DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 11/12/2024, has been entered. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are currently pending in this application.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20050238957-A1) in view of Kwon (US-20160020434-A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a secondary battery [0001], comprising:
a step of preparing [0069] a slurry [0069] containing a solvent [0069] and an electrode mixture [0069] containing succinonitrile (S1) [0069];
a step of preparing an electrode by coating the slurry to a current collector and drying the slurry (S2) [0069];
a step of preparing an electrode assembly [0005] by alternately laminating [0005] the electrode [0005] and a separator [0005] (S3) ([0005]; wherein alternately the anode and cathode are laminated via the separator);
and a step of accommodating [0061] the laminated electrode assembly [0061] in a battery case [0061] and injecting an electrolyte solution [0061] (S5) ([0061], “electrolyte…aluminum”, wherein aluminum serves as the battery case).
including heating [0069] the electrode assembly [0069] to a temperature of a melting point [0069] or more of the succinonitrile ([0069], 60 °C; wherein a melting point of succinonitrile is 57 °C, see https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Succinonitrile), wherein a heating temperature of the electrode assembly is in in a range of 57°C C to 70°C ([0069], 60 °C);
Kim fails to specifically teach performing lamination by simultaneously heating and pressing the electrode assembly (S4). Kwon teaches performing lamination (see Fig. 12; [0098]) by simultaneously (see [0098]; and Fig. 12, L1 and L2) heating [0098] and pressing [0098] the electrode assembly (Fig. 1, 30; wherein Fig. 12 depicts lamination occurring during the electrode assembly formation step, before being placed in the case of Fig. 1; see also [0098]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include a lamination step of heating and pressing the electrode assembly, as taught by Kwon, as Kwon teaches this as an acceptable method of manufacturing a secondary battery in the art (Fig. 12; [0098]).
Regarding claim 2,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a content of the succinonitrile [0068] is 0.1 to 5% by weight based on a total weight [0068] of the electrode mixture ([0068], 2.5 wt%, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the step (S1) of preparing [0007] the electrode slurry [0007] includes: a step of uniformly [0007] dispersing the succinonitrile [0007] in the electrode slurry ([0007], “uniformly).
Regarding claim 4,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the step (S2) of preparing [0069] the electrode includes: a step of applying [0069] the electrode slurry [0069] on one or opposite surfaces [0069] of the current collector [0069]; and a step of drying the electrode to which the electrode slurry has been applied [0069].
Regarding claim 6,
PNG
media_image1.png
608
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the succinonitrile is positioned on an upper portion or surface of the electrode ([0069], coated uniformly with succinonitrile”), the upper portion being an end region of the electrode disposed opposite the current collector ([0069], wherein succinonitrile is described to form a complex with the electrode active material coating uniformly on top of the electrode active material, such that the content far from the current collector; see annotated Fig. above), and the surface being disposed opposite the current collector (see [0069] and annotated Fig. above) and in contact with the separator (see annotated Fig. and [0005]; wherein alternately the anode and cathode are laminated via the separator).
Regarding claim 7,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the step (S2) of preparing the electrode includes: a step of solidifying liquid succinonitrile by cooling the electrode, to which the electrode slurry has been applied, to a room temperature ([0069], wherein treating it again at a high temperature for 12 hours, thus a 12 hr heat treatment requires cooling to RT once the time is up since Kim is silent to any further heat treatments).
Regarding claim 11,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the succinonitrile acts as a binder between the electrode and the separator ([0068], wherein succinonitrile forms a complex with the electrode, binding it together; see also https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211285523008911 , wherein succinonitrile is a known plasticizer, thus enabling crosslinking in the slurry and binding it together).
Regarding claim 12,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein in the step of accommodating the laminated electrode assembly in a battery case and injecting an electrolyte solution (S5), the succinonitrile in the electrode is eluted to the electrolyte solution ([0068], wherein some degree of succinonitrile is inherently eluted into the electrolyte due to solubility and diffusion).
Regarding claim 13,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein during the drying the electrode slurry ([0068]-[0069]), a distribution of the succinonitrile is rearranged ([0068]-[0069]) so that a content of the succinonitrile ([0068]-[0069]) of an electrode surface layer far from the current collector ([0068]-[0069]) becomes greater ([0068]-[0069]; wherein succinonitrile is described to form a complex with the electrode active material coating uniformly on top of the electrode active material, the coating is uniform compared to the content within the electrode, such that the content far from the current collector is greater than a content of an electrode inner layer close to the current collector) than a content of the succinonitrile of an electrode inner layer close to the current collector ([0068]-[0069]), wherein the content of the succinonitrile of the electrode surface layer far from the current collector is in a range of > 90% of a total amount of the succinonitrile([0068]-[0069], “treating it again at a high temperature of 60° C. for 12 hours or more so that any unreacted and/or residual succinonitrile in the electrode can form a complex” wherein the term any suggests that all of the succinonitrile forms a complex with the surface of the cathode material, or 100%, which is within the claimed range).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20050238957 A1) in view of Kwon (US-20160020434-A1) and Nishide (US 20160197350 A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein Hee teaches the electrode assembly is pressed (Hee, [0061]), thus teaching a pressure greater than 0 kgf/cm, but fails to teach wherein the electrode assembly is pressed at a pressure of 30kgf/cm or less. Nishide teaches wherein the electrode assembly is pressed at a pressure of .9 kgf/cm, which is within the claimed range of 30kgf/cm or less [0030]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the pressure of Nishide in the lamination step of Kim in view of Kwon as that is an acceptable pressure for lamination in the art. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 08/26/2025 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.
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowable based off the allowable independent claim. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejections on all claims have been sustained.
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 PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723