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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed February 19, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 and 15-17 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wei et al. ("Small Molecule Slurry Additives for Si Alloy Coatings with CMC/SBR Binder," Journal of the Electrochemical Society 166(14), A3217-A3221, September 2019) and Karkar et al. ("A comparative study of polyacrylic acid (PAA) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) binders for Si-based electrodes", Electrochimica Acta 258, pp. 453-466, December 2017).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the saturated carboxylic acid" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. ("Small Molecule Slurry Additives for Si Alloy Coatings with CMC/SBR Binder," Journal of the Electrochemical Society 166(14), A3217-A3221, September 2019) in view of Karkar et al. ("A comparative study of polyacrylic acid (PAA) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) binders for Si-based electrodes", Electrochimica Acta 258, pp. 453-466, December 2017) as evidenced by "Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose" (Sigma-Aldrich product 419273, retrieved from https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/aldrich/419273 on April 21, 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses an aqueous solution with a pH of 6.6 to 7.7, which falls within the range of the instant claim, comprising a binder for a secondary battery electrode comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose (Sigma-Aldrich MW 90,000 Na-CMC) and a saturated carboxylate with 6 carbon atoms (sodium citrate), which falls within the range of the instant claim (Wei Experimental, 1st paragraph). The Sigma-Aldrich MW 90,000 Na-CMC has a degree of substitution of 0.7 (see "Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose" p. 3), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Wei does not teach that component B is contained in a range of 20 to 200 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of component A. Karkar is directed to binder compositions for Si-based electrodes (Karkar Abstract). Karkar teaches that the performance CMC-based binders is controlled by both loading and additive ratio (Karkar Table 1b). “[W]here 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to determine an appropriate CMC/additive ratio, including values within the range of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 3, the carboxymethyl cellulose of modified Wei has a degree of substitution of 0.7 (see "Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose" p. 3), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Modified Wei does not teach that component B is contained in a range of 20 to 200 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of component A. Karkar teaches that the performance CMC-based binders is controlled by both loading and additive ratio (Karkar Table 1b). “[W]here 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to determine an appropriate CMC/additive ratio, including values within the range of the instant claims.
Regarding claims 15-17, the composition of modified Wei is used as a binder for silicon-based active material in the negative electrode of a non-aqueous secondary battery (Wei Experimental, first two paragraphs).
Claim(s) 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Karkar as evidenced by "Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose" as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. ("Crosslinked Chitosan Networks as Binders for Silicon/Graphite Composite Electrodes in Li-Ion Batteries," Journal of the Electrochemical Society 165(5), pp. A1110-A1121, April 2018).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wei teaches the use of a sodium salt of citric acid, which is a saturated carboxylic acid with 6 carbon atoms. Modified Wei does not teach the use of a lithium salt. Zhao is directed to binders for silicon-based electrodes in lithium-ion batteries (Zhao Abstract). Zhao teaches that alkali metal salts of binders are used interchangeably for silicon-based electrodes (Zhao first paragraph). Alkali metal salts of such binders are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any appropriate salt of the additives of modified Wei, including lithium salts.
Regarding claim 5, modified Wei teaches the use of a sodium salt of citric acid, which is a hydroxy acid with 6 carbon atoms. Modified Wei does not teach the use of a lithium salt. Zhao teaches that alkali metal salts of binders are used interchangeably for silicon-based electrodes (Zhao first paragraph). Alkali metal salts of such binders are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any appropriate salt of the additives of modified Wei, including lithium salts.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wei teaches the use of a sodium salt of citric acid. Modified Wei does not teach the use of a lithium salt. Zhao teaches that alkali metal salts of binders are used interchangeably for silicon-based electrodes (Zhao first paragraph). Alkali metal salts of such binders are therefore art-recognized equivalents for the same purpose, and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06 II). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any appropriate salt of the additives of modified Wei, including lithium salts.
Claim(s) 4 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Karkar as evidenced by "Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hidaka et al. (US 2011/0229760 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Wei does not teach that component B is contained in a range of 20 to 180 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of component A. Karkar teaches that the performance CMC-based binders is controlled by both loading and additive ratio (Karkar Table 1b). “[W]here 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to determine an appropriate CMC/additive ratio, including values within the range of the instant claims.
Modified Wei does not teach that Component A is a carboxymethyl cellulose having a degree of carboxymethyl substitution of more than 1.0 or a salt thereof.
Hidaka is directed to CMC-based binders for nonaqueous electrolyte batteries (Hidaka Abstract). Hidaka teaches a carboxymethylcellulose material that can prevent defects such as streaks and pinholes from occurring in the obtained electrode when it is used as a binder for an electrode of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Hidaka Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the CMC of Hidaka in the electrode binder of modified Wei in order to prevent defects such as streaks and pinholes from occurring in the obtained electrode.
Hidaka further teaches that this carboxymethylcellulose should have a degree of substitution with carboxymethyl per anhydrous glucose unit of 0.45 or more (Hidaka [0029]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wei does not teach that the carboxymethyl cellulose or a salt thereof has a volume cumulative 100% particle diameter of less than 100 μm as measured by a laser diffraction/scattering particle size distribution meter using methanol as a dispersion medium.
Hidaka teaches a carboxymethylcellulose having a volume cumulative 100% particle diameter of 31 µm as measured by a laser diffraction-scattering particle size distribution meter using methanol as a dispersion medium (Hidaka [0078]-[0079]), which falls within the range of the instant claim. Hidaka teaches that using this material can prevent defects such as streaks and pinholes from occurring in the obtained electrode when it is used as a binder for an electrode of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Hidaka Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the CMC of Hidaka in the electrode binder of modified Wei in order to prevent defects such as streaks and pinholes from occurring in the obtained electrode.
Regarding claim 8, modified Wei does not teach that the carboxymethyl cellulose or a salt thereof has a viscosity of a 1 mass % aqueous solution measured at 25° C. with a B-type viscometer of 1,000 to 20,000 mPa·s
Hidaka teaches a carboxymethylcellulose having a B-type viscosity of a 1 mass % aqueous solution at 25° C.: 3,500 mPa·s (Hidaka [0079]), which falls within the range of the instant claim. Hidaka teaches that using this material can prevent defects such as streaks and pinholes from occurring in the obtained electrode when it is used as a binder for an electrode of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Hidaka Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the CMC of Hidaka in the electrode binder of modified Wei in order to prevent defects such as streaks and pinholes from occurring in the obtained electrode.
Regarding claim 9, the material of modified Wei has a volume cumulative 100% particle diameter of 31 µm as measured with a laser diffraction/scattering particle size distribution meter using methanol as a dispersion medium (Hidaka [0078]-[0079]), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Modified Wei does not teach that component B is contained in a range of 20 to 120 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of component A. Karkar teaches that the performance CMC-based binders is controlled by both loading and additive ratio (Karkar Table 1b). “[W]here 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to determine an appropriate CMC/additive ratio, including values within the range of the instant claims.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wei does not teach that the carboxymethyl cellulose or a salt thereof has a ratio of a dry mass M to a dry mass m of less than 50 ppm, wherein the dry mass M is a dry mass of a residue on a filter after filtration measured when 2 liters of a 0.3 mass % aqueous solution of the carboxymethyl cellulose or a salt thereof having the dry mass m is prepared and filtered through a 250 mesh filter under a reduced pressure condition of −200 mmHg.
Hidaka teaches a carboxymethylcellulose having a ratio of a dry mass M to a dry mass m of 8 ppm, wherein the dry mass M is a dry mass of a residue on a filter after filtration measured when 2 liters of a 0.3 mass % aqueous solution of the carboxymethyl cellulose or a salt thereof having the dry mass m is prepared and filtered through a 250 mesh filter under a reduced pressure condition of −200 mmHg (Hidaka [0077] and [0079]), which falls within the range of the instant claim. Hidaka teaches that using this material can prevent defects such as streaks and pinholes from occurring in the obtained electrode when it is used as a binder for an electrode of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Hidaka Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the CMC of Hidaka in the electrode binder of modified Wei in order to prevent defects such as streaks and pinholes from occurring in the obtained electrode.
Regarding claim 12, modified Wei does not teach that the carboxymethyl cellulose or a salt thereof is a mechanically pulverized product.
Hidaka teaches a carboxymethylcellulose that is mechanically pulverized (Hidaka [0079]). Hidaka teaches that using this material can prevent defects such as streaks and pinholes from occurring in the obtained electrode when it is used as a binder for an electrode of a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Hidaka Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the CMC of Hidaka in the electrode binder of modified Wei in order to prevent defects such as streaks and pinholes from occurring in the obtained electrode.
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.
/J.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights