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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 is amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Claims 1 and 3-4 are pending.
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.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek et al. (US 20190312259 A1), hereinafter “Baek” in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20200185706 A1), hereinafter “Tanaka” as evidenced by ChemCeed Sales Specifications Sheet. Baek et al. and Tanaka et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely doping of positive electrode layers.
In regard to Claim 1, Baek et al. discloses a positive electrode for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Baek, Abstract), comprising a positive electrode core and a positive electrode mixture layer formed on a surface of the positive electrode core (Baek, [0006]). Baek et al. also discloses the positive electrode mixture layer contains at least a positive electrode active material (Baek, Abstract) and a conductive auxiliary material with carbon nanotubes as a preferred choice (Baek, [0038]) wherein a content of the CNT’s in the positive electrode mixture layer is in a range of 0.2-1.0 wt% (Baek, [0011]) and wherein the aspect ratio of the CNT’s ranges from 100-300 (Baek, Example 1), and wherein in a specific example LUCAN-BT1001M CNT’s by LG Chem (Baek, Example 1) are used which have a particle diameter of 10nm as evidenced by the ChemCeed Sales Specification Sheet, which anticipates the claimed ranges.
Further, Baek et al. discloses PVDF as a binder (Baek, [0044]) with a specific example wherein a wt% of PVDF is 1.7% and the molecular weight of the PVDF is 880,000 (Baek, [0046]) and based on the formula disclosed in the original specification (Original Specification, Paragraph [0026-0028]) Baek et al. discloses a number of molecules of the polyvinylidene fluoride contained per unit mass of the positive electrode mixture layer is equal to 0.0193 (Tanaka, claim 4), which anticipates the claimed range.
While Baek et al. discloses formation of pores in the positive electrode mixture layer which allows smooth diffusion of lithium ions and results in a decrease in diffusion resistance (Baek, [0036]), it is silent as to the porosity of the positive electrode mixture layer.
Tanaka et al. discloses a Positive electrode mixture layer comprising an active material, CNT conductive aid, and PVDF binder wherein the porosity of the positive electrode mixture layer is 35.0% to 50.0% by volume (Tanaka, Abstract), which significantly overlaps the claimed range. Tanaka teaches a benefit of a positive electrode mixture layer with a porosity in this range the ratio of the positive electrode active material contained per unit volume of the positive electrode active material layer can be increased while electron transfer resistance in the positive electrode active material layer is suppressed which makes it possible to maintain high ion conductivity and electronic conductivity (Tanaka, [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a positive electrode mixture layer with a porosity within the range taught in Tanaka et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Tanaka and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 3, Baek et al. in view of Tanaka et al. discloses the positive electrode for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. While Baek et al discloses a single embodiment where the molecular weight of the PVDF binder is disclosed, it is silent as to an acceptable range of the molecular weight.
Tanaka et al. discloses the binder (PVDF) may have a molecular weight in the range of 10,000 - 2,000,000 (Tanaka, Paragraph [0120]), which encompasses the claimed range and has the benefit of adjusting the tensile elongation at break by imparting flexibility to the coating resin by controlling the molecular weight (Tanaka, Paragraph 0132]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a PVDF binder with a molecular weight within the range disclosed in Tanaka et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Tanaka and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to Claim 4, Baek et al. in view of Tanaka et al. discloses the positive electrode for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1. Baek et al. also discloses a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Baek, [0059]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 have been considered but are not persuasive because while Tanaka et al. discloses a content of PVDF as 1% or less, amended claim 1’s range is as little as 0.5% higher than Tanaka which would yield predictable results for the skilled artisan. Further, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection above, Baek et al. discloses a specific example wherein a wt% of PVDF is 1.7%, which anticipates the claimed range as the new ground of rejection relies on Baek et al. as a primary reference in view of Tanaka et al. and the combination of which teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725