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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-10 are rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20130260240 A1, “Lee”) in view of Koji et al. (JP 2010182460 A , “Koji”), Wang (10.3.2.2 Ammonium Polyphosphate…), Frayne (Frayne… 5.4.1 Polyacrylates) and evidenced by Rudin et al. (Rudin et al. Chapter 1 - Introductory Concepts and Definitions…). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a composite binder for a self-extinguishing lithium ion battery (see abstract “binder for a rechargeable battery” & see [0167] “lithium rechargeable battery” & see [0118] “composite multi-layered film”; see [0125] describes “inflammability”), wherein the composite binder is obtained by adding ammonium salt (see [1025] “ammonium salt”) and polymer into a solvent to prepare a mixed solution and then carrying out thermal treatment on the above mixed solution (see [0024] describes “solvent soluble polymer” & pyrolysis; see [0029] describes “uniformly distributed pores can be formed in an electrode by mixing the solvent-insoluble pore forming material with the solvent-soluble polymer and evenly stirring in preparing an electrode active material slurry” & pyrolysis which reads on thermal treatment); wherein the temperature of the thermal treatment is 80 °C (see [0110] “primary thermal treatment at a temperature of 80 to 120°C”). Lee discloses degree of polymerization and molecular weight (see [0026] describes “solvent-soluble polymer can be prepared by a variety of polymerization methods”; see [0063] “degree of polymerization may be lowered, and it is difficult to obtain a polymer having a desired molecular weight if the sum is less than 20 wt%”).
Lee discloses a range of 80 to 120°C, which overlaps with the claimed range of room temperature to 80°C. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Lee does not explicitly disclose ammonium polyphosphate nor polyacrylic acid, nor the average molecular weight of the polyacrylic acid is 450K-3000K.
Koji teaches ammonium polyphosphate (see [0041] “more specifically, the following agents can be used as thermal runaway mitigants”; see [0046] “ammonium polyphosphate”) & polyacrylic acid (see [0051] “synthetic polymer having hydrophilicity” & “polyacrylic acid”).
Lee and Koji are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries (see Koji Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “ammonium polyphosphate”, as suggested by Koji into the composite binder of Lee because Koji teaches ammonium polyphosphate is a “thermal runaway mitigation agent” (see [0041] & [0046]).
Koji teaches polyacrylic acid amongst a list of other polymers. KSR Rationale E states that it is obvious to choose "from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success". Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select polyacrylic acid from the list of possible polymers taught in Koji.
Koji teaches ammonium polyphosphate (see [0041] “more specifically, the following agents can be used as thermal runaway mitigants”; see [0046] “ammonium polyphosphate”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “ammonium polyphosphate”, as suggested by Koji into the composite binder of Lee because Koji teaches ammonium polyphosphate is a “thermal runaway mitigation agent”, see [0041] & [0046]).
Regarding the limitation the polymerization degree of the ammonium polyphosphate is 20-1500, Lee discloses “molecular weight” & “20 wt%” (see [0063]).
Rudin provides evidence “degree of polymerization refers to the number of repeating units in the polymer molecule” on P6 & Equation (1-2) & P7 describes “the relation between degree of polymerization and molecular weight, M, of the same macromolecule is given by M = (DP)Mo where Mo is the formula weight of the repeating unit” which describes the degree of polymerization (DP) is proportional to molecular weight.
Wang teaches chain length of ammonium polyphosphate (see P279 10.3.2.2 Ammonium polyphosphate (APP) & “chain length” & “can be greater than 1000” & describes thermally stable longer-chain APPS (n > 1000)).
Wang teaches a range of >1000, which overlaps with the claimed range of 20-1500. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that polymerization degree of ammonium phosphate is greater than 1000 as suggested by Wang (see P279) which overlaps the claimed range. Further, it would have been obvious to incorporate ammonium phosphate with a chain length greater than 1000 because Wang teaches doing so uses ammonium polyphosphate with longer-chain which is thermally stable as suggested by Wang (see P279).
Regarding the limitation the average molecular weight of the polyacrylic acid is 450K-3000K, Lee does not explicitly disclose.
Frayne teaches average MW of polyacrylic acid (see P155 “polyacrylates/polyacrylic acid are commonly available with average MW of from 1000 to over 250,000” which overlaps the claimed range.
Frayne teaches a range of 1000 to over 250,000, which overlaps with the claimed range of 450K-3000K. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate average MW of polyacrylic acid of over 250,000 as suggested by Frayne (see P155) because doing so uses a commonly available polyacrylic acid average MW as suggested by Frayne (see P155).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 1 of “carrying out thermal treatment on the above mixed solution” & “wherein the temperature of the thermal treatment is room temperature to 80 °C”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the composite binder of claim 1 and further discloses in [0049] “polymerization initiator” & “ammonium persulfate” & “water-soluble initiator” & see [0024] “solvent-soluble polymer” & see [0026] “variety of polymerization methods”. Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein a mass ratio of the ammonium polyphosphate to the polyacrylic acid is 1:10-10:1, however, Lee does disclose “if the amount of the polymerization initiator is less than 0.001 wt%, polymerization reactivity may be lowered. If the amount of the polymerization initiator is greater than 0.5 wt%, it may be difficult to obtain a polymer having a desired molecular weight” (see [0052]).
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.
Thus, the wt% is a variable that achieves the recognized result of improving polymerization reactivity. That makes the wt% a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to routinely experiment with the wt% (mass ratio) and come up with 1:10-10:1 for the purpose of improving the polymerization reactivity and “to obtain a polymer having a desired molecular weight”, as suggested by Lee (see [0052].
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the composite binder of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the solvent is “N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP)” in [0142].
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the composite binder of claim 1 and further discloses wherein a mass fraction of a solute in the composite binder is “less than 10%” (see [0024] “solvent-soluble polymer may be pyrolyzed in an amount of less than 10% based on the initial weight of the binder at an initial reaction stage”); the temperature of the thermal treatment is room temperature to 200 °C (see [0019] “less than 400°C”).
Lee discloses a range of “less than 10%”, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1-10%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'."
Lee discloses a range of “less than 400 °C”, which overlaps with the claimed range of room temperature to 200 °C. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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)'."
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the composite binder of claim 1 and further discloses a self-extinguishing lithium ion battery (see [0125] “lithium battery” & “inflammability”), comprising a cathode piece, an anode piece, a diaphragm located between the cathode piece and the anode piece and an electrolyte, wherein the cathode piece, the anode piece contain the composite binder according to claim 1 (see [0021] “binder composition may be used in preparing” & “positive electrode and a negative electrode”; see [0118] “single-layered film”, “polypropylene/polyethylene/polypropylene 3-layered separator”; see abstract “binder for a rechargeable battery” & see [0167] “lithium rechargeable battery” & see [0118] “composite multi-layered film”). Lee does not explicitly disclose the diaphragm contain the composite binder.
Koji teaches “ceramic-containing porous film can be used as the separator 5” (see [0026]), “separator 5 that insulates the positive electrode 3 and the negative electrode 4 is disposed between the positive electrode 3 and the negative electrode 4”; see [0034] “PP film 21 is disposed on the side of the thermal runaway mitigation substance”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the separator contains the composite binder, as suggested by Koji (see [0034] “PP film 21 is disposed on the side of the thermal runaway mitigation substance”) because doing so would improve the safety of the battery by preventing thermal runaway and explosion of the battery.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the self-extinguishing lithium ion battery of claim 7 and further discloses wherein the diaphragm is one or more of a polypropylene (PP) single-layer diaphragm, and a PP-polyethylene (PE)-PP three-layer diaphragm (see [0118] “composite multi-layered film”; see [0115] “separator” & see [0116] “separator may be interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode” & see [0118] “single-layered film”, “polypropylene/polyethylene/polypropylene 3-layered separator”). Lee discloses the electrolyte is ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate (see [0122] “ethylene carbonate” & “dimethyl carbonate”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the composite binder of claim 1 and further discloses a use of the composite binder in a lithium ion battery (see [0007] “in order to overcome problems associated with the use of high-capacity negative electrode active material, binders may be used”; see [0021] “binder composition may be used in preparing” & “positive electrode and a negative electrode”; see title “rechargeable battery” & see [0167] “lithium rechargeable battery”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20130260240 A1, “Lee”) in view of Koji et al. (JP 2010182460 A , “Koji”), Wang (10.3.2.2 Ammonium Polyphosphate…), Frayne (Frayne… 5.4.1 Polyacrylates) and evidenced by Rudin et al. (Rudin et al. Chapter 1 - Introductory Concepts and Definitions…), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (CN 112495318 A, “Jiang”). The machine translations are used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the self-extinguishing lithium ion battery of claim 7 and further discloses wherein a method for preparing the cathode piece or the anode piece (see abstract “method of producing an electrode”) comprises: fully mixing anode material powders or cathode material powders and conductive carbon black (see [0026] “solvent-soluble polymer can be prepared by a variety of polymerization methods”; see [0029] “mixing the solvent-insoluble pore forming material with the solvent-soluble polymer”; see [0091] “carbon black” & “conductive material”; see [0033] “the solvent-insoluble pore forming material may exist in a status such that it is not dissolved but is dispersed in a solution” & “the solvent-insoluble pore forming material may be dispersed in a solution capable of forming pores after forming an electrode”). Lee does not explicitly disclose fully mixing and grinding.
Jiang teaches “mix and grind the cathode active material” & add mixture to solution containing binder (see [0048]). Jiang teaches “improve the dispersibility” during use & “thereby reducing the battery impedance and increasing the battery capacity” (see [n0037]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate mixing and grinding, as suggested by Jiang (see [0048]) into the method for preparing the electrode of Lee because Jiang teaches doing so improves the dispersibility during use and reduces the battery impedance and increases the battery capacity (see Jiang [n0037]).
Regarding the limitation then adding the composite binder, and evenly stirring to prepare electrode slurry, Lee discloses “pre-mixed with a binder composition for forming an electrode when preparing slurry for forming the electrode” (see [0086]) & “to a stirrer vessel” & “binder solution” & “thereby preparing a neg. electrode forming binder composition” (see [0149]).
Regarding the limitation and coating the electrode slurry onto a current collector, drying to remove water, and then cutting to obtain the anode pole piece, Lee discloses “neg. electrode slurry compositions” & coated on a copper (Cu) foil and dried at 110 °C” which reads on removing water; see [0166] describes “punching” which reads on cutting & “fabricating a coin cell, thereby forming a neg. electrode” reads on anode pole piece.
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 8, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s arguments on P6-7 that “Firstly, what Koji discloses is “ammonium phosphate”, not “ammonium polyphosphate”” is unpersuasive because Koji teaches ammonium polyphosphate (see [0046]).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 05/05/2026
Prosecution Insights