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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 is amended, Claims 10 is canceled and Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11-14 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (Water-Soluble Conductive Composite Binder Containing PEDOT:PSS as Conduction Promoting Agent for Si Anode of Lithium-Ion Batteries, ChemElectroChem 2014, 1, 1679-1697), hereinafter “Shao” in view of Akikaze et al. (US 20110017954 A1), hereinafter "Akikaze". Shao and Akikaze et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode materials.
In regard to Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-12 and 14 Shao et al. discloses a negative electrode comprising: a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode mixture layer provided on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector, wherein the negative electrode mixture layer includes a negative electrode active material (silicon), a binder (CMC), and an additive (conduction promoting agent) containing a conductive polymer and a template compound (PEDOT:PSS) wherein the binder and the template compound of the additive are different materials from each other (Shao, pg. 1680). Shao et al. also discloses a range of wt% of the additive is 0-20% based on a total weight of the negative electrode mixture layer and further comprises a conductive material that includes carbon black which ranges in wt% from 0-20% (Shao, Table 1) which overlaps the claimed ranges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Shao then assembles the secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, and a separator interposed between the negative electrode and the positive electrode (Shao, pg. 1686). While the skilled artisan of Shao must provide the PEDOT:PSS additive with some weight ratio and can easily make adjustments to the weight ratio of the two components in the additive to achieve the desired results, Shao et al. is silent as to wherein a weight ratio of the conductive polymer (PEDOT) and the template compound (PSS) is 9:1 to 8:2.
Akikaze et al. discloses a conductive polymer (PEDOT) and a similar polymeric sulfonic acid (PVS) templating compound wherein the weight ratio of the conductive polymer (PEDOT) and the template compound (PVS) is can be calculated as 5.26:1 (Akikaze, Test Example 3), which anticipates the claimed range and has a preferential electrical conductivity (Akikaze, Table 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a conductive polymer and templating compound as disclosed in Shao in the weight ratio disclosed in Akikaze as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits disclosed in Akikaze and as dong so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 4, Shao in view of Akikake discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. While Shao et al. discloses CMC as a binder it also discloses PAA as an alternative selection due to its major advantages and thus, selecting PAA as the binder would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (Water-Soluble Conductive Composite Binder Containing PEDOT:PSS as Conduction Promoting Agent for Si Anode of Lithium-Ion Batteries, ChemElectroChem 2014, 1, 1679-1697), hereinafter “Shao” in view of Akikaze et al. (US 20110017954 A1), hereinafter "Akikaze" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kim et al (US 20210005893 A1), hereinafter “Kim”. Shao, Akikaze, and Kim et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode materials.
In regard to Claims 6 and 8, Shao in view of Akikake discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. While Shao discloses PEDOT as the conductive polymer it is silent as to the template compound comprising polyacrylic acid, carboxymethyl cellulose, and polyvinyl alcohol-polyacrylic acid copolymer. Kim et al. discloses a negative electrode layer with wherein the conductive polymer is (PEDOT) and the template compound and binder are both carboxymethyl cellulose (Kim, Example 1, [0080]) which achieves beneficial properties such as surface resistance and viscosity (Kim, 0123]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a binder of CMC as disclosed in Shao with a template compound of CMC as taught in Kim et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Kim and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Claim 13, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (Water-Soluble Conductive Composite Binder Containing PEDOT:PSS as Conduction Promoting Agent for Si Anode of Lithium-Ion Batteries, ChemElectroChem 2014, 1, 1679-1697), hereinafter “Shao” in view of Akikaze et al. (US 20110017954 A1), hereinafter "Akikaze" as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ma et al. (WO 2013066593 A1-Machine Translation), hereinafter "Ma". Shao, Akikaze and Ma et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 13, Shao in view of Akikake discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. While Shao et al. discloses some properties related to the resistance of the electrode it is silent as to the bulk resistivity of the electrode.
Ma et al. discloses a negative electrode comprising: a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode mixture layer provided on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector wherein the negative electrode mixture layer includes a negative electrode active material, a binder, and an additive containing a conductive polymer (PAA) and a template compound (Liquid Vehicle) (Ma, Paragraphs [0011, 0088]). Ma et al. also discloses a specific example where the bulk resistivity of the negative electrode is 0.012 O-cm (Ma, Table 4), which falls within the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to apply the formulations and techniques taught in Ma et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the beneficial properties taught in Ma and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection of claim 1 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, in regard to applicant’s arguments filed 02/23/2026, they have been considered but are not persuasive insofar as they apply to the present rejection because the data in the Table presented on Page 4 is insufficient to show non-obviousness or unexpected results. The data presented shows a single binder material (PAA) with a single template compound (PAA), while claim 1 covers a broad set of materials and the table additionally shows a 5:5 weight ratio of conductive polymer: template compound in the additive, which falls outside of the claimed range of 9:1 to 8:2. Thus, the presented evidence of unexpected results for the additive being included in an amount of 0.05% to 1% by weight based on a total weight of the negative electrode mixture layer is not commensurate with the limitations of independent claim 1. Lastly, it is noted that of the data presented herein only Example 6 is also presented in the original specification and the remaining data (Examples 11 and 12 and Comparative examples 3 and 4) is absent from the disclosure. Any additional data not in the specification should be presented in the form of a 1.132 declaration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725