substituted with a component that enables dissolution in water, Kawakami does not teach that “a degree of substitution is 0.5 of more”.
Yoo teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising an anode material which includes CMC [0010, 0014, 0019, 0041]. Yoo teaches that the physical properties of CMC can be regulated in order to increase the solubility of CMC in water [0019, 0024-0027]. Specifically, Yoo teaches that the degree of substitution of CMC can be altered such that it is between 0.7 and 0.9, thereby resulting in a CMC compound which is easily dissolved [0025-0027]. Yoo teaches that the degree of substitution refers to the substitution of a hydroxyl group for a carboxymethyl group among three hydroxyl groups present in each glucose ring constituting cellulose [0026].
Advantageously, Yoo teaches that when the degree of substitution is less than 0.7, aggregation occurs during preparation of the anode slurry, and surface defects of the electrode occur after coating [0027]. On the other hand, if the degree of substitution exceeds 0.9, the CMC adsorption amount may be reduced due to a low affinity to the active material [0027]. Yoo teaches that the CMC compound contributes to the adhesion strength of a current collector, thereby preventing an active material from being detached from the current collector [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the degree of substitution of the CMC of Kawakami, including selecting the degree of substitution to be 0.7 to 0.9, which is within the claimed range of “0.5 or more” of Claim 2 and Claim 3 (MPEP 2144.05, II). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that optimizing the degree of substitution of the CMC compound of Kawakami to fall within the above range would result in a successful balance between preventing aggregation while ensuring sufficient adsorption such that the active material is not detached from a current collector.
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the functional group (i.e. the component that enables dissolution in water) to be a carboxymethyl group as taught by Yoo, with a reasonable expectation that such a functional group would enable dissolution in water while retaining adhesion properties. By substituting a hydroxyl group for a carboxymethyl group as taught by Yoo, the resulting cellulose-based compound therefore has a structure wherein a portion of “an -R component of an -OR group of a cellulose molecule is alkylcarboxylic acid” (i.e. carboxymethyl group) as required by Claim 2. This can be visualized in Fig. 1, a schematic of carboxymethyl cellulose, below.
PNG
media_image1.png
481
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schematic of carboxymethyl cellulose
The structure of CMC rendered obvious by modified Kawakami further reads on the recited limitation of “wherein a length of an alkyl group of the alkylcarboxylic acid is 1-4 carbon atoms” (i.e. 1 carbon atom); and “the cellulose-based compound is carboxymethyl cellulose having a degree of substitution of 0.5 or more” (i.e. 0.7 to 0.9) as required by Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including that the cellulose-based compound (water soluble polymer) is selected to be sodium carboxymethyl cellulose [0075-0076]. Kawakami discloses that the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder (graft polymer) provides adhesion and has conductive properties [0020-0022], and is particularly effective for silicon-based electrode active materials [0030, 0033]. Modified Kawakami does not disclose the weight average molecular weight of the cellulose-based compound.
Yoo teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising an anode material which includes CMC [0010, 0014, 0019, 0041]. Yoo teaches that the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of the CMC is preferably 700,000 to 3,500,000 [0028-0029]. Advantageously, Yoo teaches that if the molecular weight is below 700,000, the anode active material may not be uniformly dispersed, and a decline in the adhesive strength of the active material may occur [0030]. On the other hand, if the molecular weight exceeds 3,500,000, an increase in the viscosity of the slurry may occur to an extent wherein the coating of the slurry becomes difficult [0030].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have optimized weight average molecular weight of the CMC compound of Kawakami, including optimizing the CMC to have a weight average molecular weight of 700,000 to 3,500,000, which is within the claimed range of 50,000-4,000,000 with a reasonable expectation that such a molecular weight of CMC would result in a successful balance between preventing a decline in adhesive strength while enabling easy coating of the active material slurry (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Modified Kawakami further discloses specific examples wherein the conductive polymer is aniline [0075] and 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene [0076], thereby anticipating the use of such conductive polymer monomers with sufficient specificity. These monomers are with the claimed list of monomer materials.
The limitation “a surface resistance of the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder is 108 ohm/sq or less” is considered a property of the claimed cellulose-based conductive polymer binder. Since modified Kawakami renders obvious the same structure and composition as the claimed cellulose-based conductive polymer binder, the claimed properties are presumed to be present (MPEP 2112.01, I-II).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Kawakami discloses a specific example (Example P2; [0076]) wherein the conductive polymer is synthesized from 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene (EDOT), and the cellulose-based compound is sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (Na-CMC). Since the raw monomers of the conductive polymer are understood to polymerize in solution to form PEDOT [0038-0039, 0042, 0044], and since Kawakami discloses that Na-CMC is dissolved in a solvent [0040, 0076], the resulting polymer formed during polymerization is understood to be PEDOT:CMC.
Specifically, the Na-CMC is understood to be in a dissociated state (i.e. in solution Na-CMC will dissolve to form sodium (Na+) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC-)). Therefore, the resulting cellulose-based compound is understood to only contains CMC, and the polymerization of EDOT onto the CMC template is understood to form PEDOT:CMC, as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0058, 0065, 0125].
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that the use of Na-CMC does not result in PEDOT:CMC, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the Na-CMC disclosed by Kawakami for carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), since Kawakami discloses CMC as a suitable water soluble polymer, and an alternative to Na-CMC [0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the Na-CMC taught by Kawakami for CMC with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful water soluble polymer (MPEP 2144.06, II).
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the notes that the process of forming the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder disclosed/rendered obvious by the prior art appears to be the substantially similar to the process disclosed in the instant application. Specifically, the instant application indicates that that CMC, EDOT, and an oxidizing agent (ammonium persulfate) are combined in solution to form PEDOT:CMC [instant specification: 0058, 0065, 0125-00127]. Since Kawakami discloses that CMC (i.e. Na-CMC or CMC), EDOT, and an oxidizing agent (ammonium persulfate) are combined in solution [0076] to polymerize the conductive monomers (EDOT) to form a conductive polymer (PEDOT) [0038-0039, 0042], it is understood that the process disclosed in the prior art inherently result in the formation of PEDOT:CMC as the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder (see MPEP 2112.01, I-II).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “a PEDOT:CMC solid content in a PEDOT:CMC aqueous suspension is 1-10%” is a product-by-process limitation, since it is understood that solvent (i.e. aqueous solution) is dried to form the claimed product (i.e. the electrode comprising a cellulose-based conductive polymer binder), as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 00125-00127, 00134-00136]. Therefore, although the structure implied by the process is considered, “determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” (see MPEP 2113, I). Here, since the solvent is absent from the final product, the limitation “a PEDOT:CMC solid content in a PEDOT:CMC aqueous suspension is 1-10%” is not interpreted as limiting the structure of the final product. Thus, the limitation is met.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that the limitation “a PEDOT:CMC solid content in a PEDOT:CMC aqueous suspension is 1-10%” does impart structure to the resulting product, the Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a PEDOT:CMC aqueous suspension” is any PEDOT:CMC aqueous suspension. Therefore, such a limitation would still have been obvious in light of the disclosure of Kawakami. Specifically, Kawakami discloses the use of water as the solvent in which polymerization is carried out [0076]. Therefore, any point during the polymerization process wherein the solid content of PEDOT:CMC reaches 1-10% reads on the claim limitation. If the concentration of the PEDOT:CMC never reaches 1-10%, the Examiner further notes that Kawakami discloses that the solvent is removed to form the electrode [0076]. The concentration of PEDOT:CMC solid in the solution would increase as the solvent is evaporated, including arriving at point wherein the aqueous suspension has a concentration wherein a portion of the aqueous suspension comprises 1-10% of PEDOT:CMC.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (JP-2017199639-A; see also attached English translation) as applied to Claim 10, above, and in view of Oh et al. (US-20070202403-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above, including the use of carbon nanotubes in either the cathode or anode active-material composition (see rejection of Claim 10, above). Kawakami discloses that the carbon nanotubes can increase electron conductivity [0045]. Kawakami does not teach that “an amount of the carbon nanotubes in the active-material composition is 5-300 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a solid content of the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder”.
Oh teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a composite binder containing carbon nanotubes [0001, 0004-0005, 0009, 0022, 0030]. Oh teaches that the carbon nanotubes are contained in an amount of 0.01 to 20% by weight based on the total weight of the binder [0025]. A binder composition in Oh of 20 wt% of carbon nanotubes corresponds to the use of 80 wt% of polymer (i.e. a 1:4 ratio). Therefore, when the polymer is standardized to 100 parts, the composition of carbon nanotubes is 25 parts. Similarly, 0.01 wt% carbon nanotubes corresponds to 0.01 parts by weight carbon nanotubes based on 100 parts by weight of polymer. Advantageously, Oh teaches that the addition of carbon nanotubes in the binder results in a composite binder with superior adhesive strength and mechanical properties [0009, 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used carbon nanotubes in a range of 0.01-25 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of polymer as disclosed by Oh with a reasonable expectation that such a composition of carbon nanotubes would result in a successful electrode for a lithium ion battery with superior adhesive strength and mechanical properties.
Although modified Kawakami does not explicitly teach “5-300 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of a solid content of the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder”, the range rendered obvious by the prior art overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range rendered obvious by the prior art, including a range of 5-25 parts by weight, with a reasonable expectation that such a content of carbon nanotubes would result in a successful active material composition for a lithium secondary battery (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (JP-2017199639-A; see also attached English translation) in view of Oh et al. (US-20070202403-A1) as applied to Claim 11 above, and in further view of Tiquet et al. (US-20180183051-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Kawakami does not explicitly teach that the carbon nanotubes “comprise at least one selected from among single-walled carbon nanotubes, double-walled carbon nanotubes, and multiple-walled carbon nanotubes”.
Oh teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a composite binder containing carbon nanotubes [0001, 0004-0005, 0009, 0022, 0030]. Oh teaches that the carbon nanotubes can be single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and the like [0019]. The carbon nanotubes result in a successful a composite binder with superior adhesive strength and mechanical properties [0009, 0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the carbon nanotubes of Kawakami to be single-walled or multi-walled carbon nanotubes as taught by Oh, with a reasonable expectation that such a selection for the carbon nanotubes would result in a success active material composition.
Kawakami discloses that the carbon nanotubes are added to an electrode active material [0024-0025, 0030, 0037-0038]. Modified Kawakami does not teach the length of the carbon nanotubes.
Tiquet teaches a composite material comprising carbon nanotubes or carbon nanofibers and an active material [0002] which can be used in a lithium ion battery [0005-0006]. Tiquet teaches that the carbon nanotubes can have an average length of 1 µm to 10 µm [0149].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have used carbon nanotubes with a length of 1-10 µm as taught by Tiquet in the active material composition of modified Kawakami with a reasonable expectation that carbon nanotubes of this length would result in a successful active material for a lithium ion battery.
The range rendered obvious by modified Kawakami overlaps the range recited in the instant application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the range recited in the prior art, including a range of 5-10 µm, with a reasonable expectation that such a length would result in a successful carbon nanotube for use in an active material for a lithium ion battery (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (JP-2017199639-A; see also attached English translation) as applied to Claim 17, above, and in view of Kim et al. (US-20060257738-A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Kawakami discloses that a slurry comprising the anode active material is coated on a current collector and dried to form an anode [0064, 0067]. Kawakami does not teach that a thickener is added to adjust a viscosity of an anode active material slurry.
Kim teaches an anode active material slurry for a lithium secondary cell (Abstract). Kim teaches that viscosity is essential to a coating process and a thickener, CMC, can be used to control the viscosity of the electrode slurry [0007]. CMC reads on a cellulose-based thickener comprising carboxymethyl cellulose. Advantageously, Kim teaches that the use of a thickener inhibits the settling of solid contents so that constant viscosities in the upper and lower parts of a solution and a uniform dispersion state in the solution may be obtained, and the viscosity of a slurry may be stabilized, and the cell capacity of a battery can be increased [0007, 0076].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have added CMC as a thickener to adjust the viscosity of the anode active-material slurry of Kawakami with a reasonable expectation that adding CMC as a thickener would result in a successful anode slurry capable of increased capacity.
Claim(s) 15 is/are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami et al. (JP-2017199639-A; see also attached English translation) as applied to Claim 14, above, in view of Oh et al. (US-20070202403-A1) and in view of Kim et al. (US-20060257738-A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kawakami renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth in Claim 14, above.
Although Kawakami does not teach that the active material is a material in which graphite is contained in the silicon component, and therefore does not teach the claimed amount of silicon or silicon oxide that is mixed with the graphite, Oh teaches that a silicon-based anode active material can encompass a silicon/graphite composite [0031].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have used graphite contained in the silicon component as the anode active material of Kawakami with a reasonable expectation that incorporating graphite into the silicon would result in a successful anode for use in a lithium secondary battery (MPEP 2144.07).
Although modified Kawakami does not explicitly teach that “an amount of the silicon or silicon oxide that is mixed with graphite is 1-90 wt% based on a total weight of the anode active material”, Kim teaches an anode active material slurry for a lithium secondary cell (Abstract) wherein a conductive agent, such as graphite, is added to the active material slurry [0022]. Kim teaches that the amount of conductive additive is preferably from 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the graphite contained in silicon anode active material such that is comprises 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% of graphite with a reasonable expectation that such a content of graphite would result in a successful anode active material.
The use of 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% graphite corresponds to the use of 99.99 wt% to 90 wt% of silicon, which overlaps the claimed range of “1-90 wt%”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any portion of the overlapping range, including selecting the content of silicon to be 90 wt%, with a reasonable expectation that such a content of silicon mixed with graphite would result in a successful anode active material (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been carefully considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes that, while not currently relied upon in the rejections of record, the prior art Ye (relied upon in the Non-Final office action mailed 04/25/2025) is still considered relevant to the amended claims. Therefore, for clarity of record, and in case the arguments presented in view to Ye apply to newly cited Kawakami, the Examiner respectfully notes that the following arguments were not found persuasive.
Applicant has argued (Pg. 9) that anticipation must come from the prior art reference itself, and that using the Applicant’s disclosure to infer inherency is improper.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that inherency may be relied upon for anticipation (i.e. “The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103”; see MPEP 2112). Indeed, to establish a rationale or evidence to show inherency under MPEP 2112.01, the structure and composition of the claimed and prior art products, or their methods of production are necessarily compared (see MPEP 2112.01, I-II). Therefore, using Applicant’s disclosure to establish evidence for a rejection using inherency under 35 USC 102 is deemed proper. Although Ye is not relied upon in the current rejections of record, the Examiner notes that a similar inherency rejection is currently applied to Kawakami.
Applicant has argued (Pg. 10) that the composite of Ye is not necessarily “electrically/ionically bound” since (i) Ye does not clearly and unambiguously teach a system in which the conductive polymer is synthesized in the presence of a cellulose-based compound serving as a negatively charged template and results in electrical binding; (ii) the templated synthesis method is distinct from an admixture; (iii) Ye discloses a mixture, but not the unique process that results in unique materials and properties and structure not disclosed by Ye; and (iv) Claim 1 is limited to an electrical bond between the conductive polymer and the cellulose-based compound.
The Examiner has carefully considered these argument, but respectfully does not find them persuasive. The Examiner notes that "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." (see MPEP 2112.01, I). The Examiner notes that Applicant has not submitted evidence or persuasive argument rebutting the showing of inherency. Since the prior art composite polymer and the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder appear to be produced by identical or substantially identical processes, Ye does not have to explicitly disclose “a cellulose-based compound serving as a negatively charged template”, since the process of forming the cellulose-based conductive polymer binder is understood to result in the claimed charged template, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” (see MPEP 2112.01, I). Therefore, although the Applicant has argued that Ye form an admixture, Examiner notes that the current evidence of record appears to indicate that the conditions disclosed by Ye would result in the claimed cellulose-based conductive polymer [instant specification: 0058, 0065, 00125-00127].
In regards to the “unique material properties and structure” allegedly not disclosed or suggested by Ye, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
In regards to the argument that a “composite binder” is not necessarily electrically binding, Examiner notes that Applicant’s Exhibit 1 appears to be drawn to hydrogels, which are distinct from the composite binder of Ye (see Ye: [0067-0073]). Additionally, although Applicant has submitted that “CMC+PANI systems rely on hydrogen bonding, not ionic bonding” (see Remarks, Pg. 11), Examiner notes that Exhibit 1 indicates that the formed CMC-PANI hydrogels are “conductive” (see Abstract, Section 3.3), thereby indicating that the polymers are “electrically bound”. In other words, although Applicant submits that CMC and PANI rely on hydrogen bonding, Exhibit 1 evidences that either 1) hydrogen bonding systems are sufficient to result in electrical conductivity, or that 2) although CMC + PANI systems rely on hydrogen bonding, they are not limited to such a bonding system, and also include some ionic bonding that leads to conductivity.
The Examiner further notes that Exhibit 1 appears to support that the CMC acts as a template for polymerization of PANI (see Remarks Pg. 14, Par. 1: “CMC could interact well with aniline and act as a soft template in the in-situ polymerization of PANI”), and that the template is negatively charged (see Remarks Pg. 17, Par. 1: “In acid medium, protonated aniline combined with the negatively charged CMC chains by electrostatic attraction, and then gradually grew and anchored on the CMC templates in the presence of APS”).
Applicant has argued (Pg. 11) that Ye’s reaction conditions do not necessarily make ionic bonding “inevitable”.
Although Examiner acknowledges that Applicant has submitted Exhibits 2 and 3 evidencing that polyaniline (PANI) can be either cationic or neutral, and that CMC’s degree of ionization depends on pH, Examiner notes that there is still nothing on record to indicate that an ionic bond is not formed between CMC and PANI. Indeed, as evidenced by Exhibit 1, it appears that even in acidic medium aniline can be polymerized on negatively charged CMC to form CMC-PANI (see Remarks Pg. 17, Par. 1: “In acid medium, protonated aniline combined with the negatively charged CMC chains by electrostatic attraction, and then gradually grew and anchored on the CMC templates in the presence of APS”). Exhibit 1 also evidences that all forms of CMC-PANI are at least somewhat electrically conductive (see Fig. 3a). Therefore, Examiner submits that the current evidence of record is not persuasive to evidence that CMC and PANI do not necessarily form an electrical connection.
Examiner further notes that this argument appears to indicate that the conductive cellulose-based polymer of the instant application does not necessarily comprise ionic bonds. Specifically, there is nothing in the instant specification in regards to “ionic bonding” between the cellulose-based polymer and the conductive polymer (see 112(a) rejection, above). Since the instant application also indicates that a cellulose-based compound, monomers of a conductive polymer, and an oxidizing agent are combined in solution to form PEDOT:CMC [instant specification: 0058, 00125], Applicant’s argument appears to indicate that the claimed invention does not necessarily comprise ionic bonds. Further clarification is requested.
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/29/2026