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 September 10, 2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. The examiner respectfully acknowledges the cancellation of claim 17. Accordingly, claims 1-16, 21-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 14, and 21 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to the original claim in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 27, 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the specification overcome the objection to informalities in the specification in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 27, 2025. Additionally, the amendment to Claim 22 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to the original claim in the same office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, and 21 (Remarks from 9/10/2025: p11 para 3 bridging to p12 para 1) 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 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 3 is 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 3 recites “the method of claim 2, wherein at least one of the first and second solvents further comprises water, N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), or a combination of water and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).” This is indefinite because the Markush group describing the first and second solvents in claim 1 recites in lines 10-12 “the first and second solvents are independently selected from the group consisting of: acetone, acetonitrile, cyclooctane, ethanol, methanol, and combinations thereof,” which based on plain meaning would indicate a closed group and not open to additional compounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites in lines 10-12 “the first and second solvents are independently selected from the group consisting of: acetone, acetonitrile, cyclooctane, ethanol, methanol, and combinations thereof.” The plain meaning of the recited phrase defines a Markush group listing specified alternatives and requires selection from a closed group “consisting of” the alternative members; see MPEP 2117. However, based on examination of claim 3, in which the claim recites that at least one of the first and second solvents further comprises water, NMP, or a combination of water and NMP, it is clear that Applicant wishes the first and second solvent to be open to additional compounds. The examiner is open to that interpretation and has examined claim 1 accordingly. The examiner respectfully proposes that Applicant amend the claim language of claim 1 to instead recite “the first and second solvents each comprise compounds independently selected from the group consisting of: acetone, acetonitrile, cyclooctane, ethanol, methanol, and combinations thereof” in lines 10-12 to reflect their intended interpretation.
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 1-5, 7-8, 12, 14, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 2015/0140423 A1) in view of Nishiwaki et al (WO 2019230714 A1) and Han et al (KR 20220102255 A). Supporting evidence is provided by Eliassaf J, “Solutions of Neutralized Poly-(acrylic acid) in Mixtures Water-Ethanol” J Applied Polymer Sci Vol 7, 1963; Marshall et al “On the Solubility and Stability of Polyvinylidene Fluoride” Polymers 13, 1354, 2021; Polymer Source, Inc., “Poly(acrylic acid) sodium salt,” Product Specification Sheet for Sample# P4457-ANa, 2025.
Brown teaches a method for forming an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions ([0002], [0006] lines 9-15). Brown discloses an example method wherein silicon particles as precursor electroactive material ([0020] lines 15-20, [0021]) are contacted with a polymeric solution comprising water and binder material of neutralized polyacrylic acid (PAA) ([0126]-[0127]) to form a first admixture that is that is then subjected to a mixing force via an overhead mixer to form a first mixture ([0127]). Brown consequently teaches that the first mixture is dried to form a plurality of electroactive material agglomerates which are composite particles coated with the polymeric binder material ([0127]). Although the cited example does not teach use of a conductive material in the first admixture, Brown discloses elsewhere in the text that the polymer coating may contain conductive material within its structure ([0068] lines 29-30), which presumably would require conductive material to be added to the polymeric solution. Because the polymer coating can be comprised of binder material with conductive material within its structure, the teaching also reads on the limitation that each agglomerate has an electroactive material particle in contact with the conductive material via the binder material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added conductive material to the polymeric solution as a component in the first admixture given that Brown teaches the suitability of incorporating conductive material to the polymer coating.
Brown also teaches a slurry prepared by contacting a plurality of electroactive material agglomerates (silicon composite particles) to NMP, and shear mixing them in a high shear mixer ([0130]). Brown further teaches disposing the mixed slurry on a surface of a current collector as a composite material to form the electrode ([0083], [0130], [0008]).
Brown does not teach first and second solvents independently selected from the group consisting of: acetone, acetonitrile, cyclooctane, ethanol, methanol, and combinations thereof, and therefore does not teach the solubility of the binder material in the second solvent.
Brown discloses in paragraph [0061] that the first polymeric coating is suitably soluble in a solvent used to support the process of coating silicon particles. Brown also teaches in paragraph [0085] that obtaining the coated particles, i.e., the composite particles, may include drying steps.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishiwaki teaches in [0074] of the machine translation that the composition for a secondary battery electrode mixture layer may use, for the purpose of adjusting the properties and drying properties of the composition, a mixed solvent of water and a water-soluble organic solvent such as a lower alcohol such as methanol or ethanol, a carbonate such as ethylene carbonate, a ketone such as acetone, tetrahydrofuran, or N-methylpyrrolidone. Reference Eliassaf provides evidence that neutralized polyacrylic acid (PAA) can be soluble in a range of mixtures of ethanol and water (p1, Fig. 1).
As stated in the claims interpretation section, the examiner has read the limitation of the first and second solvents as being open to additional compounds based on the inclusion of dependent claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ethanol as the claimed first solvent within Brown’s method such that the mixture of ethanol with water would enable the necessary properties and drying properties for the first mixture to form the composite silicon particles, as taught by Nishiwaki.
Brown also discloses in paragraph [0083] regarding the second mixture “the composite materials included in the electrodes of the first aspect of the invention are cohesive materials, which adhere well to current collectors onto which they are formed. The electrodes of the first aspect of the invention may be simply prepared and a second aspect of the invention provides a method of manufacturing an electrode comprising a composite material, the method comprising the steps of preparing a slurry comprising a composite particle, a second particle component a polymeric binder and a carrier solvent and casting the slurry onto a current collector…, ” with the underline formatting added for emphasis.
Analogous art Han teaches in [0037] of the machine translation that solvents acetone, tetrahydrofuran, methylene chloride, chloroform, dimethylformamide, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (Nmethyl- 2-pyrrolidone, NMP), cyclohexane, water, or mixtures thereof provide an appropriate level of viscosity so that an electrode slurry application layer can be made at a desired level on the surface of the current collector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use acetone as the claimed second solvent within modified Brown’s method such that the mixture of acetone with NMP would provide an appropriate level of viscosity to form an electrode slurry application layer with the slurry (i.e., second mixture) onto a current collector, as taught by Han.
Accordingly, within the combination using the second solvent with solvent NMP, the plurality of electroactive material agglomerates contacts the second solvent of acetone to form a second admixture. As Brown teaches that the second admixture is mixed in a high shear mixer ([0130]), the mixer would be expected to apply a mixing force to the second admixture to form a second mixture. Brown further teaches disposing the mixed slurry on a surface of a current collector as a composite material to form the electrode ([0083], [0130], [0008]). Therefore, the combination of prior art reads on the formation of a second mixture as the result of applying a mixing force to the second admixture and disposing the second mixture on a surface of a current collector to form the electrode. It is known that the binder material neutralized PAA is insoluble in acetone (the second solvent), according to evidence provided by Polymer Source, Inc (p1, left col).
Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the method of claim 2. Brown further teaches that the method of forming the second admixture comprises contacting a polymeric binder such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) as a second binder material to a carrier liquid ([0048], [0077], [0130]). Within the combination of prior art, the carrier liquid is taught to be NMP mixed with second solvent acetone for viscosity adjustment. Accordingly, the second binder material also contacts the second solvent acetone. Han teaches in paragraphs [0036]-[0037] that acetone (as well as NMP and mixtures of acetone and NMP) is a suitable solvent to PVdF, therefore the second binder material PVdF is expected to be soluble in the second solvent acetone. This is supported by evidentiary reference Marshall in Table 2 that acetone and NMP are known solvents for PVdF, and therefore, PVdF as the second binder material is soluble in the second solvent and is also expected to be soluble in mixtures of the second solvent with NMP. Additionally, PVdF is different from neutralized polyacrylic acid which is the first binder material.
Regarding claim 3, the combination above teaches the method of claim 2, and as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, within the combination, water is taught as a solvent paired with ethanol for the first mixture, and the NMP is taught as a solvent mixed with acetone for the second mixture. Therefore, the teaching meets the limitations of claim 3 wherein at least one of the first and second solvents further comprises water or NMP.
Regarding claim 4, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1, and as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, within the combination, ethanol is the first solvent and acetone is the second solvent, and they are different as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the method of claim 2, and Brown further teaches that polyacrylic acid (PAA) or carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) are suitable options to be used as the first binder material which provides the first polymeric coating ([0024]), and also teaches that the second binder material can be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) ([0130]) or a polyimide ([0078]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, and as pointed out previously in addressing claim 1, Brown teaches conductive material may be present in the polymeric coating and is considered a first conductive material ([0060]). Brown further teaches that forming the second admixture comprises contacting vapor grown carbon fibers (VGCF) to the second solvent NMP ([0130], [0081] lines 47-49), and the VGCF is considered a second conductive material.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the method of claim 7, and as pointed out previously in addressing claim 7, Brown teaches the first conductive material may be present in the polymeric coating and can be carbon black, graphene, or carbon fibers ([0060]), and the second conductive material can be carbon fibers in the form of VGCF ([0130]), which are both claimed species.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, and Brown further teaches the polymeric solution has a concentration in the range 5-25% which is within the claimed range ([0086]).
Regarding claim 14, Brown teaches a method for forming an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions (Brown: [0002], [0006] lines 9-15). Brown discloses an example method wherein silicon particles as precursor electroactive material are contacted with a polymeric solution comprising water and binder material of neutralized polyacrylic acid (PAA) ([0126]-[0127]) to form an admixture that is that is then subjected to a mixing force via an overhead mixer to form a mixture ([0127]). Brown consequently teaches that the mixture is dried to form a plurality of electroactive material agglomerates which are composite particles coated with the polymeric binder material ([0127]). Although the cited example does not teach use of a conductive material in the admixture, Brown discloses elsewhere in the text that the polymer coating may contain conductive material within its structure ([0068] lines 29-30), which presumably would require conductive material to be added to the polymeric solution. Because the polymer coating can be comprised of binder material with conductive material within its structure, the teaching also reads on the limitation that each agglomerate has an electroactive material particle in contact with the conductive material via the binder material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added conductive material to the polymeric solution as a component in the admixture given that Brown teaches the suitability of incorporating conductive material to the polymer coating.
Brown does not teach a solvent selected from the group consisting of acetone, acetonitrile, cyclooctane, ethanol, methanol, and combinations thereof.
Brown discloses in paragraph [0061] that the first polymeric coating is suitably soluble in a solvent used to support the process of coating silicon particles. Brown also teaches in paragraph [0085] that obtaining the coated particles, i.e., the composite particles, may include drying steps.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishiwaki teaches in [0074] of the machine translation that the composition for a secondary battery electrode mixture layer may use, for the purpose of adjusting the properties and drying properties of the composition, a mixed solvent of water and a water-soluble organic solvent such as a lower alcohol such as methanol or ethanol, a carbonate such as ethylene carbonate, a ketone such as acetone, tetrahydrofuran, or N-methylpyrrolidone. Reference Eliassaf provides evidence that neutralized polyacrylic acid (PAA) can be soluble in a range of mixtures of ethanol and water (p1, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ethanol as the claimed solvent within Brown’s method because the mixture of ethanol with water would enable the necessary properties and drying properties for the first mixture to form the composite silicon particles, as taught by Nishiwaki.
Regarding claim 21, Brown teaches a method for forming an electrode for an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions ([0002], [0006] lines 9-15, [0083]), the method comprising contacting silicon composite particles as a plurality of electroactive material agglomerates ([0020] lines 15-20, [0021]) to NMP to form a mixture ([0130]). Although the cited example does not teach use of a conductive material in the plurality of electroactive material agglomerates, Brown teaches elsewhere in the text that the plurality of electroactive material agglomerates can be silicon particles with a polymeric coating containing a conductive material within its structure ([0068] lines 1-2, 7-8, 29-30). Given that the polymeric coating is formed by a binder material, Brown thereby teaches the limitation of an electroactive material particle in contact with a conductive material via a binder material. In an example associated with [0130], Brown discloses a binder material is provided by neutralized polyacrylic acid ([0062] lines 21-25, [0127]).
Brown does not teach that the solvent contacting a plurality of electroactive material agglomerates to form a mixture is one selected from the group consisting of: acetone, acetonitrile, cyclooctane, ethanol, methanol, and combinations thereof, and therefore does not teach the solubility of the binder material in the solvent.
However, Brown does disclose in paragraph [0083] regarding the mixture “the composite materials included in the electrodes of the first aspect of the invention are cohesive materials, which adhere well to current collectors onto which they are formed. The electrodes of the first aspect of the invention may be simply prepared and a second aspect of the invention provides a method of manufacturing an electrode comprising a composite material, the method comprising the steps of preparing a slurry comprising a composite particle, a second particle component a polymeric binder and a carrier solvent and casting the slurry onto a current collector…, ” with the underline formatting added for emphasis.
Analogous art Han teaches in [0037] of the machine translation that solvents acetone, tetrahydrofuran, methylene chloride, chloroform, dimethylformamide, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (Nmethyl- 2-pyrrolidone, NMP), cyclohexane, water, or mixtures thereof provide an appropriate level of viscosity so that an electrode slurry application layer can be made at a desired level on the surface of the current collector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use acetone as the claimed solvent within modified Brown’s method such that acetone mixed with NMP would provide an appropriate level of viscosity to form an electrode slurry application layer with the slurry (i.e., mixture) onto a current collector, as taught by Han.
Accordingly, within the combination using the claimed solvent acetone with NMP, the plurality of electroactive material agglomerates contacts the claimed solvent acetone to form a mixture. Within the combination, Brown further teaches disposing the mixture on a surface of a current collector as a composite material to form the electrode ([0083], [0130], [0008]). It is known that the binder material neutralized PAA is insoluble in acetone (the claimed solvent), according to evidence provided by Polymer Source, Inc. (p1 left col).
Regarding claim 22, the combination above teaches the method of claim 21, and Brown further teaches in the example of [0130] that the composite silicon particles (electroactive material agglomerates) and the solvent are mixed in a high shear mixer, which would be expected to apply a mixing force to them.
Regarding claim 23, the combination above teaches the method of claim 21, and the claimed solvent acetone previously pointed out previously in addressing claim 21 is a first solvent. Brown further teaches that the method includes preparing the plurality of electroactive material agglomerates ([0127]), which comprises contacting silicon particles as a precursor electroactive material to a polymeric solution comprising water as a second solvent and neutralized polyacrylic acid as the binder material ([0126]-[0127]). As pointed out previously in addressing claim 21, the polymeric coating of the composite particle may also include a conductive material within its structure (Brown: [0068] lines 29-30) which therefore teaches the option of contacting the conductive material to a polymeric solution comprising the second solvent water and the binder material in order to incorporate conductive material into the polymeric coating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added conductive material to the polymeric solution as a component in the preparation of the plurality of electroactive material agglomerates given that Brown teaches the suitability of incorporating conductive material to the polymer coating.
Regarding claim 24, the combination above teaches the method of claim 2, and Brown further teaches that carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) is a suitable option to be used as the first binder material which provides the first polymeric coating ([0024]), and also teaches that the second binder material can be a polyimide ([0078]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150140423 A1) in view of Nishiwaki et al (WO 2019230714 A1) and Han et al (KR 20220102255 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Loveridge et al (US 20120094178 A1). Supporting evidence is provided by Eliassaf J, “Solutions of Neutralized Poly-(acrylic acid) in Mixtures Water-Ethanol” J Applied Polymer Sci Vol 7, 1963; Marshall et al “On the Solubility and Stability of Polyvinylidene Fluoride” Polymers 13, 1354, 2021; Polymer Source, Inc., “Poly(acrylic acid) sodium salt,” Product Specification Sheet for Sample# P4457-ANa, 2025.
Regarding claim 13, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1. Brown further teaches the second admixture has a solids content of 50% and has a viscosity between 1000 to 4500 mPa s at 20 s-1 which overlaps with the claimed range ([0130], [0108]). Barring criticality of shear rate for the claimed viscosity 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; see MPEP 2144.05, I. 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).
Additionally, Loveridge teaches that the viscosity for a composite electrode mix can affect its adhesion to a substrate or current collector, therefore it is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have adjusted the viscosity of the second admixture within the method of modified Brown per Loveridge’s teaching to optimize its adhesion to the current collector with the expectation that it would work.
Claims 6, 9-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150140423 A1) in view of Nishiwaki et al (WO 2019230714 A1) and Han et al (KR 20220102255 A) as applied to claims 1 and 14, and in view of Shironaga et al (JP 2022083160 A). Supporting evidence is provided by Eliassaf J, “Solutions of Neutralized Poly-(acrylic acid) in Mixtures Water-Ethanol” J Applied Polymer Sci Vol 7, 1963; Marshall et al “On the Solubility and Stability of Polyvinylidene Fluoride” Polymers 13, 1354, 2021; Polymer Source, Inc., “Poly(acrylic acid) sodium salt,” Product Specification Sheet for Sample# P4457-ANa, 2025.
Regarding claim 6, the combination above teaches the method of claim 2 but does not teach that the second admixture comprises greater than or equal to about 50 wt. % to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt. % of the plurality of electroactive material agglomerates or the wt. % of the second binder material.
Shironaga teaches manufacturing of an electrode from composite particles coated with a conductive material and a binder (translation: Abstract; p3 para 6) using less than 5% by weight of materials other than the composite particles, which would be greater than about 95% electroactive material agglomerates and overlap with the claimed range (p6 para 2). Shironaga also discloses that other materials added at less than 5% can include additional binders, which is within the claimed range of the second binder material (p6 para 2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05, I. 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). Shironaga further discloses that minimizing solvent use can reduce the drying time and amount of organic solvent used (p6 para 2) and that their range of binder coverage balances the role of binding the electrode materials to each other while supporting high rate characteristics (p11 para 4; p12 para 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have adjusted modified Brown’s second admixture to use the amounts of electroactive material agglomerates and second binder material taught by Shironaga to obtain the advantages of reduced drying time and reduced organic solvent in forming electrodes from the agglomerates and also to bind the electrode materials to each other while supporting high rate performance of the battery.
Regarding claim 9, the combination above teaches the method of claim 7 but does not teach that the second admixture comprises greater than or equal to about 50 wt. % to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt. % of the plurality of electroactive material agglomerates or the wt. % of the second conductive material.
Shironaga teaches manufacturing of an electrode from composite particles coated with a conductive material and a binder (Abstract; p3 para 6) using less than 5% by weight of materials other than the composite particles, which would be greater than about 95% electroactive material agglomerates and overlap with the claimed range (p6 para 2). Shironaga also discloses that other materials added at less than 5% can include additional conductive materials, which is within the claimed range of the second conductive material (p6 para 2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05, I. 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). Shironaga further discloses that minimizing solvent use can reduce the drying time and amount of organic solvent used (p6 para 2) and that their invention’s range of conductive material coverage results in improved battery high rate characteristics (p8 para 4, p11 para 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have adjusted modified Brown’s second admixture to use the amounts of electroactive material agglomerates and second conductive material taught by Shironaga to obtain the advantages of reduced drying time and reduced organic solvent in forming electrodes from the agglomerates and also battery high rate performance.
Regarding claim 10, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1 but does not teach a cumulative weight of the binder material and the conductive material in the first admixture.
Shironaga is relied upon to teach manufacturing of composite particles in which active material particles are coated with a conductive material and a binder, analogous to the first admixture (Abstract; p3 para 6), and wherein the composite particles may contain a conductive material in an amount of 0.7% by weight or more and 10% by weight or less, and a binder in a proportion of 0.3% by weight or more and 5% by weight or less (p3 para 5). The lower end of the cumulative weight of the binder material and the conductive material would therefore be 1% by weight or more and 15% by weight or less, which overlaps with 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; see MPEP 2144.05, I. 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). Shironaga further teaches that their invention further enhances the rate characteristics of a power storage device, such as a secondary battery (Abstract), which is also taught by Brown as an application (Brown: [0113]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have adjusted the method of modified Brown of the first admixture to utilize a conductive material and a binder according to the cumulative weight taught by Shironaga to take advantage of enhanced rate characteristics of a secondary battery.
Additionally, Shironaga teaches that the binder coverage and the conductive material coverage of the composite particles affects its high rate characteristics and discharge capacity, therefore they are result-effective variables (p3 para 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have adjusted the binder and conductive material amounts in the method of the first admixture of modified Brown as taught by Shironaga to optimize the high rate characteristics and discharge capacity of the electrodes.
Regarding claim 11, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1 but does not teach that the first admixture has a solids content greater than or equal to about 80 wt.%. Shironaga is relied upon to teach manufacturing of composite particles in which active material particles are coated with a conductive material and a binder, analogous to the first admixture (Abstract; p3 para 6), and wherein it uses 1% by weight or less organic solvent with respect to the mixed raw material to which the solvent is not added (p4 para 2), which would correlate with a solids content greater than 80%. Shironaga further teaches that the method reduces the drying time and the amount of organic solvent used to form the composite particles (p4 para 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of modified Brown to use a first admixture of a solids content greater than 80% as taught by Shironaga for the benefit of reducing the drying time and amount of organic solvent used to form the composite particles (electroactive material agglomerates).
Regarding claim 15, the combination above teaches the method of claim 14. Brown further teaches that polyacrylic acid (PAA) or carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) are suitable options to be used as the binder material which provides the first polymeric coating ([0024]). Brown also teaches the conductive material may be present in the polymeric coating and can be carbon black, graphene, or carbon fibers ([0060]).
The combination does not teach a cumulative weight of the binder material and the conductive material in the first admixture.
Shironaga is relied upon to teach manufacturing of composite particles in which active material particles are coated with a conductive material and a binder, analogous to the first admixture (Abstract; p3 para 6), and wherein the composite particles may contain a conductive material in an amount of 0.7% by weight or more and 10% by weight or less, and a binder in a proportion of 0.3% by weight or more and 5% by weight or less (p3 para 5). The lower end of the cumulative weight of the binder material and the conductive material would therefore be 1% by weight or more and 15% by weight or less, which overlaps with 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; see MPEP 2144.05, I. 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). Shironaga further teaches that their invention further enhances the rate characteristics of a power storage device, such as a secondary battery (Abstract), which is also taught by Brown as an application (Brown: [0113]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of modified Brown of the admixture to utilize a conductive material and a binder according to the cumulative weight taught by Shironaga to take advantage of enhanced rate characteristics of a secondary battery.
Additionally, Shironaga teaches that the binder coverage and the conductive material coverage of the composite particles affects its high rate characteristics and discharge capacity, therefore they are result-effective variables (p3 para 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have adjusted the binder and conductive material amounts in the modified method of the admixture of Brown as taught by Shironaga to optimize the high rate characteristics and discharge capacity of the electrodes.
Regarding claim 16, the combination above teaches the method of claim 14 but does not teach that the first admixture has a solids content greater than or equal to about 80 wt.%. Shironaga is relied upon to teach manufacturing of composite particles in which active material particles are coated with a conductive material and a binder, analogous to the admixture (Abstract; p3 para 6), and wherein it uses 1% by weight or less organic solvent with respect to the mixed raw material to which the solvent is not added (p4 para 2), which would correlate with a solids content greater than 80%. Shironaga further teaches that the method reduces the drying time and the amount of organic solvent used (p4 para 2) to form the composite particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the modified method of Brown to use an admixture of a solids content greater than 80% as taught by Shironaga for the benefit of reducing the drying time and amount of organic solvent used to form the composite particles (electroactive material agglomerates).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/GIGI LEE LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 3 October 2025
Prosecution Insights