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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received April 17, 2026:
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are pending. Claims 4-6 have been cancelled as per applicant’s request.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. (US 2021/0376319) in view of Koh et al. (JP5382120B2), Sugiyama et al. (US 2017/0324094) and of Koseki et al. (WO 2019/168035A), cited in the Information Disclosure Statement received March 28, 2023. The English machine translation of Koh et al. and Koseki et al. is attached in a prior Office action and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 1, Shinoda et al. teaches a positive electrode structure (i.e. a positive electrode) for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Para. [0142]) comprising a current collector such as a foil (Para. [0125]) (i.e. a positive electrode current collector sheet) and a positive electrode mixture provided on the current collector (Para. [0017]) (i.e. a positive electrode mixture layer supported on the positive electrode current collector sheet) wherein the positive electrode mixture layer contains a positive electrode active material, a binder comprising a fluorine-containing copolymer (Para. [0190]) (i.e. wherein the polymer binder contains a fluorine-containing polymer), and conductive additive (Para. [0127]) (i.e. a positive electrode material mixture layer contains a positive electrode active material, a binder, and a conductive agent), wherein the positive electrode active material comprises NCA or LiNi0.82Co0.15Al0.03O2 (Para. [0189], [0190]) (i.e. the positive electrode active material contains a composite oxide that has a layered rock-salt type crystal structure as evidenced by Zhang et al., see section 2.1, para. 1 and Fig 8b of Zhang et al.; and contains lithium and an element A other than lithium, the element A contains at least nickel, an atomic ratio of Ni/A relative to the element A is 0.82, within the claimed range of 0.8 or more and 1.0 or less), a fluorine-containing copolymer (Para. [0190]) (i.e. the binder contains a polymer binder that has a three-dimensional structure) and an amount of positive electrode mixture applied is 32.1 mg/cm2 -[or 321 g/m2] (i.e. a mass of the positive electrode material mixture layer supported per m2 of the positive electrode current collector sheet is 321 g, reading on the claimed range of 280 g or more, 400 or less) (Table 1, Example 1).
Shinoda et al. does not explicitly teach the polymer binder has a mesh structure.
However, Koh et al. teaches a binder for a positive electrode of a secondary battery including polyvinylidene fluoride (Para. [0005]) wherein the polymer may be a crosslinked vDF/HFP copolymer [vinylidene fluoride -hexafluoropropylene] (Para. [0068], [0069]) (i.e. the binder contains a polymer binder that has three-dimensional mesh structure).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluorine-containing polymer of Shinoda et al. to incorporate the teaching of the crosslinked polymer of Koh et al. (i.e. a polymer binder that has a three-dimensional mesh structure), as such a binder would provide swelling resistance (Para. [0069]).
Shinoda et al. does not teach the fluorine-containing polymer is cross-linked by a crosslinkable monomer to form an amide bond or an ester bond.
However, Sugiyama et al. teaches a polymer compound used as a binder (Para. [0010]) which may be polyvinylidene fluoride (Para. [0077]) wherein the polymer compound is crosslinked with an amide bond (Para. [0055]) (i.e. cross-linked by a crosslinkable monomer to form an amide bond).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluorine-containing polymer of Sugiyama et al. to incorporate the teaching of cross-linked by a crosslinkable monomer to form an amide bond as taught by Sugiyama et al., as such a crosslinked bond would provide enhanced strength of the electrode structure and reliably enhanced properties on an electrical storage structure (Para. [0096]).
Shinoda et al. further teaches the conductive additive comprises carbon nanotubes (Para. [0120]) (i.e. wherein the conductive agent contains carbon, nanotubes).
Shinoda et al. does not teach the carbon nanotubes have an average length of 0.5 micrometers or more and an average diameter of 0.5 nm or more and 20 nm or less.
However, Koseki et al. teaches a positive electrode active material layer for a lithium ion secondary battery (Para. [0007]) wherein the positive electrode active material contains a carbon nanotubes functioning as conductive additive wherein the carbon nanotubes have a length of preferably 4 to 8 micrometers (i.e. the carbon nanotubes have an average length within the range of 0.5 micrometers or more, 10 micrometers or less) (Para. [0012]) and the aspect ratio of the carbon nanotubes is preferably 2,000 to 3,000 wherein the aspect ratio is the ratio of the length to the thickness (diameter) of a carbon nanotube (Para. [0013]) and thus, providing a preferable diameter range of 4/3000 to 8/2000 or 1.33 nm to 4 nm, within the claimed average diameter range of 0.5 nm or more and 20 nm or less.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive additive of Shinoda et al. to incorporate the teaching of the carbon nanotube lengths and aspect ratio (and thus, average diameter) as taught by Koseki et al., as such a carbon nanotube length improves positive electrode density and output characteristics of the positive electrode (Para. [0012]) and such an aspect ratio (thus, length) provides desirable increased positive electrode density and output characteristics (Para. [0013]).
Regarding Claim 2, Shinoda et al. as modified by Koh et al. and Sugiyama et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shinoda et al. further teaches the positive electrode active material comprises NCA or LiNi0.82Co0.15Al0.03O2 (Para. [0189], [0190]) (i.e. wherein the composite oxide is represented by the formula of instant claim 1, wherein a = 1, x = 0.82, y = 0.15 and M is represented by Al).
Regarding Claim 3, Shinoda et al. as modified by Koh et al. and Sugiyama et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shinoda et al. further teaches the density of the positive electrode mixture layer is 3.65 g/cm3 (i.e. wherein the positive electrode material mixture layer ha a density within the claimed range of 3.45 to 3.75 g/cm3) (Table 1, Example 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Shinoda et al. as modified by Koh et al. and Sugiyama et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shinoda et al. further teaches a fluorine-containing copolymer (Para. [0190]) (i.e. wherein the polymer binder contains a fluorine-containing polymer) wherein the copolymer contains a vinylidene fluoride unit (i.e. wherein the fluorine-containing polymer contains units from vinylidene fluoride) (Para. [0049]).
Regarding Claim 8, Shinoda et al. as modified by Koh et al. and Sugiyama et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7 as explained above.
Shinoda et al. further teaches a fluorine-containing copolymer (Para. [0190]) (i.e. wherein the polymer binder contains a fluorine-containing polymer) wherein the copolymer contains a vinylidene fluoride unit (i.e. wherein the copolymer that contains units from vinylidene fluoride includes a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride) and a fluorinated monomer that is not vinylidene fluoride (Para. [0049]) (i.e. and a fluorine-containing monomer other than vinylidene fluoride) and the fluorinated monomer may be hexafluoropropylene, tetrafluoroethylene, trifluoroethylene, and chlorotrifluoroethylene (Para. [0050]) (i.e. the fluorine containing monomer other than vinylidene fluoride includes at least one selected from the group consisting of hexafluoropropylene, tetrafluoroethylene, trifluoroethylene, and chlorotrifluoroethylene).
Regarding Claim 9, Shinoda et al. as modified by Koh et al. and Sugiyama et al. teaches all of the elements of the positive electrode in accordance with claim 1 as explained above.
Shinoda et al. further teaches a secondary battery comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte (i.e. a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery) comprising a positive electrode structure, a negative electrode structure, (i.e. a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a non-aqueous electrolyte, wherein as the positive electrode the positive electrode in accordance with claim 1 is used) (Para. [0136]).
Regarding Claim 10, Shinoda et al. as modified by Koh et al. and Sugiyama et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Shinoda et al. as modified above does not explicitly teach wherein the fluorine-containing polymer is dehydrocondensation reacted with the crosslinkable monomer to form the amide bond or the ester bond.
However, the limitation of the instant claim is a product by process limitation. The manner in which the product is formed (via dehydrocondensation reacted with the crosslinkable monomer) is a product by process limitation which does not further limit the claimed product. As Sugiyama et al. teaches a polymer compound used as a binder (Para. [0010]) which may be polyvinylidene fluoride (Para. [0077]) wherein the polymer compound is crosslinked with an amide bond (Para. [0055]) (i.e. cross-linked by a crosslinkable monomer to form an amide bond), the structure of the instant claim has been met. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugiyama et al. cited herein.
“[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, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(citations omitted).
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP section 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the method of Shinoda teaches a binder is re-dissolvable and non-crosslinked and that crosslinked polymers are unsuitable for the process of Shinoda such that Shinoda design guidelines are based on the precondition of using a reversible-deformable, non-crosslinked polymer that are fundamentally different from a three-dimensionally crosslinked structure; and the problem to be solved by Shinoda is to maintain flexibility with a reduced amount of binder to prevent cracking during winding and crosslinked structures lead to an increase in modulus of elasticity and a decrease in plasticity and thus, there is no rational motivation in the art to modify Shinoda in the direction of crosslinking and would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention .
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Design guidelines do not preclude a modification of the primary reference. As recognized by the courts, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine’" See MPEP 2143.01(V). There is no teaching away from incorporating a crosslinked structure in Shinoda. In order to teach away, the reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. See MPEP 2145. In this case, Sugiyama et al. provides explicit motivation as the reference states such a crosslinked bond would provide enhanced strength of the electrode structure and reliably enhanced properties on an electrical storage structure (Para. [0096]). Thus, the motivation is enhanced strength and reliability properties which provides rational motivation in the art to modify Shinoda in the direction of crosslinking and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The applicant has not provided evidence that the proposed modification of Shinoda as modified by Sugiyama would not maintain flexibility such that cracking during winding would occur. Thus, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues neither Koh nor Sugiyama address the technical problem solved by Shinoda nor do they provide incentive to modify Shinoda’s thermoplastic binder toward a three dimensionally crosslinked network.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The motivation provided by Sugiyama is addressed above which provides incentive to modify Shinoda to incorporate a three dimensionally crosslinked network (i.e. crosslinked polymer). Regarding Koh, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluorine-containing polymer of Shinoda et al. to incorporate the teaching of the crosslinked polymer of Koh et al. (i.e. a polymer binder that has a three-dimensional mesh structure), as such a binder would provide swelling resistance (Para. [0069]). Thus, the motivation is providing swelling resistance.
Applicant argues Koseki does not describe about the average diameter of the CNTS.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Koseki teaches carbon nanotubes have a length of preferably 4 to 8 micrometers (i.e. the carbon nanotubes have an average length within the range of 0.5 micrometers or more, 10 micrometers or less) (Para. [0012]) and the aspect ratio of the carbon nanotubes is preferably 2,000 to 3,000 wherein the aspect ratio is the ratio of the length to the thickness (diameter) of a carbon nanotube (Para. [0013]) and thus, providing a preferable diameter range of 4/3000 to 8/2000 or 1.33 nm to 4 nm, within the claimed average diameter range of 0.5 nm or more and 20 nm or less.
Applicant argues there is no rational reason to assume that person skilled in the art would select 1.8 nm from the range up to 250 nm when combining Koseki with Shinoda as does an Example of Koseki. This example is not relied upon and thus, the argument is not commensurate in scope with the rejection of record.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights