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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Newly submitted claim 29 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions of Claim 1 and Claim 29 are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design as the invention of claim 29 relates to an aqueous slurry and the invention of claim 1 relates to an electrode and an aqueous slurry is not an electrode. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 29 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 12/17/2025 have been entered. Claims 7-17 and 27-28 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claim 29 has been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 18-26 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 28, the recitation “an electrode according to claim 27” in claim 28, lines 5-6 should read “the electrode according to claim 27”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 7-17 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (Pub. No. JP 2012069488 A) in view of Jung et al. (Pub. No. US 20230178721 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada teaches an electrode (negative electrode, see [0014]) for an electrochemical device (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, see [0014]), wherein the electrode (negative electrode, see [0014]) is produced using an aqueous slurry (binder composition aqueous solution, see [0050], see [0052] where the solution is called a slurry liquid, the examiner would like to note in a product by process claim patentability is determined by the product not the process as described in MPEP 2113) comprising: a neutralizing dispersant (water-soluble polymer (C) and Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042], note that the components listed are considered part of both the binder composition aqueous slurry and the negative electrode as seen in [0050] the components in the slurry become the components in the electrode); and an oxide (A) (metal oxide, see [0025] where the carbon material is mixed with metal oxide particles), wherein the neutralizing dispersant (water-soluble polymer (C) and Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042]) contains: at least one water-soluble compound (B′) (Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042], see [0050] it is dissolved in water making it water-soluble) selected from oxides (oxides, see [0036]), sulfides (sulfides, see [0036]), inorganic acids (inorganic acids, see [0036]), and inorganic acid salts (inorganic acid salts, see [0036]) containing a group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]); and at least one water-soluble polymer (C) (water-soluble polymer (C), see [0042]), but fails to teach where the water-soluble polymer (C) is selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal salt, alkaline-earth metal salt, or ammonium salt of alginic acid, methylcellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl starch, or carrageenan, pullulan, guar gum, and xanthan gum, and the oxide (A) is a complex oxide (A) capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions and the aqueous slurry has a pH of less than 10.5 after storage at 25oC for 3 days after preparation.
However, Yamada does teach that the water-soluble polymer (C) (water-soluble polymer (C), see [0042]) is selected from the group consisting of an alkali metal salt, alkaline-earth metal salt, or ammonium salt of alginic acid, methylcellulose (methyl cellulose, see [0039]), carboxymethyl cellulose (carboxymethyl cellulose, see [0039]), carboxymethyl starch, or carrageenan (carrageenan, see [0039]), pullulan (pullulan, see [0039]), guar gum (guar gum, see [0039]), and xanthan gum (xanthan gum, see [0039]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada such that the water-soluble polymer (C) is one of methyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, carrageenan, pullulan, guar gum, or xanthan gum as Yamada teaches it is known in the art to do so. Further Yamada teaches that modifications can be made (see [0014] of Yamada).
Further Jung teaches where an oxide (A) (lithium titanium oxide, see [0022]) is a complex oxide (A) (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12, see [0073] gives a specific example of the negative electrode containing a carbon material and lithium titanium oxide together) capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12 is capable of occluding and releasing lithium ions as evidenced by paragraph [0064-0065] of *Yanagita).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada such that the carbon material is mixed with metal oxide particles of Li.sub.Ti.sub.5O.sub.12 as taught by Jung to improve cycle-life characteristics and impart beneficial properties of lithium titanium oxide to the negative electrode (see [0024] of Jung). Further Yamada teaches that modifications can be made (see [0014] of Yamada).
Yamada in view of Jung fails to teach the aqueous slurry has a pH of less than 10.5 after storage at 25oC for 3 days after preparation. However, this limitation is a claimed aspect of the aqueous slurry, and not the electrode itself and as seen in MPEP 2113, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and not the method of production. Therefore since Yamada in view of Jung teach the same composition and structure of the electrode as claimed, the limitation of the aqueous slurry has a pH of less than 10.5 after storage at 25oC for 3 days after preparation is not required to be taught by the Examiner.
*Additional Evidence provided by Yanagita et al. (Pub. No. US 20160181655 A1), see paragraph [0064] teaches lithium titanate is capable of adsorbing and releasing lithium, see [0065] Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12 is an example of lithium titanate).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada in view of Jung teaches wherein the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) includes boron (boron, see [0036]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada in view of Yanagita teaches further comprising a conductive additive (conductive agent, see [0048]) and a binder (compound having an olefinically unsaturated bond in the molecule, see [0044] the compound is styrene-butadiene rubber which is a known binder, see [0046] it is called a binder), wherein an electrode mixture (composition of negative electrode layer after drying slurry and not including the current collector, see [0048]) is composed of the neutralizing dispersant (water-soluble polymer (C) and Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042]), the complex oxide (A) (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12, see [0073] of Jung, see modification above), the conductive additive (conductive agent, see [0048]), and the binder (compound having an olefinically unsaturated bond in the molecule, see [0044] the compound is styrene-butadiene rubber which is a known binder, see [0046] it is called a binder), but fails to teach the boron content in the electrode mixture is not less than 0.001 wt% and not more than 5 wt%.
However, Yamada teaches the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table is present in 0.1 wt% or more and 5 wt% or less (0.1 wt% or more and 5 wt% or less, see [0076]). Although this is not specific to the boron content, boron is included in group 13 element (B) so the highest possible boron content would be within this range as well.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamada in view of Jung such that the group 13 element content and therefore the boron content is present in 0.1 wt% or more and 5 wt% or less as further taught by Yamada as a prima facie case of obviousness exists “in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2144.05.I) and the group 13 element content and therefore the boron content is a result effective variable of resistance reduction effect, input/output characteristics, battery capacity, and electrode plate strength (see [0077] of Yamada). Further Yamada in view of Jung teaches that modifications can be made (see [0014] of Yamada).
Regarding claim 10, Yamada in view of Jung teaches wherein when the content of the water-soluble compound (B′) (Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042], see [0050] it is dissolved in water making it water-soluble) containing the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) is taken as 100 parts by weight (see specific example in [00125] where the only group 13 element-containing compound is boron oxide, therefore the amount of boron oxide is 100 parts), the content of a boron-containing water-soluble compound (boron oxide, see [00125]) is 51 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight (100 parts by weight, see [00125] where the only group 13 element containing compound is boron oxide).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada in view of Jung teaches wherein the complex oxide (A) (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above) is a complex oxide having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12 is a complex oxide, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above) or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b ≤ 1.0, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35, 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3 (x = 0, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada in view of Jung teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, see [00123]) comprising: a positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]); a negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123]); and an electrolyte (electrolytic solution, see [00123]) interposed between the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]) and the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123] where a separator is interposed between the positive and negative electrode sheets, see [00101] where electrolytic solution is injected in separator, therefore it is also interposed between the positive and negative electrode sheets), wherein at least one of the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]) and the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123]) is the electrode (negative electrode, see [0014]) according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above, see [00123] the electrode sheets are the electrodes described above).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada in view of Jung teaches Yamada in view of Jung teaches wherein when the content of the water-soluble compound (B′) (Group 13 element-containing compound, see [0042], see [0050] it is dissolved in water making it water-soluble) containing the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) is taken as 100 parts by weight (see specific example in [00125] where the only group 13 element-containing compound is boron oxide, therefore the amount of boron oxide is 100 parts), the content of a boron-containing water-soluble compound (boron oxide, see [00125]) is 51 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight (100 parts by weight, see [00125] where the only group 13 element containing compound is boron oxide).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada in view of Jung teaches wherein the complex oxide (A) (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above) is a complex oxide having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12 is a complex oxide, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above) or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b ≤ 1.0, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35, 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3 (x = 0, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada in view of Jung teaches wherein the complex oxide (A) (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above) is a complex oxide having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12 is a complex oxide, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above) or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b ≤ 1.0, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35, 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3 (x = 0, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada in view of Jung teaches wherein the complex oxide (A) (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above) is a complex oxide having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12 is a complex oxide, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above) or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b ≤ 1.0, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35, 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3 (x = 0, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada in view of Jung teaches wherein the complex oxide (A) (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above) is a complex oxide having a composition represented by Li.sub.aNi.sub.bCo.sub.cMn.sub.dM.sub.1-b-.sub.c-.sub.dO.sub.2 or a complex oxide having a composition represented by either Li.sub.4+xTi.sub.5O.sub.12 (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12 is a complex oxide, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above) or Li.sub.2+xTi.sub.3O.sub.7, where, in the above chemical formulae, M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ti, Fe, V, Cr, Nb, Mo, W, Cu, Zn, Ga, In, Sn, Zr, Ru, and La, 0.8 ≤ a ≤ 1.0, 0 < b ≤ 1.0, 0 ≤ c ≤ 0.4, 0 ≤ d ≤ 0.35, 0 < b + c + d ≤ 1.0, and 0 ≤ x ≤ 3 (x = 0, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 27, Yamada in view of Jung teaches wherein a film (water-soluble polymer (C) film, see [0053]) of the water-soluble polymer (C) (water-soluble polymer (C), see [0042]) is formed on a surface of the complex oxide (A) (Li.sub.4Ti.sub.5O.sub.12, see [0073] of Jung, see modifications above, see [0025] the carbon material is mixed with the metal oxide, although it is not explicitly mentioned the film is formed on a surface of the carbon material and metal oxide, the water soluble polymer film (C) has the group 13 elements dispersed in the film as seen in [0053] and the mixture is mixed with the carbon material and is in a form of a binder so adheres or forms to the surface of the carbon material and therefore the metal oxide as it is mixed with it), and the group 13 element (B) of the periodic table (group 13 element (B), see [0036]) is present in the film of the water-soluble polymer (C) (water-soluble polymer (C) film, see [0053] where the group 13 element is dispersed in the film).
Regarding claim 28, Yamada in view of Jung teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, see [00123]) comprising: a positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]); a negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123]); and an electrolyte (electrolytic solution, see [00123]) interposed between the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]) and the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123] where a separator is interposed between the positive and negative electrode sheets, see [00101] where electrolytic solution is injected in separator, therefore it is also interposed between the positive and negative electrode sheets), wherein at least one of the positive electrode (positive electrode sheet, see [00123]) and the negative electrode (negative electrode sheet, see [00123]) is the electrode (negative electrode, see [0014]) according to claim 27 (see rejection of claim 27 above, see [00123] the electrode sheets are the electrodes described above).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7-17 and 27-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination or interpretation of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. 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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights