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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on January 5th, 2025 have been
entered into the file.
Currently no claims have been amended, resulting in claims 1-9 as originally presented pending for examination.
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, 3-6, 8-9 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 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon teaches an electrode slurry for all-solid-state batteries (Paragraph 0002), comprising: a cluster composite comprising a first binder and an electrode material (electrode active material and conductive material); a solvent component; and a second binder (Paragraph 0012).
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).
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 which forms a spider-web like matrix to hold 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.
Regarding claim 3, modified Yoon teaches the electrode slurry of claim 1.
As discussed above, Yoon teaches the cluster composite comprising active material and a conductive material (Paragraph 0012), which was equated with the instant electrode material. Therefore, the electrode material of Yoon comprises an electrode active material, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoon teaches the electrode slurry of claim 1.
As discussed above, Yoon teaches the cluster composite comprising active material and a conductive material (Paragraph 0012), which was equated with the instant electrode material.
Yoon teaches the conductive material component of the electrode material in the cluster composite is comprise 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 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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 above, further in view of Shi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230117186 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yoon teaches the electrode slurry of claim 1.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Yoon teaches a cluster composite comprising electrode material made of electrode active material and conductive material.
As shown in the annotated Figure below, Yoon teaches that (primary) particles of conductive material and active material (electrode material) cluster together to form a complex (Paragraph 0073). As the clusters comprise a plurality of primary particles, the clusters of Yoon are considered secondary particles which make up the electrode material, meeting the instant claim limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
760
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Yoon
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Yoon was modified by Zhang to incorporate fiberized polymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene which stabilize the electrode slurry by holding together the active material (Figure 3, Element 310) and conductive particles (Figure 3, Element 340), as shown in the annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
284
813
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Zhang
Zhang disclosed the advantage of polymeric fibers to hold together active material particles and conductive material particles to form conduction paths and reduce electrode resistance. As Yoon teaches the secondary particle (cluster complex) formed primary particles including conductive material particles and active material particles, it follows that in the modification of Yoon by Zhang to include fiberized polymers to connect conductive material particles and active material particles (primary particles) meets the instant claimed limitation.
Yoon is silent as to the size of each primary particle is in a nanometer scale.
Zhang teaches the size of the conductive particles such as carbon, one of the primary particles taught by Yoon, to be less than 1 micron, typically 0.01 µm to 0.1 µm (10 nanometer to 100 nanometers) (Page 10, Lines 10-16). Therefore, Yoon in view of Zhang teaches the conductive primary particles are in the nanometer scale.
Shi teaches a negative electrode for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Page 1, Lines 10-14) comprising metal powder such as zinc (Zn), tin (Sn), and palladium (Pd) whose diameter is 20 nm to 20 µm (Page 2, Lines 10-15). Shi teaches that when the diameter of the metal powder of the electrode is in the aforementioned range, the agglomeration of the slurry or scratches to the current collector during coating can be avoided (Page 3, Lines 25-30).
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 metal powder (electrode material) of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Shi in which it lies between 20 nm to 20 µm (20,000 nm). Doing so would advantageously result in the prevention of slurry agglomeration or current collector scratches during the coating process, as recognized by Shi.
The result of the modification of Yoon by Shi is the primary particles of the electrode material cluster being in the nanometer range, meeting the instant claimed limitation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8-9 above, further in view of Song (Chinese Patent Publication No. 110651385 A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yoon teaches the electrode slurry of claim 1.
Yoon is silent as to the particle size (D50) of the cluster composite is about 0.5 µm to 10 µm.
However, Song discloses an electrode for a solid-state battery (Page 4, Paragraph 5) which may be composite secondary particles formed from primary particles (Page 6, Paragraph 7). Song teaches the diameter of the negative electrode active material secondary particles (D50) from 5 µm to 20 µm (Page 7, Paragraph 7). Song teaches when the size D50 of the secondary electrode particles lie within the claimed range the electrode density is maintained while providing sufficient capacity per unit volume, leading to uniform coating of the electrode slurry (Page 7, Paragraph 8).
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 particle size (D50) of the cluster composite of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Song in which the D50 secondary particle size is between 5 µm to 20 µm. Doing so would advantageously result maintain electrode density and capacity per unit volume, leading to uniform coating of the electrode slurry, as recognized by Song.
The result of the modification of Yoon by Song 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 5th, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, applicant argues that while Yoon teaches a configuration in which a first binder and a second binder are distinguished, the specific roles thereof are different from those of the present disclosure. Applicant further argues that Yoon recommends the use of a particle-shaped binder as the first binder.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the roles of the first and second binder of the prior art of record is not required to be the same as the instant disclosure. The role of the first and second binder defines the binders in the electrode slurry for all-solid-state batteries by what they do, rather than what they are. This is a functional limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(g). As long as the prior art teaches the claimed structure, the binders would therefore be capable of performing in the roles argued by applicant.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner additionally presents that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). Further, “[A] reference disclosure must be evaluated for all that it fairly [teaches] and not only for what is indicated as preferred.” In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969) and a reference is not limited to working examples (see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982)).
Applicant's arguments filed on January 5th, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the remarks, applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art combining the teachings of Yoon and Zhang would not substitute the fibrillizable polymer of Zhang for the first binder of Yoon but would instead be substituted to the second binder of Yoon. Thus, applicant argues on page 10 that the cited combination does not teach or suggest claim 1 as written.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner presents that a person of ordinary skill would not seek to modify the second binder of Yoon according to the teachings of Zhang, and would instead find it obvious to modify the first binder of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Zhang as outlined in the proper obviousness rejection set forth in the Non Final Rejection mailed October 8th, 2025.
Support for the modification of the first binder of Yoon by the teachings of Yang is found in the materials taught as suitable binder materials of Yoon. In the disclosure, Yoon teaches that the first binder may be any one selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP), copolymers of polyacrylic acid ester, chlorinated polyethylene, polymethacrylic acid ester, ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymers, polyimide, polyamide, polyamideimide, and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), or mixtures thereof (Paragraph 0013). Yoon teaches that the second binder may suitably be any one selected from the group consisting of styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), butadiene rubber (BR), nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR), styrene butadiene styrene block polymer (SBS), styrene ethylene butadiene block polymer (SEB), styrene-(styrene butadiene)-styrene block polymer, natural rubber (NR), isoprene rubber (IR), ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymer (EPDM) and poly(ethylene-co-propylene-co-5-methylene-2-norbornene), or mixtures thereof (Paragraph 0014).
According to the teachings of Zhang, the fibrillatable polymer may include polytetrafluoroethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene, co-polymers, various polymer blends, natural or synthetic rubbers, polyamide, polyurethane, liquid resins, silicon, elastomeric polymers, olefinic polymers and combinations thereof (Page 8, Paragraph 1).
Therefore, Zhang teaches polytetrafluoroethylene as a specific example of polymers which are fibrillatable. Because Yoon teaches the first binder may be polytetrafluoroethylene, the shared binder material of Yoon and Zhang include a PTFE binder as a suitable material and motivated the modification of the first binder of Yoon by Zhang to be a fibrillatable binder. Thus, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to modify the PTFE of Yoon to incorporate the teachings relating to PTFE of Zhang in which the same binder material is in the form of a fibril.
For the sake of argument, Zhang also teaches the fibrillatable binder may be a synthetic rubber. The suitable materials of Yoon for the second binder, as discussed above, include specific examples of butadiene rubbers such as styrene butadiene rubber. At best, these overlapping teachings of Zhang and Yoon relating to the material for the fibrillatable binder and second binder, respectively, indicate that the teachings of Zhang may suitably motivate the modification of the first OR second binder of Yoon to be in the form of a fiber.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that the modification of the first binder of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Zhang flows more naturally than the modification of the second binder of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Zhang. This is because the first binder of Yoon and the fibrillatable polymer of Zhang are both explicitly taught to be polytetrafluoroethylene. This is in contrast to the teachings of the second binder of Yoon and the fibrillatable polymer of Zhang, in which Zhang teaches a broad class of synthetic rubbers to which the specific examples of the second binder of Yoon belong. Thus, this combination is not nearly as obvious.
Further, the ordinary artisan would find it obvious to modify the first binder of Yoon to incorporate the teachings of Zhang because of the overlapping structure of these materials. As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed October 8th, 2025, Yoon teaches the first binder suitable for improved interparticle adhesion (Paragraph 0053) while the second binder is suitable for combing the clustered complex into net form (Paragraph 0065). As seen in Figure 1, Step 4 of Yoon, the first binder directly contacts the primary particles of the clustered complex active material while the second binder is present in between the electrode active materials (Paragraphs 0012-0013).
Further discussed in the Non-Final Rejection, Zhang teaches the fibrillatable polymer is used as a particle stabilizing agent that form a spider-web like matrix to hold the active 101 and conductive 103 particles (Paragraph 0053). Therefore, Zhang teaches the polymer in contact with the primary particles of the electrode composition.
Thus, the binder of Zhang and the first binder of Yoon both contact the primary particles of the electrode composition in order to assist in stability and adhesion between primary particles. The structure of the polymers of Zhang and the first binder of Yoon teach these binders as binding the primary particles, which renders the obviousness of the modification to the first binder of Yoon according to the teachings of Zhang.
Applicant argues that the modification of the second binder of Yoon according to the teachings of Zhang is the obvious modification. However, the examiner disagrees because the second binder of Yoon is taught to be between clustered composites of the active material particles in the electrode composition, which serves a fundamentally different purpose than the interparticle adhesion between primary particles the polymer binder of Zhang provides. Thus, the ordinary artisan would not find it obvious to perform this modification argued by applicant.
Applicant's arguments filed on January 5th, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-13 of the remarks, applicant argues that because the combination of Yoon and Zhang does not result in a configuration in which the first binder is a fiberized binder, it is not possible to prevent sintering and agglomeration of metal powers to obtain a cluster composite having a uniform particle size (D50) distribution, or to provide excellent capacity retention. Applicant argues that the applied references do not render obvious the D50 range of the cluster composite because it does not teach the effects (1-3 on page 13) ties to the claimed configuration provided in the instant disclosure.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the structure of claim 1 is taught as argued above, a proper obviousness rejection was set forth for claim 1 over Yoon in view of Zhang. Therefore, Song does cure the deficiency Yoon relating to particle size as Song teaches a particle size (D50) of the electrode material which overlaps the instant claimed range for the advantage of preventing slurry agglomeration and current collector scratches, as outlined in the rejection of claim 2 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed October 8th, 2025.
In response to applicant’s argument that the particle size limitation of the claimed fiberized first binder configuration resulting in:
the prevention of sintering and agglomeration of particles
uniform particle size (D50) distribution
excellent capacity retention
is not taught by the prior art, the Examiner presents, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As described above, Song provided rationale that motivated the modification of the particle size (D50) of Yoon to a range which overlapped that of the instant claim and established prima facie obviousness.
Applicant's arguments filed on January 5th, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 6 and 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-13 of the remarks, applicant argues that the differences in effects of the configuration of the binder as a fiberized polymer instead of a particle are consistent with non-routine behavior arising from the specific configuration.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the prior art of record, as discussed above, teaches the specific configuration, namely the fiberized first binder in the cluster composite, therefore the arguments directed to the effects resulting from the specific configuration of the first binder are realized by the prior art of record.
Applicant's arguments filed on January 5th, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 14 of the remarks, applicant argues that because Yoon in view of Zhang does not teach the structure of claim 1 directed to the fiberized first binder, the size of the secondary and primary particles are not derivable from the prior art of the record for the independent claim. Thus, applicant argues that Shi does not cure the deficiency because the prior art does not provide the missing configuration in which the first binder connects primary particles in the manner required.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents that the structure of claim 1 is taught as argued above, a proper obviousness rejection was set forth for claim 1 over Yoon in view of Zhang. Therefore, Shi does cure the deficiency as Shi teaches a size of the electrode material which overlaps the instant claimed range for the advantage of preventing slurry agglomeration and current collector scratches, as outlined in the rejection of claim 2 set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed October 8th, 2025.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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