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
Applicant’s amendment filed October 27th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 & 6-7 remain pending. Claim 8 was cancelled by the Applicant. Claims 21-23 have been added by the Applicant. The 103 rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, & 6-8 has been overcome due to Applicant’s amendments, therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Pan et al. US 2019/0115617 A1 and Dugan et al. US 2005/0039836 A1. New rejections follow.
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 1-3, 7, & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. US 2021/0057752 A1 and further in view of Johnston et al. US 2018/0108915 A1, Pan et al. US 2019/0115617 A1, and Dugan et al. US 2005/0039836 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Jiang discloses an electrode assembly (electrodes) for use in an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions [0046]. Jiang discloses that the electrode assembly comprises a current collector (Figure 1 Item 32) and an electroactive material layer (Figure 1 Item 22) disposed on the current collector [0046]. Jiang discloses that the electroactive material layer comprises a plurality of electroactive material particles (electroactive material including silicon, tin, or alloys thereof) [0062-0063]. Jiang further discloses that each of the electroactive material particles has a core region and a protective layer (a coating 124 Figure 2 [0066]), thus comprising a first protective layer.
Jiang further discloses that the electroactive material layer comprises a binder (Figure 3 Item 242) dispersed with the electroactive material particles (shown as Item 230 in Figure 3) [0084]. Jiang discloses that the binder can be a conventional binder for a positive electrode, and more specifically discloses that they can be PTFE [0085], however Jiang is silent as to the binder being in the shape of a fiber, and comprising a second protective layer coated thereon.
Johnston discloses an electrode for a battery comprising a composite electroactive material layer (Figure 1 Item 40) containing binder fibers (Figure 1 Item 130) mixed with electroactive particles (Figure 1 Item 120) [0042], similar to that of Jiang. Johnston further discloses that the binder fibers are made of PTFE [0058], similar to Jiang. Johnston discloses that the binder fibers comprise a "core-shell" structure [0060], wherein a first polymer is coated by a second polymer. Thus, Johnston discloses a binder fiber for an electroactive material layer comprising a similar material to that of Jiang that further comprises a protective layer coated thereon.
Johnston discloses that compared to conventional binder resins, the binder fibers in the disclosure adhere to more surface area of the electroactive particles in the electrode active material [0043] and thus is more available for electrochemical reactions required for use in batteries [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to replace the binder of Jiang with the binder fibers comprising a coating as in Johnston to achieve a battery with an electrode active layer with better adhesion between the electroactive material and the binder fibers.
Thus, modified Jiang discloses a plurality of binder material fibers having a second protective layer coated thereon.
Jiang discloses that the protective layer of the electroactive material particles (second porous elastomeric layer [0009]) is a siloxane [0009], wherein the siloxane comprises polydimethylsiloxane [0013], however fails to specifically disclose that the material is one of the claimed list of materials.
Pan discloses an electroactive material particle that comprises a core particle and a protecting polymer layer [Abstract], wherein the protecting polymer layer is formed by in-situ polymerization [0046]. Pan discloses that the material for the protecting polymer layer can be one of PEO, PPO, PAN, PMMA, PVDF, polyethylene glycol [0045] or polydimethylsiloxane [0045] similarly to Jiang, and that in in-situ polymerization, the monomer of those materials would be used [0093]. Thus, Pan discloses a protective layer for an electroactive material particle comprising a monomer of PEO (ethylene oxide), PPO (propylene oxide), PAN (acrylonitrile), PMMA (methylmethacrylate), PVDF (vinylidene fluoride), PVDF-HFP (vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene, or PEG (ethylene glycol) as an alternative to polydimethylsiloxane as mentioned in Jiang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute one known protective layer, i.e. monomers of PEO, PPO, PAN, PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-HFP, or PEG of Pan, for another protective layer, i.e. siloxane polymer of Jiang, with reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one protective layer for another to obtain predictable results is not patentable. See KSR International Co v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); MPEP 2143 B.
Thus modified Jiang, with the modification of Pan, discloses that the first protective layer is a polymeric layer comprising monomers of PMMA (or MMA) or PEG (ethylene glycol), which reads on the claimed list of materials.
Modified Jiang, with the modification of Johnston, further discloses that the binder fiber second protective layer (second polymer) can be a different polymer from the first polymer, which comprises the core of the core-shell structure, and has a lower softening temperature than the first polymer [0040], which as mentioned in Claim 1 is PTFE, which encompasses PMMA, however Johnston is silent as to the specific material of the second protective layer (second polymer).
Additionally, Dugan discloses multicomponent binder fibers having a first component and a second component [0036], wherein one of the components can be a low melt temperature polymer and the other component can be a high melt temperature polymer [0036], similar to Johnston’s second polymer having a lower softening temperature than the first polymer. Dugan discloses that the low melt temperature polymer can be PMMA [0045], which has a lower softening temperature than Johnston’s inner core PTFE.
In the absence of a specific material disclosed by Johnston for the second protective layer coating the binder fiber, one of ordinary skill would look to the relevant art (coated binder fibers) such as Dugan for a suggestion of a suitable material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to select PMMA as the second polymer as suggested by Dugan in the second protective layer of modified Jiang (as modified by Johnston’s binder fibers).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Jiang discloses that the first protective layer, as modified by Pan, can comprise a combination of monomers from the list including PEO (ethylene oxide), PPO (propylene oxide), PAN (acrylonitrile), PMMA (methylmethacrylate), PVDF (vinylidene fluoride), PVDF-HFP (vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene, or PEG (ethylene glycol) [Pan 0045]. Thus, modified Jiang discloses that the first protective layer comprises a first monomer as mentioned in Claim 1 from the list of MMA or ethylene glycol, and a second monomer from the list of ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, acrylonitrile, vinylidene fluoride, or vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene.
Regarding Claim 3, as shown in Figures 2 & 3, Jiang discloses that the first protective layer on the electroactive material particles is continuous (covering the entire particle) (Figure 2 showing diagram of particle 110 with entire surface covered by first protective layer 124). As shown in Figure 1, Johnston discloses that the second protective layer on the binder fibers is continuous (covering the entire fiber) (Figure 1 showing fiber 130 with entire surface coated 130c”). Thus, modified Jiang discloses that both first and second protective layers are continuous.
Jiang discloses that the first protective layer (second porous elastomeric layer) has a thickness of 1-50nm [0014], which falls within the claimed range.
Johnston discloses that the overall thickness of the binder fibers (including core and shell) is 1-1000nm (0.001um-1um) [0048]. Assuming that the shell does not comprise 100% of the binder fiber, on one end of the range, the shell would be less than 0.5nm (overall thickness of the fiber is 1nm, so thickness of the shell would be half of the overall thickness), and on the other end of the range, the shell would be less than 500nm, which overlaps with the range set forth in the claim.
Jiang discloses that the electroactive material layer can have a thickness of several microns to a fraction of a millimeter [0049], which falls within the claimed range of Claim 3. In regards to the thickness of the electroactive material layer, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Jiang because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 7, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, both Jiang and Johnston disclose that the binder is PTFE [Jiang 0085], [Johnston 0058].
Regarding Claim 21, Jiang discloses that the electroactive material particle comprises graphite (electrically conductive particles contained in the electroactive material particles) [0009, 0016].
Regarding Claim 22, as stated with regards to Claim 1, Jiang as modified by Pan discloses that the first protective layer is formed by in-situ polymerization [Pan 0046].
Examiner notes that the limitation “formed by in-situ polymerization” was not given undue weight. In regards to the limitation “formed by in-situ polymerization”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Claims 4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Johnston, Pan, and Dugan as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 10741846 B2.
Regarding Claim 4, Jiang discloses that the electroactive material layer contains the electroactive material particles in an amount of 60-80wt%, and contains the binder fibers (as modified by Johnston) in an amount of 1-40wt% [0086]. In regards to the amount of electroactive material particles and binder fibers, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Jiang because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Jiang and Johnston are silent as to the exact weight percent of the first and second protective layers.
Lee discloses an electrode for a lithium battery [Abstract], wherein the electrode comprises particles with protective layers [Column 13 Lines 14-19]. Lee discloses particles (Figure 1B Items 13) that comprise an outer protective layer (Figure 1B Item 14), wherein the protective layer is made of a polymer [Column 13 Lines 15-22], more specifically the protective layer can comprise acrylonitrile polymers, methylmethacrylate polymers, etc. [Column 13 Lines 50-67]. Lee discloses that the protective layer on the particles is contained in an amount of 2 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the particles [Column 13 Lines 30-33].
Lee discloses that when the protective layer is contained in this amount, the protective layer can have good mechanical strength and effectively reduce the growth of lithium dendrites [Column 13 Lines 33-37].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the suggested amount of the polymer protective layer of Lee in the polymer protective layers of Jiang for coating the electroactive material particles and the binder fibers (as modified by Johnston) to achieve a battery with good mechanical strength and reduce lithium dendrite growth.
Thus, with the modification of Lee, Jiang discloses that the first protective layer (second porous elastomeric layer) on the electroactive material particles would be contained in an amount of 2 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the particles, which are further contained in the electroactive material layer in an amount of 60-80wt% as mentioned above, and therefore the first protective layer is contained in an amount of 1.2-1.6wt% in the electroactive material layer.
Further, with the modification of Lee, modified Jiang discloses that the second protective layer (shell of Johnston) on the binder fibers would be contained in an amount of 2 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the binder fibers, which are further contained in the electroactive material layer in an amount of 1-40wt% as mentioned above, and therefore the second protective layer is contained in an amount of 0.02-0.8wt% in the electroactive material layer.
Regarding Claim 6, Jiang discloses that the electroactive material layer comprises 0.5-25wt% of a conductive additive (electrically conductive particles) [0086]. In regards to the amount of conductive additive, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 I. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Jiang because selection of the overlapping portion or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Johnston, Pan, and Dugan as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang US 2023/0109953 A1 (herein referred to as Jang ‘953) and Jang US 2022/0407183 A1 (herein referred to as Jang ‘183).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Jiang is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however modified Jiang is silent as to the one or more monomers comprising ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate. It is noted by the Examiner that Claim 23 was interpreted to mean that the one or more monomers comprises both ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate in both the first protective layer and the second protective layer.
Jang ‘953 discloses a lithium ion battery comprising an anode, wherein the anode further comprises active material particles and a protective polymer [Abstract]. Jang ‘953 discloses that the protective polymer covers the surface of the active material particles [0019], similar to the first protective layer of modified Jiang. Jang ‘953 discloses that the protective polymer can comprise a combination of polymers of ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate [0025, 0099].
Jang ‘953 discloses that an anode with this configuration has a high capacity and does not experience a large volume change, which prevents a rapid capacity decay in the battery [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the first protective layer of modified Jiang with the polymer combination comprising ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate suggested by Jang ‘953 to provide a high capacity anode with no large volume changes, thereby providing a battery with no rapid capacity decay.
Additionally, in a similar disclosure, Jang ‘183 discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a composite layer, further comprising polymer fibers bonded by a polymer [Abstract], similar to modified Jiang’s second protective layer coated on the binder fibers. Jang ‘183 discloses that the first polymer is the same as the second polymer [0013], and discloses that the second polymer can comprise combinations of polymers such as ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate [0020]. Thus Jang ‘183 discloses a protective layer on polymer fibers wherein the protective layer comprises a combination of ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate.
Jang ‘183 discloses that a battery with this configuration has reduced lithium metal dendrite growth, high specific capacity, high specific energy, high degree of safety, and a long stable life cycle [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the second protective layer of modified Jiang to comprise a combination of polymers such as ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate as suggested by Jang ‘183 to provide a battery with reduced lithium metal dendrite growth, high specific capacity, high specific energy, high degree of safety, and a long stable life cycle.
Thus, modified Jiang discloses that the one or more monomers, in each of the first and second protective layers, comprises ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate.
Claims 1, 2, 7, & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan and further in view of Johnston et al. US 2018/0108915 A1 and Dugan et al. US 2005/0039836 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Pan discloses an electrode assembly (electrodes) for use in an electrochemical cell that cycles lithium ions [0043]. Pan discloses that the electrode assembly comprises a current collector [0097] and an electroactive material layer (anode electrode) disposed on the current collector [0097]. Pan discloses that the electroactive material layer comprises a plurality of electroactive material particles (anode active material particulate) [0028]. Pan further discloses that each of the electroactive material particles has a particle and a protective layer (a protecting polymer layer [0028]), thus comprising a first protective layer. Pan discloses that first protective layer comprises monomers of PMMA (or MMA) or PEG (or ethylene glycol), or combinations thereof [0045], and that in in-situ polymerization, the monomer of those materials would be used [0093]. Thus, Pan discloses that the first protective layer is a polymeric layer comprising monomers of MMA or ethylene glycol.
Pan further discloses that the electroactive material layer comprises a binder dispersed with the electroactive material particles [0043, 0097-0098]. Pan discloses that the binder can be polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), ethylene-propylene-diene copolymer (EPDM), or styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) [0097], however Pan is silent as to the binder being in the shape of a fiber, and comprising a second protective layer coated thereon.
Johnston discloses an electrode for a battery comprising a composite electroactive material layer (Figure 1 Item 40) containing binder fibers (Figure 1 Item 130) mixed with electroactive particles (Figure 1 Item 120) [0042], similar to that of Pan. Johnston further discloses that the binder fibers are made of PTFE [0058], similar to Pan. Johnston discloses that the binder fibers comprise a "core-shell" structure [0060], wherein a first polymer is coated by a second polymer. Thus, Johnston discloses a binder fiber for an electroactive material layer comprising a similar material to that of Jiang that further comprises a protective layer coated thereon.
Johnston discloses that compared to conventional binder resins, the binder fibers in the disclosure adhere to more surface area of the electroactive particles in the electrode active material [0043] and thus is more available for electrochemical reactions required for use in batteries [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to replace the binder of Pan with the binder fibers comprising a coating as in Johnston to achieve a battery with an electrode active layer with between adhesion between the electroactive material and the binder fibers.
Thus, modified Pan discloses a plurality of binder material fibers having a second protective layer coated thereon.
Modified Pan, with the modification of Johnston, further discloses that the binder fiber second protective layer (second polymer) can be a different polymer from the first polymer, which comprises the core of the core-shell structure, and has a lower softening temperature than the first polymer [0040], which as mentioned in Claim 1 is PTFE, which encompasses PMMA, however Johnston is silent as to the specific material of the second protective layer (second polymer).
Additionally, Dugan discloses multicomponent binder fibers having a first component and a second component [0036], wherein one of the components can be a low melt temperature polymer and the other component can be a high melt temperature polymer [0036], similar to Johnston’s second polymer having a lower softening temperature than the first polymer. Dugan discloses that the low melt temperature polymer can be PMMA [0045], which has a lower softening temperature than Johnston’s inner core PTFE.
In the absence of a specific material disclosed by Johnston for the second protective layer coating the binder fiber, one of ordinary skill would look to the relevant art (coated binder fibers) such as Dugan for a suggestion of a suitable material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to select PMMA as the second polymer as suggested by Dugan in the second protective layer of modified Pan (as modified by Johnston’s binder fibers).
Regarding Claim 2, Pan discloses that the first protective layer can be a combination of the listed monomers, including poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO), polypropylene oxide (PPO), poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN), poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVdF), poly(vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP), or polyethylene glycol [0045]. Thus, Pan discloses that the first protective layer comprises a first monomer as mentioned in Claim 1 from the list of MMA or ethylene glycol, and a second monomer from the list of ethylene oxide, propylene oxide, acrylonitrile, vinylidene fluoride, or vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Pan, as modified by Johnston, discloses that the binder fibers comprise PTFE [Johnston 0058].
Regarding Claim 21, Pan discloses that the electroactive material particle comprises graphite [0047, 0070].
Regarding Claim 22, Pan discloses that the first protective layer deposited on the electroactive material particle can be formed through in-situ polymerization [0046].
Examiner notes that the limitation “formed by in-situ polymerization” was not given undue weight. In regards to the limitation “formed by in-situ polymerization”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, Johnston, and Dugan as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Miki US 2014/0302229 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Pan discloses that the first protective layer is a continuous coating (wraps around, embraces, or encapsulates the particle) [0028] with a thickness of 0.5 nm to 5 µm, more preferably 1 nm to 2 µm [0028], which overlaps with the claimed range.
As shown in Figure 1, Johnston discloses that the second protective layer on the binder fibers is continuous (covering the entire fiber) (Figure 1 showing fiber 130 with entire surface coated 130c”). Thus, modified Pan discloses that the second protective layer is continuous. Further Johnston discloses that the overall thickness of the binder fibers (including core and shell) is 1-1000nm (0.001um-1um) [0048]. Assuming that the shell does not comprise 100% of the binder fiber, on one end of the range, the shell would be less than 0.5nm (overall thickness of the fiber is 1nm, so thickness of the shell would be half of the overall thickness), and on the other end of the range, the shell would be less than 500nm, which overlaps with the range set forth in the claim. Thus, modified Pan discloses the thickness of the second protective layer meets the limitations of Claim 3.
Pan is silent as to the specific thickness of the electroactive material layer.
Miki discloses a solid state battery with a composite electrode active material layer [Abstract], more specifically a battery with a negative electrode active material layer coated on a negative electrode current collector [0012, 0079]. Miki discloses that the electrode active material layer can range in thickness of 0.1-1000 µm depending on the configuration of the intended battery [0073].
Miki discloses that a battery with this configuration has satisfactory electron conductivity [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the thickness as suggested by Miki in the electroactive material layer of Pan to provide an electroactive material layer with a thickness of 0.1-1000 µm to achieve satisfactory electron conductivity. Thus, modified Pan discloses an electroactive material layer with a thickness that overlaps with the claimed range.
Claims 4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, Johnston, and Dugan as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al. US 10741846 B2.
Regarding Claim 4, Pan discloses that the electroactive material layer comprises 80-85 wt % electroactive material particles and 5-10 wt % of binder [0097], which both fall within the claimed ranges.
However, Pan is silent as to the exact weight percent of the first and second protective layers.
Lee discloses an electrode for a lithium battery [Abstract], wherein the electrode comprises particles with protective layers [Column 13 Lines 14-19]. Lee discloses particles (Figure 1B Items 13) that comprise an outer protective layer (Figure 1B Item 14), wherein the protective layer is made of a polymer [Column 13 Lines 15-22], more specifically the protective layer can comprise acrylonitrile polymers, methylmethacrylate polymers, etc. [Column 13 Lines 50-67]. Lee discloses that the protective layer on the particles is contained in an amount of 2 parts by weight or less based on 100 parts by weight of the particles [Column 13 Lines 30-33].
Lee discloses that when the protective layer is contained in this amount, the protective layer can have good mechanical strength and effectively reduce the growth of lithium dendrites [Column 13 Lines 33-37].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the suggested amount of the polymer protective layer of Lee in the polymer protective layers of modified Pan for coating the electroactive material particles and the binder fibers (as modified by Johnston) to achieve a battery with good mechanical strength and reduce lithium dendrite growth.
Thus, with the modification of Lee, Pan discloses that the first protective layer on the electroactive material particles would be contained in an amount of 2 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the particles, which are further contained in the electroactive material layer in an amount of 80-85wt% as mentioned above, and therefore the first protective layer is contained in an amount of 1.6-1.7wt% in the electroactive material layer.
Further, with the modification of Lee, modified Pan discloses that the second protective layer (shell of Johnston) on the binder fibers would be contained in an amount of 2 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the binder fibers, which are further contained in the electroactive material layer in an amount of 5-10wt% as mentioned above, and therefore the second protective layer is contained in an amount of 0.1-0.2wt% in the electroactive material layer.
Regarding Claim 6, Pan discloses that the electroactive material layer can further comprise a conductive additive [0043], which Pan further discloses can be included in an amount of 5-15 wt % [0097], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan, Johnston, and Dugan as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang US 2023/0109953 A1 (herein referred to as Jang ‘953) and Jang US 2022/0407183 A1 (herein referred to as Jang ‘183).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Pan is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1, however modified Pan is silent as to the one or more monomers comprising ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate. It is noted by the Examiner that Claim 23 was interpreted to mean that the one or more monomers comprises both ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate in both the first protective layer and the second protective layer.
Jang ‘953 discloses a lithium ion battery comprising an anode, wherein the anode further comprises active material particles and a protective polymer [Abstract]. Jang ‘953 discloses that the protective polymer covers the surface of the active material particles [0019], similar to the first protective layer of modified Pan. Jang ‘953 discloses that the protective polymer can comprise a combination of polymers of ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate [0025, 0099].
Jang ‘953 discloses that an anode with this configuration has a high capacity and does not experience a large volume change, which prevents a rapid capacity decay in the battery [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the first protective layer of modified Pan with the polymer combination comprising ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate suggested by Jang ‘953 to provide a high capacity anode with no large volume changes, thereby providing a battery with no rapid capacity decay.
Additionally, in a similar disclosure, Jang ‘183 discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a composite layer, further comprising polymer fibers bonded by a polymer [Abstract], similar to modified Pan’s second protective layer coated on the binder fibers. Jang ‘183 discloses that the first polymer is the same as the second polymer [0013], and discloses that the second polymer can comprise combinations of polymers such as ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate [0020]. Thus Jang ‘183 discloses a protective layer on polymer fibers wherein the protective layer comprises a combination of ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate.
Jang ‘183 discloses that a battery with this configuration has reduced lithium metal dendrite growth, high specific capacity, high specific energy, high degree of safety, and a long stable life cycle [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the second protective layer of modified Pan to comprise a combination of polymers such as ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate as suggested by Jang ‘183 to provide a battery with reduced lithium metal dendrite growth, high specific capacity, high specific energy, high degree of safety, and a long stable life cycle.
Thus, modified Pan discloses that the one or more monomers, in each of the first and second protective layers, comprises ethylene glycol and trimethylene carbonate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the previous art of record are each silent as to the monomers recited in amended Claim 1. Examiner respectfully points out that as stated in the rejection above, these references are not used to teach the monomers in amended Claim 1, and instead Pan is used to teach the monomers of the first protective layer and Dugan is used to teach the monomers of the second protective layer. As stated above, Pan discloses a protective layer for an electroactive material particle comprising a monomer of PEO (ethylene oxide), PPO (propylene oxide), PAN (acrylonitrile), PMMA (methylmethacrylate), PVDF (vinylidene fluoride), PVDF-HFP (vinylidene fluoride)-hexafluoropropylene, or PEG (ethylene glycol) as an alternative to polydimethylsiloxane as mentioned in Jiang. Dugan discloses that the second protective layer, of modified Jiang with the modification of Johnston, can be PMMA. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 9 January 2026
Prosecution Insights