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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the dispersants of Aotani are not HNBRs but amide-modified HNBRs, which are "completely different" (p. 6). However, the modifications of Aotani affect fewer than 1% of the nitrile groups (Aotani Table 1). The material must therefore still be considered to be HNBR.
Applicant contends that the dispersants of Aotani are included at values outside the range of amended claim 1 (p. 6). However, while Aotani give examples at 0.12 parts by weight, the teachings of Aotani are not limited to these examples. As indicated in the rejection, Aotani allows for dispersant contents at values that overlap the claimed range (Aotani [0169]).
Applicant contends that the rejection improperly relies on Aotani [0169] to teach the range of dispersant content, since that paragraph refers to a Copolymer I with a carbamoyl group and not HNBR (pp. 6-7). However, Aotani explicitly indicates that the HNBR dispersant is the copolymer in Table 1. In addition, the modified HNBR of Aotani does include a small number of carbamoyl groups (i.e. the substituted amide groups).
The rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aotani (US 2023/0250342 A1) in view of Li et al. ("Past and Present of LiFePO4: From Fundamental Research to Industrial Applications," Synergy 5(1), pp. 3-6, January 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Aotani discloses a positive electrode slurry composition (Aotani Examples 3-10 and 3-11) comprising a positive electrode active material (NMC), an HNBR dispersant (Dispersants 9 and 10), a binder (PVDF), a conductive material (8S MWCNTs), and a solvent (NMP) (Aotani [0295]-[0297] and Table 4). The dispersants have molecular weights of 50,000 and 20,000 g/mol, respectively (Aotani Table 1), each of which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Aotani does not teach that the positive electrode active material comprises lithium iron phosphate. Li teaches that lithium iron phosphate is cheaper, safer, and more durable than NMC cathode materials (Li first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to replace the NMC of Aotani with the lithium iron phosphate of Li in order to improve safety, durability, and cost.
Aotani teaches that the dispersant (i.e. Copolymer I) content of the active material layer should be 0.05-5 mass % (Aotani [0169]), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select any dispersant content within the range of modified Aotani, including values within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, modified Aotani teaches the use of LiFePO4 (Li first paragraph), which is Chemical Formula 1 for a=b=x=0, each of which falls within the ranges of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, the slurry has a solid content of 75 wt% (Aotani [0025]), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, the conductive material is 0.3 wt% of the solids in the slurry (Aotani Table 4), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, the binder is 1.5 wt% of the solids in the slurry (Aotani Table 4), which falls within the range of the instant claim.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aotani in view of LI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yun et al. (US 2017/0365858 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Aotani does not disclose a slurry viscosity. Yun teaches that the appropriate viscosity for a positive electrode material slurry comprising an active material, conductive agent, binder, and solvent (Yun Abstract) is 15,000-30,000 cp at room temperature to prevent loss of the material during coating or excessive thickness (Yun [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select a viscosity of 15,000-30,000 cp, which falls within the range of the instant claim, to prevent loss of the material during coating or excessive thickness.
Yun does not teach that viscosity is measured at 10-2 rpm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an appropriate rate, including 10-2 rpm, when performing the measurement. Alternatively, viscosity depends on shear rate, and shear rate at a given rotation rate depends on paddle/stirrer geometry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to select an appropriate paddle geometry to give the desired shear rate at any rotation rate, including 10-2 rpm.
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 JAMES A CORNO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights