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
The amendment filed on 6 March 2026 has been entered. Claim 10 is currently amended and claims 1, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-22 are pending and examined herein.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 10, 14-16, 18, and 20-21 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ho et al. (US 20170207442 A1) is withdrawn on reconsideration. A similar rejection under 25 USC 103 is made in its place.
All other rejections are maintained.
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 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, 6-10, 14-16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US 20170207442 A1). (Hereinafter Ho)
Regarding claim 1, Ho teaches a cathode for a secondary battery ([0011]), comprising a current collector and an electrode layer coated on top of the current collector ([0012]-[0016]), wherein the electrode layer comprises a cathode active material ([0014]), a binder material ([0012]), wherein the cathode is free of an organic solvent ([0012] teaches an aqueous solution used to prepare the cathode, and [0091] teaches the aqueous solution is exclusively water), wherein the binder material is selected from a group consisting of several suitable materials, including polyacrylamide, polyamide, and combinations thereof. [0084] Polyacrylamide and polyamide are polymers comprising an amide functional group and do not contain fluorine.
Additionally, Ho teaches that lithium located near to the surface of the cathode material is reactive to water, and that lithium in many cathode materials will react forming inorganic surface compounds such as Li2CO3, and LiOH ([0081]). Accordingly, lithium hydroxide is presumed to form during the preparation of the cathode slurry in water, and thus, some amount lithium hydroxide would be present as a lithium compound in the electrode layer of the secondary battery.
Ho does not explicitly teach an embodiment or example specifically selecting polyamide or polyacrylamide as the binder material. However, based on the direct suggestion of polyamide or polyacrylamide as a suitable binder, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specifically select one of these materials or a combination thereof as the binder material, because Ho teaches these are suitable binder materials. [0084]
Regarding claim 10, Ho teaches a cathode slurry for a secondary battery ([0011]-[0015]), comprising a cathode active material ([0014]), a binder ([0012]), water as the solvent ([0012] teaches an aqueous solution used to prepare the cathode, and [0091] teaches the aqueous solution is exclusively water), wherein the binder material is selected from a group consisting of several suitable materials, including polyacrylamide, polyamide, and combinations thereof. [0084] Polyacrylamide and polyamide are polymers comprising an amide functional group and do not contain fluorine.
Additionally, Ho teaches that lithium located near to the surface of the cathode material is reactive to water, and that lithium in cathode materials will react forming inorganic surface compounds such as Li2CO3, and LiOH ([0081]). Accordingly, lithium hydroxide is present as a lithium compound in the cathode slurry of the secondary battery.
Ho does not explicitly teach an embodiment or example specifically selecting polyamide or polyacrylamide as the binder material. However, based on the direct suggestion of polyamide or polyacrylamide as a suitable binder, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specifically select one of these materials or a combination thereof as the binder material, because Ho teaches these are suitable binder materials. [0084]
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Ho further teaches the electrode layer further comprises a conductive agent that is selected from the group consisting of carbon, carbon black, graphite, expanded graphite, graphene nanoplatelets, carbon fibers, carbon nano-fibers, graphitized carbon flake, carbon tubes, carbon nanotubes, activated carbon, mesoporous carbon and combinations thereof ([0012], [0021]).
Regarding claims 7-8, and 15-16, 20-21, the polyacrylamide binder taught by Ho is composed of a plurality of acrylamide monomers; therefore, it comprises more than one amide functional groups and satisfies the limitations of the claims (the additional one or more amide functional groups contain O and N, satisfying claims 7 and 15; they consist of amino and ketone groups, satisfying claims 8 and 16; the polyacrylamide as the binder material comprises of a plurality of monomers selected from acrylamide, satisfying claims 20-21).
Regarding claim 9, Example 1 of Ho teaches relative proportions of active material (92 wt.%), carbon black (4 wt.%), and binder (4 wt.%), with NMC811 as the active material. ([0143]-[0145]) With NMC811 including 7.7 wt.% lithium. Upon drying of the electrode, this would provide lithium ion content of about 7%, meeting the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Ho further teaches the cathode slurry has a pH of about 7 to about 10 ([0018]), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho as applied to claims 1, 6-10, 14-16, 18, and 20-21 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 2016/0049645 A1)
Ho teaches a cathode active material that is a lithium-nickel based composite oxide [0100]-[0101], exemplified by NMC811 (LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2, [0144]) which is recited among the materials listed in the Markush group of claims 4 and 12. Ho further suggests Li1+xNiaMnbCocAl(1-a-b-c)O2 as a general formula for a suitable cathode active material, with the same values of x, a, b, and c as recited in claims 4 and 12.[0101] Ho does not specifically teach a dopant as claimed in claims 4 and 12, nor does Ho teach the claimed core-shell composite having the specific core and shell compositions claimed in claims 5 and 13.
Zheng et al teaches a core-shell composite cathode material with improved thermal stability, charging/discharging cycle and high capacity retention. [0010] The core is taught (Table 3; Examples 1-5, 6-13) as corresponding to Li1+xNiaMnbCocAl(1-a-b-c)O2, where x=0.03 or 0.06, a=0.82, b=0, and c=0.15, with the core material further taught as optionally including Mn. [0020]. Al and Mg (Example 7) are taught as being present at dopant levels in the core, meeting the limitations of claims 4 and 12. In addition, Zheng et al teach that a shell coating over the core can comprise Li2MnO3 [0011],[0013], which can be doped, for example with Zr (Table 3, Example 8), meeting the further limitations of claims 5 and 13.
It would have been obvious to modify the cathode and slurry of Ho by selecting the core-shell composite active material of Zheng et al as the cathode active material, because Zheng et al teaches that this material provides improved thermal stability, charging/discharging cycle and high capacity retention. [0010]
Claims 1, 6-10, 14-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omori (JP 2005-085471; cited on IDS filed 24 September 2024) in view of Vandayburg et al (US 6,399,246).
Regarding claim 1, Omori teaches a cathode for a secondary battery [0027] comprising a current collector and an electrode layer coated on top of the current collector [0027] wherein the electrode layer comprises a cathode active material (LiNi0.7Co0.2Al0.1O2, [0021]), a binder material [0022], and a lithium compound that is lithium hydroxide [LiOH, 0022], wherein the cathode is free of an organic solvent (Water as solvent/aqueous medium is exclusively taught in preparing the cathode [0021]-[0027]).
The examples of Omori teach the use of PTFE as an example of a suitable binder [0022], so Omori lacks a teaching of a binder that is a polymer comprising an amide functional group and that is not a fluorine containing polymer.
Vandayburg is relied upon for teaching a water-soluble binder that is useful for preparing electrodes using an aqueous slurry, where the binder comprises polyacrylamide and carboxylated styrene-butadiene copolymer. (Column 2, lines 22-48) Vandayburg teaches that this binder provides electrodes having excellent chemical resistance, excellent adhesive properties, flexibility and resilience, (Column 2, lines 10-22) and teaches that this binder avoids issues of poor water-dispersibility of binders such as PTFE. (Column 1, lines 27-43)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cathode of Omori by replacing the PTFE binder with the polyacrylamide/carboxylated styrene-butadiene copolymer of Vandayburg because Vandayburg teaches that this binder provides electrodes having excellent chemical resistance, excellent adhesive properties, flexibility and resilience, (Column 2, lines 10-22) and teaches that this binder avoids issues of poor water-dispersibility of binders such as PTFE. (Column 1, lines 27-43)
Regarding claim 10, Omori teaches a cathode slurry for a secondary battery comprising a cathode active material (LiNi0.7Co0.2Al0.1O2, [0021]), a binder material [0022], a lithium compound that is lithium hydroxide [LiOH, 0022], and water as the solvent (Water as solvent is exclusively taught [0021]-[0027]).
The examples of Omori teach the use of PTFE as an example of a suitable binder [0022], so Omori lacks a teaching of a binder that is a polymer comprising an amide functional group and that is not a fluorine containing polymer.
Vandayburg is relied upon for teaching a water-soluble binder that is useful for preparing electrodes using an aqueous slurry, where the binder comprises polyacrylamide and carboxylated styrene-butadiene copolymer. (Column 2, lines 22-48) Vandayburg teaches that this binder provides electrodes having excellent chemical resistance, excellent adhesive properties, flexibility and resilience, (Column 2, lines 10-22) and teaches that this binder avoids issues of poor water-dispersibility of binders such as PTFE. (Column 1, lines 27-43)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cathode of Omori by replacing the PTFE binder with the polyacrylamide/carboxylated styrene-butadiene copolymer of Vandayburg because Vandayburg teaches that this binder provides electrodes having excellent chemical resistance, excellent adhesive properties, flexibility and resilience, (Column 2, lines 10-22) and teaches that this binder avoids issues of poor water-dispersibility of binders such as PTFE. (Column 1, lines 27-43)
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Omori further teaches including carbon black as a conductive agent. [0015]
Regarding claims 7, 8, 15, and 16, the carboxylated styrene-butadiene copolymer portion of the binder taught by Vandayburg includes carboxyl groups, which contain O.
Regarding claim 9, Omori teaches for their example that LiNi0.7Co0.2Al0.1O2 comprises 100 parts out of 113 by weight of the solids in the slurry and that 140 g of lithium salt solution (2* 10-4 M) is used for 100 g of LiNi0.7Co0.2Al0.1O2. [0022]. Upon drying as taught in [0027], the lithium content by weight in the electrode layer would be approximately 7%.
Regarding claim 17, Omori teaches exemplary LiOH concentrations in the slurry of 0.0002-0.2 M. [0022]-[0023], which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claims 18 and 22, Omori teaches a slurry pH of 10-13.5 [0014], [0022]-[0023], [0026], which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the polyacrylamide portion of the binder taught by Vandayburg comprises acrylamide monomers.
Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omori and Vandayburg et al as applied to claims 1, 6-10, 14-18, and 20-22 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 2016/0049645 A1)
Modified Omori teaches a cathode active material that is a lithium-nickel based composite oxide [0011], exemplified by LiNi0.7Co0.2Al0.1O2, [0021] which meets the general formula listed in the Markush group of claims 4 and 12, of Li1+xNiaMnbCocAl(1-a-b-c)O2, where x=0, a=0.7, b=0, and c=0.2. Modified Omori does not specifically teach a dopant as claimed in claim 4, nor does modified Omori teach the claimed core-shell composite having the specific core and shell compositions claimed in claim 5.
Zheng et al teaches a core-shell composite cathode material with improved thermal stability, charging/discharging cycle and high capacity retention. [0010] The core is taught (Table 3; Examples 1-5, 6-13) as corresponding to Li1+xNiaMnbCocAl(1-a-b-c)O2, where x=0.03 or 0.06, a=0.82, b=0, and c=0.15. Al and Mg (Example 7) are taught as being present at dopant levels in the core, meeting the limitations of claims 4 and 12. In addition, Zheng et al teach that a shell coating over the core can comprise Li2MnO3 [0011],[0013], which can be doped, for example with Zr (Table 3, Example 8), meeting the further limitations of claims 5 and 13.
It would have been obvious to further modify the cathode and slurry of Omori by selecting the core-shell composite active material of Zheng et al as the cathode active material, because Zheng et al teaches that this material provides improved thermal stability, charging/discharging cycle and high capacity retention. [0010]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 6-10, 14-18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Omori in view of Vandayburg et al., Applicant argues that the instant invention provides unexpected advantageous results. In support of this, Applicant offers a comparison of examples 23 and 24 of the instant disclosure with examples 2 and 3 of Omori. This is not persuasive, at least because it has not demonstrated that the data is directly comparable. Omori’s examples use acetylene black, carboxymethylcellulose and a specific NCA composition (LiNi0.7Co0.2Al0.1O2)as an active material, with particular ratios of solid components, and particular ratio of pH-adjusted lithium salt solution to the solid components. [0022]-[0023]. In contrast, specification examples 23 and 24 are not shown to include the same materials in the same ratios, or to have been processed in the same manner. There is no expectation that morphologies would be comparable, or any other variables known to have an impact on electrode performance. There seems to be little evidence that would lead one having ordinary skill in the art to conclude that any differences in the respective reported results would be unexpected.
In addition, it is noted that "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) In this instance, the claims are far broader in terms of cathode active material, lithium compound, and specific binder material, for example, than the few examples offered as evidence of unexpected results. Furthermore, To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
It is also noted that a property argued as being an advantage of the claimed invention, i.e. the stabilized pH, appears to be attributed to addition of the lithium compound. It is noted that Omori teaches lithium hydroxide - one of the lithium compounds recited in the claim. It would be expected that any benefit attributable to this compound would also be present in the prior art.
Fundamentally, Vandayberg teaches advantages in selecting a polyacrylamide-containing binder in avoiding issues seen with PTFE within aqueous-electrolyte environments. This provides quite clear motivation to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Omori to use such a binder, as presented in the rejection above, and this prima facie case of obviousness has not been persuasively rebutted by the limited evidence provided to date.
Applicant further argues that the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection over the Ho reference should be withdrawn. On reconsideration, the examiner agrees the teaching of polyamide or polyacrylamide binders in Ho is not specific enough to support a case of anticipation. Nevertheless, the direct suggestion of these materials as suitable binders is considered to have rendered selection of either material as the binder obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, and a rejection under 35 USC 103 is made. Neither polyamide nor polyacrylamide is a fluorine-containing polymer, and thus the limitations of the claim are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Barton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1307. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 AM – 6:00 PM.
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.
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.
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 23 June 2026
Prosecution Insights