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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended; support for claim 1 is found in previously presented claims 2, and 4-7.
Claims 2, 4-7, 19-20 have been cancelled. Claims 10-18 and 21-22 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9 are currently pending and have been examined on the merits in this office action.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kose et al.(US 2013/0236783 A1) in view of Ichisaka et al. (US 2015/0137028 A1), and Bai (CN106207129 B).
Regarding claim 1, Kose discloses a system comprising a cobalt free material ([0026-0027] active material can be a lithium nickel composite oxide such as LiNi0.75Mn0.25O2), a binder ([0055-0056] binder made of a fluorinated copolymer), a conductive agent ([0054] electrically conductive material made of carbon black) and a pH adjusting agent ([0058] a pH regulator can be added to the electrode material mixture to adjust the pH),
wherein the cobalt free material can be a lithium nickel composite oxide such as LiNi0.75Mn0.25O2([0026-0027] a skilled artisan can select the material according to formula 1 that would read on the cobalt free material; The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07)),
wherein the binder is added in an amount of 1-1.8 parts by weight based on the cobalt free material added in an amount of 95.4-97.8 parts by weight ([0050] content of the binder is provided between 0.1-20 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the cathode active material and thus would overlap with that of the claimed range). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kose discloses wherein the binder is a fluorinated copolymer ([0055-0056]) and wherein the fluorinated copolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 10,000 to 300,000, however, is silent with respect to the number average molecular weight and the specific material of a polyvinylidene fluoride.
Ichisaka discloses an electrode mixture and is within the same field of endeavor of a battery electrode material. Ichisaka discloses wherein a PVDF material is used for a binder ([0061]) and wherein the PVDF has a weight average molecular weight of 50,000 to 2,000,000 ([0069]) and a number average molecular weight of 150,000-1,400,000 and wherein if the number average weight is smaller than 150,000 the electrode has a reduced adhesion and if the number average molecular weight is greater than 1,400,000, gelation is more likely to occur during preparation of the electrode mixture ([0071-0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute the fluorinated copolymer binder taught by Kose for the PVDF binder material taught by Ichisaka having a number average molecular weight of 150,000-1,400,000 as a simple substitution of one fluoropolymer for another. The resulting modification would have the number average molecular weight between 150,000-1,400,000 in order to have proper adhesion for the electrode while avoiding gelation during preparation of the electrode mixture. Thus the claim limitations of the binder material are rendered obvious through the modification. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Additionally, Kose further discloses of a conductive material provided in the electrode material wherein the conductive material can be a conductive carbon such as acetylene black, carbon black, graphite, carbon fibers or carbon nanotubes ([0054]). Kose is silent with respect to two or more conductive agents provided and specifically a carbon black and a single-wall carbon nanotube.
Bai discloses a battery electrode and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery electrodes. Bai discloses wherein a positive electrode active material contains conductive gents such as super-P, carbon nanotubes, KS-6 and carbon fibers, and wherein two or more different conductive agents such as Super-P and single walled carbon nanotubes can be used together. Bais discloses wherein Super-P can be dispersed between the active material particles to enhance the conductivity between the active substances, and the carbon nanotubes can cover the surfaces of the active material particles thereby increasing the conductivity of the active material between the linear ranges and thus is beneficial to use two different conductive materials ([15-17]; [32]). Kose discloses an overlapping range for the conductive material as a whole. Bai discloses wherein the Super-P and the single walled carbon nanotubes are provided in a 2:1 ratio ([0031-0033] Embodiment 1). Bai discloses wherein the Super-P carbon black material is double the amount of the single walled carbon nanotubes provided.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to select and use two different conductive materials in the active material as taught by Bai, such as carbon black and single walled carbon-nanotubes wherein the carbon black material can be provided at double the amount of the single walled carbon nanotubes within the range taught by Kose to enhance the conductivity of the active material between and covering the active material particles as taught by Bai. Kose already discloses wherein the conductive material can be carbon black and carbon nanotubes. Bai discloses wherein the active material can contain two conductive materials, a carbon black and a single walled carbon nanotube at a specific ratio. Thus through the combination a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use and select two conductive materials, carbon black and a single walled carbon nanotube, to have conductive material between and covering the active materials as disclosed by Bai as a selection of a known material for a known intended use. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus all the claim limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious through the combinations above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kose discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Kose further discloses wherein the cobalt free material can be a lithium nickel composite oxide such as LiNi0.75Mn0.25O2([0026-0027]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kose discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Kose discloses wherein the pH adjusting agent comprises oxalic and/or maleic acid ([0058] pH regulator can be maleic acid or an organic acid, examiner notes that oxalic acid is an organic acid).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kose et al.(US 2013/0236783 A1) in view of Ichisaka et al. (US 2015/0137028 A1), and Bai (CN106207129 B) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 109980224-as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kose discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Kose further discloses wherein additives such as maleic acid and other additives can be added to the electrode within a range not to impair the characteristics of the present invention, however, is silent with respect to a specific range being between 0.1-0.5% by mass of the pH adjusting agent.
Li discloses a battery having an electrode manufacturing method and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery electrodes. Li disclose wherein maleic acid is provided in an electrode material as an additive to effectively reduce residual alkali on the surface of the active material wherein the maleic acid is provided in a ratio of 0.1-0.5% of the total mass of the solid component (summary of invention paragraphs 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the amount of maleic acid provided in the active material to be between 0.1-0.5% of the total mass of the solid component of the active material in order to effectively reduce residual alkali as taught by Li. Examiner notes that the disclosure of Li incorporates the maleic acid at a low percentage (0.1-0.5%) and further enhances the teaching of Kose that the maleic acid is provided within a range so as to not impair the characteristics of the present invention, thus a skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the modification above in view of the disclosures of Kose and Li.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the rejection of record because (a) the primary reference discloses formula 2 that discloses a Cobalt material and formula 1 does not specify that Mn is used and thus fails to read on the claimed material as a skilled artisan would have selected a material that contains cobalt or would not have selected Mn as the material of M in formula 1, (b) the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride is not taught, (c) the weight relationships are not taught and that the ranges taught by the prior art is much broader than the present application.
Argument a is not persuasive as Kose discloses the wherein the material can be selected from either formula 1 or formula 2 and wherein M can be Mn and thus reads on the claimed cobalt free material. Examiner notes that it is within the skill of a skilled artisan to pick M to be Mn as [0026] of Kose explicitly discloses wherein M can be selected to be Mn. Additionally, formula 1 is cobalt free and thus can be selected and would read on the claimed cobalt free material as claimed. Examiner further notes that the rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot as new grounds of rejection has been presented in view of the amendments to the claims.
Argument b is not persuasive as the combination presented in the rejection above discloses wherein a binder can be a polyvinylidene fluoride. Examiner notes that this material is a common binder material and the combination used in the rejection is to substitute one fluorinated copolymer binder for the fluorinated polymer binder PVDF as a simple substitution. Both binder material are fluorinated copolymers and thus a skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the substitution of known fluorinated polymer binders. Additionally, the rejection has been updated rendering the arguments moot.
Argument c is not persuasive as applicant argues that the ranges of the prior art is broader than the claimed ranges and that the instant invention’s ranges have a significant impact on the improvement of battery performance. This argument is noted, however, is not persuasive as applicant fails to present data or evidence showing unexpected results or criticality of the claimed range as argued.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoon et al. (US 2014/0138591 A1)- discloses a positive electroactive material that is similar to that of the claimed invention.
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 Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728