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
Applicant’s election of Group I: Claims 1-9 and 18 in the reply filed on 11/3/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 of claim 1 recites the limitation “for secondary battery”. The examiner recommends changing the limitation to “for a secondary battery”.
Line 1-2 of claim 18 recites the limitation “for secondary battery”. The examiner recommends changing the limitation to “for a secondary battery”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (U.S. 5,707,763). Shimizu et al. was cited in the IDS filed 12/21/2022.
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu et al. teaches an electrode for secondary battery by the electrode for batteries in column2 lines 22 to 29 that may be a secondary battery as noted in column 10 line 53 and shown in Fig. 3 comprising:
an electrode current collector by the mesh metal net in Example 1 and 2 in column 9 lines 41-67 and aluminum foil in Example 3 in column 10 lines 34-46 and Fig. 3; and
an electrode layer located on the electrode current collector by the paste for the electrode applied to the net in Example 1 and 2 in column 9 lines 41-67 and applied to the aluminum foil in column 10 line 34-46 and in Fig. 3.
wherein the electrode layer comprises an electrode composition in which an active material, a conductive material, and a binder are dry-mixed by the electrode composition includes the core-shell composite fine particles that act as a binder in column 2 lines 22-29, active materials, and conductive materials by the powdery electrode material in the electrode composition that may be an active material or conductive agents in column 6 lines 8-18. It is understood that the electrode composition is within the paste by the explanation of forming the aqueous dispersion or paste in Example 1-3 in column 9 lines 41 to column 10 line 47 that reference the same process as Reference Example 1 in column 7 line 35 to column 8 line 50.
The Examiner notes that claim 1 is drawn to products by process. Per MPEP 2113, “[E]ven 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the instant case, the product set forth in product-by-process claims of the electrode layer in which the composition is dry-mixed is the same as that set forth by Shimizu et al. in which a paste is applied to a conductor and dried in column 9 line 41 to column 10 line 47.
Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the binder comprises a first binder and a second binder by the binder in column 2 lines 22-29 being formed of a core and shell particles, with the first binder and the second binder being different from each other by the shell being made of a non-fibrillating polymer and the core of a fibrillating polytetrafluoroethylene in column 2 lines 22-29, and
wherein the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder by the PTFE core being surrounded by the polymer shell in column 2 lines 22-29.
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu et al. teaches wherein: a content ratio of the first binder to the second binder is from 0.1:10 to 10:0.1 by the core to shell ratio by weight of 98:2 to 50:50 in column 2 lines 22-29 of which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu et al. teaches wherein: the first binder comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) by the core is made of polytetrafluoroethylene in column2 lines 22-29, and the second binder comprises an acrylic polymer material by the shell may be made of a polymer selected from polymerizing a hydrocarbon monomer such as methyl acrylate, an acrylic compound, in column 3 lines 15-25 and column 3 line 47 to column 4 line 4.
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu et al. teaches wherein: the active material comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO2), lithium nickel oxide (LiNiO2), lithium manganese oxide and lithium copper oxide (Li2CuO2) by the lithium cobalt dioxide, lithium nickel dioxide, lithium manganese oxide compounds, lithium compounds of copper oxide, and lithium vanadium oxides that may be active materials in column 6 lines 8-25.
Regarding claim 18, Shimizu et al. teaches a secondary battery by the batteries in column 2 line 22 that may be a secondary battery as noted in column 10 line 53 and shown in Fig. 3 comprising an electrode for secondary battery by the electrode for batteries in column 2 lines 22 to 29 that may be a secondary battery as noted in column 10 line 53 and shown in Fig. 3 as set forth in claim 1 and an electrolyte by the non-aqueous electrolyte in column 4 lines 50-51.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (U.S. 5,707,763) and in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) over Shimizu et al. (U.S. 5,707,763).
In regards to claim 2, given that the prior art, Shimizu et al., discloses the same structure and composition of: a first and second binder different from each other in which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder, as recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed compositional property of a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the second binder is larger than a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the first binder, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. Additionally, considering the first and second binders of the prior art have the same composition as those recited in the dependent claim 6 and the instant specification and examples of PTFE and an acrylic polymer material, it would further be reasonably considered an inherent property, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-25, and page 13 lines 20-25 of the instant specification. See MPEP 2112.01.
In the alternative, given that the prior art, Shimizu et al., discloses the same structure and composition of: a first and second binder different from each other in which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder, as recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to have the claimed compositional property of a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the second binder is larger than a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the first binder, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. Additionally, considering the first and second binders of the prior art have the same composition as those recited in the dependent claim 6 and the instant specification and examples of PTFE and an acrylic polymer material, it would be reasonably expected, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-25, and page 13 lines 20-25 of the instant specification. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 3, given that the prior art, Shimizu et al., discloses the same structure and composition of: a first and second binder different from each other in which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder, as recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed compositional property the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the first binder is 15 degrees Celsius or more and 100 degrees Celsius or less, and the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the second binder is 25 degrees Celsius or more and 115 degrees Celsius or less, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. Additionally, considering the first and second binders of the prior art have the same composition as those recited in the dependent claim 6 and the instant specification and examples of PTFE and an acrylic polymer material, it would further be reasonably considered an inherent property, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-25, and page 13 lines 20-25 of the instant specification. See MPEP 2112.01.
In the alternative, given that the prior art, Shimizu et al., discloses the same structure and composition of: a first and second binder different from each other in which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder, as recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to have the claimed compositional property of the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the first binder is 15 degrees Celsius or more and 100 degrees Celsius or less, and the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the second binder is 25 degrees Celsius or more and 115 degrees Celsius or less, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. Additionally, considering the first and second binders of the prior art have the same composition as those recited in the dependent claim 6 and the instant specification and examples of PTFE and an acrylic polymer material, it would be reasonably expected, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-25, and page 13 lines 20-25 of the instant specification. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (U.S. 5,707,763) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu et al. teaches wherein a content of the binder is 0.51% by weight or more and 11.99% by weight or less based on a total weight of the electrode composition by the electrode composition comprises 0.1-10 wt. % of core-shell composite fine particles in column 6 line 8-10 that column 2 lines 22-29 explain as the binder.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (U.S. 5,707,763) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0305316 A1). Wang et al. was cited in the IDS filed 12/21/2022.
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu et al. teaches that the electrode paste was extruded, dried, and underwent a tensile test in column 7 lines 9-33 in the best mode of carrying out the invention however a paste was applied to the current collector in Examples 1-3 in column 9 line 41 to column 10 line 47.
Shimizu et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the electrode composition is manufactured into a freestanding film, and the freestanding film is attached onto the electrode current collector.
However, Wang et al. teaches turning binders and active materials including a fibrillizable binder such as PTFE and a non-fibrillizable binder into a free-standing electrode film in [0035] that may be attached to a current collector in [0027]. Wang et al. notes electrode films were discovered to exhibit improved mechanical and processing characteristics in [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying a known technique of manufacturing electrode films out of electrode binders and active materials, like Wang et al., to known materials, like the electrode materials of Shimizu et al., to yield predictable results and result in an improved system of improved mechanical and processing characteristics as noted in [0023] of Wang et al..
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu et al. teaches that the electrode paste was extruded, dried, and underwent a tensile test in column 7 lines 9-33 in the best mode of carrying out the invention however a paste was applied to the current collector in Examples 1-3 in column 9 line 41 to column 10 line 47.
Shimizu et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the freestanding film has a tensile strength of 5kgf/cm2 or more and 50kgf/cm2 or less.
However, Wang et al. teaches turning binders and active materials including a fibrillizable binder such as PTFE and a non-fibrillizable binder into a free-standing electrode film in [0035]. Wang et al. notes electrode films were discovered to exhibit improved mechanical and processing characteristics in [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying a known technique of manufacturing electrode films out of electrode binders and active materials, like Wang et al., to known materials, like the electrode materials of Shimizu et al., to yield predictable results and result in an improved system of improved mechanical and processing characteristics as noted in [0023] of Wang et al..
Given that the prior art, the combination of teachings of Shimizu et al. and Wang et al., discloses the same structure and composition of: a first and second binder different from each other in which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder and the electrode composition is manufactured into a freestanding film, as recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed property of the freestanding film having a tensile strength of 5kgf/cm2 or more and 50kgf/cm2 or less, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. Additionally, considering the first and second binders of the prior art have the same composition as those recited in the dependent claims 5-7, an overlapping range with the dependent composition claim 4, and the same PTFE and acrylic polymer material composition as the instant specification and examples, it would further be reasonably considered an inherent property, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-25, and page 13 lines 20-25 of the instant specification. See MPEP 2112.01. This is further supported that the instant specification highlighted the tensile strength depends upon the first and second binder attachment structure of the second binder being attached to the surface of the first binder affecting the tensile strength on page 6 lines 9-24 which was noted in claim 1 and met by Shimizu et al. by the binder in column 2 lines 22-29 being formed of a core and shell particles. The instant specification notes when the glass transition temperature of the second binder is greater than that of the first and within the temperature ranges claimed, and when the first and second binder may within the claimed content ratio to each other and the electrode composition, it affects the tensile strength from page 8 line 25 to page 10 line 9. These factors, claimed in dependent claims 2-5, were noted to lead to the claimed tensile strength and these claims were all met by Shimizu et al. above. Thus, it would further be reasonably considered inherent that upon the combination of teachings of Shimizu et al. and Wang et al. to produce a free-standing film out of the electrode composition of Shimizu et al., it would have the claimed tensile strength considering all compositional limitations were met of which were the factors noted to affect the tensile strength in the instant specification.
Given that the prior art, the combination of teachings of Shimizu et al. and Wang et al., discloses the same structure and composition of: a first and second binder different from each other in which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder and the electrode composition is manufactured into a freestanding film, as recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to have the claimed property of the freestanding film having a tensile strength of 5kgf/cm2 or more and 50kgf/cm2 or less, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. Additionally, considering the first and second binders of the prior art have the same composition as those recited in the dependent claims 5-7, an overlapping range with the dependent composition claim 4, and the same PTFE and acrylic polymer material composition as the instant specification and examples, it would further be reasonably expected, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-25, and page 13 lines 20-25 of the instant specification. See MPEP 2112.01. This is further supported that the instant specification highlighted the tensile strength depends upon the first and second binder attachment structure of the second binder being attached to the surface of the first binder affecting the tensile strength on page 6 lines 9-24, which was noted in claim 1 and met by Shimizu et al. by the binder in column 2 lines 22-29 being formed of a core and shell particles. The instant specification notes when the glass transition temperature of the second binder is greater than that of the first and within the temperature ranges claimed, and when the first and second binder may within the claimed content ratio to each other and the electrode composition, it affects the tensile strength from page 8 line 25 to page 10 line 9. These factors, claimed in dependent claims 2-5, were noted to lead to the claimed tensile strength and these claims were all met by Shimizu et al. above. Thus, it would further be reasonably expected that upon the combination of teachings of Shimizu et al. and Wang et al. to produce a free-standing film out of the electrode composition of Shimizu et al., it would have the claimed tensile strength considering all compositional limitations were met of which were the factors noted to affect the tensile strength in the instant specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 2015/0083724 A teaches two binders in which the non-fluorine-based binder such as an acrylic-based polymer may be -40 to 30 oC.
JP 2013/131381 A teaches a first binder and a second binder on the surface of the first binder and has a higher glass transition temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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.
/K.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729