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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 9-10 are amended.
Claims 2-8, 11-20 were previously presented.
Claims 1-20 have been considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application has specific differences from the cited references as follows:
Applicant argues that neither Kato nor Ozaki provides any motivation that would have lead an person of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that a claimed additive is present (Remarks pp. 8-9)
The claimed additive is a critical technical feature of the present invention and it would be surprising and unexpected to a person having ordinary skill in the art to consider the necessity of adopting the claimed additive (Remarks pp. 9-10)
Neither Kato nor Ozaki provides any motivation that would have lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to consider the combination of binder and additive claimed (Remarks pp. 10).
Neither Ohsawa nor Won cure the deficiencies of Kato in view of Ozaki.
Zhou provides no motivation to reduce the number of components present in order to arrive at the present inventions which only require an electrode active material, a binder, and an additive (and furthermore a solvent in the case of the electrode slurry), and notably Zhou et al. also does not provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with any reason or motivation to specifically adopt the binder as claimed in the present inventions due to lack of teachings or suggestions to that effect.
Arguments with respect to Kato are moot as the reference is no longer relied upon to teach for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Arguments directed toward unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 1 requires an additive of formula 1 with no further limitation on the subscripts within formula 1 and a binder comprising “a copolymer, wherein said copolymer comprises one or more hydrophilic structural units, wherein the hydrophilic structural units are derived from monomers comprising the group consisting of a carboxylic acid- containing monomer (wherein the carboxylic acid-containing monomer is in the form of a carboxylic acid, a carboxylic acid salt, a carboxylic acid derivative or a combination thereof) , an amide-containing monomer and combinations thereof, and wherein the binder does not contain a structural unit derived from a monomer having an aromatic vinyl group nor a structural unit derived from an ester group-containing monomer” with no limitations on the relative percentages of monomers. Experimental Examples are directed towards an additive having a narrow range of compositions as well as a narrow range of binder compositions.
In regards to arguments c-d, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ozaki teaches that the disclosed binder has low hygroscopicity, excellent slurry dispersibility, and high adhesion to an electrode ([0011]).
In regards to argument e, Zhou is relied upon for teaching types of negative electrode active material and a weight percent of active material in a slurry. Zhou teaches an electrode slurry containing an active material, a binder, a conductive agent, a polyacrylic acid thickener, and an additive such as Tween 80 ([0010]; [0017]). Zhou teaches wherein the electrode active material is present at 40-46 wt% based on the total slurry weight ([0010]; [0034]; [0049]; [0064]). The range taught by Zhou overlaps with the large range claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the electrode slurry taught by modified Kato by adding solvent at a rate such that the active material is present at 40-46 wt% based on the total slurry weight as taught by Zhou, while still maintaining the solid content ratios taught by modified Kato, to achieve the predictable result of an electrode slurry and subsequently an electrode for a secondary battery.
Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 1-20 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 contains the limitation “wherein the additive satisfies general formula (1)”. General formula 1 is depicted as:
PNG
media_image1.png
198
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Formula 1 does not provide any recitation of the values of n, w, x, y, and z. Therefore the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-20 are rejected at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daigo et al. (CN104025350A) hereinafter "Daigo" in view of Ozaki et al. (KR 20200028854A) hereinafter "Ozaki" . Reference is made to Daigo machine translation provided 7/1/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Daigo teaches an electrode for a secondary battery, comprising a current collector and an electrode layer coated on one or more surfaces of the current collector, wherein the electrode layer comprises an electrode active material, a binder and an additive ([0022]-[0025]; [0085]), wherein the additive satisfies general formula (1), below ([0067] for example polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monostearate, etc.). Daigo teaches a water-dispersible polymer binder resin, preferably an acrylic resin formed of acrylate, methacrylate and optionally other functional monomers ([0041]-[0057]) and teaches that an electrode slurry composition particularly preferably contains water as a solvent ([0074]).
PNG
media_image2.png
317
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date, to utilize any of the taught surfactants since each are disclosed by Daigo. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pursue known potential formulations with a reasonable expectation of success since the reference is direction to a similar field of endeavor i.e. an electrode for a secondary battery. Daigo discloses the use of a surfactant, for example one satisfying general formula (1), and teaches that including a surfactant in an electrode slurry results in an easily and uniformly dispersed slurry, excellent coating properties and excellent adhesion to the collector plate ([0021]-[0022]).
Daigo does not teach wherein the binder comprises a copolymer comprising one or more hydrophilic structural units, wherein the hydrophilic structural units are derived from monomers comprising the group consisting of a carboxylic acid- containing monomer (wherein the carboxylic acid-containing monomer is in the form of a carboxylic acid, a carboxylic acid salt, a carboxylic acid derivative or a combination thereof), an amide-containing monomer and combinations thereof, and wherein the binder does not contain a structural unit derived from a monomer having an aromatic vinyl group nor a structural unit derived from an ester group-containing monomer.
However, Ozaki teaches an aqueous binder solution ([0011]-[0013]; [0021]) comprising a copolymer comprising a first repeating unit derived from an acrylamide-based monomer, a second repeating unit derived from an acrylic acid-based second monomer (wherein the carboxylic acid-containing monomer is in the form of a carboxylic acid, a carboxylic acid salt, a carboxylic acid derivative or a combination thereof), and a third repeating unit derived from an acrylic nitrile- based third monomer ([0056]-[0062]; [0089]-[0090]; [0092]-[0094]; [0102] “Unsaturated carboxylic acids include, for example, “acrylic acid…. and their salts.”). Ozaki teaches that the disclosed binder has low hygroscopicity, excellent slurry dispersibility, and high adhesion to an electrode ([0011]). Ozaki teaches multiple examples where the binder does not contain a structural unit derived from a monomer having an aromatic vinyl group nor a structural unit derived from an ester group-containing monomer ([0249]-[00259]; Table 1 original document).
Thus Daigo and Ozaki both disclose a polymer binder used with an aqueous solvent and further teach the desirability of slurry dispersibility and high adhesion to a substrate. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that the binder taught by Daigo could be substituted with the binder taught by Ozaki, which exhibits excellent slurry dispersibility and high adhesion to an electrode, because both serve the same function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have done this with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution achieves the predictable result of a functional electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the binder taught by Daigo with the binder taught by Ozaki to yield the predictable result of a functional electrode. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 2, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches wherein n falls within the range of about 5 to about 25 ([0067] e.g. polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monopalmitate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monostearate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate).
Regarding claim 3, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Daigo further teaches wherein the sum of w, x, y and z falls within the range 10 to about 80 ([0067] e.g. polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monopalmitate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monostearate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate).
Regarding claim 4, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Daigo further teaches wherein the additive has a hydrophile-lipophile balance number from about 13 to about 20 ([0024]; [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrode taught by Daigo by using a surfactant with a hydrophile-lipophile balance within 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. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05)
Regarding claim 6, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Daigo further teaches wherein the electrode active material is a cathode active material selected as, for example, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMn2O4, LiFePO4, LiCoPO4, LiMn1.5Ni0.5O4, Co-Ni-Mn complex metal oxide, Ni-Mn-Al composite oxide, a Ni-Co-Al composite oxide ([0034]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Modified Daigo further teaches wherein the copolymer further comprises one or more hydrophobic structural units (Ozaki [0121]-[0122]; [0057]-[0062]). Modified Daigo meets the limitation of a binder comprising a copolymer, wherein said copolymer comprises one or more hydrophobic structural units (Ozaki [0121]-[0123] e.g. acrylonitrile or methacrylonitrile; [0248]-[0249]). This is supported by the instant specification which states that methacrylonitrile and acrylonitrile are examples of hydrophobic structural units (instant spec [0078]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Modified Daigo further teaches wherein the proportion of each of the hydrophilic structural units (Ozaki [0059] acrylic acid-based second monomer and [0089]-[0090] acrylamide) in the binder is from about 1-30% and 20-70% by mole, respectively, based on the total number of moles of monomeric units in the binder (Ozaki [0058]-[0060]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 9. Ozaki further teaches wherein the proportion of the hydrophobic structural units ([0060]; [0121]-[0123]) in the binder is from about 10% to about 45% by mole, based on the total number of moles of monomeric units in the binder ([0059]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Daigo further teaches an electrode further comprising a conductive agent that is selected from the group consisting of carbon, carbon black, graphite, expanded graphite, graphene, graphene nanoplatelets, carbon fibers, carbon nano-fibers, graphitized carbon flake, carbon tubes, carbon nanotubes, activated carbon, mesoporous carbon and combinations thereof ([0063]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Daigo further teaches wherein the proportion of the additive (surfactant) in the electrode layer is from about 0.5 to about 5 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material ([0072]; [0116] “1.5 mass%”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Daigo further teaches wherein the amount of the conductive agent in the electrode layer is from about 0.1 to about 10 parts by mass, based on the positive electrode active material ([0063]; [0116]) and the amount of binder is 0.5 to 5 parts by mass in a solid content with respect to 100 parts by mass of an active material for an electrode ([0060]; [0116]). Daigo further teaches wherein a binder is used at a solid content ratio of 1.5mass%% based on total solids in an electrode slurry and a conductive agent is used at a solid content ration of 2mass% based on total solids in an electrode slurry ([0116]).
Therefore, Daigo meets the limitation wherein the amount of the binder and the conductive agent in the electrode layer is independently from about 0.5% to about 5% by weight, based on the total weight of the electrode layer ([0116]).
Regarding claim 15, Daigo teaches an electrode slurry for a secondary battery ([0155]; [0028]), comprising an electrode active material, a binder, a surfactant and a solvent ([0022]-[0025]), wherein the additive satisfies general formula (1) below ([0067] polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monopalmitate, etc.). Daigo teaches a water-dispersible polymer binder resin, preferably an acrylic resin formed of acrylate, methacrylate and optionally other functional monomers ([0041]-[0057]) and teaches that an electrode slurry composition particularly preferably contains water as a solvent ([0074]).
PNG
media_image2.png
317
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Daigo does not teach wherein the binder comprises a copolymer comprising one or more hydrophilic structural units, wherein the hydrophilic structural units are derived from monomers comprising the group consisting of a carboxylic acid- containing monomer, an amide-containing monomer and combinations thereof, and wherein the binder does not contain a structural unit derived from a monomer having an aromatic vinyl group nor a structural unit derived from an ester group-containing monomer.
However, Ozaki teaches an aqueous binder solution ([0011]-[0013]; [0021]) comprising a copolymer comprising a first repeating unit derived from an acrylamide-based monomer, a second repeating unit derived from an acrylic acid-based second monomer, and a third repeating unit derived from an acrylic nitrile- based third monomer ([0056]-[0062]; [0089]-[0090]; [0092]-[0094]; [0102]). Ozaki teaches that the disclosed binder has low hygroscopicity, excellent slurry dispersibility, and high adhesion to an electrode ([0011]). Ozaki teaches multiple examples where the binder does not contain a structural unit derived from a monomer having an aromatic vinyl group nor a structural unit derived from an ester group-containing monomer ([0249]-[00259]; Table 1 original document).
Thus Daigo and Ozaki both disclose a polymer binder used with an aqueous solvent and further teach the desirability of slurry dispersibility and high adhesion to a substrate. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized that the binder taught by Daigo could be substituted with the binder taught by Ozaki, which exhibits excellent slurry dispersibility and high adhesion to an electrode, because both serve the same function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have done this with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution achieves the predictable result of a functional electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the binder taught by Daigo with the binder taught by Ozaki to yield the predictable result of a functional electrode. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 16, modified Daigo teaches the electrode slurry of claim 15. Daigo further teaches wherein the solvent is water ([0024]; [0074]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Daigo teaches the electrode slurry of claim 15. Daigo further teaches wherein the proportion of the additive (surfactant) in the electrode layer is from about 0.5 to about 5 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material ([0072]; [0116] “1.5 mass%”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches a secondary battery ([0019]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches a lithium-ion battery ([0004]; [0101]; [0105]; [0034]-[0037]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daigo (CN104025350A) in view of Ozaki (KR 20200028854A), as applied above, in view of Ohsawa et al. (US 20170279113 A1) hereinafter "Ohsawa".
Regarding claim 5, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Daigo further teaches wherein the thickness of the electrode layer on the current collector is from about 5 µm to about 400 µm ([0095]) and the electrode has a porosity of 5-15% ([0094]). Daigo teaches the importance of controlling the porosity to prevent electrode peeling or reduced charge/discharge efficiency ([0094]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
Daigo does not teach wherein the wherein the surface density of the electrode layer on the current collector is from about 1 mg/cm2 to about 60 mg/cm2.
However, Ohsawa teaches a positive electrode for a secondary battery ([0260]; [0263]; [0266]) with a surface density of 40mg/cm2 ([0260]; [0299]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that porosity and surface density are related and that electrode porosity, density, and surface density would all impact the performance of a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrode taught by modified Kato to have a surface density such as 40mg/cm2 as taught by Ohsawa.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the electrode taught by Daigo to have a surface density such as 40mg/cm2 as taught by Ohsawa with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing an electrode. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the surface density of the electrode taught by modified Daigo to improve battery performance.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daigo (CN104025350A) in view of Ozaki (KR 20200028854A), as applied above, in view of Won et al. (US 9859555 B2) hereinafter “Won”.
Regarding claim 7, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Daigo teaches a positive electrode active material such as, for example, lithium nickelate or LiNi0.33Co0.33Mn0.33O2([0035]).
Modified Daigo does not teach wherein the electrode active material is a cathode active material that comprises or is a core-shell composite comprising a core and a shell, wherein the core and the shell independently comprises a lithium transition metal oxide selected from the group consisting of Li1+xNiaMnbCocAl(1-a-b-c)O2, LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMnO2, LiMn2O4, Li2MnO3, LiFePO4, LiCrO2, Li4T15O12, LiV2O5, LiTiS2, LiMoS2, LiCoaNibO2, LiMnaNibO2, and combinations thereof, wherein -0.2≤x≤0.2, 0≤a<1, 0≤b<1, 0≤c<1, and a+b+c≤1.
However, Won teaches a positive active material with a coating layer (column 1 lines 65-67 & column 2 lines 0-5). Won teaches a positive electrode active material such as LiNi0.85Mn0.05Co0.10O2 with a coating formed from LiFePO4 (column 4, lines 51-67; column 5, lines 1-30; column 7 lines 26-31; column 13 lines 55-67; column 14 lines 1-33, examples 1-4). Won teaches that a coating layer including LiFePO4 improves thermal stability and structural stability of the positive active material (column 5 lines28-30).
Both Daigo and Won teach a positive electrode active material for a lithium-ion secondary battery. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the positive active material of Daigo could be substituted with the positive active material taught by Won because both serve the same function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have done this with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution achieves the predictable result of a functional cathode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the positive active material taught by modified Daigo by using the cathode active material comprising a core-shell composite comprising a core and a shell as taught by Won.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the electrode taught by modified Daigo by using a cathode active material comprising a core-shell composite comprising a core and a shell as taught by Won to improve thermal and structural stability (column 5 lines 28-30).
Claim(s) 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daigo (CN104025350A) in view of Ozaki (KR 20200028854A), as applied above, in view of Zhou et al. (CN109888264A) hereinafter "Zhou". Cited on the IDS filed 11/15/2022.
Regarding claim 8, modified Daigo teaches the electrode of claim 1. Daigo teaches wherein a negative electrode active material may be a carbon active material including graphite, soft carbon, and hard carbon or a non-carbon active material including a known one such as lithium metal, a lithium alloy, oxide, and sulfide, and a lithium-containing metal composite oxide ([0101]).
Modified Daigo does not explicitly teach wherein the electrode active material is an anode active material selected from the group consisting of natural graphite particulate, synthetic graphite particulate, Sn (tin) particulate, Li4Ti5O12 particulate, Si (silicon) particulate, Si-C composite particulate, and combinations thereof.
However, Zhou teaches a negative electrode slurry containing an active material, a binder, a conductive agent, a polyacrylic acid thickener, and an additive such as Tween 80 ([0010]; [0017]). Zhou teaches wherein the electrode active material is an anode active material selected from the group consisting of natural graphite particulate, synthetic graphite particulate, and combinations thereof ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrode taught by modified Daigo by using an anode active material such as natural graphite particulate, synthetic graphite particulate, and combinations thereof as taught by Zhou.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the electrode taught by modified Daigo by using an anode active material such as natural graphite particulate, synthetic graphite particulate, and combinations thereof as taught by Zhou to achieve the predictable result of an anode for a secondary battery. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 18, modified Daigo teaches the electrode slurry of claim 15. Daigo further teaches wherein an electrode active material is used at a solid content ratio of 95 mass% based on a total solid content of an electrode slurry ([0116]).
Daigo does not teach wherein the amount of the electrode active material in the electrode slurry is from about 20% to about 80% by weight, based on the total weight of the electrode slurry.
However, Zhou teaches an electrode slurry containing an active material, a binder, a conductive agent, a polyacrylic acid thickener, and an additive such as Tween 80 ([0010]; [0017]). Zhou teaches wherein the electrode active material is present at 40-46 wt% based on the total slurry weight ([0010]; [0034]; [0049]; [0064]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the electrode slurry taught by modified Daigo by adding solvent such that the active material is present at 40-46 wt% based on the total slurry weight as taught by Zhou.
One of ordinary skill in the art could modify the electrode slurry taught by modified Daigo by adding solvent at a rate such that the active material is present at 40-46 wt% based on the total slurry weight as taught by Zhou, while still maintaining the solid content ratios taught by modified Daigo, to achieve the predictable result of an electrode slurry and subsequently an electrode for a secondary battery. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (CN109037676A) teaches an electrode slurry containing graphite, a conductive agent, and an additive such as Tween-80 and Span ([0012]; [0017]). Cited on the IDS filed 11/15/2022, reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Wan et al. (CN102956894A) teaches an electrode containing electrode active material, a binder and an additive, wherein the additive satisfies general formula (1), shown previously ([0009]; [0013]; [0014]; [0035]). Cited on the IDS filed 11/15/2022, reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Kang et al. (KR20140008982A) teaches an anode binder that includes a copolymer of a hydrophilic monomer and a hydrophobic monomer (abstract). Reference is made to the enclosed translation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights