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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 8/12/2026 has been considered by examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 20, and 21 are cancelled and claims 22-28 are added. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-11, 14-19, and 22-28 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have the 112(a) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 2/20/2026.
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, 4, 5, 8-11, 19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2022/0367855, hereinafter "Oh") in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0225792, hereinafter "Zhang").
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer (“negative electrode mixture”) including a composite negative electrode active material including a silicon-containing material and carbon nanotubes, and a binder [Abstract, “Disclosed is a composite negative electrode active material comprising silicon-based core particles, an outer carbon coating layer present on the silicon-based core particles, and single-walled carbon nanotubes”, 0015, “Still another aspect of the present invention provides a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer … wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode material comprising the above-described composite negative electrode active material, a binder”]. Oh also discloses that the negative electrode may be used in a secondary battery [0016], and that an electrolyte used in the secondary battery may be an organic, or non-aqueous, liquid electrolyte [0120]. Oh teaches that the single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) in the composite are used to form a conductive network in the negative electrode [0017]. Oh discloses that the SWCNTs may have an average diameter of 0.1 nm to 15 nm, which overlaps the claimed range of 5nm or less [0055, “The SWCNTs may have an average diameter of 0.1 nm to 15 nm”]. 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 I]. Furthermore, In Example 1, Oh teaches a specific embodiment of a composite negative electrode active material comprising silicon-containing material, an outer carbon coating layer, and SWCNTs in a mass ratio of 99.87:0.06:0.07 [0133, “a weight ratio of the silicon-based core particles on which an inner carbon coating layer was formed: outer carbon coating layer: SWCNTs was 99.87:0.06:0.07”]. Oh teaches that the composite was further combined with another carbon-based active material in a mass ratio of 15:85 [0165]. No further conductive agent was added to the negative electrode mixture [0166-0167]. The amount of SWCNT in the whole negative electrode active material therefore was 0.07% of the 15 parts by weight of the composite, or 0.0105 parts by mass of SWCNTs, based on the 99.9895 parts by mass of the rest of the negative electrode active material, or 0.0105 mass% of SWCNTs relative to the whole negative electrode active material, which is within the claimed range of 0.0025 mass% to 0.1 mass%. Oh is silent regarding the binder including an acrylic polymer having a hydrophilic structural unit and a hydrophobic structural unit.
Zhang teaches analogous art of a multi-functionally modified polymer binder for lithium ion batteries that can be used in a negative electrode [Abstract, “A multi-functionally modified polymer binder for lithium ion batteries”, “Use of the binder in positive electrodes and negative electrodes”]. Zhang teaches that the binder is formed with a biomass or synthetic polymer substrate, a hydrophilic monomer (“hydrophilic structural unit”), and a lipophilic monomer (“hydrophobic structural unit”) in a weight ratio of 1:0-100:0-100, respectively [0006], which overlaps the claimed range of the ratio of hydrophobic structural units to a total of hydrophilic and hydrophobic structural units. According to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists [see MPEP 2144.05 I]. Zhang also teaches that the hydrophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR1R2, wherein R1 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R2 can be selected from —COOH, or —COOM (wherein M is an alkali metal such as Li, Na or K) [0006]. This structural formula encompasses acrylic monomers having a carboxyl group derived from an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid, such as when R1 is —H and R2 is —COOH. ]. Zhang also teaches that the lipophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR3R4, wherein R3 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R4 can be selected from one of —CN or COOR6 (wherein R6 is selected from at least one of C1-C8 alkyl groups) [0006]. When R3 is —H and R4 is —CN, the lipophilic monomer is acrylonitrile. When R3 is —H, R4 is —COOR6, and R6 is a methyl group, the lipophilic monomer is methyl acrylate. If one of ordinary skill in the art is able to "at once envisage" the specific compound within the generic chemical formula, the compound is anticipated [see MPEP 2131.02 III]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to draw or name each of the specific compounds included in the generic formulas taught by Zhang, therefore acrylonitrile and methyl acrylate can be “at once envisaged” from Zhang’s generic formulas.
Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder has, among other advantages, high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility [0026]. Zhang also teaches that the binder can improve uniformity in the formation of electrode films, enhance the peel strength of the electrode to a metal substrate, and enhance the binding strength between the electrode active materials, the conductive agents and a current collector, thus improving high-rate performances and cycling stabilities of the electrode and extending battery life [0027].
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 negative electrode of Oh to include the multi-functionally modified polymer binder taught by Zhang, in order to provide a binder with high elasticity, binding strength, and flexibility, and to extend the battery life of a battery comprising the negative electrode.
Regarding claim 4, modified Oh teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1.
As described previously, Zhang teaches that the binder is formed with a biomass or synthetic polymer substrate, a hydrophilic monomer (“hydrophilic structural unit”), and a lipophilic monomer (“hydrophobic structural unit”) in a weight ratio of 1:0-100:0-100, respectively [0006], which overlaps the claimed range of the ratio of hydrophobic structural units to a total of hydrophilic and hydrophobic structural units. According to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists [see MPEP 2144.05 I].
Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder has, among other advantages, high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility [0026], and that the binder can improve uniformity in the formation of electrode films, enhance the peel strength of the electrode to a metal substrate, and enhance the binding strength between the electrode active materials, the conductive agents and a current collector, thus improving high-rate performances and cycling stabilities of the electrode and extending battery life [0027].
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 negative electrode of modified Oh to include the multi-functionally modified polymer binder with a ratio of the lipophilic monomer to a total of the hydrophilic monomer and the lipophilic monomer within the range taught by Zhang, in order to provide a binder with high elasticity, binding strength, and flexibility and extend to the battery life of a battery comprising the negative electrode.
Regarding claim 5, modified Oh teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1.
As described previously, Zhang teaches that the hydrophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR1R2, wherein R1 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R2 can be selected from —COOH, or —COOM (wherein M is an alkali metal such as Li, Na or K) [0006]. When R2 is —COOM, and M is Li, the carboxyl groups of the hydrophilic monomer are in the form of a lithium carboxylic acid salt.
Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder has, among other advantages, high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility [0026]. Zhang also teaches that the binder can improve uniformity in the formation of electrode films, enhance the peel strength of the electrode to a metal substrate, and enhance the binding strength between the electrode active materials, the conductive agents and a current collector, thus improving high-rate performances and cycling stabilities of the electrode and extending battery life [0027].
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 negative electrode taught by modified Oh to have the carboxyl groups of the hydrophilic monomer be in the form of a lithium carboxylic acid salt as taught by Zhang, in order to provide a binder with high elasticity, binding strength, and flexibility, and to extend the battery life of a battery comprising the negative electrode.
Regarding claim 8, modified Oh teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. In Example 1, Oh teaches a specific embodiment of a composite negative electrode active material comprising silicon-containing material, an outer carbon coating layer, and SWCNTs in a mass ratio of 99.87:0.06:0.07 [0133, “a weight ratio of the silicon-based core particles on which an inner carbon coating layer was formed: outer carbon coating layer: SWCNTs was 99.87:0.06:0.07”]. Oh teaches that the composite was further combined with another carbon-based active material in a mass ratio of 15:85 [0165]. No further conductive agent was added to the negative electrode mixture [0166-0167]. The amount of SWCNT in the whole negative electrode active material therefore was 0.07% of the 15 parts by weight of the composite, or 0.0105 parts by mass of SWCNTs, based on the 99.9895 parts by mass of the rest of the negative electrode active material, or 0.0105 mass% of SWCNTs relative to the whole negative electrode active material, which is within the claimed range of 0.004 mass% to 0.08 mass%.
Regarding claim 9, modified Oh teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. As described previously, In Example 1, Oh teaches a specific embodiment of a negative electrode material, wherein the amount of SWCNT is 0.0105 mass% relative to the whole negative electrode material [0133, 0165-0167]. Oh further teaches that the mass ratio of the negative electrode material prepared in Example 1 to the binder (“polymer”) is 98:1 [0166]. Since the amount of SWCNTs is 0.0105 mass% relative to the whole negative electrode material, the mass ratio of the binder to the SWCNTs is 1:(0.000105×98), or 1:0.0103, or 97, which is within the recited range.
Regarding claim 10, modified Oh teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. As described previously, In Example 1, Oh teaches a specific embodiment of a negative electrode material, wherein the amount of SWCNT is 0.0105 mass% relative to the whole negative electrode material [0133, 0165-0167]. Oh further teaches that the mass ratio of the negative electrode material prepared in Example 1 to the binder (“polymer”) is 98:1 [0166]. Since the amount of SWCNTs is 0.0105 mass% relative to the whole negative electrode material, the mass ratio of the binder to the SWCNTs is 1:(0.000105×98), or 1:0.0103, or 97, which is within the recited range.
Regarding claim 11, modified Oh teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Oh teaches that the composite negative electrode active material includes specifically single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) [Abstract, “Disclosed is a composite negative electrode active material comprising silicon-based core particles, an outer carbon coating layer present on the silicon-based core particles, and single-walled carbon nanotubes”]. Therefore, 100% of the carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode are SWCNTs, which is over 50%.
Regarding claim 19, modified Oh teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Oh further discloses that the negative electrode may be included in a secondary battery which also includes a positive electrode and an electrolyte [0016]. Oh teaches that the electrolyte may be an organic liquid electrolyte (“non-aqueous electrolyte”) [0120].
Regarding claim 23, modified Oh teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1.
As described previously, Zhang teaches that the hydrophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR1R2, wherein R1 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R2 can be selected from —COOH, or —COOM (wherein M is an alkali metal such as Li, Na or K) [0006]. When R1 is —H and R2 is —COOH, the hydrophilic monomer is acrylic acid. When R1 is —CH3 and R2 is —COOH, the hydrophilic monomer is methacrylic acid.
Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder has, among other advantages, high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility [0026]. Zhang also teaches that the binder can improve uniformity in the formation of electrode films, enhance the peel strength of the electrode to a metal substrate, and enhance the binding strength between the electrode active materials, the conductive agents and a current collector, thus improving high-rate performances and cycling stabilities of the electrode and extending battery life [0027].
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 negative electrode taught by modified Oh to have the hydrophilic monomer be acrylic acid or methacrylic acid as taught by Zhang, in order to provide a binder with high elasticity, binding strength, and flexibility, and to extend the battery life of a battery comprising the negative electrode.
Regarding claim 24, modified Oh teaches the negative electrode of claim 1 as described in the rejection of instant claim 1.
As described previously, Zhang teaches that the hydrophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR1R2, wherein R1 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R2 can be selected from —COOH, or —COOM (wherein M is an alkali metal such as Li, Na or K) [0006]. When R1 is —H and R2 is —COOH, the hydrophilic monomer is acrylic acid. Zhang also teaches that the lipophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR3R4, wherein R3 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R4 can be selected from one of —CN or COOR6 (wherein R6 is selected from at least one of C1-C8 alkyl groups) [0006]. When R3 is —H, R4 is —COOR6, and R6 is a methyl group, the lipophilic monomer is methyl acrylate. Zhang further discloses that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder comprising the hydrophilic monomer and lipophilic monomer may be formed by copolymerization [0006]. Therefore, Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder may be a copolymer of acrylic acid and methyl acrylate. It is noted that the “copolymer of acrylic acid and methyl acrylate” recited in claim 24 is being broadly interpreted by examiner as a copolymer including, but not limited to, acrylic acid and methyl acrylate, and is not being interpreted as a copolymer which solely consists of acrylic acid and methyl acrylate.
Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder has, among other advantages, high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility [0026]. Zhang also teaches that the binder can improve uniformity in the formation of electrode films, enhance the peel strength of the electrode to a metal substrate, and enhance the binding strength between the electrode active materials, the conductive agents and a current collector, thus improving high-rate performances and cycling stabilities of the electrode and extending battery life [0027].
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 negative electrode taught by modified Oh to have the hydrophilic monomer be acrylic acid and the lipophilic monomer be methyl acrylate as taught by Zhang, in order to provide a binder with high elasticity, binding strength, and flexibility, and to extend the battery life of a battery comprising the negative electrode.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US 2022/0367855) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0225792) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2007/0092796, hereinafter "Matsuda").
Regarding claim 18, modified Oh teaches the negative electrode of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Oh is silent regarding a content of the polymer in the negative electrode mixture relative to the whole negative electrode active material being 0.02 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less.
Matsuda teaches analogous art of a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a binder with an acrylic polymer that may include more than one type of structural unit [Abstract, “A non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode”, “The binder comprises a polymer having at least one selected from the group consisting of an acrylic acid unit, an acrylic acid salt unit, an acrylic acid ester unit, a methacrylic acid unit, a methacrylic acid salt unit, and a methacrylic acid ester unit”]. Matsuda teaches that the acrylic polymer constitutes not less than 80% by weight of the whole negative electrode binder [0046, “The negative electrode binder may contain other polymers than the acrylic polymer, but it is preferred that the acrylic polymer constitute not less than 80% by weight of the whole binder”]. Matsuda further teaches that the amount of binder contained in the negative electrode is preferably 0.5 parts by weight to 30 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the composite particles of the active material [0047, “The amount of the binder contained in the negative electrode is preferably 0.5 to 30 parts by weight … per 100 parts by weight of the composite particles”]. If the acrylic polymer constitutes 100% by weight of the binder, then the content of the polymer in the negative electrode mixture relative to the whole negative electrode active material is 0.5 mass% to 30 mass%, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.02 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less.
Matsuda teaches if the amount of binder is too low, the composite particles may not be sufficiently bound together, but if the amount of binder is too high, the flexibility of the negative electrode decreases [0047].Furthermore, Matsuda teaches that if the acrylic polymer constitutes less than 80% of the binder, the binder may not be sufficiently adhesive [0046, “ If the acrylic polymer constitutes less than 80% by weight, the adhesive properties of the binder may be insufficient”].
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 modify the negative electrode taught by modified Oh to have the acrylic polymer in an amount within the range taught by Matsuda in order to provide sufficient adhesion to the active material and maintain the flexibility of the negative electrode. Furthermore, according to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 14-17, 22, 25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0212762, hereinafter "Nakamura") in view of Zhang (US 2019/0225792).
Regarding claim 22, Nakamura teaches a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte battery including a composite electrode material (“negative electrode mixture”) [0096, “The lithium ion battery according to one embodiment in the present invention comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of nonaqueous electrolytic solution and nonaqueous polymer electrolyte … For the negative electrode sheet, an electrode sheet comprising the composite electrode material according to one embodiment in the present invention can be used”]. Nakamura teaches that the composite electrode material comprises particles (A) (“negative electrode active material”) including an element capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions and multi-walled carbon nanotubes [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Nakamura teaches that the element capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions in the particles (A) may be silicon (Si) [0032]. Nakamura also teaches that the average diameter of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes is preferably not less than 5nm and not more than 30nm, which overlaps the recited range [0058, “The multi-walled carbon nanotubes (C) used for the present invention essentially have a fiber diameter of preferably not less than 5 nm and not more than 30 nm”]. 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 I]. Nakamura teaches that the amount of multi-walled carbon nanotubes in the composite electrode material is preferably not less than 0.1 part by mass and not more than 10 parts by mass relative to a total 100 parts by mass of the particles (A) and the carbon particles (B) in the electrode material [0070]. The particles (A) and (B) are the active material particles in the composite electrode material [0013, “particles (A) comprising an element capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions”, 0014, “carbon particles (B) capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions”]. Therefore, the content of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode mixture relative to the whole negative electrode active material is 0.1 mass% to 10 mass%, which overlaps 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 I]. Nakamura further discloses that the composite electrode material may be contained in an electrode layer, and that the electrode layer may also comprise a binder [0089]. Nakamura does not specifically teach the binder including an acrylic polymer including a hydrophilic structural unit and a hydrophobic structural unit.
Zhang teaches analogous art of a multi-functionally modified polymer binder for lithium ion batteries that can be used in a negative electrode [Abstract, “A multi-functionally modified polymer binder for lithium ion batteries”, “Use of the binder in positive electrodes and negative electrodes”]. Zhang teaches that the binder is formed with a biomass or synthetic polymer substrate, a hydrophilic monomer (“hydrophilic structural unit”), and a lipophilic monomer (“hydrophobic structural unit”) in a weight ratio of 1:0-100:0-100, respectively [0006], which overlaps the claimed range of the ratio of hydrophobic structural units to a total of hydrophilic and hydrophobic structural units. According to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists [see MPEP 2144.05 I]. Zhang also teaches that the hydrophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR1R2, wherein R1 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R2 can be selected from —COOH, or —COOM (wherein M is an alkali metal such as Li, Na or K) [0006]. This structural formula encompasses acrylic monomers having a carboxyl group derived from an ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acid, such as when R1 is —H and R2 is —COOH. ]. Zhang also teaches that the lipophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR3R4, wherein R3 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R4 can be selected from one of —CN or COOR6 (wherein R6 is selected from at least one of C1-C8 alkyl groups) [0006]. When R3 is —H and R4 is —CN, the lipophilic monomer is acrylonitrile. When R3 is —H, R4 is —COOR6, and R6 is a methyl group, the lipophilic monomer is methyl acrylate. If one of ordinary skill in the art is able to "at once envisage" the specific compound within the generic chemical formula, the compound is anticipated [see MPEP 2131.02 III]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to draw or name each of the specific compounds included in the generic formulas taught by Zhang, therefore acrylonitrile and methyl acrylate can be “at once envisaged” from Zhang’s generic formulas.
Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder has, among other advantages, high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility [0026]. Zhang also teaches that the binder can improve uniformity in the formation of electrode films, enhance the peel strength of the electrode to a metal substrate, and enhance the binding strength between the electrode active materials, the conductive agents and a current collector, thus improving high-rate performances and cycling stabilities of the electrode and extending battery life [0027].
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 negative electrode of Nakamura to include the multi-functionally modified polymer binder taught by Zhang, in order to provide a binder with high elasticity, binding strength, and flexibility, and to extend the battery life of a battery comprising the negative electrode.
Regarding claim 14, modified Nakamura teaches the negative electrode of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22. As described previously, Nakamura teaches that the amount of multi-walled carbon nanotubes in the composite electrode material is preferably not less than 0.1 part by mass and not more than 10 parts by mass relative to a total 100 parts by mass of the particles (A) and the carbon particles (B) in the electrode material [0070]. The particles (A) and (B) are the active material particles in the composite electrode material [0013, “particles (A) comprising an element capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions”, 0014, “carbon particles (B) capable of intercalating and deintercalating lithium ions”]. Therefore, the content of the multi-walled carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode mixture relative to the whole negative electrode active material is 0.1 mass% to 10 mass%, which overlaps 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 I].
Regarding claim 15, modified Nakamura teaches the negative electrode of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22. In Example 2, Nakamura teaches a specific example of a negative electrode sheet wherein the amount of multi-walled carbon nanotubes is 0.0969 parts by mass [0145], and the amount of binder (“polymer”) is 0.2 parts by mass [0145, 0138]. Therefore, the mass ratio of the binder to the multi-walled carbon nanotubes is 0.2:0.0969, or 2.1, which is within the recited range.
Regarding claim 16, modified Nakamura teaches the negative electrode of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22. In Example 2, Nakamura teaches a specific example of a negative electrode sheet wherein the amount of multi-walled carbon nanotubes is 0.0969 parts by mass [0145], and the amount of binder (“polymer”) is 0.2 parts by mass [0145, 0138]. Therefore, the mass ratio of the binder to the multi-walled carbon nanotubes is0.2:0.0969, or 2.1, which is within the recited range.
Regarding claim 17, modified Nakamura teaches the negative electrode of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22. Nakamura further teaches that the electrode material specifically includes multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and does not mention any other kind of nanotube [Abstract, entire disclosure relied upon]. Therefore, 100% of the carbon nanotubes in the negative electrode are multi-walled carbon nanotubes, which is over 50%.
Regarding claim 25, modified Nakamura teaches the negative electrode of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22.
As described previously, Zhang teaches that the hydrophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR1R2, wherein R1 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R2 can be selected from —COOH, or —COOM (wherein M is an alkali metal such as Li, Na or K) [0006]. When R2 is —COOM, and M is Li, the carboxyl groups of the hydrophilic monomer are in the form of a lithium carboxylic acid salt.
Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder has, among other advantages, high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility [0026]. Zhang also teaches that the binder can improve uniformity in the formation of electrode films, enhance the peel strength of the electrode to a metal substrate, and enhance the binding strength between the electrode active materials, the conductive agents and a current collector, thus improving high-rate performances and cycling stabilities of the electrode and extending battery life [0027].
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 negative electrode taught by modified Nakamura to have the carboxyl groups of the hydrophilic monomer be in the form of a lithium carboxylic acid salt as taught by Zhang, in order to provide a binder with high elasticity, binding strength, and flexibility, and to extend the battery life of a battery comprising the negative electrode.
Regarding claim 27, modified Nakamura teaches the negative electrode of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22. Nakamura teaches that the negative electrode may be included in a lithium ion battery (“non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery”), wherein the lithium ion battery may also include a positive electrode and a nonaqueous electrolytic solution (“non-aqueous electrolyte”) [0096].
Regarding claim 28, modified Nakamura teaches the negative electrode of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22.
As described previously, Zhang teaches that the hydrophilic monomer is selected from at least one of monomers having a structure of CH2═CR1R2, wherein R1 is selected from —H, —CH3 and —CH2CH3, and R2 can be selected from —COOH, or —COOM (wherein M is an alkali metal such as Li, Na or K) [0006]. When R1 is —H and R2 is —COOH, the hydrophilic monomer is acrylic acid. When R1 is —CH3 and R2 is —COOH, the hydrophilic monomer is methacrylic acid.
Zhang teaches that the multi-functionally modified polymer binder has, among other advantages, high elasticity, binding strength and flexibility [0026]. Zhang also teaches that the binder can improve uniformity in the formation of electrode films, enhance the peel strength of the electrode to a metal substrate, and enhance the binding strength between the electrode active materials, the conductive agents and a current collector, thus improving high-rate performances and cycling stabilities of the electrode and extending battery life [0027].
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 negative electrode taught by modified Nakamura to have the hydrophilic monomer be acrylic acid or methacrylic acid as taught by Zhang, in order to provide a binder with high elasticity, binding strength, and flexibility, and to extend the battery life of a battery comprising the negative electrode.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2014/0212762) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0225792) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Matsuda (US 2007/0092796).
Regarding claim 26, modified Nakamura teaches the negative electrode of claim 22, as described in the rejection of instant claim 22. Nakamura is silent regarding a content of the polymer in the negative electrode mixture relative to the whole negative electrode active material being 0.02 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less.
Matsuda teaches analogous art of a negative electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a binder with an acrylic polymer that may include more than one type of structural unit [Abstract, “A non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode”, “The binder comprises a polymer having at least one selected from the group consisting of an acrylic acid unit, an acrylic acid salt unit, an acrylic acid ester unit, a methacrylic acid unit, a methacrylic acid salt unit, and a methacrylic acid ester unit”]. Matsuda teaches that the acrylic polymer constitutes not less than 80% by weight of the whole negative electrode binder [0046, “The negative electrode binder may contain other polymers than the acrylic polymer, but it is preferred that the acrylic polymer constitute not less than 80% by weight of the whole binder”]. Matsuda further teaches that the amount of binder contained in the negative electrode is preferably 0.5 parts by weight to 30 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the composite particles of the active material [0047, “The amount of the binder contained in the negative electrode is preferably 0.5 to 30 parts by weight … per 100 parts by weight of the composite particles”]. If the acrylic polymer constitutes 100% by weight of the binder, then the content of the polymer in the negative electrode mixture relative to the whole negative electrode active material is 0.5 mass% to 30 mass%, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.02 mass% or more and 1.5 mass% or less.
Matsuda teaches if the amount of binder is too low, the composite particles may not be sufficiently bound together, but if the amount of binder is too high, the flexibility of the negative electrode decreases [0047].Furthermore, Matsuda teaches that if the acrylic polymer constitutes less than 80% of the binder, the binder may not be sufficiently adhesive [0046, “ If the acrylic polymer constitutes less than 80% by weight, the adhesive properties of the binder may be insufficient”].
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 modify the negative electrode taught by modified Nakamura to have the acrylic polymer in an amount within the range taught by Matsuda in order to provide sufficient adhesion to the active material and maintain the flexibility of the negative electrode. Furthermore, according to guidance issued in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 5, 8-11, 14-29, and 22-28 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.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Oh (US 2022/0367855) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0225792) is maintained because Applicant has failed to present convincing arguments against the references as discussed above and in the advisory action mailed 5/7/2026.
Conclusion
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