DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Claim Status
The amendment filed 3 November 2025 has been entered. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3–14 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there appears to be an error in the x-axis of FIG. 5, specifically “300” should read “1300”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “and includes dehydrated polyvinyl alcohol” should instead read “and includes polyvinyl alcohol that is dehydrated” to avoid antecedent basis issues in dependent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 3 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 (p. 9–14 of Remarks) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matsuoka and Sau as set forth below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4–6, and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (US 2020/0411842 A1) in view of Sau et al. (Sau, S.; Pandit, S.; Kundu, S. Crosslinked poly(vinyl alcohol): Structural, optical and mechanical properties, Surfaces and Interfaces 25, article 101198, available 18 May 2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuoka discloses an electrode (see positive electrode 11, [0017], FIG. 1) for a lithium secondary battery (see nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery 10, [0017], FIG. 1) comprising:
an electrode current collector (see positive electrode current collector, [0022]);
an electrode active material layer (see positive electrode mixture layer, [0022]) which is formed on at least one surface of the electrode current collector ([0022]) and includes an electrode active material (see positive electrode active material, [0023]); and
a polymer coating (see polyvinyl alcohol, [0022]) which is formed on at least a portion of a surface of the electrode active material and at least a portion of a surface of the electrode active material layer (one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that polyvinyl alcohol, disclosed in [0034] to function as a binder and in [0022] and [0034] to be included in the positive electrode active material layer, will necessarily coat a surface of the electrode active material, and thus also a surface of the electrode active material layer since coated electrode active material will necessarily be present at the surface of the layer) and includes polyvinyl alcohol.
Matsuoka does not explicitly disclose that the polyvinyl alcohol is dehydrated, but does disclose a step of drying the electrode active material layer containing the polyvinyl alcohol once it is coated on the electrode current collector ([0022]). Matsuoka also discloses ([0041]) that the function of PVA is to act as a binder and enhance adhesion among the components of the positive electrode. Note that Matsuoka is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same fields of lithium secondary batteries and polyvinyl alcohol-based polymers.
Sau teaches (p. 2 ¶ “In this article…”) the effect of heat treatment on the properties of polyvinyl alcohol. Sau teaches (p. 9 ¶ “Thus, from all…”, e.g. FIG. 7) that heat treatment of polyvinyl alcohol films at 140 °C results in dehydration of the polyvinyl alcohol, which then exhibits improved mechanical properties such as toughness and tensile strength in comparison to untreated polyvinyl alcohol. Note that Sau is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of polyvinyl alcohol-based polymers.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Matsuoka such that the polymer coating including polyvinyl alcohol is dehydrated via heat treatment at 140 °C as taught by Sau, for the purpose of improving its mechanical properties such as toughness and tensile strength.
Modified Matsuoka does not explicitly disclose wherein the dehydrated polyvinyl alcohol satisfies Equation 1 below:
[Equation 1]
0.5 ≤ Ib/Ia ≤ 2.5
wherein in Equation 1, Ia is an intensity of a first peak appearing in a range of 1300 to 1350 cm−1 in Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) spectrum of the polyvinyl alcohol, and Ib is an intensity of a second peak appearing in a range of 1550 to 1600 cm−1 in the Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy spectrum of the polyvinyl alcohol. However, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the instant polymer coating.
Applicant discloses ([0076]) that the polyvinyl alcohol may be dehydrated to satisfy the claimed IR spectral intensity ratio range by performing high temperature heat treatment, for example at temperatures from 120 to 250 °C. Furthermore, Applicant discloses ([0134], Table 1) that polymer coating examples A-1, A-3, A-4, and A-5 had polyvinyl alcohol Ib/Ia values which satisfied Equation 1 after heat treatment at temperatures of 120 °C, 140 °C, 160 °C, and 180 °C, respectively.
It can be reasonably interpreted, given the above, that the polyvinyl alcohol satisfying Equation 1 is a result of performing dehydration of the polyvinyl alcohol via high temperature heat treatment in a temperature range from 120 °C to 250 °C, and preferably 120 °C to 180 °C.
In comparison, as set forth above, modified Matsuoka discloses (Sau p. 9 ¶ “Thus, from all…”) heat treatment and dehydration of polyvinyl alcohol at a temperature of 140 °C.
MPEP § 21101.I states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
It is submitted that the polymer coating of modified Matsuoka is substantially identical to the polymer coating of the Instant Application, as set forth above, such that it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus anticipate the claimed limitation, i.e. that the dehydrated polyvinyl alcohol satisfies Equation 1.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not inherent, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed polymer coating and that of modified Matsuoka are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the Instant Specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the polymer coating of modified Matsuoka and that of the Instant Application to be obvious variants of one another.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the polyvinyl alcohol has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 50,000 Da to 2,000,000 Da.
However, Matsuoka does disclose ([0043]) that the degree of polymerization of polyvinyl alcohol is 50 to 4,000, which corresponds to a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 2,205 Da to 176,200 Da (calculated by multiplying each end point of the range by 44.05 Da, which is the molecular weight of a single repeating unit of polyvinyl alcohol) and overlaps the claimed range. Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Matsuoka discloses ([0043]) that when the degree of polymerization is within this range, preparation of the electrode mixture slurry is facilitated, and good adhesion to the electrode active material and conductive agent is easily obtained.
Thus in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness set forth above, it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the weight average molecular weight (Mw) of polyvinyl alcohol with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in facilitated preparation of the electrode mixture slurry and easily obtained good adhesion to the electrode active material and conductive agent.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Matsuoka further discloses ([0042]) wherein the polyvinyl alcohol has a degree of saponification of 60 to 70 mol%.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Matsuoka further discloses ([0044]) wherein a content of the polymer coating is 0.01 to 1 parts by weight based on a total 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material layer.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 1. As set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Matsuoka discloses wherein the polymer coating is formed on both the surface of the electrode active material and the surface of the electrode active material layer (one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that polyvinyl alcohol, disclosed in [0034] to function as a binder and in [0022] and [0034] to be included in the positive electrode active material layer, will necessarily coat a surface of the electrode active material, and thus also a surface of the electrode active material layer since coated electrode active material will necessarily be present at the surface of the layer).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 1. As set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Matsuoka discloses wherein the electrode for a lithium secondary battery is a cathode (see positive electrode 11, [0017], FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 1. Modified Matsuoka further discloses a lithium secondary battery (see nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery 10, Matsuoka [0017], FIG. 1) comprising:
a cathode (see positive electrode 11, [0017], FIG. 1); and
an anode (see negative electrode 12, [0017], FIG. 1) disposed to face the cathode ([0017], FIG. 1),
wherein the cathode is the electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to Claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (US 2020/0411842 A1) in view of Sau et al. (Sau, S.; Pandit, S.; Kundu, S. Crosslinked poly(vinyl alcohol): Structural, optical and mechanical properties, Surfaces and Interfaces 25, article 101198, available 18 May 2021) as applied to Claim 1 above, as evidenced by Kuraray (Kuraray. “Basic Physical Properties of PVOH Resin”, p. 1–56, https://www.kuraray-poval.com/fileadmin/technical_information/brochures/poval/kuraray_poval_basic_physical_properties_web.pdf, January 2025).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the polyvinyl alcohol comprises at least one of structural units represented by Formulas 1 to 5 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
540
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, in Formulas 1 to 5, * is a bond, and n is an integer of 1 to 100,000.
However, it is well-known in the field of polyvinyl alcohol that 1,2-glycol bonds are present in polyvinyl alcohol, which are formed from head-to-tail–tail-to-head polymerization of vinyl acetate, as evidenced by Kuraray (p. 10, ¶ beginning “Additionally, 1,2-glycol bond…”). One of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the product of tail-to-head–head-to-tail polymerization in the polymer chain will necessarily be followed by the product of head-to-tail–tail-to-head polymerization, thus forming the structural unit *—CHOH—CH2—CH2—CHOH—* (such a moiety is shown in Kuraray FIG. 19). In the case that the *—CHOH—CH2—CH2—CHOH—* structural unit is formed at the starting or terminal end of the polymer, i.e. such that the structural unit present at one of the ends of the final polymer is *—CHOH—CH2—CH2—CH2OH, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that dehydration of the polymer (which occurs for the electrode of modified Matsuoka as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above) could result in elimination of one equivalent of water across the final two carbons of the polymer, thus forming the structural unit *—CHOH—CH2—CH=CH2, which matches that shown in Formula 1 where n is the integer 1.
Claims 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (US 2020/0411842 A1) in view of Sau et al. (Sau, S.; Pandit, S.; Kundu, S. Crosslinked poly(vinyl alcohol): Structural, optical and mechanical properties, Surfaces and Interfaces 25, article 101198, available 18 May 2021) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (KR 2019/0085355 A1; see attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the polymer coating further comprises a lithium salt.
Choi teaches an electrode (see negative electrode, [0019]) for a lithium secondary battery (see lithium secondary battery, [0019]) comprising: an electrode current collector (see current collector, [0019]); an electrode active material layer (see negative electrode active material layer, [0019]) which is formed on at least one surface of the electrode current collector and includes an electrode active material (see Si-based negative electrode active material, [0019]); and a polymer coating (see ion conductive polymer, [0019]) which is formed on at least a portion of a surface of the electrode active material layer ([0019] and FIG. 1). Choi teaches that including a lithium salt (see lithium salt, [0019]) in the polymer coating improves its ion conductivity ([0026]). Note that Choi is analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of lithium secondary batteries.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of modified Matsuoka such that the polymer coating further comprises a lithium salt as taught by Choi, for the purpose of improving its ion conductivity.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 7. Modified Matsuoka further discloses (Choi [0030]) wherein the lithium salt includes at least one selected from the group consisting of LiPF6, LiBF4, LiAsF6, LiClO4, LiCF3SO3, LiN(SO2CF3)2, LiN(SO2C2F5)2, LiC(SO2CF3)3 (note that although Choi lists this compound as LiCH(SO2CF3)3, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the “H” is likely a typo).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 7. Modified Matsuoka further discloses wherein the content of the lithium salt is approximately 17 to 33% by weight based on a total weight of the polymer coating, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 to 30%, by teaching (Choi [0031]) that the mixing ratio of polymer to lithium salt in the coating may be 5:1 to 2:1 (as an example calculation: in the case that the mixing ratio of polymer to lithium salt is 5:1, the total weight of the polymer coating is considered to be 5 + 1 = 6, and therefore the polymer coating will have a content of lithium salt of 1/6 or approximately 17%). Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Choi teaches ([0031]) that when the content of lithium salt is outside the range of approximately 17 to 33%, the ion conductivity decreases and is not suitable.
Thus in addition to the prima facie case of obviousness set forth above, it would have further been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the overlapping portion of the ranges for the content of lithium salt by weight based on a total weight of the polymer coating, with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a suitably increased ion conductivity.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the polymer coating has a lithium ion conductivity of 1 × 10−5 S/cm to 1.5 S/cm and an electronic conductivity of 1 × 10−5 S/cm or less. However, it is submitted that such limitations are simply measurements of, and thus descriptions of, inherent properties of the instant polymer coating.
Applicant discloses ([0066]–[0069]) that lithium ion conductivity and electronic conductivity depend on: the content of the lithium salt based on the total weight of the polymer coating, and that a high lithium ion conductivity and low electronic conductivity can be achieved when the content of the lithium salt is 0.5 to 30 wt. % based on the total weight of the polymer coating. Applicant discloses ([0066]–[0069]) that a suitable high lithium ion conductivity lies with the range of 1 × 10−5 S/cm to 1.5 S/cm, while a suitable low electronic conductivity lies within the range of 1 × 10−5 S/cm or less.
In comparison, modified Matsuoka discloses a polymer coating comprising a lithium salt. Modified Matsuoka further discloses wherein the content of the lithium salt is approximately 17 to 33% based on a total weight of the polymer coating, by teaching (Choi [0031]) that the mixing ratio of polymer to lithium salt in the coating may be 5:1 to 2:1 (as an example calculation: in the case that the mixing ratio of polymer to lithium salt is 5:1, the total weight of the polymer coating is considered to be 5 + 1 = 6, and therefore the polymer coating will have a content of lithium salt of 1/6 or approximately 17%). Note that when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05.I). Choi teaches ([0031]) that when the content of lithium salt is outside the range of approximately 17 to 33%, the ion conductivity decreases and is not suitable. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have thus found it obvious to select the overlapping portions of the ranges for the content of lithium salt by weight based on a total weight of the polymer coating, with a reasonable expectation that such selection would successfully result in a polymer coating which has an increased and suitable ion conductivity.
MPEP § 2112.01.I states that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
It is submitted that the polymer coating of modified Matsuoka is substantially identical to the polymer coating of the Instant Application, as set forth above, such that it would inherently possess the same properties, exhibit the same results, and thus anticipate the claimed limitation, i.e. wherein the polymer coating has a lithium ion conductivity of 1 × 10−5 S/cm to 1.5 S/cm and an electronic conductivity of 1 × 10−5 S/cm or less.
Assuming, arguendo, that the property recited in the claimed limitation is not inherent, as there is no evidence on the record that any differences between the instantly claimed polymer coating and that of modified Matsuoka are critical, and as the conditions of the prior art significantly overlap the relevant conditions disclosed in the Instant Specification, it is submitted that prior to the effective filing date, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the polymer coating of modified Matsuoka and that of the Instant Application to be obvious variants of one another.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al. (US 2020/0411842 A1) in view of Sau et al. (Sau, S.; Pandit, S.; Kundu, S. Crosslinked poly(vinyl alcohol): Structural, optical and mechanical properties, Surfaces and Interfaces 25, article 101198, available 18 May 2021) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Marks et al. (Marks, T.; Trussler, S.; Smith, A.J.; Xiong, D.; Dahn, J.R. A Guide to Li-Ion Coin-Cell Electrode Making for Academic Researchers, J. Electrochem. Soc. 150, p. A51–A57, published 29 November 2010).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Matsuoka discloses the electrode of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the polymer coating has a thickness of 1 nm to 1,000 nm.
Marks teaches electrodes (see high density, high capacity electrodes, p. A51 ¶ “This paper presents…”) for lithium secondary batteries (see Li-Ion Coin-Cell, p. A51 Title) comprising: an electrode current collector (see current collecting aluminum foil, p. A51 ¶ “Electrode slurries…”); an electrode active material layer (see electrode material, p. A52 ¶ “A Mitutoyo…”) which is formed on at least one surface of the electrode current collector and includes an electrode active material (see active material, p. A51 ¶ “Electrode slurries…”); and a polymer coating (see binder, p. A51 ¶ “Electrode slurries…”) which is formed on at least a portion of a surface of the electrode active material and a surface of the electrode active material layer (p. A54 ¶ “Figure 9 shows…” discloses that the binder (in this case PVDF) forms a layer that coats the active material, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the binder will also coat a surface of the electrode active material layer since the coated electrode active material will necessarily be present at the surface of the layer). Marks teaches that increasing the thickness of a polymer coating increases electrode impedance, while decreasing the thickness of the polymer coating can lead to compromised adhesion of the electrode active material to itself as well as the electrode current collector.
A result-effective variable is a variable which achieves a recognized result. The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable is routine experimentation and therefore obvious (MPEP § 2144.05.II). In the instant case, the polymer coating thickness is a variable that achieves the recognized result of affecting the electrode impedance and adhesion of the electrode active material to itself and the electrode current collector, as taught by Marks, thus making the polymer coating thickness a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of modified Matsuoka such that the polymer coating has a thickness of 1 nm to 1,000 nm via routine experimentation, for the purpose of achieving suitable levels of impedance and adhesion of the electrode active material to itself and the electrode current collector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725