DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending. Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled.
The foreign priority application No. 202110035611.X filed on January 12, 2021 in China has been received and it is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
5. Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) in view of Althues et al. (DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784).
With regard to claims 1 and 18, Uezono et al. teach that a conductive material, an electrode active material, a binding material and a solvent are subjected to granulation to obtain wet granules (fig.2, par.0015, par.0027). This step is equivalent to the step (1) in claim 1.
Uezono et al. further teach the electrode manufacturing apparatus of fig.4:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par.0017, par.0040), wherein an electrode mixture layer (30b) is formed on the current collector (31)(par.0043-0044).
The forming of the electrode mixture layer (30b) in the apparatus in fig.4 of Uezono et al. is equivalent to the “performing diaphragm forming on the mixed particles in step (1) and a current collector to obtain an electrode sheet” in claim 1 (see the description of “diaphragm forming” in the Examples 1 and 2 on pages 8 and 9 of the specification of the instant application).
The apparatus in fig.4 of Uezono et al. meets the limitations of claims 1 and 18 for “a laminating machine, wherein the number of rolls of the laminating machine is three”.
Uezono et al. fail to teach the claimed roll spacing and the speed of the rolls in the apparatus of fig.4.
Althues et al. teach a method wherein a dry mixture is processed into a dry film (abstract). A dry powder mixture is fed out of a powder conveyor into the nip between rolls, and in addition to the dry powder mixture a substrate is fed through the nip (par.0023). The substrate is a metal material in order to be able to serve as an electrode for an energy storage unit (par.0019).
Althues et al. further teach that the nip has a width of 10-300 mm (par.0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance of 10-300 mm (0.001-0.3mm) between the rolls in the apparatus of Uezono et al., because this distance between rolls is clearly taught by Althues for an apparatus comprising rolls and being used for producing electrode sheets.
The range of 0.001-0.3mm overlaps the claimed range.
Althues et al. further teach that the dry powder is processed into a dry film by a rolling device having a first roll and a second roll, so the dry film is formed on the first roll. By rotating the rolls at different rotation speeds, the mechanical stabilization and film formation on the first roll is achieved (par.0009-0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the rotation speed of the rolls of Uezono modified by Althues, in order to obtain the desired features of the electrode mixture layer (30b).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation)
With regard to claims 4 and 11, Uezono et al. teach that the method may produce a positive electrode sheet or a negative electrode sheet.
With regard to claim 6, Uezono et al. teach that the wet granules are obtained in a stirrer with blades (fig.3, par.0016, par.0031-0039), which is equivalent to the claimed granulator.
With regard to claim 7, Uezono et al. teach that the current collector is a metal foil (par.0044). For the positive electrode sheet aluminum may be used as current collector (par.0045, par.0060).
An aluminum foil meets the claim limitations.
With regard to claim 8, Uezono et al. does not specifically teach a temperature for the formation of the electrode mixture layer (30b) on the current collector (31), so it is considered that the electrode mixture layer (30b) is formed on the current collector (31) at room temperature (see par.0043-0044).
The room temperature is considered to be 20-22oC, which is within the claimed range.
With regard to claim 9, Uezono et al. further teach that the electrode mixture layer (30b) is formed on the current collector (31) is subjected to drying (par.0044).
With regard to claim 12, Uezono et al. teach a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode obtained by the method above (par.0061).
With regard to claim 13, Uezono et al. teach that the electrode active material may be a positive electrode active material such as lithium cobaltate (LiCoO2), lithium manganate (LiMn2O4), or LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3 O2(par.0033).
LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3 O2 is the claimed lithium nickel cobalt manganate.
With regard to claim 14, Uezono et al. teach that the conductive agent may be carbon black (par.0027).
With regard to claim 15, Uezono et al. teach that the binding material may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)(par.0036).
With regard to claim 16, Uezono et al. teach that the solvent may be water or N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)(par.0036).
N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) is the claimed 1-methyl pyrrolidone.
6. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) in view of Althues et al. DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784).
With regard to claims 1, 4, 11, and 18, Akiyama teaches that a conductive material, a positive electrode active material, a binding agent, and a solvent are subjected to granulation to obtain positive electrode granular aggregate (1) (fig.1, par.0030-0033). This step is equivalent to the step (1) in claim 1.
Akiyama further teaches that the positive electrode granular aggregate (1) is used to produce the positive electrode plate in the apparatus of fig.3:
PNG
media_image2.png
588
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par.0034-0036).
The positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11)(par.0036).
The forming of the positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) in the apparatus of fig.3 of Akiyama is equivalent to “performing diaphragm forming on the mixed particles in step (1) and a current collector to obtain an electrode sheet” in claim 1 (see the description of “diaphragm forming” in the Examples 1 and 2 on pages 8 and 9 of the specification of the instant application).
The apparatus in fig.3 of Akiyama meets the limitations of claims 1 and 18 for “a laminating machine, wherein the number of rolls of the laminating machine is 3”.
Akiyama fails to teach the claimed roll spacing and the speed of the rolls in the apparatus of fig.3.
Althues et al. teach a method wherein a dry mixture is processed into a dry film (abstract). A dry powder mixture is fed out of a powder conveyor into the nip between rolls, and in addition to the dry powder mixture a substrate is fed through the nip (par.0023). The substrate is a metal material in order to be able to serve as an electrode for an energy storage unit (par.0019).
Althues et al. further teach that the nip has a width of 10-300 mm (par.0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance of 10-300 mm (0.001-0.3mm) between the rolls in the apparatus of Akiyama., because this distance between rolls is clearly taught by Althues for an apparatus comprising rolls and being used for producing electrode sheets.
The range of 0.001-0.3mm overlaps the claimed range.
Althues et al. further teach that the dry powder is processed into a dry film by a rolling device having a first roll and a second roll, so the dry film is formed on the first roll. By rotating the rolls at different rotation speeds, the mechanical stabilization and film formation on the first roll is achieved (par.0009-0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the rotation speed of the rolls of Akiyama modified by Althues, in order to obtain the desired features of the electrode mixture layer (30b) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation).
The method of making a positive electrode plate of Akiyama modified by Althues is equivalent to the methods in claims 1 and 18 of the instant application.
The positive electrode plate in fig.3 of Akiyama modified by Althues is equivalent to the positive electrode sheet in claim 4 and the electrode sheet in claim 11 of the instant application.
With regard to claims 5 and 13-16, Akiyama teaches that the positive electrode granular aggregate (1) comprises 22wt% N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) solvent, 73wt% lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, 3.2wt% acetylene black (AB) conductive material, and 1.17wt% polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) binding agent (par.0010, par.0019). This is equivalent to a mass ratio of active material, conductive agent, solvent, and binder of 73:3.2:22:1.17.
This ratio meets the limitations of claim 5.
The lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide is the “lithium nickel cobalt manganate” in claim 13.
Acetylene black (AB) is a type of carbon black (see par.0010), and meets the limitations of claim 14.
PVDF binding agent is “polyvinylidene fluoride” in claim 15.
NMP(N-methyl pyrrolidone) is “1-methyl pyrrolidone” in claim 16.
With regard to claims 6 and 17, Akiyama teaches that the positive electrode granular aggregate (1) is obtained in a granulating device (fig.2, par.0022, par.0030-par.0033), which is equivalent to the granulator in claim 6.
The rotating speed of the granulating device may be 800 rpm (par.0032) and 1200 rpm (par.0033). These speeds are within the range in claim 17.
With regard to claim 8, Akiyama does not specifically teach a temperature for forming the positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11), so it is considered that the positive electrode active material layer (12x) is formed on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) at room temperature (see par.0034-0035).
The room temperature is considered to be 20-22oC, which is within the claimed range.
With regard to claim 9, Akiyama further teaches that the positive electrode active material layer (12x) formed on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) is subjected to drying (par.0036).
With regard to claim 12, Akiyama further teaches that the positive electrode is used in a battery (par.0039-0043).
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) in view of Chen et al. (CN 101009371 A, with attached machine translation) and in further view of Althues et al. DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784).
With regard to claim 10, Akiyama teaches that a conductive material, a positive electrode active material, a binding agent, and a solvent are subjected to granulation to obtain positive electrode granular aggregate (1) (fig.1, par.0030-0033). The positive electrode granular aggregate (1) is obtained in a granulating device (fig.2, par.0022, par.0030-par.0033), which is equivalent to the claimed granulator.
Akiyama et al. fail to teach the mixing and granulating time in the step (1) in claim 10.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the mixing and granulating speed and time in order to obtain a positive electrode granular aggregate (1) with the desired size (MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation).
Akiyama further teaches that the positive electrode granular aggregate (1) is used to produce the positive electrode plate in the apparatus of fig.3:
PNG
media_image2.png
588
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par.0034-0036).
The positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11)(par.0036).
The forming of the positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) in the apparatus of fig.3 of Akiyama is equivalent to the “performing diaphragm forming on the mixed particles in step (1) and a current collector” in claim 10 (see the description of “diaphragm forming” in the Examples 1 and 2 on pages 8 and 9 of the specification of the instant application).
The apparatus in fig.3 of Akiyama meets the limitations of claim 10 for “a laminating machine, wherein the laminating machine is a three-roll laminating machine”.
The positive electrode plate comprising a positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) is the “positive electrode sheet” in claim 10.
Akiyama teaches that the positive electrode granular aggregate (1) comprises 22wt% N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) solvent, 73wt% lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, 3.2wt% acetylene black (AB) conductive material, and 1.17wt% polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) binding agent (par.0010, par.0019). This is equivalent to a mass ratio of active material, conductive agent, solvent, and binder of 73:3.2:22:1.17.
This ratio meets the limitations of claim 10.
The lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide meets the limitations for “the active material described in step (1) includes lithium nickel cobalt manganate” in claim 10.
Acetylene black (AB) is a type of carbon black (see par.0010), and meets the limitations of claim 10 for “the conductive agent described in step (1) includes carbon black”.
PVDF binding agent meets the limitations of claim 10 for “the binder described in step (1) includes “polyvinylidene fluoride”.
NMP(N-methyl pyrrolidone) meets the limitations of claim 10 for “the dolvent described in step (1) includes 1-methyl pyrrolidone”.
Akiyama further teaches that the positive electrode active material layer (12x) formed on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) is subjected to drying (par.0036), but fail to teach the baking in step (2) in claim 10.
Akiyama also fails to teach the claimed current collector.
Chen et al. teach a positive electrode for a battery, wherein the positive electrode is made by coating a slurry comprising positive electrode active material, acetylene black, PVDF binder, and NMP solvent on an aluminum foil and drying at 100-300oC for 20 hours (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use an aluminum foil as current collector for the positive electrode of Akiyama et al., and perform drying by baking at 100-300oC for 20 hours.
Akiyama and Chen et al. fail to teach the claimed roller spacing and rolling speed.
Althues et al. teach a method wherein a dry mixture is processed into a dry film (abstract). A dry powder mixture is fed out of a powder conveyor into the nip between rolls, and in addition to the dry powder mixture a substrate is fed through the nip (par.0023). The substrate is a metal material in order to be able to serve as an electrode for an energy storage unit (par.0019).
Althues et al. further teach that the nip has a width of 10-300 mm (par.0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance of 10-300 mm (0.001-0.3mm) between the rolls in the apparatus of modified Akiyama because this distance between rolls is clearly taught by Althues for an apparatus comprising rolls and being used for producing electrode sheets.
The range of 0.001-0.3mm overlaps the range of 0.005-0.25 mm in claim 10.
Althues et al. further teach that the dry powder is processed into a dry film by a rolling device having a first roll and a second roll, so the dry film is formed on the first roll. By rotating the rolls at different rotation speeds, the mechanical stabilization and film formation on the first roll is achieved (par.0009-0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the rotation speed of the rolls of modified Akiyama, in order to obtain the desired features of the electrode mixture layer (30b) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation).
8. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) in view of Althues et al. (DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784) as applied to claim 9 and in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Patent 6.730,404).
With regard to claim 19, Akiyama modified by Althues teaches the method of claim 9 (see paragraph 6 above), but fail to teach the drying temperature.
Suzuki et al. teach a composite active material used as electrode active material for a battery (abstract). Suzuki et al. further teach that a positive electrode active material layer comprising a positive active material, acetylene black, PVDF as binder, and NMP solvent is subjected to drying at 150oC (column 17, line 64-column 18, line 4).
The positive active material layer of Suzuki et al. comprises the same type of compounds as the positive electrode active material layer (12x) of Akiyama.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to perform the drying of the positive electrode of Akiyama modified by Althues at a temperature of 150oC.
This temperature is within the claimed range.
The examiner would like to note that the limitation regarding the duration of the baking is an optional limitation.
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) in view of Althues et al. DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784) as applied to claim 11, and in further view of Kihara et al. (EP 1 182 719).
With regard to claim 20, Uezono modified by Althues teach the electrode of claim 11 (see 5 paragraph above), but fail to teach the claimed thickness of the active material layer and the claimed compacted density of the electrode.
However, it is known in the art that an electrode may have an active material layer with a packing density of 2.8g/cm3 and a thickness of 0.7mm (par.0017 of Kihara et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the electrode of Uezono modified by Uezono having an active material layer with a packing density of 2.8g/cm3 and a thickness of 0.7mm.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed on April 07, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner would like to note the following:
-the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) in view of Althues et al. DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784) is moot after the cancelation of the claims;
-the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) in view of Suzuki et al. (US Patent 6.730,404) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1; and
-the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) in view of Kihara et al. (EP 1 182 719) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1
On page 6 of the Remarks the applicant argues that the method of instant application produces an electrode sheet with better porosity under the condition of maintaining a higher compaction density, so that the battery has better discharge capacity.
However, the examiner would like to point out that the evidence submitted in the specification of the instant application does not show any evidence of unexpected superior results of the claimed method when compared to the electrode producing methods in the closest prior art Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) and Akiyama (US 2018/0145309). The Comparative Examples 1 and 2 on pages 10-11 of the specification of the instant application only show a method of making an electrode sheet, wherein two laminationg rolls are used.
Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) and Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) use three laminating rolls (see fig.4 of Uezono et al. and fig.3 of Akiyama).
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). (MPEP 716.02(e) Comparison With Closest Prior Art)
On page 7 of the Remarks the applicant further argues if the roller spacing is too large it will lead to weak adhesion between the diaphragm and the current collector, and if the spacing is too small, it will cause jamming. If the rotational speed of the rollers is too high, the uniformity of the electrode sheet will be deteriorated, and if the rotational speed is too low, it will cause material jamming.
However, the examiner would like to point out that the Examples 1-3 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2 do not have sufficient examples of roll spacing and the rotation speed of the rollers within the claimed ranges and outside the claimed ranges, in order to show the criticality of the ranges.
The Comparative Examples 1 and 2 show methods wherein the roll spacing and the rotation speed are within the claimed range (see pages 9-10 of the specification). Therefore, the results in Table 1 do not prove the criticality of the ranges for the roll spacing and the rotation speed of the rollers
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 716.02(d).II. DEMONSTRATING CRITICALITY OF A CLAIMED RANGE)
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights