DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 3-7, 9-17, and 21-26 are currently pending. Claims 1, 2, 8, and 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 9-17 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. New claim 26 has been added. The amended claim 5 does overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 3-7 and 21-26 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections.
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.
Claims 5-7, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al (“Chitosan, a new and environmental benign electrode binder for use with graphite anode in lithium-ion batteries”, Electrochimica Acta, Vol. 105 (2013) pg. 378-383) in view of Kay (US 2011/0117432).
Regarding claims 5-7, 23, and 26, Chai et al discloses a slurry composition (binder composition) for a lithium ion battery electrode consisting of 94 wt% graphite (anode active material), and 3 wt% of chitosan dispersed into 0.5% acetic acid solution (aqueous solvent / organic acid), corresponds to a solid concentration of the slurry composition that is 1 wt% or greater; and a reference electrode using PVDF binder that was prepared by casting the slurry containing graphite and super P (conducting additive / carbon black) (“Experimental”).
However, Chai et al does not expressly teach at least one phosphate salt or a conjugate acid thereof, wherein the at least one phosphate salt is selected from the group consisting of orthophosphate metal salts, pyrophosphate metal salts, and polyphosphate metal salts, wherein the at least one phosphate salt and chitosan are present in a 1:5 to 1:50 mass ratio; and at least one conducting additive (claim 5).
Kay discloses an inorganic binder that is sodium polyphosphate (polyphosphate metal salt) such as (NaPO3)n; wherein the inorganic binder is combined with an organic polymer binder (chitosan) in order to take advantage of synergistic effects ([0016], [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chai slurry composition to include sodium polyphosphate in order to improve cohesion of the active electrode material and the adhesion strength between the active electrode material and the current collector ([0009]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chai/Kay slurry composition to include phosphate salt and chitosan that are present in a 1:5 to 1:50 mass ratio because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The mass ratio of phosphate salt and chitosan is a result effective variable of improving the coatability of the slurry composition, thereby obtaining an electrode having excellent peel strength ([0022]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). As disclosed in para. [089] of the specification of the present application, “the binder may comprise the at least one phosphate salt … and chitosan in a 1:1 to 1:10,000 … or 1:8 to 1:9”. In addition, the examples disclosed are based upon a single binder composition comprising sodium tripolyphosphate and chitosan in a 1:8.3 mass ratio. Since there is no data comparing to other mass ratios, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed mass ratio of 1:5 to 1:50. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chai/Kay slurry composition to include a conducting additive such as carbon black in order to further enhance the electron conductivity of the electrode.
Regarding claim 25, Chai et al as modified by Kay does not expressly teach a binder composition having an initial peeling force of 14.84 N (claim 25).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chai/Kay slurry composition to include an initial peeling force of 14.84 N because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The initial peeling force is a result effective variable of optimizing the coatability and peel strength of the electrode in a well-balanced manner ([0022]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Although para. [146] and Table 1 disclose a viscosity of ChitosanTPP of 7138.4 cP and an initial peeling force of ChitosanTPP and Si composite that is as high as 14.84 N, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed viscosity and initial peeling force.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al in view of Kay as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yammine et al (US 2017/0362123).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Chai et al as modified by Kay does not expressly teach at least one phosphate salt that is sodium tripolyphosphate (claim 3); wherein the sodium tripolyphosphate and chitosan are present in a 1:5 to 1:10 mass ratio (claim 4).
Yammine et al discloses a binder activator that is a salt chosen from polyphosphates of sodium, potassium, or lithium, wherein the activator is preferably sodium triphosphate (sodium tripolyphosphate) ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chai/Kay slurry composition to include sodium tripolyphosphate in order to improve the mechanical strength of the binder ([0007]). In addition, the substitution of one known type of polyphosphate for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chai/Kay/Yammine slurry composition to include sodium tripolyphosphate and chitosan that are present in a 1:5 to 1:10 mass ratio because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed type of polyphosphate or mass ratio of tripolyphosphate and chitosan.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al in view of Kay as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kidokoro (JP 2017069108 A).
However, Chai et al as modified by Kay does not expressly teach at least one anode active material comprising silicon and silicon oxide (claim 21).
Kidokoro discloses examples of the negative electrode active material including silicon and SiOx ([0067],[0068],[0071]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Kidokoro indicates that silicon and SiOx is a suitable material for use as anode active material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use silicon and SiOx.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al in view of Kay as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Li et al (CN 107863499 A).
However, Chai et al as modified by Kay does not expressly teach a chitosan that is selected from polycationic or neutral chitosan, wherein when the polycationic chitosan is used, the at least one phosphate salt is mixed with the polycationic chitosan to form a network of ionically phosphate crosslinked chitosan chains, whereas when the neutral chitosan is used, the conjugate acid of the at least one phosphate salt is mixed with the neutral chitosan to form the network of ionically phosphate crosslinked chitosan chains (claim 24).
Li et al teaches the concept of utilizing polycationic chitosan having strong interfacial bonding in a battery electrode ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chai/Kay water-soluble chitosan compound to include polycationic chitosan that inherently form a network of ionically phosphate crosslinked chitosan chains in order to utilize a chitosan compound with strong interfacial bonding ([0012]). In addition, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use polycationic chitosan.
Claims 5-7, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al (“Chitosan, a new and environmental benign electrode binder for use with graphite anode in lithium-ion batteries”, Electrochimica Acta, Vol. 105 (2013) pg. 378-383) in view of Kay (US 2011/0117432), and further in view of Sun et al (“Investigation on Carboxymethyl Chitosan as new Water Soluble Binder for LiFePO4 Cathode in Li-Ion Batteries”, Electrochimica Acta, 127 (2014), pg. 239-244).
Regarding claims 5-7, 22, and 23, Chai et al discloses a slurry composition (binder composition) for a lithium ion battery electrode consisting of 94 wt% graphite (anode active material), and 3 wt% of chitosan dispersed into 0.5% acetic acid solution (aqueous solvent / organic acid), corresponds to a solid concentration of the slurry composition that is 1 wt% or greater; and a reference electrode using PVDF binder that was prepared by casting the slurry containing graphite and super P (conducting additive / carbon black) (“Experimental”).
However, Chai et al does not expressly teach at least one phosphate salt or a conjugate acid thereof, wherein the at least one phosphate salt is selected from the group consisting of orthophosphate metal salts, pyrophosphate metal salts, and polyphosphate metal salts, wherein the at least one phosphate salt and chitosan are present in a 1:5 to 1:50 mass ratio; and at least one conducting additive (claim 5).
Kay discloses an inorganic binder that is sodium polyphosphate (polyphosphate metal salt) such as (NaPO3)n; wherein the inorganic binder is combined with an organic polymer binder (chitosan) in order to take advantage of synergistic effects ([0016], [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chai slurry composition to include sodium polyphosphate in order to improve cohesion of the active electrode material and the adhesion strength between the active electrode material and the current collector ([0009]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chai/Kay slurry composition to include phosphate salt and chitosan that are present in a 1:5 to 1:50 mass ratio because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The mass ratio of phosphate salt and chitosan is a result effective variable of improving the coatability of the slurry composition, thereby obtaining an electrode having excellent peel strength ([0022]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). As disclosed in para. [089] of the specification of the present application, “the binder may comprise the at least one phosphate salt … and chitosan in a 1:1 to 1:10,000 … or 1:8 to 1:9”. In addition, the examples disclosed are based upon a single binder composition comprising sodium tripolyphosphate and chitosan in a 1:8.3 mass ratio. Since there is no data comparing to other mass ratios, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed mass ratio of 1:5 to 1:50.
However, Chai et al as modified by Kay does not expressly teach a binder composition consisting essentially of chitosan, at least one conducting additive, and at least one cathode active material (claim 5); wherein the at least one cathode active material comprises lithium transition metal oxides (claim 22).
Sun et al discloses C-CTS (carboxymethyl chitosan) as a water soluble binder for LiFePO4 (cathode active material / lithium transition metal oxide) cathode comprising carbon black (conducting additive) (“Introduction” and “Experimental”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chai/Kay slurry composition to include LiFePO4, chitosan, and carbon black in order to provide a cathode that exhibits excellent cycling performance at 60°C (Abstract).
Claims 5-7, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al (KR 20170084472 A, machine translation) in view of Kay (US 2011/0117432).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 22, Jo et al discloses a slurry composition (binder composition) for a lithium secondary battery electrode consisting of 80 wt% N-C@LMO (cathode active material + chitosan) that is LiMn2O4 particles (lithium transition metal oxide) coated with H-chitosan, 10 wt% carbon black (conducting additive), and 10 wt% polyvinylidene difluoride dispersed into N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solvent (polar organic solvent), corresponding to a solid concentration of the slurry composition that is 1 wt% or greater ([0084]-[0086],[0103]).
However, Jo et al does not expressly teach at least one phosphate salt or a conjugate acid thereof, wherein the at least one phosphate salt is selected from the group consisting of orthophosphate metal salts, pyrophosphate metal salts, and polyphosphate metal salts, wherein the at least one phosphate salt and chitosan are present in a 1:5 to 1:50 mass ratio; and at least one conducting additive (claim 5).
Kay discloses an inorganic binder that is sodium polyphosphate (polyphosphate metal salt) such as (NaPO3)n; wherein the inorganic binder is combined with an organic polymer binder (chitosan) in order to take advantage of synergistic effects ([0016], [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Jo slurry composition to substitute polyvinylidene difluoride for sodium polyphosphate in order to improve cohesion of the active electrode material and the adhesion strength between the active electrode material and the current collector ([0009]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Jo/Kay slurry composition to include phosphate salt and chitosan that are present in a 1:5 to 1:50 mass ratio because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The mass ratio of phosphate salt and chitosan is a result effective variable of improving the coatability of the slurry composition, thereby obtaining an electrode having excellent peel strength ([0022]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). As disclosed in para. [089] of the specification of the present application, “the binder may comprise the at least one phosphate salt … and chitosan in a 1:1 to 1:10,000 … or 1:8 to 1:9”. In addition, the examples disclosed are based upon a single binder composition comprising sodium tripolyphosphate and chitosan in a 1:8.3 mass ratio. Since there is no data comparing to other mass ratios, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed mass ratio of 1:5 to 1:50.
Regarding claim 25, Jo et al as modified by Kay does not expressly teach a binder composition having an initial peeling force of 14.84 N (claim 25).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Jo/Kay slurry composition to include an initial peeling force of 14.84 N because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The initial peeling force is a result effective variable of optimizing the coatability and peel strength of the electrode in a well-balanced manner ([0022]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Although para. [146] and Table 1 disclose a viscosity of ChitosanTPP of 7138.4 cP and an initial peeling force of ChitosanTPP and Si composite that is as high as 14.84 N, there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed viscosity and initial peeling force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3-7 and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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 on 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights