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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed 03/11/2026. Claim(s) 1-2,4,7,28,30,33,37,42,63,66,69 and 74-81 stand as originally or as previously presented. claim(s) 1-2,4,7,28,30,33,37,42,63,66,69 and 74-81 are examined in this office action.
Claim Rejections
The 35 USC 103 rejections of the prior office action are withdrawn because of applicant’s arguments. New grounds of rejection are made in light of newly found references as set forth below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 30, 33, 37, 42, 63, 66, 69, 74-78, and 80-81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaba (US 20140045054 A1), In view of Yoon (US 20210159503 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Komaba discloses an electrode material comprising an electrochemically active material (abstract discloses an electrode with an active material layer containing an active material) and a polymer, wherein the polymer is a copolymer (abstract discloses that the active material layer contains a block copolymer), consisting of monomeric units from the polymerization of compounds of Formulae I and II:
PNG
media_image1.png
146
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0072]-[0073] discloses an embodiment wherein the copolymer is a Polyvinyl Alcohol-(b)-Polyacrylic Acid Copolymer. In this case, the vinyl alcohol reads on the claimed formula I, wherein R1 is -OH and R2 is a hydrogen atom, and Polyacrylic acid reads on the claimed formula II, wherein R3 is a hydrogen atom).
Komaba does not disclose that the electrode material contains a polyphenol, however use of polyphenols in electrochemically active material is well known in the art and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the invention of Komaba.
For example, Yoon discloses a negative electrode active material whose surface is coated with tannic acid, a polyphenol (abstract). Yoon discloses that such an active material may reduce volume expansion and prevent damage in charging/discharging of the active material (see abstract, [0022], [0036]). As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tannic acid coated active material of Yoon as the active material of Komaba. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this to obtain the above mentioned benefits disclosed by Yoon, and doing this would result in an electrode material according to the instant claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 1, comprising a binder wherein the binder comprises the copolymer and/or the polyphenol (Komaba discloses that the copolymer is a binder ([0015], [0054]).
Regarding claim 30, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose an embodiment wherein the electrochemically active material is a silicon-based material. However, Komaba discloses a list of acceptable negative electrode active materials, which includes silicon [0056]. Additionally, Yoon discloses that the negative electrode active material may be a silicon-based active material [0017]. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely select silicon as the active material for the negative electrode, and one of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this selection in order to obtain a negative electrode active material that can be used in the battery of modified Komaba.
Regarding claim 33, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 30, but does not explicitly disclose that the silicon-based electrochemically active material further comprises graphite or graphene. However, Komaba does discloses that the anode active material can be used in combinations of two or more [0056], and that the anode active material preferably contains a carbon material, particularly preferably graphite [0056], because Komaba discloses cycle characteristics and discharge capacity are further improved [0056]. Additionally, Yoon discloses an embodiment wherein the negative active material contains a carbonaceous negative electrode active material and a silicon-based negative electrode active material [0045], and that the carbonaceous material may be graphite [0044]. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally include graphite in the silicon-based active material of claim 30, resulting in an electrode material according to the instant claim 33. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to improve cycle characteristics and discharge capacity, as disclosed by Komaba.
Regarding claim 37, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 1, wherein the electrode material further comprises an electronically conductive material ([0058] of Komaba discloses that the active material layer containing the block copolymer and the active material may further include an additive to function as an electron conductive aid. Disclosed conductive additives include for example, various carbon black materials, fibrous carbon, and carbon nanotubes [0058]).
Regarding claim 42, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 1, wherein the polyphenol is selected from the group consisting of tannins and catechol (Yoon discloses that the polyphenol is tannic acid (abstract), which is noted to be a form of tannin that also contains catechol groups).
Regarding claim 63, modified Komaba discloses an electrode comprising the electrode material as defined in claim 1 on a current collector (abstract of Komaba).
Regarding claim 66, modified Komaba discloses an electrochemical cell comprising a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and an electrolyte ([0062] of Komaba discloses a battery comprising an anode, a cathode, and an electrolyte), wherein at least one of the negative or positive electrode is as defined in claim 63. Komaba also discloses the optional limitation that the electrolyte comprises a solvent and a lithium salt [0065].
Regarding claim 69, modified Komaba discloses a battery comprising at least one electrochemical cell as defined in claim 66 [0062].
Regarding claim 74, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 1. With respect to the additional limitations of claim 74, it is noted that the limitations are directed to non-selected options of parent claim 1. For example, claim 1 explicitly recites that R1 is selected from OH and an OH containing group. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 74 are reasonably considered to be optional limitations which depend upon the selection of an OH containing group for R1 recited in claim 1, and which in this case have not been selected because Komaba discloses the use of vinyl alcohol as noted above, which matches the structure of formula I wherein R1 is OH.
Regarding claim 75, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 1, wherein the polymer is a block copolymer (abstract).
Regarding claim 76, Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 1, wherein the polymer is a block copolymer (abstract).
Regarding claim 77, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 30, wherein the silicon-based electrochemically active material contains a silicon suboxide (SiOx, where x is 0< x < 2) (Yoon discloses that the silicon-based negative electrode active material may be a silicon oxide represented by SiOx, wherein 0 < x ≤ 2, closely matching and falling within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 78, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 33, wherein the silicon and graphite in the silicon-based electrochemically active material are in a ratio ranging from 5:95 to 95:5 wt. % (Yoon discloses in [0045] that the weight ratio of carbonaceous negative electrode active material to silicon-based negative electrode may preferably be in a range of 95:5 to 80:20 wt.%, falling inside the claimed range).
Regarding claim 80, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 42, wherein the polyphenol is a polyphenolic macromolecule (the polyphenol is tannic acid (abstract of Yoon), which is a macromolecule).
Examiner’s note:
Although examiner has indicated in prior communication that limiting the polyphenol to tannic acid would be allowable subject matter, after further search and consideration, the Yoon reference has been found. As a result, the following rejection of claim 81 is made:
Regarding claim 81, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 80, wherein the polyphenol is tannic acid (abstract of Yoon).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaba (US 20140045054 A1), in view of Yoon (US 20210159503 A1), and further in view of Ryu (KR 101617668 B1, a machine translation from espacenet included in the office action of 10/30/2024 is used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 2, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 1, wherein said polymer is a copolymer of formula III:
PNG
media_image2.png
198
279
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0072]-[0073] discloses an embodiment wherein the copolymer is a Polyvinyl Alcohol-(b)-Polyacrylic Acid Copolymer. In this case, the vinyl alcohol reads in the claimed formula I, wherein R1 is -OH and R2 is a hydrogen atom, and Polyacrylic acid reads on the claimed formula II, wherein R3 is a hydrogen atom).
Komaba does not disclose the number average molecular weight or guidelines on how to determine number average molecular weight, however desirable number average molecular weight ranges for Polyvinyl Alcohol-Polyacrylic Acid Copolymer binders are known in the art. For example, Ryu discloses a similar copolymer binder of PAA:PVA ([0080], further disclosing that a number average molecular weight of the copolymer is ideally controlled to be within a range of 50,000-700,000 Da, or G/mol, thus overlapping the claimed range. Ryu discloses that within this range, a decrease in adhesive strength resulting in lower charge/discharge characteristics, as well as a decrease in workability can be avoided [0027]. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a number average molecular weight within this range, and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this to obtain the benefits of avoiding both a decrease in adhesive strength resulting in lower charge/discharge characteristics, as well as a decrease in workability, as disclosed by Ryu. Furthermore, once this change had been implemented, it would have been obvious to routinely select a number average molecular weight from amongst the portion overlapping the claimed range because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaba (US 20140045054 A1), in view of Yoon (US 20210159503 A1), and further in view of Takahashi (US 20180254475 A1).
Regarding claim 28, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 7, but does not disclose that the binder comprises between 1 wt.% and 5 wt.% polyphenol. However, inclusion of a polyphenol in a polymer binder is known in the art and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Takahashi discloses a polymer electrode binder similar to Komaba, disclosing that the binder is selected from one or more from a list including a vinyl polymer and an acrylic polymer [0032] (Komaba discloses an aqueous solution of Polyvinyl Alcohol-(b)-Polyacrylic Acid Copolymer as the binder, see [0080] and claim 1 rejection above). Takahashi further discloses the addition of a water-soluble antioxidant to the binder, which has a synergistic effect when acrylic polymer is used as a binder [0035], improving preservation stability. [0014] discloses that the water-soluble antioxidant is selected from a list including green tea polyphenols, and [0016] discloses that the water-soluble antioxidant is contained in an amount of 0.1 to 5 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the binder, overlapping the claimed range of 1-5 wt.% for the polyphenol.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the green tea polyphenol water-soluble antioxidant of Takahashi in the binder of modified Komaba. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this to obtain the above mentioned benefit of improved preservation stability. After having done this, it would have been obvious to routinely select a water-soluble antioxidant content from amongst from amongst the portion of the range that overlaps with the claimed range because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Claim(s) 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaba (US 20140045054 A1), in view of Yoon (US 20210159503 A1), and further in view of Annaka (US 20190198878 A1).
Regarding claim 79, modified Komaba discloses the electrode material of claim 37, but not that the electronically conductive material contains a combination of carbon fibers and carbon black. However, Komaba does disclose that the conductive additive may be carbon fibers and carbon blacks, discloses for example various carbon black materials, fibrous carbon, and carbon nanotubes [0058]), despite not disclosing an embodiment which uses a combination of carbon fibers and carbon black. However, the use of a combination of carbon fibers and carbon black for an electrochemically conductive anode material, and the benefits thereof, is known in the art and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Annaka discloses the use of a conductive carbon in a slurry [0095] comprising an active material [0095] and a copolymer binder [0086]. Annaka discloses that the binder preferably includes both conductive carbon fiber and carbon black as conductive materials [0098]. Annaka additionally discloses that when carbon fiber is present in the carbon black in at least 1% by mass or more, a conduction path can favorably be formed and secondary battery output characteristics can be improved [0100].
Given this, and the fact that Annaka is analogous to the claimed invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely electrode materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention based on the disclosure of Annaka to include a conductive carbon fiber in a conductive carbon black as the conductive material of Komaba. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve secondary battery output characteristics and favorably form a conduction path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-7 of remarks, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and dependent under Komaba in view of Chen have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Komaba and Yoon (see above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights