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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 7/8/26. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found entirely persuasive. Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-12 are pending and remain rejected in view of the prior art.
This Action is Non-FINAL.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/8/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2021/0175505 A1 in view of Shizuka JP2001-319657 A.
Kim teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode prepared by forming a coating film for forming a positive electrode active material layer on an Al foil using a slurry for forming the positive electrode active material layer, and then heating and drying. The slurry for forming the positive electrode active material layer was prepared by mixing a positive electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder at a weight ratio of 90:5:5. The positive electrode active material was S/CNT composite (sulfur/carbon), the conductive material was VGCF (vapor grown carbon fiber), and the binder was AD-B02/CMC. AD-B02/CMC is a binder in which two binders, namely AD-B02 (styrene-butadiene rubber binder particle) and CMC (carboxymethyl cellulose) are mixed at a weight ratio of 3.5:1.5 [0095]. Example 6 teaches a lithium-sulfur battery, in the same manner as in Example 1, except that the positive electrode binder was BM451B (binder of present claim 1)/Li-CMC (thickener of present claim 1) instead of AD-B02/CMC. BM451B/Li-CMC is a mixed binder of BM-451B (ZEON) and CMC. BM-451B (ZEON) is an SBR-based binder, and Li-CMC was substituted with a large amount of Li by three-time repetition of the process of acid treatment of Na-CMC with HCl-filtration/neutralization by LiOH [0105]. The slurry includes a solvent that dissolves the binder. The solvent may be water [0049;0053]. See also [0048] regarding the positive electrode active materials.
Kim does not explicitly teach the slurry further includes a succinimide-based compound additive.
However, Shizuka teaches a positive electrode material for a lithium secondary battery, which contains a positive electrode active material and a compound having a succinimide skeleton. The compound effectively suppresses local reactions at the positive electrode active material electrolyte interface, improving battery cycle characteristics at high temperature [0006-0008]. The ratio of the compound having a succinimide skeleton to the lithium transition metal oxide is 0.0001 to 20 mol % [0011]. Examples of the compound include succinimide and 3-ethyl-3-methyl-2,5-pyrrolidinedione (ethosuximide) [0017]. The positive electrode material can be used for the positive electrode of a lithium secondary battery. Preferably, the positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode layer containing a positive electrode material and a binder. The positive electrode layer is prepared by slurrying a positive active material, the organic compound (a compound having a succinimide skeleton), a binder (binder), and a conductive agent as necessary onto a positive electrode current collector. It can be produced by applying it to the body and drying [0029]. Examples of the binder are found at [0031]. Examples of the conductive agent are found at [0032]. The slurry includes, as a slurry solvent, an organic solvent that dissolves or disperses the binder. It is also possible to add a dispersant, a thickener and the like to water to make the active material into a slurry with a latex such as SBR [0033]. The positive electrode layer is obtained by coating, drying and roller pressing or the like in order to increase the packing density of the active material. The lithium secondary battery further includes a negative electrode and an electrolyte layer. At least one of the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the electrolyte layer contains the organic compound (a compound having a succinimide skeleton). As a result, it is possible to obtain a lithium secondary battery having excellent characteristics even in a high temperature environment [0035]. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the compound having a succinimide skeleton of the positive electrode of Shizuka for the positive electrode slurry of Kim to improve cycling efficiency of the secondary battery via formation of a solid electrolyte interface. Shizuka teaches battery cycle characteristics at high temperature are improved.
A thixotropic index is a measure of how much a material’s viscosity decreases under shear compared to its viscosity at rest. One of skill would have reasonably expected the slurry of the prior art of record to have the same or similar thixotropic index as that of the claimed invention. Both the slurry composition of the prior art and the claimed slurry composition comprise the same or similar components and would have been expected to act the same or similar when subjected to a shear force. Examiner further notes the conditions under which the thixotropic index is measured are not presently claimed.
Name
3-Ethyl-3-methyl-2,5-pyrrolidinedione
Common name
Ethosuximide
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 2021/0175505 A1 in view of Gan et al., US 2002/0136951 A1 has been withdrawn. The claims have been amended to recite specific succinimide-based compounds.
Kim in view of Shizuka
Applicant argues Kim and Shizuka fail to disclose the specific succinimide-based compound set forth in claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Shizuka teaches examples of the compound include succinimide and 3-ethyl-3-methyl-2,5-pyrrolidinedione (ethosuximide) [0017]. Shizuka is not limited to any particular and/or preferred embodiment.
Applicant argues Kim and Shizuka fail to disclose the slurry composition for the positive electrode having a thixotropic index of 0.1 to 0.4. However, a thixotropic index is a measure of how much a material’s viscosity decreases under shear compared to its viscosity at rest. One of skill would have reasonably expected the slurry of the prior art of record to have the same or similar thixotropic index as that of the claimed invention. Both the slurry composition of the prior art and the claimed slurry composition comprise the same or similar components and would have been expected to act the same or similar when subjected to a shear force. Examiner further notes the conditions under which the thixotropic index is measured are not presently claimed. Thixotropic index is a measurement. The argument the prior art does not provide a measurement is not found persuasive when the prior art of record teaches the slurry composition of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues Shizuka’s compound having a succinimide skeleton serves an entirely different purpose than the succinimide-based compound recited in claim 1. However, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant does not present any persuasive arguments that one of skill would not have been motivated to use the compound having a succinimide skeleton of the positive electrode of Shizuka for the positive electrode slurry of Kim to improve cycling efficiency of the secondary battery via formation of a solid electrolyte interface. Shizuka teaches battery cycle characteristics at high temperature are improved.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with at least claim 1. Claim 1 is directed to a slurry, not an electrode, not a battery. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided to support the argument the succinimide-based compound of claim 1 is the component of the claimed slurry that assertedly improves flowability. The claims have been given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Kim in view of Shizuka at least suggests the slurry composition of claim 1.
Applicant argues the prior art does not “provide the claimed benefit of improved flowability and flexible response to variable coating process conditions”. This argument is not commensurate is scope with the claimed invention. The claims do not recite “flowability” limitations, “flexible response” limitations and/or “process” limitations. Applicant’s arguments regarding “intended function” are not found persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TRACY M DOVE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights