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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 3/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 remain pending in the application.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2017/0040647, hereinafter "Jang") in view of Huang et al. (CN 108183236, referring to examiner-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Huang").
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a method for fabricating a positive electrode comprising a surface-coated positive electrode active material for a lithium secondary battery (“energy storage device”) [0014-0015]. Jang teaches that the method for preparing a surface-coated positive electrode active material comprises mixing and dispersing a fibrous carbon material (“energy storage media”) into an organic solvent to form a mixed solution, then dispersing a positive electrode active material into the mixed solution [0043, “mixing and dispersing a fibrous carbon material into an organic solvent in which a polyamic acid is diluted to prepare a mixed solution (step i); dispersing a positive electrode active material into the mixed solution”]. Jang teaches that a dispersant may be further added to the mixed solution [0055, “ In step i), during the mixing and dispersing the fibrous carbon material into the organic solvent in which the polyamic acid is diluted, a dispersant may be further included”]. The mixture including the surface-coated positive electrode active material and dispersant is then agitated to prepare a slurry and coated onto a current collector [0066, “for example, the surface-coated positive electrode active material is mixed with a solvent, and if necessary, a binder, a conducting material, and a dispersant, and the mixture is agitated to prepare slurry, then the slurry is applied (coated) onto a current collector”]. The coated current collector may be subjected roll pressing (“calendaring”) to provide the positive electrode [0101, “The cathodic slurry mixture was coated onto an aluminum thin film as a cathodic current collector having a thickness of about 20 μm, dried for 2 hours at 130° C., and then the coated aluminum thin film was subjected to roll pressing to prepare a positive electrode”]. Jang further discloses that the positive electrode active material resulting from the mixture of fibrous carbon material, solvent, positive electrode active material, and dispersant may be heated [0061, “The imidization may be performed by heating the positive electrode active material, which is obtained from step ii)”]. The selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C)).
Jang teaches that the mixture for preparing the positive electrode does not necessarily require a binder [0066, “For example, the surface-coated positive electrode active material is mixed with a solvent, and if necessary, a binder” (emphasis added)]. However, Jang does not specifically teach an embodiment wherein the mixture includes a fibrous carbon material, organic solvent, dispersant, and positive electrode active material and excludes a binder.
Huang teaches analogous art of a method of preparing a lithium-ion battery cathode (“positive electrode”) slurry [0002; entire disclosure relied upon]. In Example 1, Huang teaches that the preparation method of the positive electrode may comprise mixing a composite dispersant, a solvent, carbon nanotubes (“energy storage media”), and acetylene black to form a composite conductive agent slurry, and further adding a positive electrode active material to the composite conductive agent slurry to obtain a lithium battery positive electrode/cathode slurry [0040-0047]. Huang teaches that this slurry is then applied to an aluminum foil (“current collector”) and dried [0048], thereby forming a positive electrode. Huang does not teach a binder being added to the positive electrode.
Huang teaches that for the positive electrodes prepared by the method in the examples prepared by the disclosed method, which does not include the addition of a binder, the capacity retention rate is significantly higher than that of the comparative examples that do use a binder [0088, “the capacity retention rate in the examples is significantly higher than that in the comparative examples”, 0084, “In the comparative example, polyvinylidene fluoride was added as a final step along with the positive electrode active material during the preparation of the positive electrode slurry, and could only be used as a binder for the positive electrode material”]. Huang further teaches that the positive electrodes prepared in the comparative examples showed a decrease in battery rate charge/discharge performance [0083].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Jang to exclude the use of a binder in the positive electrode as taught by Huang, in order to increase the capacity rate retention of the positive electrode and avoid a decrease in battery rate charge/discharge performance.
Further regarding claim 2, Jang teaches that the fibrous carbon may be a carbon nanotube or carbon nanofiber (“nanocarbon”) [0029].
Further regarding claim 11, Jang teaches that the positive electrode active material may include LiCoO2 (lithium cobalt oxide) or Li[NiaCobMnc]O2 (lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide) [0041].
Regarding claim 14, modified Jang teaches the method of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Jang is silent regarding the dispersant comprising polyvinylpyrrolidone.
Huang teaches that the method of preparing a positive electrode comprises mixing dispersant, carbon nanotubes, and positive electrode active material [0011-0015]. Huang teaches that the dispersant may comprise polyvinylpyrrolidone [0017, “The composite dispersant is composed of polyvinylidene fluoride and one or more of polyvinylpyrrolidone”].
Huang teaches that the interaction of dispersants, which may include polyvinylpyrrolidone, greatly improves the dispersibility of carbon nanotubes [0029]. Huang further teaches that the dispersant prevents the carbon nanotubes from aggregating, allowing a good conductive network to form in the positive electrode material [0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Jang to include polyvinylpyrrolidone as a dispersant as taught by Huang, in order to improve the dispersibility of the fibrous carbon and allow a good conductive network to form in the positive electrode.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2017/0040647) in view of Huang (CN 108183236) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watano et al. (US 2019/0198870, hereinafter "Watano").
Regarding claim 12, modified Jang teaches the method of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Jang is silent regarding a median particle size of the active material particles.
Watano teaches analogous art of a method for producing a composite positive electrode active material for a secondary battery (“energy storage device”) [0014]. Watano teaches that the positive electrode active material is preferably formed with particles preferably having a median diameter (“particle size”) of 1 to 50 μm, which is within the recited range [0060, “The median diameter is more preferably in the range of 1 to 50 μm”].
Watano teaches that when the median diameter is too low or too high, the secondary battery may have decreased charge/discharge capacity [0060, “When the median diameter is less than 0.1 μm, more than one particle of the positive electrode active material agglomerates and is mixed in the composite positive electrode active material, and the all-solid-state secondary battery may have decreased charge/discharge capacity. When the median diameter is above 100 μm, the positive electrode active material may be broken during the blending process step, and thus the all-solid-state secondary battery may have decreased charge/discharge capacity”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by modified Jang to have the median particle size of the positive electrode active material be within the range taught by Watano, in order to prevent a decrease in charge/discharge capacity.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2017/0040647) in view of Huang (CN 108183236) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0305299, hereinafter "Zhang")
Regarding claim 13, modified Jang teaches the method of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Jang is silent regarding a mass loading of the positive electrode active material.
Zhang teaches analogous art of high loading electrodes for use in electrochemical devices (“energy storage device”) [0002]. Zhang teaches that a high loading electrode is one that has a loading od cathode active material of 30 mg/cm2 or greater, which is within the recited range [0022].
Zhang teaches that the high loading electrodes display improved energy density [0022, “Provided are high loading electrodes that display improved energy density”]. Zhang further discloses that the high loading electrodes also display high capacity retention rates [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by modified Jang to have the mass loading of the positive electrode active material be within the range taught by Zhang, in order to increase the energy density and capacity retention rate of the electrode.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2017/0040647) in view of Huang (CN 108183236) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2013/0004657, hereinafter "Xu").
Regarding claim 15, modified Jang teaches the method of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Jang is silent regarding the dispersant comprising at least one of polyacrylic acid or sodium polacrylate.
Xu teaches analogous art of a carbon nanotube-based composition and methods for making an electrode for a Li ion battery (“energy storage device”) [Abstract]. Xu teaches that a dispersant may be added to the composite to disperse and stabilize the carbon nanotubes [0033]. Xu discloses several dispersants, including polyacrylic acid [0043].
Jang teaches that a dispersant helps to disperse the fibrous carbon material [Jang 0055, “a dispersant may be further included to disperse the fibrous carbon material”], which has the same purpose as the dispersant taught by Xu [Xu 0043, “Dispersant serves as an aid for dispersing carbon nanotubes in a solvent”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the dispersant taught by modified Jang with a dispersant such as polyacrylic acid as taught by Xu, with the predictable result of dispersing the fibrous carbon material [See MPEP 2143 (I)(B)].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2017/0040647) in view of Huang (CN 108183236) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (US 5,543,249, hereinafter "Takeuchi").
Regarding claim 16, Jang teaches the method of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Jang is silent regarding sintering the coating of slurry.
Takeuchi teaches analogous art of a method for preparing an electrode component for use in an electrochemical cell (“energy storage device”) [col. 1 lines 10-13]. Takeuchi teaches cathode active material is layered onto an expanded metal screen to form a cathode laminate (“current collector”) [col. 3 lines 38-44]. The cathode laminate is then sintered [col. 3 lines 53-56].
Takeuchi teaches that by sintering the cathode laminate, the binder material is plasticized, which ensures the structural integrity of the cathode laminate [col. 3 lines 61-63].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Jang to include a sintering step as taught by Takeuchi, in order to ensure the structural integrity of the positive electrode.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 11-16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 11-16 of copending Application No. 18/247,849 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed method of the instant application is anticipated by the claimed method of the copending application ‘849.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, and 11-16 as being unpatentable over copending application 17/583,422 has been overcome by the amendment to instant claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, and 11-16 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
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 MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights