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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 5th, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on May 5th, 2026 have been
entered into the file.
Currently claim 1 is amended, claims 2-4 are cancelled, and claims 10-20 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1, 5-9 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-9 are 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 claim 1, the claim recites “…the electrode material comprises an electrode active material; or a carbon material, and a metal powder capable of alloying with lithium…” As written, it is unclear if the claim requires the electrode material to be comprised of electrode active material, carbon material, or metal powder, or a particular combination of the three. The semicolon following the recitation of the electrode active material makes it unclear whether the electrode active material, carbon material, and metal powder are a Markush group from which only one species is required to meet the claimed limitations. For the purposes of examination, an electrode material comprising electrode active material or an electrode material comprising both carbon material and a metal powder capable of alloying with lithium is interpreted by the Examiner to meet the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 5-9, they are rejected based on their dependence on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190341616 A1) in view of Zhang (W.O. 2018076098 A) and Kitagawa (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150188139 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches an electrode slurry for all-solid-state batteries (Paragraph 0012), comprising:
a cluster composite comprising a first binder and an electrode material;
a solvent component; and
a second binder (Paragraphs 0012-0013).
Yoon teaches the electrode material comprises an electrode active material (Paragraph 0012), meeting the instant claimed limitation.
As shown in the annotated Figure below, Yoon teaches that (primary) particles of electrode active material cluster together to form a complex (Paragraph 0073). As the clusters comprise a plurality of primary particles, the clusters of Yoon are considered to be cluster composite comprising the first binder and the electrode material comprising a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles, meeting the instant claim limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Yoon
Yoon teaches the first binder having strong adhesion in order to adhere the electrode active material, the solid electrolyte, and the conductive material particles (Paragraph 0049), meeting the instant claimed limitations of the first binder connecting the primary particles.
Yoon does not teach the first binder comprises a fiberized polymer.
However, Zhang discloses a composition for strengthening polymer stabilized particle electrodes (Page 1, Lines 5-7). Zhang teaches the mixing of conductive material, active materials, liquid lubricant (solvent) and a fibrillatable polymer (Page 4, Lines 20-30). Zhang teaches a fibrillatable polymer being any polymer that can be sheared into long fibers (fiberized) (Page 6, Lines 24-26), including polytetrafluoroethylene (Page 8, Lines 1-10). Zhang teaches the function of the fibrillatable polymers (Figure 3, Element 320) as being particle stabilizing agents that form a spider-web like matrix to hold the active material (Figure 3, Element 310) and conductive particles (Figure 3, Element 340) together (Page 8, Lines 1-10). Zhang teaches the strong adhesion between the conductive particles and the polymer fibers as advantageously forming large conductive paths along the length of the electrode film, resulting in a 3-D conductive matrix which reduces electrical resistance of the electrode (Page 9, Lines 20-30).
PNG
media_image2.png
284
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Zhang
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first binder of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Zhang in which the binder is a fiberized (fibrillatable) polymer such as polytetrafluoroethylene which forms a spider-web like matrix to stabilize the active material and conductive particles of the slurry together. Yoon is open to this modification, as Yoon teaches the first binder lending itself to improving interparticle adhesion (Paragraph 0053). The advantages of the modification include the formation of large conductive paths along the length of the electrode film and reduced electrical resistance of the electrode, as recognized by Zhang.
Yoon is silent as to the size of each primary particle is in a nanometer scale, wherein the particle size (D50) of the primary particles is about 0.1 nm to about 100 nm.
However, Kitagawa discloses a positive electrode active material for lithium secondary batteries (Paragraph 0011), wherein the electrode active material are secondary particles that are aggregations of a large number of primary particles (Paragraph 0045), which is similar to the electrode material comprising a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles of Yoon. Kitagawa teaches that when the electrode active material has this aggregated structure of primary particles to form a secondary particle, the average particle size range of the primary particles is preferably in the range of 10 to 150 nm. Kitagawa teaches that when the primary particles are in this aforementioned size range, the appropriate amount of aggregation may take place to form a secondary particle of a target size, maintain smoothness and uniformity of the electrode, and ensure sufficient specific surface area for reactivity of the electrode active material with the electrolyte (Paragraph 0045), which may be a solid state electrolyte (Paragraph 0087).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the electrode active material primary particles of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Kitagawa in the diameter of the primary particles are between 10 to 150 nm. Doing so would advantageously result in an appropriate amount of aggregation may take place to form a secondary particle of a target size, the maintaining of smoothness and uniformity of the electrode, and a sufficient specific surface area for reactivity of the electrode active material with the electrolyte, as recognized by Kitagawa.
The result of the modification of Yoon by Kitagawa is the primary particles of the electrode material cluster being in the nanometer size range and in a range which overlaps the range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Because Yoon teaches the electrode material comprises an electrode active material the claimed limitation of the composition of the electrode material is met, as the instant claim recites “the electrode material comprises an electrode active material; or a carbon material, and a metal powder capable of alloying with lithium, wherein the metal powder comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of gold (Au), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), silicon (Si), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), bismuth (Bi), time (Sn), and zinc (Zn).
Although not required by the claim, Yoon also teaches the electrode material comprises a carbon material and a metal powder capable of alloying with lithium (see 112b interpretation above).
Yoon teaches the cluster composite comprising active material and a conductive material (Paragraph 0012). Yoon teaches the conductive material component of the electrode material in the cluster composite is comprised of a metal powder such as aluminum powder (Paragraph 0068), which is known to be capable of alloying with lithium, meeting the instant claimed limitations. Yoon teaches the active material component of the electrode material in the cluster composite is a carbon material (Paragraph 0056), further meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yoon teaches the electrode slurry of claim 1, wherein the first binder comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (Paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoon teaches the electrode slurry of claim 1.
Yoon is silent as to the cluster composite comprises an amount of about 1 part by weight to 5 parts by weight of the first binder based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode material.
However, Yoon teaches that the first binder may have a content of about 1 to wt% based on 100 wt% of a mixture of the active material and solid electrolyte. Yoon teaches when the content of the first binder is in this range, the first binder may improve interparticle adhesion among the electrode active material, the solid electrolyte, and the conductive material, and may improve output characteristic of the secondary battery. Further, Yoon teaches when the content of the first binder is less than about 1 wt %, interparticle adhesion effect of the electrode active material, the solid electrolyte, and the conductive material may not be significant and when the content of the first binder is greater than about 5 wt %, resistance may be increased and ion conductivity may be decreased.
Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration of the first binder in the cluster composite to be between 1 part by weight to 5 parts by weight of the first binder based on 100 parts by weight of the electrode material, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involved only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the concentration of the first binder in the cluster composite with respect to the total weight of the active material to be within the claimed ranges of instant claim in order to achieve the desired interparticle adhesion among the electrode active material, the solid electrolyte, and the conductive material as well as the output characteristic of the secondary battery. For example, the ordinary artisan would recognize that the proportion of first binder in the cluster composite with respect to the entire concentration of electrode material may be tuned to balance obtaining good adhesion among slurry particles with achieving low resistance and high ionic conductivity.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yoon teaches the electrode slurry of claim 1.
Yoon is silent as to the particle size of the cluster composite is about 0.5 µm to 10 µm
However, as discussed above, Kitagawa discloses a positive electrode active material for lithium secondary batteries (Paragraph 0011), wherein the electrode active material are secondary particles that are aggregations of a large number of primary particles (Paragraph 0045), which is similar to the electrode material comprising an electrode active material and comprising a secondary particle comprising a plurality of primary particles of Yoon. Kitagawa teaches that the secondary particle diameter affects the density of the electrode and the capacity per volume (Paragraph 0188). In the examples taught by Kitagawa, the average diameter of the secondary particles are 5 to 20 µm (Paragraph 0156). Kitagawa teaches that when the average size of the secondary particles is less than 5 µm, the packing density becomes low in forming an electrode and when the average particle size exceeds 20 μm, the density of the electrode is decreased (Paragraph 0157).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Kitagawa in which the cluster composite (secondary particle) of Yoon incorporates the teachings of Kitagawa in which the average secondary particle size is between 5 µm to 20 µm. Doing so would advantageously maintain packing density and desired electrode density, as recognized by Kitagawa.
The result of the modification of Yoon by Kitagawa established a range of the particle size of the cluster composite which overlaps that of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.04 (I).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yoon teaches the electrode slurry of claim 1, wherein the second binder comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of styrene butadiene rubber and nitrile butadiene rubber (Paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yoon teaches the electrode slurry of claim 1.
Modified Yoon is silent as to the mass ratio of the first binder to the second binder is about 0.1:100 to 10:1.
However, Yoon teaches that the weight ratio of the first binder and the second binder is 1:0.1 to 2:1 parts by weight (Paragraph 0015). The range of the mass ratio of the first binder to the second binder of Yoon (10 to 2) overlaps the instant range of the mass ratio of the first binder to the second binder (0.001 to 10). Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Response to Arguments
In the remarks submitted on May 5th, 2026, applicant argues that with respect to the combination of Yoon and Zhang, the prior art does not teach or suggest primary particles having a particle size of 0.1 nm to 100 nm.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection of claim 1 presented above does not rely on the teachings regarding the size of the particles of Zhang applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the remarks submitted on May 5th, 2026, applicant argues that the electrode material recited in the amended claim 1 and the spherical conductive particles of Zhang are fundamentally different in their roles and compositions. Applicant specifically argues that the spherical conductive particles in Zhang having submicron size are conductive additives such as carbon black and Super P, while the nanoscale primary particles forming the cluster composite of the present invention are electrode active material or metal powder capable of alloying with lithium which are responsible for energy storage and release.
The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that as amended, the instant claim 1 recites that the electrode material comprises electrode active material or a carbon material and a metal powder. Therefore, the carbon material of the instant claim is part of the material used in fabricating the electrode (electrode material), which is different from the material used in fabricating the electrode active material.
The Examiner presents Yoon teaches conductive material as a part of the cluster complex, particularly providing suitable materials such as:
“For example, the conductive material may be graphite such as natural graphite, artificial graphite, etc.; carbon black such as carbon black, acetylene black, Ketjen black, channel black, furnace black, lamp black, thermal black, and the like; conductive fibers such as carbon fiber, metal fiber, etc.; conductive tubes such as carbon nanotube, and the like; metal powder such as fluorocarbon, aluminum, nickel powder, and the like; conductive whiskers such as zinc oxide, potassium titanate, and the like; conductive metal oxides such as titanium oxide, and the like; conductive materials such as polyphenylene derivatives, and the like.” (Paragraph 0058)
The Examiner presents that Zhang teaches conductive material as a part of the composition for an electrode particularly providing suitable materials such as carbon black, as pointed out by applicant.
The instant disclosure provides suitable materials of the carbon material of the instant claim which overlap with those taught by Yoon including carbon black, furnace black, acetylene black, and ketjen black (Page 9). The instant disclosure provides suitable materials of the carbon material of the instant claim which overlap with those taught by Zhang including carbon black.
The instant disclosure provides suitable materials for the carbon material of the instant claim which overlap with those taught by Yoon and Zhang. Further, Yoon and Zhang teaches carbon is included in the electrode composition and, and additionally teaches materials which share the identity of the carbon materials of the instant disclosure.
As such, Yoon and Zhang teach carbon materials which are not fundamentally different in their composition from the carbon material of electrode material of the instant claim, as argued by applicant as carbon black is a common material shared by Zhang, Yoon, and the instant disclosure. Further, the carbon material taught by Yoon and Zhang are comprised in the electrode material composition as required by the instant claim.
In the remarks submitted on May 5th, 2026, applicant argues that the combination of features in amended claim 1, particularly with respect to the size of the primary particles on the nanoscale range, provide unexpected and superior results that are not taught or suggested by the prior art.
The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents that any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See MPEP 716.02.
Additionally, it is noted that it is the burden of Applicant to provide evidence that establishes that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b)(I). Applicants have the burden of explaining proffered data. See MPEP 716.02(b)(II).
It is further noted that in order 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. See MPEP 716.02(d) II. Additionally, the claims must be commensurate in scope with the proffered data to provide a nexus between the claims and the data establishing evidence of unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(d).
In the remarks submitted on May 5th, 2026, applicant argues that with respect to the claimed limitations of claim 2 incorporated into the amended claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated or inclined to apply the teachings relating to the metal powder of Shi to Yoon’s cluster composite.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection of claim 1 presented above does not rely on the teachings of Shi in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the remarks submitted on May 5th, 2026, applicant argues that with respect to the limitations of claim 7 rejected in view of Song, it would not have been obvious to modify the diameter of the metal powder of Yoon to incorporate Song’s teachings, as Song teaches the diameter of the primary particles that lies outside the range disclosed by the instant disclosure.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection of claim 1 presented above does not rely on the teachings of Song in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Cited Art Not Relied Upon
Meng (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240379938 A1) discloses a cathode for a high voltage lithium-ion secondary battery, comprising: an electrode layer comprising an electrode composition comprising cathode active particles, fluoropolymer binder and conductive carbon, wherein the carbon fibers and the fibrillated fluoropolymer binder forming a conducting structural web electronically connecting the cathode active particles so as to enable electronic conductivity through the electrode layer (Paragraph 0009) while also maintaining structural integrity in the electrode layer by securing the cathode active particles in place (Paragraph 0056).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights