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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 9-10, 15 are amended. Support for amendment can be found in originally filed claims 9-10 and instant specification [0083]-[0085].
Claim 20 is new.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Kato is silent with respect to the necessary presence of an additive according to general formula (1) (pp. 7, 12).
Kato is silent with respect to the technical features claimed for the binder in the present invention and that Kato does not provide any motivation to specifically adopt the claimed binder and further teaches away from the present invention (pp. 9-11).
The claimed invention has improved electrode flexibility (pp. 11, 13).
Kato does not provide any reason or motivation that would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to not require the use of an acid in an electrode slurry or electrode (p. 14).
Ohsawa is silent with respect to electrode flexibility and is silent with respect to the presence of the claimed additive in an electrode layer or an electrode slurry (p. 15) and fails to remedy Kato’s deficiencies (p. 16).
Won is silent with respect to electrode flexibility and is silent with respect to the presence of the claimed additive in an electrode layer or an electrode slurry and fails to remedy Kato’s deficiencies (p. 16).
Ozaki is silent with respect to the specific presence of the claimed additive in the electrode layer or electrode slurry, the specific technical problems solved by the present inventions. Ozaki does not provide a person or ordinary skill in the art with any motivation to adopt an additive according to formula (1) as a necessary component nor any motivation to remove the acid component taught in Kato (p. 18).
Ozaki is silent with respect to the binder not containing a structural unit derived from an ester group-containing monomer nor a structural unit derived from a monomer having an aromatic vinyl group (pp. 18-19).
Zhou does not provide an motivation to specifically adopt the binder as claimed in the present invention and further, teaches a large number of components critical to Zhou’s overall invention (p. 20).
In response to argument a, Kato teaches the use of a surfactant in an electrode slurry where a nonionic surfactant is preferred ([0041]-[0047]). 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 components, including surfactants, since each are disclosed by Kato. Kato discloses an additive satisfying general formula (1) ([0041]-[0047] for example polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monopalmitate, etc.) and teaches the desirability of uniform dispersion, aided by selection of an appropriate surfactant ([0046]). 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.
In response to argument b, e, and f, applicant’s arguments 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.
In regards to arguments c and d, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., electrode flexibility and lack of an acid in an electrode/electrode slurry) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
In regards to arguments g, Ozaki is not relied upon for a teaching of the claimed additive.
In regards to arguments h, 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). Therefore, neither of these components are required components of the binder and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art could readily leave them out of a binder composition with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing an electrode.
In regards to argument i, 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.
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 10 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 10 contains the limitation “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”. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 which requires a “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, an amide-containing monomer and combinations thereof”; which is interpreted as requiring a carboxylic acid-containing monomer or an amide-containing monomer or combinations thereof. It is unclear if claim 10, which depends on claim 1, requires that the copolymer contain structural units derived from carboxylic acid containing monomers or if it further limits an optional component.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20150132656 A1) in view of Ozaki et al. (KR 20200028854A) hereinafter "Ozaki". Reference is made to the previously provided machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Kato 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 ([0009]; [0013]; [0055]), wherein the electrode layer comprises an electrode active material, a binder and an additive ([0011]-[0012]), wherein the additive satisfies general formula (1), below ([0041]-[0047] for example polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monopalmitate, etc.). Kato teaches a water-dispersible polymer binder resin such as an acrylic resin ([0025]-[0030]) and teaches that an electrode slurry composition particularly preferably contains water as a solvent ([0012]).
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 Kato. 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. Kato discloses the use of an additive satisfying general formula (1) and teaches the desirability of uniform dispersion, aided by selection of an appropriate surfactant ([0046]).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kato 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 Kato and Ozaki both disclose a polymer binder used with an aqueous solvent. 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 Kato 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 Kato 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 Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches wherein n is from about 5 to about 25 ([0041]-[0043] e.g. polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monopalmitate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monostearate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches wherein the sum of w, x, y and z is from about 10 to about 80 ([0041]-[0043] e.g. polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monopalmitate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monostearate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches wherein the additive has a hydrophile-lipophile balance number from about 15 to about 20 ([0046]).
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 Kato 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 Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches wherein the electrode active material is a cathode active material selected from the group consisting of LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiMn2O4, LiFePO4, LiCoPO4, LiNiPO4, LiMnPO4, LiMnFePO4, LiMndFe(l-d)PO4, LiNieMnfO4, a Co-Ni-Mn complex metal oxide, Ni-Mn-Al complex metal oxide, and a Ni-Co-Al complex metal oxide, wherein 0<d<1, 0.1≤e≤0.9, 0≤f≤2 ([0019]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Modified Kato further teaches wherein the copolymer further comprises one or more hydrophobic structural units (Ozaki [0121]-[0122]; [0057]-[0062]). Modified Kato meets the limitation of a binder comprising a copolymer, wherein said copolymer comprises one or more hydrophobic structural units ([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 Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Ozaki further teaches wherein the proportion of each of the hydrophilic structural units ([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 ([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 Kato 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 Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato 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 (Table 1-4; [0080]; [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches wherein the proportion of the additive in the electrode layer is from about 0.1% to about 5% by weight, based on the total weight of the electrode layer (Table 1 “solid content ratio(%)”; [0047]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches wherein the amount of conductive agent is 0.1 to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of an active material for an electrode ([0040]) 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 ([0033]). Kato further teaches wherein a binder is used at a solid content ratio of 3% based on total solids in an electrode slurry and a conductive agent is used at a solid content ration of 3.5% based on total solids in an electrode slurry (Table 1).
Therefore, Kato 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 (Tables 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Kato teaches an electrode slurry for a secondary battery ([0002]; [0011]; [0049]), comprising an electrode active material, a binder, an additive and a solvent ([0011]-[0012]), wherein the additive satisfies general formula (1) below ([0041]-[0043] polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monopalmitate, etc.). Kato teaches a water-dispersible polymer binder resin such as an acrylic resin ([0025]-[0030]) and teaches that an electrode slurry composition particularly preferably contains water as a solvent ([0012]).
PNG
media_image1.png
317
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kato 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 Kato and Ozaki both disclose a polymer binder used with an aqueous solvent. 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 Kato 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 an electrode slurry with good dispersibility.
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 Kato with the binder taught by Ozaki to yield the predictable result of an electrode slurry with good dispersibility. 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 Kato teaches the electrode slurry of claim 15. Kato further teaches wherein the solvent is water ([0012]; [0049]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kato teaches the electrode slurry of claim 15. Kato further teaches wherein the proportion of the additive in the electrode slurry is from about 0.1% to about 5% by weight, based on the total weight of the solid content of the electrode slurry (Table 1 “solid content ratio(%)”; [0047]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches a secondary battery ([0009]; [0018]; [0063]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches a lithium-ion battery (claim 8; [0045]; [0066]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20150132656 A1) in view of Ozaki (KR 20200028854A), as applied above, in view of Ohsawa et al. (US 20170279113 A1) hereinafter "Ohsawa".
Regarding claim 5, modified Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato further teaches wherein the thickness of the electrode layer on the current collector is from about 5 um to about 120 um ([0062]) and the electrode has a porosity of 5-15% ([0061]). Kato teaches the importance of controlling the porosity to prevent electrode peeling or reduced charge/discharge efficiency ([0061]).
Kato 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 Kato 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 Kato to improve battery performance.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20150132656 A1) in view of Ozaki (KR 20200028854A), as applied above, in view of Won et al. (US 9859555 B2) hereinafter “Won”.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato teaches a positive electrode active material such lithium nickelate ([0056]; [0054]; Table1).
Modified Kato 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 Kato 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 Kato 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 Kato 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 Kato 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 Kato (US 20150132656 A1) 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 Kato teaches the electrode of claim 1. Kato 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 complex oxide ([0065]-[0066]).
Modified Kato 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 Kato 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 Kato 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 Kato teaches the electrode slurry of claim 15. Kato further teaches wherein an electrode active material is used at a solid content ratio of 90 based on a total solid content of an electrode slurry.
Kato 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 Kato 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 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. 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.
Daigo et al. (CN 104025350 A) teaches a positive electrode mixture characterized by containing a positive electrode active material, a water-dispersible polymer binder resin, a conductive auxiliary agent and a surfactant ([0023]; [0032]) wherein the surfactant has an HLB value of 13-20 (0024]) and may be, for example, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate or polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate ([0065]-[0067]). 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.
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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