DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 are amended, Claim 27 is newly added and Claims 1-7 and 26-27 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 26-27 are 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 1 recites the limitation, “20 times a weight of the graphene in the mixing in the first step” in Line 22. The first step no longer involves graphene. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claims 2-7 and 26-27 ultimately depends from claim 1 thus claims 2-7 and 26-27 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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, 3 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenuma et al. (US 20150166348 A1), hereinafter "Ikenuma" in view of Kim et al. (US 20200028177 A1), hereinafter "Kim". Ikenuma and Kim et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary battery materials.
In regard to Claim 1, 3 and 26, Ikenuma et al. discloses a secondary battery and an electrode comprising a positive active material comprising at least lithium and cobalt, a reduced graphene oxide, a carbon black , and a binder (Ikenuma, [0099, 0122, 0281]), which is produced by a method comprising a step of mixing graphene which may have 2-100 layers (Ikenuma, [0002, 0013]) and a conductive additive such as carbon black (Ikenuma [0122]) with a positive active material to obtain a mixture (steps 1-3), kneading that mixture (step 4) and then mixing the carbon black, graphene, and positive active material mixture with a binder (step 5), mixing that mixture with a dispersion medium to obtain an electrode slurry (step 6) (Ikenuma, [0281]).
Ikenuma further discloses applying the electrode slurry to a positive electrode current collector, drying the electrode slurry on the positive electrode current collector to form a positive electrode (Ikenuna, [0281]) and overlapping the positive electrode and a negative electrode to form a secondary battery (steps 7-9) (Ikenuma, [0005], Electrode A).
While the skilled artisans of Ikenuma must provide the carbon black in some measured wt%, they disclose the carbon black additive as being provided in a vol% based on the graphene, however it would be obvious to provide the carbon black corresponding to wt% as evidenced by Kim et al. which discloses a beneficial secondary battery comprising an active material comprising lithium and cobalt, graphene, carbon black, a binder and a dispersion medium wherein the carbon black is provided in a weight of 10 times a weight of the graphene (Kim, Example 1), which anticipates the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a positive active material, binder graphene and carbon black in the mixture at the amount taught in Kim to the mixture of Ikenuma as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known material in a known amount to improve similar devices in the same way.
Further, Ikenuma discloses that the kneading step may be performed as many times as necessary, the binder may be added in several parts and at different times and some other known variations to the method of production (Ikenuma [0133-0136]). Considering the skilled artisan of Ikenuma ultimately combines the carbon black, graphene and active material (steps 1-3), kneads the mixture (step 4) and adds a portion of binder (step 5) before mixing with a dispersion medium (step 6) and drying on the collector to form a battery (steps 7-9) and the skilled artisan of Ikenuma already considers variations in process steps 1-5 by performing binder addition in parts and kneading in multiple stages, it would be obvious to try an order of steps 1-3 to include mixing a part of the binder and carbon black first, then combining the mixture with graphene before mixing with the active material and reaching step 4 of Ikenuma. Lastly, the current application states that the sequence is not particularly limited and expressly permits mixing the binder, graphene and carbon black simultaneously and that kneading and mixing are not differentiated (Original Specification, [0091-0095]). It is also noted, that no order of addition in comparative examples are provided in the current application and given Ikenuma in view of Kim discloses a secondary battery electrode with substantially the same mixture of materials in similar ratios, selecting a different order in known process steps has been held as a prima facie case of obviousness absent new or unexpected results, In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) see MPEP §2144.04.
In regard to Claim 27, Ikenuma in view of Kim et al. discloses the method for forming a secondary battery according to Claim 1. Ikenuma et al. also discloses wherein a weight ratio of the graphene to a total of the positive electrode active material, the graphene, the carbon black and the binder is higher than or equal to 0.1 wt% and lower than or equal to 0.5 wt% (Ikenuma, [0075]), which anticipates the claimed range.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenuma et al. (US 20150166348 A1), hereinafter "Ikenuma" in view of Kim et al. (US 20200028177 A1), hereinafter "Kim" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fujino et al. (WO 2019225437 A1 - US 20210202984 A1 referenced for citations), hereinafter "Fujino". Ikenuma, Kim and Fujino et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary battery materials.
In regard to Claim 2, Ikenuma in view of Kim et al. discloses the method for forming a secondary battery according to claim 1. Ikenuma et al. also discloses wherein pressing is performed after the eith step (Ikenuma, [0183]), however, Ikenuma is silent as to the pressure in kN/m chosen by the skilled artisan to perform the pressing. Fujino et al. discloses a positive electrode mixture applied to a current collector, then dried (step 5) and then pressed with a roll press at 1 t/cm which is equivalent to 981 kN/m (Fujino, [0126]), which anticipates the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to select the pressure for roll pressing as taught in Fujino et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of pressure for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenuma et al. (US 20150166348 A1), hereinafter "Ikenuma" in view of Kim et al. (US 20200028177 A1), hereinafter "Kim" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sun et al. (AIF3-Coating to Improve High Voltage Cycling Performance of Li[Ni1/3Co1/3Mn1/3]O2 Cathode Materials for Lithium Secondary Batteries, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 154 (3) A168-A172, 2007), hereinafter "Sun". Ikenuma, Kim and Sun et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary battery materials.
In regard to Claims 4-7, Ikenuma in view of Kim et al. discloses the method for forming a secondary battery according to Claim 3. Ikenuma et al. also discloses cathode active material is not particularly limited, but is silent as to the active material containing Li, Co, Ni, Mn, Al and a fluorine in a surface portion.
Sun et al. discloses an Li[Ni₁/₃ Co₁/₃ Mn₁/₃]O₂ cathode active material provided with an AIF₃ coating, which is a beneficial coating that improved cycle performance and rate capability under a high cutoff voltage (Sun, Abstract). The AIF₃ coating thus provides a positive electrode active material comprising Li, Co, Ni, Mn, Al and Fluorine in a surface portion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an ALF₃ surface coating to the Li[Ni₁/₃ Co₁/₃ Mn₁/₃]O₂ cathode active material as taught in Sun as the active material in Ikenuma et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Sun and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yun et al. (US 20170365858 A1) which discloses a positive electrode material slurry for secondary battery including a positive electrode active material, a conductive agent, a binder, and a solvent, wherein the conductive agent includes a first conductive agent and a second conductive agent (Yun, Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights