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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10-16-2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10, 11 and 13-15 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-11 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because the claim should cite “wherein the surfactant comprises at least one of t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol or octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol and” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4, 6, 8-10, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinpara et al. (CA 2916160 A) in view of Xu et al. (CN 104733728, machine translation). Kinpara et al. teaches on pages 28-29, a negative electrode slurry comprising 85 mass% of an active material, 10 mass% of a copolymer of vinyl alcohol and an alkali metal neutralized product of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid, 3 mass% of acetylene black, 2 parts of vapor grown carbon fibers and 400 mass% of water which is applied to a copper current collector. Kinpara et al. teaches on page 33, a negative electrode slurry comprising 93 mass% of an graphite active material [teaching claim 8], 4 mass% of a copolymer of vinyl alcohol and an alkali metal neutralized product of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid, 1.5 mass% of acetylene black, 1.5 parts of vapor grown carbon fibers [teaching claim 9], and 100 mass% of water which is applied to a copper current collector. Kinpara et al. teaches in [0172], that in each of the twelve through fifteenth examples, only the copolymer of the vinyl alcohol and an alkali metal neutralized product of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid was used as a binder but polyamide, polyimide, polyamideimide, etc. can be used as the binder. Kinpara et al. teaches in [0091], that if the active material is powder coated with carbon or if a carbon-based conductive assistant is used, carbon sheds water in preparing a water-based slurry mixture, the active material or the conductive assistant is thus difficult to uniformly disperse and the risk of causing agglomeration of the active material tends to increase. This problem may be solved by adding a surfactant to the slurry. Kinpara et al. teaches in [0092], that the surfactant includes polysorbate in an amount of 0.01-0.1% by mass [teaches claim 4]. Since Kinpara et al. teaches the same binder for the anode then inherently the same binder having a viscosity of 3000-50,000 cps must also be obtained.
In addition, the presently claimed property of the binder having a viscosity of 3000-50,000 cps would have obviously been present once the Kinpara et al. product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977).
Kinpara et al. discloses the claimed invention teaching a negative electrode comprising an electrode slurry comprising an active material comprising graphite; a binder comprising polyamide, polyimide, etc. and a surfactant comprising polysorbate but does not teach that the surfactant comprises t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol (TX-100 or Triton X-100) instead of polysorbate (Tween-80). Xu et al. teaches in [0022], that Tween-80 or TX-100 are surfactants. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use comprises t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol (TX-100 or Triton X-100) instead of polysorbate (Tween-80) as the surfactant because Xu et al. teaches that both these surfactants can be used in an electrode as explained above and one would expect therefore that these surfactant materials would function in a similar way and give similar results.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinpara et al. (CA 2916160 A) in view of Xu et al. (CN 104733728, machine translation). Kinpara et al. teaches on pages 28-29, a negative electrode slurry comprising 85 mass% of an active material, 10 mass% of a copolymer of vinyl alcohol and an alkali metal neutralized product of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid, 3 mass% of acetylene black, 2 parts of vapor grown carbon fibers and 400 mass% of water which is applied to a copper current collector. Kinpara et al. teaches on page 33, a negative electrode slurry comprising 93 mass% of an graphite active material, 4 mass% of a copolymer of vinyl alcohol and an alkali metal neutralized product of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid, 1.5 mass% of acetylene black, 1.5 parts of vapor grown carbon fibers and 100 mass% of water which is applied to a copper current collector.Kinpara et al. teaches in [0172], that in each of the twelve through fifteenth examples, only the copolymer of the vinyl alcohol and an alkali metal neutralized product of ethylene-unsaturated carboxylic acid was used as a binder but polyamide, polyimide, polyamideimide, etc. can be used as the binder. Kinpara et al. teaches in [0091], that if the active material is powder coated with carbon or if a carbon-based conductive assistant is used, carbon sheds water in preparing a water-based slurry mixture, the active material or the conductive assistant is thus difficult to uniformly disperse and the risk of causing agglomeration of the active material tends to increase. This problem may be solved by adding a surfactant to the slurry. Kinpara et al. teaches in [0092], that the surfactant includes polysorbate in an amount of 0.01-0.1% by mass. Since Kinpara et al. teaches the same binder for the anode then inherently the same binder having a viscosity of 3000-50,000 cps must also be obtained.
In addition, the presently claimed property of the binder having a viscosity of 3000-50,000 cps would have obviously been present once the Kinpara et al. product is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977).
Kinpara et al. discloses the claimed invention teaching a negative electrode comprising an electrode slurry comprising an active material comprising graphite; a binder comprising polyamide, polyimide, etc. and a surfactant comprising polysorbate but does not teach that the surfactant comprises t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol (TX-100 or Triton X-100) instead of polysorbate (Tween-80). Xu et al. teaches in [0022], that Tween-80 or TX-100 are surfactants. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use comprises t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol (TX-100 or Triton X-100) instead of polysorbate (Tween-80) as the surfactant because Xu et al. teaches that both these surfactants can be used in an electrode as explained above and one would expect therefore that these surfactant materials would function in a similar way and give similar results. When Kinpara et al. in view of Xu et al. teaches the same slurry comprising an aqueous solution containing the negative electrode material, the same conductive material, the same surfactant and the same binder, then inherently the same negative electrode slurry having a viscosity of 1000-50,000 cps must also be obtained.
In addition, the presently claimed property of the negative electrode slurry having a viscosity of 1000-50,000 cps would have obviously been present once the Kinpara et al. in view of Xu et al. is provided. In re Best, 195 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arai et al. [WO 2018/037867, machine translation] teaches a secondary battery comprising a battery member having a functional layer that imparts desired performance (for example, heat resistance and strength) to the battery member such as an electrode in which a functional layer is formed on a current collector. Arai et al. teaches when a cross-linkable monomer is used for the organic particles, an auxiliary stabilizer such as a surfactant can be used in addition to the dispersion stabilizer. Arai et al. teaches that the stabilizer can comprise nonylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol, etc. Arai et al. teaches in Example 4, that the organic particles are made by using 55 parts of a crosslinkable monomer divinylbenzene; 45 parts of ethylvinylbenzene as an aromatic monovinyl monomer and 22 parts of polyvinylpyrrolidone as a dispersion stabilizer. Arai et al. teaches a negative electrode slurry comprising an active material comprising 100 parts of artificial graphite and a binder comprising carboxymethylcellulose giving a final solid content concentration of 52% which is applied to a copper foil current collector. Arai et al. teaches 9-11, a battery comprising an electrode substrate with a functional layer laminated thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura Weiner whose telephone number is (571)272-1294. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST M-F.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/LAURA S. WEINER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Laura Weiner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723