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
The examiner acknowledges the amendments filed 11/21/2025. The amendments do not overcome the rejection as set forth in non-final office action mailed 08/22/2025, see rejection 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.
Claims 1,2,5-8,10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160268571-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’, in view of (US-20240010826-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ikeda’ in further view of (US-20200343580-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yushin’.
Regarding Claim 1,
Honda teaches an insulating slurry, comprising a resin, an inorganic filler, and an organic solvent (Honda, “Each of the organic binder and the inorganic filler is dispersed, suspended, or emulsified in a solvent in a solid state, whereby a slurry is prepared”, see [0088]),
, and the inorganic filler is a two-dimensional inorganic material; and optionally, the two-dimensional inorganic material has a layered, flake-like, or thin plate-like morphology (Honda, “In the invention, the inorganic filler is not particularly limited as long as it is stable with respect to an electrolyte and also is electrochemically stable. Specific examples thereof include metal hydroxides such as aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, chromium hydroxide, zirconium hydroxide, cerium hydroxide, nickel hydroxide, and boron hydroxide; metal oxides such as alumina, zirconia, and magnesium oxide; carbonate salts such as calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate; sulfate salts such as barium sulfate and calcium sulfate; and clay minerals such as calcium silicate and talc”, see [0058]).
Does not teach wherein the resin is selected from polyfluorinated olefin resins prepared by using a suspension polymerization method.
Ikeda teaches a resin is selected from polyfluorinated olefin resins (Ikeda, “vinylidene fluoride polymer”, Abstract) prepared by using a suspension polymerization method (Ikeda, “Furthermore, an untreated vinylidene fluoride polymer prepared by a method, such as suspension polymerization, emulsion polymerization, solution polymerization, or microsuspension”, see [0077]).
Ikeda teaches that this allows for a resin that is difficult to swell and can form a smooth surface (Ikeda, “An objective is to provide a vinylidene fluoride polymer composition that is difficult to swell and dissolve in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and can form an electrode with a smooth surface”, see Abstract).
Modified Honda and Ikeda are analogous as they are both of the field of batteries.
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 resin as taught in Honda with the resin as taught in Ikeda in order to a reduce swelling of the cell and create a smoother surface.
Modified Honda does not teach a diameter thickness ratio of the two-dimensional inorganic material is greater than or equal to 30:1.
Yushin teaches a diameter thickness ratio of the two-dimensional inorganic material is greater than or equal to 30:1 (Yushin, “In some designs , inorganic material(s) may comprise 75-100% of the suitable separator membrane. In some designs, the separator membrane layer(s) may advantageously comprise elongated particles (such as nanowires, whiskers, nanofibers, fibers, nanotubes, flakes, etc, with high aspect ratios …even more preferably above around 30)…)”, see [0153]) (the examiner notes that aspect ratio is analogous to the ratio between the diameter and thickness) .
Yushin teaches that these designs for inorganic flakes all for higher porosity and increased ionic conductivity (Yushin, “In some designs, in such high aspect ratio, elongated (in two or preferably in one dimension) particles may be used to achieve high porosity of the membrane and thus increase its ionic conductivity when fully filled with the electrolyte.”, see [0153]).
Modified Honda and Yushin are analogous as they are both of the same field of batteries and layers on top of the cathode.
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 inorganic particles as taught in Modified Honda to have the diameter-thickness ratio of greater than 30 in order to improve the porosity and improve ionic conductivity.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Honda teaches the insulating slurry according to claim 1, wherein based on a total mass of the insulating slurry, a mass percentage w% of the resin is 1%-5% (Honda, “The content of the organic binder in the slurry is preferably from 1 to 10 mass %.”, see [0088]), a mass percentage w2 of the inorganic filler is 5%-35% (Honda, “The content of the inorganic filler in the slurry is preferably from 4 to 50 mass %.”, see [0089]), and a mass percentage w3 of the organic solvent is 60%-94% (The examiner notes that considering the resin and filler the solvent will be the difference. Therefore, ranging from 94% to 15%); and optionally, wl/w2 is 0.05-1.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1 to 10 mass %, 4 to 50 mass %, and 94 to 15 mass % broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1%-5%, 5%-35%, and 60%-94% . Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Honda teaches the insulating slurry according to claim 4, wherein the resin is selected from at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride resin, polyvinyl fluoride resin, polytetrafluoroethylene resin, vinylidene fluoride-hexafluoropropylene copolymer resin, vinylidene fluoride-trifluoroethylene copolymer resin, vinylidene fluoride- chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer resin, vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer resin, and vinylidene fluoride-tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer resin (Ikeda, “An objective is to provide a vinylidene fluoride polymer composition”, see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Honda teaches the insulating slurry according to claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional inorganic material is selected from at least one of layered silicate and a two-dimensional molecular sieve; optionally, the layered silicate comprises at least one of mica powder, fluorophlogopite powder, talc powder, hydrotalcite, and a hydrotalcite-like compound; and optionally, the two-dimensional molecular sieve comprises at least one of an MWW-type, an SAPO-type, an FER-type, and a PLS-n-type molecular sieve (Honda, “In the invention, the inorganic filler is not particularly limited as long as it is stable with respect to an electrolyte and also is electrochemically stable. Specific examples thereof include metal hydroxides such as aluminum hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, chromium hydroxide, zirconium hydroxide, cerium hydroxide, nickel hydroxide, and boron hydroxide; metal oxides such as alumina, zirconia, and magnesium oxide; carbonate salts such as calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate; sulfate salts such as barium sulfate and calcium sulfate; and clay minerals such as calcium silicate and talc”, see [0058]).
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Honda teaches the insulating slurry according to claim 1, wherein a median particle size by volume D50 of the two-dimensional inorganic material is 0.5-10 µm; (Honda, “The particle size distribution of the inorganic filler is preferably 0.1<d90-d10<3 μm.”, see [0060]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1 to 3 μm broadly overlaps the claimed range 0.5-10 µm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Honda teaches the insulating slurry according to claim 1, wherein the organic solvent comprises at least one of N-methylpyrrolidone, triethyl phosphate, dimethyl sulfoxide, N,N-dimethylformamide, and N,N-dimethylacetamide (Honda, “solvents such as acetone, tetrahydrofuran, methyl ethyl ketone, ethyl acetate, N-methylpyrrolidone, dimethylacetamide, dimethylformamide, and dimethylformamid”, see [0088]).
Regarding Claim 10,
Honda teaches a preparation method of insulating slurry, comprising: dispersing an organic solvent and an inorganic filler to obtain a first slurry; and adding resin particles to the obtained first slurry in a dispersed state, and obtaining the insulating slurry after dispersion (Honda, “Each of the organic binder and the inorganic filler is dispersed, suspended, or emulsified in a solvent in a solid state,”, see [0088]); wherein the inorganic filler is a two-dimensional inorganic material Honda, “In the invention, the inorganic filler is not particularly limited as long as it is stable with respect to an electrolyte and also is electrochemically stable. Specific examples thereof include…calcium silicate and talc”, see [0058]).,
Honda does not teach the resin particles are selected from polyfluorinated olefin resins prepared by using a suspension polymerization method.
Ikeda teaches a resin is selected from polyfluorinated olefin resins (Ikeda, “vinylidene fluoride polymer”, Abstract) prepared by using a suspension polymerization method (Ikeda, “Furthermore, an untreated vinylidene fluoride polymer prepared by a method, such as suspension polymerization, emulsion polymerization, solution polymerization, or microsuspension”, see [0077]).
Ikeda teaches that this allows for a resin that is difficult to swell and can form a smooth surface (Ikeda, “An objective is to provide a vinylidene fluoride polymer composition that is difficult to swell and dissolve in N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and can form an electrode with a smooth surface”, see Abstract).
Modified Honda and Ikeda are analogous as they are both of the field of batteries.
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 resin as taught in Honda with the resin as taught in Ikeda in order to a reduce swelling of the cell and create a smoother surface.
Modified Honda does not teach a diameter thickness ratio of the two-dimensional inorganic material is greater than or equal to 30:1.
Yushin teaches a diameter thickness ratio of the two-dimensional inorganic material is greater than or equal to 30:1 (Yushin, “In some designs , inorganic material(s) may comprise 75-100% of the suitable separator membrane. In some designs, the separator membrane layer(s) may advantageously comprise elongated particles (such as nanowires, whiskers, nanofibers, fibers, nanotubes, flakes, etc, with high aspect ratios…. even more preferably above around 30)…)”, see [0153]) .
Yushin teaches that these designs for inorganic flakes all for higher porosity and increased ionic conductivity (Yushin, “In some designs, in such high aspect ratio, elongated (in two or preferably in one dimension) particles may be used to achieve high porosity of the membrane and thus increase its ionic conductivity when fully filled with the electrolyte.”, see [0153]).
Modified Honda and Yushin are analogous as they are both of the same field of batteries and layers on top of the cathode.
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 inorganic particles as taught in Modified Honda to have the diameter-thickness ratio of greater than 30 in order to improve the porosity and improve ionic conductivity.
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Honda teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein based on a total mass of the insulating slurry, a mass percentage of the resin particles is 1%-5% Honda, “The content of the organic binder in the slurry is preferably from 1 to 10 mass %.”, see [0088]), a mass percentage of the inorganic filler is 5%-35% % (Honda, “The content of the inorganic filler in the slurry is preferably from 4 to 50 mass %.”, see [0089]), and a mass percentage of the organic solvent is 60%- 94% (The examiner notes that considering the resin and filler the solvent will be the difference. Therefore, ranging from 94% to 15%);
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1 to 10 mass %, 4 to 50 mass %, and 94 to 15 mass % broadly overlaps the claimed range of 1%-5%, 5%-35%, and 60%-94% . Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160268571-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’, in view of (US-20240010826-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ikeda’, in view of (US-20200343580-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yushin’, in further view of (US-20220372308-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Amin-Sanayei’
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Honda does not teach the insulating slurry according to claim 1, wherein viscosity of the insulating slurry at 250C is 1000-20000 cps.
Amin-Sanayei teaches a wherein viscosity of the insulating slurry at 25 C is 1000-20000 cps (“In addition, the slurry must be castable meaning the solution viscosity of the slurry is less than 20,000 cP at room temperature, preferably less than 10,000 cp.”, see [0011]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of is less than 20,000 cP broadly overlaps the claimed range 1000-20000 cps. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Amin-Sanayei teaches that this allows the slurry to be cast well(“In addition, the slurry must be castable meaning the solution viscosity of the slurry is less than 20,000 cP at room temperature, preferably less than 10,000 cp.”, see [0011]).
Modified Honda and Amin-Sanayei are analogous as they are both of the field of batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the viscosity of the slurry to be within the claimed range in order to be low enough to be castable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160268571-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’, in view of (US-20240010826-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ikeda’, in view of (US-20200343580-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yushin’, in further view of ‘Effect of poly(vinylidene fluoride) binder crystallinity and graphite structure on the mechanical strength of the composite anode in a lithium-ion battery’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Yoo’
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Honda teaches the insulating slurry according to claim 1, wherein a number-average molecular weight of the resin is 600000-1500000 (Ikeda, “where, the weight average molecular weight of the vinylidene fluoride polymer is preferably from 100000 to 10000000, more preferably from 200000 to 5000000, and even more preferably from 300000 to 2000000. The weight average molecular weight is a value measured by gel”, see [0054]);
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 100000 to 10000000 broadly overlaps the claimed range 600000-1500000. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Honda does not teach were crystallinity of the resin is 30%-60%; and/or a melting point of the resin is 150-1800C.
Yoo teaches where crystallinity of the resin is 30%-60% (see Fig.2(b))
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 25-50% broadly overlaps the claimed range 30%-60% Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Yoo teaches that higher crystallinity leads to higher adhesion strength. (Yoo, “In all cases, the occurrence of a crystalline structure leads to a higher adhesion strength.”, see Results and Discussion).
Modified Honda and Yoo are analogous as they are both of the field of batteries and battery coatings.
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 crystallinity of the polymer in order to lead to higher adhesion strength and in turn greater bonding of the coating layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160268571-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’, in view of (US-20240010826-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ikeda’, in view of (US-20200343580-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yushin’, in further view of (US-20230331976-A1) hereinafter referred to as Shintani.
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Honda does not teach the insulating slurry according to claim 1, wherein a mass percentage of an emulsifier in the insulating slurry is less than or equal to 1/1000000.
Shintani teaches yhe insulating slurry according to claim 1, wherein a mass percentage of an emulsifier in the insulating slurry is small (Shintani, “On the other hand, when the content of the emulsifier is 5 parts by mass or less per 100 parts by mass of the binder, adhesiveness of a functional layer can be sufficiently improved.”, see [0104]) (The examiner notes that 0 falls within the claimed range, so an emulsion free process would also cover the claimed range)
Shintani teaches that this can improve the adhesiveness of the resultant layer of the composition.
Modified Honda and Shintani are analogous as they are both of the field of batteries and battery coatings.
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 emulsifier concentration has taught in Honda to be less than 5 part by mass in order to improve the adhesiveness, as a matter of routine optimization through experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160268571-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’, in view of (US-20240010826-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ikeda’ , in view of (US-20200343580-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yushin’, in view of (US-20200194775-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kazuteru’ in further view of ‘Effects of particle dispersion and slurry preparation protocol on electrochemical performance of capacitive flowable electrodes’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Akuzum’
Regarding Claim 12,
Honda does not teach the method according to claim 10, wherein in the dispersing step, a dispersion linear velocity is 20-100 m/s, and dispersion time is 15-120 min; and/or in the adding step, a dispersion linear velocity is 20-100 m/s, and dispersion time is 120-480 min.
Kazuteru teaches wherein in the dispersing step, a dispersion linear velocity is 20-100 m/s (Kazuteru, “a peripheral velocity for dispersion of 1 m/s or faster and 50 m/s or slower is preferred”, see [0170]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1 m/s or faster and 50 m/s broadly overlaps the claimed range of 20-100 m/s. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Kazuteru teaches that this allows for materials to be dissolved without them being damaged from shear forces (Kazuteru, “When a peripheral velocity is 1 m/s or faster, various materials can be moderately dissolved or dispersed, which is favorable. The peripheral velocity of 50 m/s or slower is preferred because various materials are not broken down by heat or shear force during dispersion and reaggregation does not take place.”, see [0170])
Honda and Kazuteru are analogous as they are both from the field of battery materials.
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 speed in the process as taught in Honda to the speed as taught in Kazuteru in order to improve dispersion while preventing degredation.
Modified Honda does not teach dispersion time is 15-120 min;
Akuzum teaches a dispersion time is 15-120 min (Akuzum, “whereas 15 min of mixing showed almost doubled capacity with 49.5 F g−1”, see Results and Discussion) ;
Akuzum teaches that a higher mixing time for the slurry introduces shear mixing while producing a better inter-particle network (Akuzum, “These results suggest that introduction of shear mixing could have helped produce a better inter-particle network inside the slurry”, see 3.3 Effect of shear mixing on non-additive flowable electrodes)
Modified Honda and Akuzum are analogous as they are both from the same field of battery materials.
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 mixing time to be within the range of Akuzum in order to introduce shear mixing and therefore allow for improve interconnection of the components of the mixture.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160268571-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’, in view of (US-20240010826-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ikeda’, in view of (US-20200343580-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yushin’, in further view of (US-20150200395-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Stevanovic’
Regarding Claim 13,
Modified Honda does not teach wherein the method further comprises: filtering the obtained insulating slurry
Stevanovic teaches wherein the method further comprises: filtering the obtained insulating slurry.( Stevanovic, “ The milled premix is then sent to a filter (110) to remove larger particles present in the premix.”, see [0029])
Stevanovic teaches that this allows for the removal of large particles which might not be desired. ( Stevanovic, “ The milled premix is then sent to a filter (110) to remove larger particles present in the premix.”, see [0029])
Modified Honda and Stevanovic are analogous as they both relate to the field of slurry compositions for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the filtering step to the process described by Honda in order to remove unwanted particles from the slurry composition.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160268571-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’, in view of (US-20240010826-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ikeda’, in view of (US-20200343580-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yushin’, in further view of (US-20210210783-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nagasawa’
Regarding Claim 14,
Modified Honda does not teach the method according to claim 10, wherein the resin particles are primary particles, and a median particle size by volume Dv50 of the primary particles is 20-150 um.
Nagasawa teaches wherein the resin particles are primary particles, and a median particle size by volume Dv50 of the primary particles is 20-150 um (Nagasawa, “. In this case, the average particle size (average primary particle size) is preferably from 10 nm to 700 μm,”, see [0035]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 10 nm to 700 μm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 20-150 μms. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Nagasawa teaches that this is the ideal particle size for a situation in which the resin is dispersed in a dispersion medium (Nagasawa, “the average particle size can be selected as appropriate depending on the application of the resin composition for a secondary battery…here the resin composition for a secondary battery contains a dispersion medium and the vinylidene fluoride copolymer is dispersed in the dispersion medium, the vinylidene fluoride copolymer is mainly a primary particle”, see [0035])
Modified Honda and Nagasawa are analogous as they are both of the same field of battery materials and resins.
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 of the resin as taught in Honda to the particle size as taught in Nagasawa in order to better suit to dispersion in a medium and allow for better mixing.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20160268571-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Honda’, in view of (US-20240010826-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Ikeda’, in view of (US-20200343580-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Yushin’, in further view of (US-20210159505-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Kato’
Regarding Claim 15,
Modified Honda teaches herein the insulating coating is a layer formed by drying the insulating slurry according to claim 1.
Modified Honda does not teach a positive electrode comprising: a positive electrode current collector a positive electrode active material layer, located on at least part of a surface of the positive electrode current collector and an insulating coating, located on the surface of the positive electrode current collector and abutting an edge of the positive electrode active material layer along a length direction of the positive electrode current collector wherein the insulating coating is a layer formed by drying the insulating slurry according to claim 1.
Kato teaches a positive electrode plate (Kato, positive electrode, 30, Fig. 2) comprising: a positive electrode current collector (Kato, current collector, 32, Fig. 4); a positive electrode active material layer, located on at least part of a surface of the positive electrode current collector (Kato, active material layer, 34, Fig. 4); and an insulating coating, located on the surface of the positive electrode current collector and abutting an edge of the positive electrode active material layer along a length direction of the positive electrode current collector (Kato, insulating layer, 36a, see [0029]), wherein the insulating coating is a layer formed by drying the insulating slurry according to claim 1.
Kato teaches that the insultating layer allows for the prevention of short circuit of the positive electrode (Kato, “Accordingly, it is possible to suppress a short circuit due to decomposition of the positive electrode active material layer, and to appropriately dispose the insulating layer at the position where the short circuit between the positive electrode and the negative electrode is likely to occur”, see [0008])
Modified Honda and Kato are analogous as they are both of the field of batteries and battery coatings.
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 layer in Honda to be applied to a positive electrode in order to reduce the risk of short circuit of the positive electrode.
Regarding Claim 16,
Modified Honda teaches the positive electrode plate according to claim 15, wherein a thickness of the insulating coating is 2-150 um (Kato, “From the viewpoint as described above, the thickness of the insulating layer 36 may be typically 20 μm or smaller, for example, 18 μm or smaller, 15 μm or smaller, or 10 μm or smaller (for example, less than 10 μm), or may be 8 μm or smaller. ”, see [0039]); and/or a width of the insulating coating is 0.1-15 mm (Kato, “the width Le may be approximately 10 μm or larger, typically 20 to 10000 μm, for example, 30 to 5000 μm, or 50 to 500 μm.”, see [0029]).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 20 μm or smaller broadly overlaps the claimed range of 2-150 μms. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.02 to 10 mm broadly overlaps the claimed range of 0.1-15 mm. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17,
Modified Honda teaches a secondary battery, comprising the positive electrode plate according to claim 15 (Kato, secondary battery, 1, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18,
Modified Honda teaches a battery module, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 17 (The examiner notes that it would be obvious to duplicate secondary battery into a battery module comprised of several secondary batteries as a duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B))
Regarding Claim 19,
Modified Honda teaches a battery pack, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 17. (The examiner notes that it would be obvious to duplicate the battery module into a battery pack as a duplication of parts see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B))
Regarding Claim 20,
Modified Honda teaches an electric apparatus, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 17 (Kato, “The non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery has a high energy density with a lightweight, and thus is preferably used as a portable power supply, a high output power supply mounted on a vehicle,”, see [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 9, the applicant states:
“Specifically, neither Honda nor Ikeda discloses, teaches or suggests a diameter-thickness ratio of the inorganic particles, let alone the ratio being greater than or equal to 30:1.”
The examiner finds this convincing, and has added to the record Yushin, which teaches a solution with a flake-like morphology inorganic material with a ratio of greater than 30 to 1 (Yushin, see [0152]).
On pg. 9, the applicant states,
“Furthermore, the applicant respectfully submits that an insulating slurry, comprising a resin and an organic filler… as recited in claim 1 of the present application, has unexpected results over Honda or Ikeda… ”
However, this is not convincing. The MPEP states that greater than expected result are evidence of non-obviousness and states that, “However, a greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage.” (see MPEP 716.02(a)(I)) (Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991). Therefore, in order to demonstrate non-obviousness, the applicant must demonstrate that the results are greater than would have been expected from the prior art. Honda teaches Talc powder, which the applicant admits is flake like, and Honda teaches it suppresses the generation of gas (Honda, “ Among the fillers described above, from the viewpoint of suppressing the reaction with the electrolyte and preventing the generation of a gas.”, see [0058]). Ikeda teaches a PVDF composition that does not readily swell and is prepared through suspension polymerization (Ikeda, see [0034], [0077]). Honda and Ikeda demonstrate the benefits of suspension polymerization and of using Talc powder. Therefore, the results as shown in Table 1 of the instant application would not be unexpected, but would rather be an expected result of known elements in the prior art. Further, the examiner notes that manufacturing through suspension polymerization is a product-by-process limitation. Suspension polymerization was considered and given weight with the production of PVDF, but, ultimately, patentability is dependent on the product, not method, which is taught through Honda, Ikeda, and other references above (see MPEP 2113 (I)).
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752