DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 11/28/2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on 8/12/2025 was received. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-20 were amended, Claim 6 was cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued on 5/14/2025
Specification
The specification objection is withdrawn because Applicant’s amendment fixed the informalities.
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 3, 13, and 20 are withdrawn because Applicant’s amendment fixed the informalities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection to claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18 are withdrawn because Applicant’s amendment fixed the issues.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding to Claim 17: the limitation of “the second porous crystalline material additive” and “the second polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder” are unclear as they could refer to: (i) a new second additive and a new second binder on the second electrode, or (ii) the second additive and the second binder recited from claim 16. For the purpose of the examination, interpretation (ii) is taken into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yue (CN 113394368 A) on claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 14-15 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claims 1, 10. The claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1) on claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 14-15 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claims 1, 10. The claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dichtel et al. (WO 2017031062 A1) on claims 1, 4, 10 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claims 1, 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1) and in view of Jin et al. (US 20230108728 A1) on claims 6, 7 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1. The claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1) in view of Jin et al. (US 20230108728 A1) on claim 12 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 10. The claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dichtel et al. (WO 2017031062 A1) in view of Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1) on 13 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 10. The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1) in view of Goto et al. (WO2021200588 A1) on claims 16, 17 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 10. The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue (CN 113394368 A) in view of Goto et al. (WO2021200588 A1) on claims 16, 17 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 10. The claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1) in view of Goto et al. (WO2021200588 A1) on claims 18-19 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 18. The claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1) in view of Goto et al. (WO2021200588 A1) and further in view of Dichtel et al. (WO 2017031062 A1) on claim 20 is withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 18. The claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue (CN 113394368 A) in view of Goto et al. (WO2021200588 A1) on claims 18-19 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 18.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8-12, 14-15 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue (CN 113394368 A) in view of Zhong et al. (US 20220158150 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Yue discloses a lithium-ion battery (equivalent to an electrochemical cell) comprising a pole piece (100a) (equivalent to an electrode). The pole piece (100a) comprises a current collector (10) and an active material layer (30a) (par. 51, figures 5-6). In the active material layer (30a), an active material, a metal organic framework material (MOFs) (51), a binder, and a conductive agent are mixed together (par. 53, par. 56, figures 5-6). The binder can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 56).
Yue fails to explicitly disclose the polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder comprising: greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 100 wt.% of polytetrafluoroethylene, and greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of an additional binder comprising polyethylene oxide. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Yue because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to claim 2: Yue discloses the weight percentage of the metal organic framework material is less than or equal to 5% in the active material layer (30a) (par. 57).
Regarding to claim 3: Yue discloses the metal organic framework material (51) can be selected from but not limited to MOF-177, MOF-210, UMCM-1, Zn-MOF-74, Co-MOF-74, Ni-MOF-74, Mg-MOF-74, Zn4(pydc)4(DMF)·23DMF, ZIF-78, ZIF-82, ZIF-70, MIL-101(Cr)-PEI-800, (Zn, Co, Ni)-HKUST-1, Fe-MIL-88B-NH2, Fe- MIL-53-NH2, MIL-53(Al), MIL-53(Cr/Al), NH2-MIL-53(Al), IRMOF-74-III-(CH2NH2)2, MIL-101(Cr, Mg), M-HKUST-1(M＝Zn, Co, Ni, Mg), NH2-MIL-101(Al), IRMOF-16, and Zn2 (NDC)2 (DPNI). (par. 54). The specific surface area of the metal-organic framework material (51) is greater than or equal to 500m2/g and less than or equal to 10,000m2/g (par. 54).
Regarding to claim 5: Yue discloses weight ratio in examples 1- 4 (par. 65, 70, 72, 74). The binder has 1 wt. %- 3 wt. % relative the total weight of active material, MOF, conductive agent, and binder.
Regarding to claim 7: Yue discloses the binder can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 56). Yue fails to explicitly disclose the additional binder further comprising sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylidene difluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, or any combination thereof. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Yue because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to claim 8: Yue discloses weight ratio in examples 1- 4 (par. 65, 70, 72, 74). The conductive agent has 2 wt. %- 3 wt. % relative the total weight of active material, MOF, conductive agent, and binder.
Regarding to claim 9: Yue discloses the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is 50 µm in example 1 (par. 65).
Regarding to claim 10: Yue discloses a lithium-ion battery (equivalent to an electrochemical cell) comprising a pole piece (100a) (equivalent to a first electrode). The pole piece (100a) comprises a current collector (10) and an active material layer (30a) (par. 51, figures 5 and 6). In the active material layer (30a), an active material (equivalent to a first electroactive material), a metal organic framework material (MOFs) (51) (equivalent to a porous crystalline material additive), a binder, and a conductive agent are mixed together (par. 53, par. 56, figures 5-6). The binder can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 56). In Yue’s example 1, the pole piece (100a), used as a positive electrode (par. 65), a separator (equivalent to a separating layer), and a negative electrode (equivalent to a second electrode) are sequentially stacked and assembled to obtain a battery (par. 68). The negative electrode contains graphite (equivalent to a second electroactive material) (par. 66).
Yue fails to explicitly disclose the polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder comprising: greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 100 wt.% of polytetrafluoroethylene, and greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of an additional binder comprising polyethylene oxide. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Yue because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to claim 11: Yue discloses the weight percentage of the metal organic framework material is less than or equal to 5% in the active material layer (30a) (par. 57); and the binder has 1 wt. % - 3 wt. % relative the total weight of active material, MOF, conductive agent, and binder in examples 1- 4 (par. 65, 70, 72, 74).
Regarding to claim 12: Yue discloses the binder can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 56). Yue fails to explicitly disclose the additional binder further comprising sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylidene difluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, or any combination thereof. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Yue because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to claim 14: Yue discloses weight ratio in examples 1- 4 (par. 65, 70, 72, 74). The conductive agent has 2 wt. %- 3 wt. % relative the total weight of active material, MOF, conductive agent, and binder in the positive electrode.
Regarding to claim 15: Yue discloses the thickness of the positive electrode active material layer is 50 µm in example 1 (par. 65).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8-12, 14-15 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1), hereinafter “Goto et al. 589”, in view of Zhong et al. (US 20220158150 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Goto et al. 589 disclose a lithium-ion electricity storage device (equivalent to an electrochemical cell) comprising a positive electrode (1) (par. 12, par. 40). The positive electrode (1) comprises a mixture layer of a positive electrode active material (10), a porous material (20) (equivalent to a porous crystalline material additive), and a binder (30) (figure 1, par. 12, 50, 51). The porous material (20) is a metal-organic framework (MOF) (par. 14) and the binder (30) can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 27).
Goto et al. 589 fail to explicitly disclose the polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder comprising: greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 100 wt.% of polytetrafluoroethylene, and greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of an additional binder comprising polyethylene oxide. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Goto et al. 589 because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to claim 2: Goto et al. 589 disclose the positive electrode active material (10) has 80%-99% by mass relative to the total mass of the positive electrode (1) (par. 25), the binder (30) has 0.5%-20% by mass relative to the total mass of the positive electrode (1) (par. 28), and the ratio of the content of the porous material (20) to the sum of the content of the positive electrode active material (10) and the content of the porous material (20) is 0.1%-10% by mass (par. 26). Thus, the mass ratio of the porous material (20) can be deduced to be in the range of 0.08% - 9.95% relative to the total mass of the positive electrode (1) (See Table 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
553
1681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Table 1
Regarding to claim 3: Goto et al. 589 disclose the porous material (20) can be Zeolitic imidazolate framework-8 (ZIF-8), ZIF-7, ZIF-9, ZIF-67, MIL-53 (Al), and HKUST-1 (par. 22) with a surface area larger than 1000m2/g (par. 17).
Regarding to claim 5: Goto et al. 589 disclose the binder (30) has 0.5%-20% by mass relative to the total mass of the electricity storage device positive electrode (1) (par. 28).
Regarding to claim 7: Goto et al. 589 disclose the binder (30) can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 27). Goto et al. 589 fail to explicitly disclose the additional binder further comprising sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylidene difluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, or any combination thereof. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Goto 589 because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to claim 8: Goto et al. 589 disclose the positive electrode (1) may contain a conductive assistant such as acetylene black (par. 35). In Example 1, 11 mass % of acetylene black were added in a slurry for the positive electrode (1) (par. 55).
Regarding to claim 9: Goto et al. 589 disclose the thickness of the positive electrode (1) is 0.1 µm-1000 µm (par. 39).
Regarding to claim 10: Goto et al. 589 disclose a lithium-ion electricity storage device (2) (equivalent to an electrochemical cell) comprising a positive electrode (1) (considered to be a first electrode), a negative electrode (50) (considered to be a second electrode), and electrolyte layer (60) (equivalent to a separating layer) (par. 38, par. 40, figure 2). The positive electrode (1) comprises a mixture layer of a positive electrode active material (10) (equivalent to a first electroactive material), a porous material (20) (equivalent to a porous crystalline material additive), and a binder (30) (figure 1, par. 12, 51). The porous material (20) is a metal-organic framework (MOF) (par. 14) and the binder (30) can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 27). The negative electrode (50) contains a negative electrode active material (equivalent to a second electroactive material) (par. 43, 44).
Goto et al. 589 fail to explicitly disclose the polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder comprising: greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 100 wt.% of polytetrafluoroethylene, and greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of an additional binder comprising polyethylene oxide. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Goto et al. 589 because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to claim 11: Goto et al. 589 disclose that the positive electrode active material (10) has 80%-99% by mass relative to the total mass of the positive electrode (1) (par. 25), the binder (30) has 0.5%-20% by mass relative to the total mass of the positive electrode (1) (par. 28), and the ratio of the content of the porous material (20) to the sum of the content of the positive electrode active material (10) and the content of the porous material (20) is 0.1%-10% by mass (par. 26). Thus, the mass ratio of the porous material (20) can be deduced to be 0.08% - 9.95% relative to the total mass of the electricity storage device positive electrode (1) (see Table 1 above).
Regarding to claim 12: Goto et al. 589 disclose the binder (30) can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 27). Goto et al. 589 fail to explicitly disclose the additional binder further comprising sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylidene difluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, or any combination thereof. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Goto 589 because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to claim 14: Goto et al. 589 disclose the positive electrode (1) may contain a conductive assistant such as acetylene black (par. 35). In Example 1, 11 mass % of acetylene black were added in a slurry for the positive electrode (1) (par. 55).
Regarding to claim 15: Goto et al. 589 discloses the thickness of the positive electrode (1) is 0.1 µm-1000 µm (par. 39).
Claims 1, 4, 10 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dichtel et al. (WO 2017031062 A1) in view of Zhong et al. (US 20220158150 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Dichtel et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery (equivalent to an electrochemical cell) comprising a cathode. The cathode comprises a mixture of PEDOT/COF (PEDOT is equivalent to an electroactive material) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (par. 134-135).
Dichtel et al. fail to explicitly disclose the polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder comprising: greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 100 wt.% of polytetrafluoroethylene, and greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of an additional binder comprising polyethylene oxide. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Dichtel et al. because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to claim 4: Dichtel et al. disclose the COFs can have high surface area of 500 m2/g to 2500 m2/g (par. 71) and the examples of COFs include, but are not limited to, COFs comprising redox- active 2,6-diaminoanthraquinone (DAAQ) moieties (e.g., a 2D COF linked by β- ketoenamines, imines, or peenamines) (par. 67).
Regarding to claim 10: Dichtel et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery (equivalent to an electrochemical cell) comprising a cathode (equivalent to a first electrode), a separator (equivalent to a separating layer), and an anode (equivalent to a second electrode). The cathode comprises a mixture of PEDOT/COF (PEDOT is equivalent to an electroactive material) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and the anode comprises activated carbon (equivalent to a second electroactive material) (par. 134-135).
Dichtel et al. fail to explicitly disclose the polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder comprising: greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 100 wt.% of polytetrafluoroethylene, and greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of an additional binder comprising polyethylene oxide. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Dichtel et al. because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dichtel et al. (WO 2017031062 A1) and Zhong et al. (US 20220158150 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1), hereinafter “Goto et al. 589”.
Regarding to claim 13: Dichtel et al. disclose the COFs can have high surface area of 500 m2/g to 2500 m2/g (par. 71) and the examples of COFs include, but are not limited to, COFs comprising redox- active 2,6-diaminoanthraquinone (DAAQ) moieties (e.g., a 2D COF linked by β- ketoenamines, imines, or peenamines) (par. 67). Dichtel et al. fail to explicitly disclose the electrode comprising metal-organic frameworks (MOFs). However, Goto et al. 589 disclose an electricity storage device (2) (equivalent to an electrochemical cell) comprising a positive electrode (1) (equivalent to a first electrode), a negative electrode (50), and an electrolyte layer (60) (par. 38, figure 2). The positive electrode (1) comprises of a mixture of a positive electrode active material (10), a porous material (20), and a binder (30) (figure 1, par. 12). The porous material (20) is a metal-organic framework (MOF) (par. 14) and the binder (30) can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 27). Goto et al. 589 further disclose the porous material (20) can be Zeolitic imidazolate framework-8 (ZIF-8), ZIF-7, ZIF-9, ZIF-67, MIL-53 (Al), and HKUST-1 (par. 22) with a surface area larger than 1000m2/g (par. 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the COFs and MOFs in one electrode (cathode) as both COFs and MOFs are used to maximize the surface area of electrode to reduce internal resistance and improve the capacity of batteries (Dichtel et al. par. 5; Goto et al. 589 par. 14 and 18). It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072.
Claims 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1), hereinafter “Goto et al. 589”, and Zhong et al. (US 20220158150 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Goto et al. (WO2021200588 A1), hereinafter “Goto et al. 588”.
Regarding to Claim 16: Goto et al. 589 in view of Zhong et al. disclose a lithium-ion electricity storage device (2) as described in paragraph 18 above. Goto et al. 589 fail to explicitly disclose the second electrode further comprises a second polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder and a second porous crystalline material additive selected from the group consisting of: metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), covalent-organic frameworks (COFs), and combinations thereof. However, Goto et al. 588 disclose a lithium-ion electricity storage device comprising a negative electrode (equivalent to the second electrode) (par. 14 and par. 49). The negative electrode comprises of a mixture of a negative electrode active material (10) (equivalent to a second electroactive material), a porous material (20) (equivalent to a second porous crystalline material additive), and a binder (30) (equivalent to a second binder) (figure 1, par. 14, par. 32, 59). The porous material (20) is a metal-organic framework (MOF) (par. 17) and the binder (30) can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 32). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the negative electrode of Goto et al. 588 into the electricity storage device (2) of Goto et al. 589 because Goto et al. 588 teaches that negative electrodes with a specific porous material improve the capacity retention rate of an electricity storage device (par. 12).
Goto et al. 588 and Goto et al. 589 fail to explicitly disclose a second polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder mixed with the second electroactive material comprising: greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 100 wt.% of polytetrafluoroethylene, and greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of a second additional binder. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Goto et al. 588 because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to Claim 17: Goto et al. 589 disclose a lithium-ion electricity storage device (2) as described in paragraph 18 above. Goto et al. 589 fails to explicitly disclose the second electrode comprises: greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of the second porous crystalline material additive; and greater than or equal to about 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of the second polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder. However, Goto et al. 588 disclose a lithium-ion electricity storage device comprising a negative electrode (equivalent to the second electrode) (par. 14 and par. 49). The negative electrode comprises of a mixture of a negative electrode active material (10) (equivalent to a second electroactive material), a porous material (20) (equivalent to a second porous crystalline material additive), and a binder (30) (equivalent to a second binder) (figure 1, par. 14, par. 32, 59). The binder (30) can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 32). The mass ratio of the binder (30) to the total mass of the negative electrode is 0.5%-15% (par. 33) and the mass ratio of the negative electrode active material (10) to the total mass of the negative electrode is 85%-98%. Since the negative electrode comprises of the negative electrode active material (10), the porous material (20), and the binder (30), the mass ratio of the porous material (20) can be deduced to be 1.5% (100%-98%-0.5%) - 14.5% (100%-85%-0.5%) relative to the total mass of the negative electrode. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the negative electrode of Goto et al. 588 into the electricity storage device (2) of Goto et al. 589 because Goto et al. 588 teaches that negative electrodes with a specific porous material improve the capacity retention rate of an electricity storage device (par. 12).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1), hereinafter “Goto et al. 589” in view of Goto et al. (WO2021200588 A1), hereinafter “Goto et al. 588”, and Zhong et al. (US 20220158150 A1).
Regarding to Claim 18: Goto et al. 589 disclose an electricity storage device (2) (equivalent to an electrochemical cell) comprising a positive electrode (1) (considered to be a first electrode), a negative electrode (50) (considered to be a second electrode), and an electrolyte layer (60) (considered to be a separating layer) (par. 38, par. 40, figure 2). The electrolyte layer (60) includes lithium ions (par. 40) (equivalent to lithium ion cycling). The positive electrode (1), having a thickness of 0.1µm to 1000µm (par. 39), comprises a mixture of a positive electrode active material (10) (equivalent to a first electroactive material), a porous material (20) (equivalent to a first porous crystalline material additive) (par. 25), and a binder (30) (equivalent to a first binder) (figure 1, par. 12, 51). The porous material (20) is a metal-organic framework (MOF) (par. 14) and the binder (30) can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 27). The positive electrode active material (10) has 80%-99% by mass relative to the total mass of the electricity storage device positive electrode (1) (par. 25) and the binder (30) has 0.5%-20% by mass relative to the total mass of the electricity storage device positive electrode (1) (par. 28). The ratio of the content of the porous material (20) to the sum of the content of the positive electrode active material (10) and the content of the porous material (20) is 0.1%-10% by mass (par. 26). Thus, the mass ratio of the porous material (20) can be deduced to be within the range of 0.08% - 9.95% relative to the total mass of the electricity storage device positive electrode (1) (see Table 1 above). Goto et al. 589 fail to explicitly disclose a second electrode having a second average thickness greater than or equal to about 50 micrometers to less than or equal to about 500 micrometers and comprising: greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 99.5 wt.% of a second electroactive material; greater than 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of a second polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder; and greater than 0.01 wt.% to less than or equal to about 20 wt.% of a second porous crystalline material additive, the second crystalline material additives being selected from the group consisting of: metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), covalent- organic frameworks (COFs), and combinations thereof. However, Goto et al. 588 disclose a lithium-ion electricity storage device comprising a negative electrode (equivalent to a second electrode) (par. 14 and par. 49). The negative electrode, having a thickness of 0.1µm to 1000µm (par. 48), comprises a mixture of a negative electrode active material (10) (equivalent to a second electroactive material), a porous material (20) (equivalent to a second porous crystalline material additive), and a binder (30) (equivalent to a second binder) (figure 1, par. 14, par. 32, 59). The porous material (20) is a metal-organic framework (MOF) (par. 17) and the binder (30) can be polytetrafluoroethylene (par. 32). The mass ratio of the binder (30) to the total mass of the negative electrode is 0.5%-15% (par. 33) and the mass ratio of the negative electrode active material (10) to the total mass of the negative electrode is 85%-99% (par. 31). Since the negative electrode comprises of the negative electrode active material (10), the porous material (20), and the binder (30), the mass ratio of the porous material (20) can be deduced to be within the range of 0.5% (100%-99%-0.5%) - 14.5% (100%-85%-0.5%) relative to the total mass of the negative electrode. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the negative electrode of Goto et al. 588 into the electricity storage device (2) of Goto et al. 589 because Goto et al. 588 teaches that negative electrodes with a specific porous material improve the capacity retention rate of an electricity storage device (par. 12).
Goto et al. 589 and Goto et al. 588 fails to explicitly disclose a first and a second polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder comprising: greater than or equal to about 50 wt.% to less than or equal to about 100 wt.% of polytetrafluoroethylene, and greater than 0 wt.% to less than or equal to about 50 wt.% of a second additional binder. However, Zhong et al. disclose that a free-standing electrode film may comprise an electrode active material and a composite binder (abstract). The composite binder may comprise PTFE and one or more additional binders selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyethylene oxide (PEO), and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (par. 33). In Table I, #1 sample comprises 96% graphite, 2% PTFE, 1.85% PEO, and 0.15% CMC (equivalent to 50 wt. % PTFE, 46.25 wt. % PEO, and 3.75 wt. % CMC relative to the total weight of the binder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mixture binder of #1 sample of Zhong et al. as the binder of Goto et al. 589 and the binder of Goto et al. 588 because Zhong et al. teach that the mixture binder has the effect of increasing the first cycle efficiency as compared to using only PTFE (par. 34).
Regarding to claim 19: Goto et al. 589 disclose the positive electrode (1) may contain a conductive assistant such as acetylene black (par. 35). In Example 1, 11 mass % of acetylene black were added in a slurry for the positive electrode (1) (par. 55).
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (WO2021200589 A1), hereinafter “Goto et al. 589”, Goto et al. (WO2021200588 A1), hereinafter “Goto et al. 588”, and Zhong et al. (US 20220158150 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Dichtel et al. (WO 2017031062 A1).
Regarding to claim 20: Goto et al. 589 disclose the porous material (20) in the positive electrode can be Zeolitic imidazolate framework-8 (ZIF-8), ZIF-7, ZIF-9, ZIF-67, MIL-53 (Al), and HKUST-1 (par. 22) with a surface area larger than 1000m2/g (par. 17). Goto et al. 588 disclose the porous material (20) in the negative electrode can be Zeolitic imidazolate framework-8 (ZIF-8), ZIF-7, ZIF-9, ZIF-67, MIL-53 (Al), and HKUST-1 (par. 28) with a surface area larger than 1000m2/g (par. 24). Goto et al. 589 and Goto et al. 588 fail to explicitly disclose the electrode comprising covalent-organic frameworks (COFs). However, Dichtel et al. disclose a lithium-ion battery comprising a cathode with PEDOT/COF as describe in paragraph 19 above. Dichtel et al. further disclose the COFs can have high surface area of 500 m2/g to 2500 m2/g (par. 71) and the examples of COFs include, but are not limited to, COFs comprising redox- active 2,6-diaminoanthraquinone (DAAQ) moieties (e.g., a 2D COF linked by β- ketoenamines, imines, or peenamines) (par. 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the COFs and MOFs in one electrode (positive electrode) as both COFs and MOFs are used to maximize the surface area of electrode to reduce internal resistance and improve the capacity of batteries (Dichtel et al. par. 5; Goto et al. 589 par. 14 and 18). It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues:
Yue does not disclose a polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder, an electroactive material, and a porous crystalline material additive are mixed together.
Yue, Goto 589, Dichtel, Jin, and Goto 588 do not disclose the polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder including polyethylene oxide.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not apply to the newly cited embodiment of Yue which teaches a polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder, an electroactive material, and a porous crystalline material additive are mixed together as described above.
Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not apply to the newly cited Zhong reference which teaches the claimed polytetrafluoroethylene-based binder including polyethylene oxide as well as sufficient motivation to replace the binder to be a mixture binder as described above.
Conclusion
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 PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights