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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response, filed a declaration, and amended claim 1 on 09/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The arguments and declaration were fully considered. The amended claims are addressed in the rejections below.
The declaration states:
“[t]he office action in response to the data in the specification clearly showing
dramatically improved results using a screw fibrillator asserts that "[a] single experiment using specific parameters with a screw fibrillator may have resulted in a product with superior properties than a product formed under a single experiment using specific parameters in a jet mill, but generalization concluding the superiority of using the screw fibrillatory in undisclosed parameters or settings appears unsupported." I fully disagree with this assertion and submit that the results we achieved using a screw fibrillator as exemplified in the specification consistently show dramatically improved results over other high shear methods and this improvement is observed not only using graphite as is exemplified in the specification, but are independent of the active material used such that the results exemplified in the specification are equally applicable to electrodes that include any of the claimed active materials.”
Declarant explains the electrode components were combined and subjected to high shear fibrillation using a Magic Bullet blender system as an example of traditional art accepted high shear mixing or prepared on a twin screw fibrillator (TSE).
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. The evidence as presented appear to show electrode film prepared with a twin-screw extruder provides improved results compared to electrode film prepared with a jet mill.
However, there appears to be no experiment or data using alternative high shear techniques as stated to support that a screw fibrillator shows improved and unexpected results over other high shear methods argued.
In the experiment results provided in Figure 1-3, it is unclear if the intermixing performed on the TSE is at low shear to prevent pre-mature fibrilization until a substantially homogenous mix was obtained as disclosed in [0082] or high shear mixing [0031].
In the experiment results provided in Figure 2, Declarant explains the TSE generated films possess dramatically improved strain relative to the Magic Bullet blended electrode films demonstrating the use of prior high shear process produce electrode films that are more brittle, but it appears the comparison is based on different compositions (92 wt% active on TSE, 94wt% active on blender, and 96wt% on TSE).
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, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixom (WO 2017/197299) in view of Bankaitis (PG-PUB 2015/0062779) and Duncan (PG-PUB 2011/0204284).
Regarding claim 1, Wixom teaches a process for forming a fibrillized material suitable for use in an electrochemical cell (Claim 26) comprising:
combining an electrochemically active material with a fibrillizable binder to form a precursor material [0024], [0067],
intermixing said precursor material to form a fibrillized material [0052], [0067], [0072],
wherein the precursor material includes 30 wt% or less of a liquid [0070],
wherein said electrochemically active material comprsies active electrode material in the form of Nickel Maganese Cobalt (NMC), Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA), Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LCO), Iron Maganese Phosphate (LmFP) and graphite are used [0064], [0066],
wherein the fibrillized material excludes active carbon [0057]-[0058].
Wixom teaches high-shear mixing to blending and fibrillation under high-shear mixer [0067].
Wixom teaches the fibrillizable binder, includes polytetrafluoroethylene [0067]-[0068] and said binder is present at 8% (Table 1 and [0088]) or 5% (Table 2).
Wixom does not teach (1) intermixing said precursor material in a screw fibrillator; (2) said fibrillizable binder is present at less than 5 weight percent; and (3) said electrochemically active material or solid-state electrolyte material is present 50 mol% or greater.
As to (1), Bankaitis teaches a process of forming a carbon-based electrode comprising forming a mixture including activated carbon particles, binder, and an optional liquid and fibrillating the binder to form a fibrillated mixture. Bankaitis teaches the mixture (dry or wet) can be fibrillated, for example, in a jet mill or screw extruder such as a single screw or double screw extruder [0041]-[0042]. Bankaitis teaches wet fibrillation can be conducted in equipment that applies considerable shear to the activated carbon, carbon black and PTFE mixture. Bankaitis teaches example fibrillation apparatus include screw extruders (i.e., augers) including a twin screw extruder [0045].
Both Wixom and Bankaitis are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to intermixing electrode material. Wixom does not disclose the specific mechanism used to perform intermixing, prompting one to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Wixom with the screw fibrillator of Bankaitis, a known suitable mixing mechanism for fibrillation, for the purpose of intermixing electrode material and binder as desired by Bankaitis.
As to (2), Duncan teaches a process of manufacturing carbon electrode batch material comprising activated carbon [0015]-[0016] and binder, such as PTFE [0017]-[0018]). Duncan teaches using unfibrillated PTFE for use in the batch material, wherein the batch material may comprise from 0.1 wt% to 20 wt% [0019]-[0021].
Both Wixom and Duncan are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to intermixing electrode material. Wixom does not disclose a range of binder concentration, prompting one to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Wixom with the PTFE binder concentration range of Duncan, a known suitable binder range for forming active electrode material, to yield the predictable result of providing an appropriate amount of fibrillized binder for the electrode material of Wixom.
Given that the claimed range of less than 5 wt% is within the prior art range of 0.1 wt% to 20 wt%, the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to (3), the mixture comprises the active material, processing additive, conductive carbon, and binder (Wixom, Table 1), wherein the electrochemically active material comprises the active material, processing additive, and conductive carbon (Wixom, Table 1). Wixom teaches the binder comprises 8 wt% of the formulation while the active material, processing additive, and conductive carbon comprises the remaining 92 wt%.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that PTFE is a high molecular weight polymer. Given that the prior art teaches a small weight percentage of the formulation includes the binder, only of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the mole percent of the binder would also be very low compared to the remaining formulation comprising the electrochemically active material.
Furthermore, by converting the weight percent of the individual components to the mole percent, the mole percent of the binder and electrochemically active material can be calculated. Based on the formulation as provided in Table 1, the 8 wt% of the PTFE binder would be present at about 5 mol%, such that the remaining 95 mol% would be the electrochemically active material.
Wixom in view of Duncan with modified formulation to include less binder would shift the formulation to include greater amounts of electrochemically active material. Therefore, said electrochemically active material or solid-state electrolyte material would be present at 50 mol% or greater.
Regarding claim 5, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising combining a fibrillization promoter with said precursor material (Wixom, [0007], [0063]- [0065]).
Regarding claim 6, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 5, wherein said fibrillization promoter comprises a graphitized particle or pyrolyzed material (Wixom, [0007], [0029], [0033], [0063]- [0065]).
Regarding claim 10, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said fibrillizable binder comprises PTFE or polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Wixom, [0067]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 1, further comprising compressing said fibrillized material into a film (Wixom, Claim 1 and [0067]).
Regarding claim 14, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 13, further comprising laminating said film to a conductive substrate to form an electrode (Wixom, [0067], [0070], [0074]).
Regarding claim 16, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 13, wherein said film comprises a thickness between 50 micrometer to about 150 micrometer (Wixom, [0073]).
Given that the claimed thickness range of 20 micrometer to 200 micrometer overlaps with the prior art range and there are no new or unexpected results from using a film thickness less than 50 micrometers and above 150 micrometers, the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein an active electrode material in the form of Nickel Maganese Cobalt (NMC), Lithium Nickel Cobalt Aluminum Oxide (NCA), Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LCO), and graphite are used (Wixom, [0066]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixom Wixom (WO 2017/197299) in view of Bankaitis (PG-PUB 2015/0062779) and Duncan (PG-PUB 2011/0204284), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Zhong (PG-PUB 2020/0388822).
Regarding claim 8, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan does not teach the step of intermixing is at a temperature in excess of 25°C.
Zhong teaches a method of manufacturing a free-standing electrode film comprising a step preparing a mixture and heating the mixture (Figure 1 and [0025]). Zhong teaches a temperature activation step of the mixture at a temperature of 70°C or higher [0026]. Zhong teaches In the temperature activation step, the temperature of the binder used to form the free-standing electrode film may be raised, causing the binder to become softer and able to stretch longer and finer before breaking, thereby reducing the amount of binder needed to reliably produce a free-standing electrode film [0024], [0026]. Zhong teaches with the binder having been activated, subjecting the mixture to a shear force [0027]. Zhong teaches in order to produce higher quality electrodes by such a dry process that may result in energy storage devices having higher energy density, the amount of binder mixed with the active material should be minimized within a range that still allows for an electrode film to be reliably produced without excessive breakage [0004]. Zhong teaches the binder may be activated to improve its adhesion strength by the addition of a highly vaporizable solvent [0004].
Both Wixon and Zhong are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing a free-standing electrode film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the process of Wixon with the binder activation step of heating the precursor material to a temperature of 70°C or higher as taught by Zhong for the benefit of improved adhesion and reducing binder content. Given that the precursor material of Wixon in view of Duncan and Zhong is heated to a temperature of 70°C or higher right before intermixing, the step of intermixing would be at a temperature in excess of 25°C.
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixom (WO 2017/197299) in view of Bankaitis (PG-PUB 2015/0062779) and Duncan (PG-PUB 2011/0204284), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Yudi (WO 2019/222110).
Regarding claim 9, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein said combining is performed (Wixom, [0007], [0011], and [0071]).
Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan does not teach combining is in a mixer under low shear.
Yudi teaches a process for manufacturing dry electrode films having reduced binder composite (Figure 2 and [0003]). Yudi teaches the components of the active material mixture are first combined and mixed through a relatively low shear, nondestructive process [0018], [0036]. Yudi teaches conventional methods using high shear pressure in milling or blending operations may alter the form of the active materials and damage the surface of the active material [0027]. Yudi teaches high shear milling or blending operations may break, fuse, strip, or be chemically altered during such processing [0028]. Yudi teaches non-destructive mixing in a mixer [0068], [0079].
Both Wixom and Yudi are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing dry electrode films. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan with combining the precursor material with low shear in a mixer as taught by Yudi to reduce damage to the active material.
Regarding claim 21, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the fibrillizable binder can be PTFE, PVDF, polypropylene, polyethylene, co-polymers, polymer blends, and the like (Wixom, [0067]-[0068]).
Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan does not teach said precursor material comprises a solid-state electrolyte material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene oxide, polycarbonate, polysiloxane, succinontrile, and organic-inorganic hybrid composites.
Yudi teaches a process for manufacturing dry electrode films having reduced binder composite (Figure 2 and [0003]). Yudi teaches the binder can comprise PTFE and one or more additional binder components [0063]. Yudi teaches the binder can include polyethylene oxide and polysiloxane [0063].
Both Wixom and Yudi are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing dry electrode films comprising fibrillizable binders, such as PTFE. As suggested by Yudi, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of binder in the form of fibrillizable PTFE with a combination of fibrillizable PTFE and one or more additional binder components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Wixom, in particularly the PTFE fibrillizable binder of Wixom, with the combination of PTFE fibrillizable binder and polyethylene oxide or polysiloxane, a known suitable binder as taught by Yudi, to yield the predictable result of providing binders for dry electrode films as desired by Wixom.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixom (WO 2017/197299) in view of Bankaitis (PG-PUB 2015/0062779) and Duncan (PG-PUB 2011/0204284), as applied to claim 13, in further view of Zaghib (PG-PUB 2016/0149261).
Regarding claim 15, Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan teaches the process as applied to claim 13.
Wixom in view of Bankaitis and Duncan does not teach contacting said film with a liquid processing aid.
Zaghib teaches a process of manufacturing an electrochemical cell [0091]-[0093]. Zaghib teaches it is conventional to form a protective layer by coating a lubricant on the fresh surface of a lithium foil [0084]. Zaghib teaches a protective layer comprising, for example, a lubricant such as synthetic oil [0024]. For instance, Zaghib teaches preparing a negative electrode film, wherein a lithium sheet with a thickness of 300 μm is laminated between two rolls to make a lithium film with a thickness of 30 μm while injecting the lubricant solution onto the foil [0123].
Both Wixom and Zaghib are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to electrode manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the process of Wixom with a lubricant application step for the benefit of forming a protective layer on the surface of the electrode film as taught by Zaghib.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745