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 Arguments
Applicant's reply filed 5/12/2026 includes claim amendments and arguments corresponding to the Non Final Rejection mailed 2/13/2026. All 35 USC 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous action have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments to Claims 7 and 7-15.
Arguments Regarding Onomichi et al.
Applicant’s amendments include adding the limitation “having a degree of substitution of 0.4 to 0.6” to independent Claims 1 and 9. Applicant argues this limitation is not taught by the secondary reference Onomichi (JP 2011090935 A). Applicant states “Conflating the degree of substitution guidance for ammonium/amine CMC with a degree of substitution for lithium CMC improperly supplies a missing limitation with an unsupported assumption that the counterion and function are interchangeable.”
Examiner maintains Onomichi’s teachings are relevant to modify the negative electrode of the primary reference (Wang). Onomichi teaches a negative electrode adhesion material comprising “an ammonium salt or amine salt of carboxymethylcellulose having an average degree of substitution of 0.1 to 1.0” ([0017-0023]). Onomichi teaches the alkali metal salt may be a lithium, sodium, or potassium salt (“As the alkali metal salt of CMC as a raw material, lithium salt, sodium salt, potassium salt, etc. can be used” [0028]). Although Onomichi does not select the lithium salt for any of the examples (all examples are conducted using a sodium salt, see [0053-0060]), Onomichi does not state the contents of the general disclosure are specific to selecting the sodium salt, or that alternate ranges or considerations would need to be made for a CMC comprising the lithium or potassium salt. Onomichi’s general disclosure teaches a broad degree of substitution in the range of 0.1 to 1.0, but explicitly states the range is “more preferably about 0.4 to 0.45” for an optimal balance of handleability, electrode slurry coating, and electrode slurry adhesion ([0024]). Onomichi’s most preferable range (0.4 to 0.45) is within the claimed range of 0.4 to 0.6, and thus Onomichi meets this limitation.
Applicant also states “while Onomichi selects a degree of substitution of to achieve optimal electrode adhesion, the instant disclosure selects a degree of substitution to optimize porosity and electrolyte absorption. Wang and Onomichi fail to recognize or suggest the results associated with the claimed degree of substitution or recognize the feature as a result-effective variable.”
Regarding the different motivating factors behind choosing this range, Onomichi’s teachings may be applied to Wang for reasons different than the instant invention. “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (see MPEP 2144).
Arguments Regarding Kim et al.
Applicant states “The specification describes LiCMC via a dedicated viscosity test of a 1% solution (GB 1904-2005 method) to define a material property, not a slurry-processing property (see paragraphs [0072] - [0079]).” Applicant states Kim’s disclosure does not provide any “teaching or suggestion to select (or optimize toward) a LiCMC material having a 1% solution viscosity anywhere up to 50,000 cP, meanwhile, Kim's also clearly states that the purpose of adjusting the viscosity of the electrode slurry is to facilitate coating.”
Claims 4 and 12 recite “a viscosity of an aqueous solution containing the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose at a mass percentage of 1% is 20000 cP to 50000 cP.” The claims do not distinguish whether “an aqueous solution” is a material property the CMC alone, or of a processing condition such as a combined slurry during manufacturing. Kim’s electrode slurry is adjusted to 20,000 cP and comprises the CMC material at 1 wt% in water (i.e., in an aqueous solution as required by the claims). Kim discloses a slurry viscosity of 20,000 cP is “easy to apply” to an electrode, which provides motivation to try that viscosity in Wang’s electrode coating.
Arguments Regarding Jeong et al.
Applicant states the Examiner’s reasoning for routine optimization of molecular weight and coating weight “is legally and factually defective because the claimed ranges expressly extend into non-overlapping territory whereas Jeong provides no disclosure and, in fact, warns of detriments.”
The claimed number-average molecular weight range is 50x104 to 100x104 (see Claims 3 and 11). Jeong was relied upon to teach a carboxymethyl cellulose lithium salt (“CMC—Li salt” [0011-0013]), having a number average molecular weight within a range of 70×104 to 500×104 ([0020]; citation also includes motivation to optimize within the range).Applicant states since Jeong teaches a great amount of thickening agent is consumed below 70x104 due to insufficient viscosity ([0020]), Jeong teaches away from the claimed range.
The claimed number-average molecular weight ranges overlap with the range disclosed by Jeong. If Applicant believes the portion of the claimed range not taught or suggested by Jeong (greater than or equal to 50x104 and less than 70×104) is significant, Applicant is encouraged to further narrow the claimed range to exclude Jeong’s teachings and overcome the rejection in view of Jeong. However, Examiner notes a range of “greater than or equal to 50x104 and less than 70×104” would exclude all preferred examples in Table 2 except for Example 4.
The claimed coating weight range is 5.2 mg/cm2 to 11.7 mg/cm2 (see Claims 8 and 16). Jeong was relied upon to teach a coating weight range of 8 mg/cm2 to 20 mg/cm2 (converted from Jeong’s “200 mg/25 cm2 to 500 mg/25 cm2” range in [0016-0017]). Applicant states “Jeong's preferred loading range starts at 200 mg/25 cm2 (8 mg/cm2), giving no basis to push Wang down to 5.2-8 mg/cm2. This lack of a reasoned, evidence-based rationale to choose the claimed non-overlapping subranges (and the absence of any mapping for the "compacted density" alternative) fails the requirement for an articulated rationale with rational underpinning[.]”
The claimed coating weight ranges overlap with the range disclosed by Jeong, and Jeong teaches reasons for optimization within the range (see [0018]). Applicant’s arguments regarding compacted density are moot, as the claims require the negative electrode substance layer to have either the claimed coating range OR the claimed compacted density range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., CN 111384370 A, and further in view of Onomichi et al., JP 2011090935 A.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, discloses an electrochemical apparatus (lithium-ion battery [0009-0011, 0068-0069]) comprising a negative electrode plate (lithium-ion battery anode [0011, 0063-0069]), the negative electrode plate comprising:
a current collector (current collector substrate [0037], copper foil [0067]); and
a negative electrode active substance layer disposed on the current collector (negative electrode slurry coated onto negative electrode current collector [0038, 0065-0068] Example 9 [0112]),
wherein the negative electrode active substance layer comprises lithium carboxymethyl cellulose (lithium carboxymethyl cellulose, “CMCLi” [0035], Example 9 [0112]), and
a porosity of the negative electrode plate is greater than or equal to 33% (porosity of the negative electrode is 35%-50% [0013, 0030], Example 9: electrode porosity is 42% [0112]).
Wang does not disclose “a degree of substitution of the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose is 0.4 to 0.6” as required by Claims 1 and 9. However, this limitation is taught by Onomichi.
Onomichi teaches a negative electrode slurry applied to a current collector, wherein the slurry includes a lithium salt form of carboxymethyl cellulose “CMC” as an adhesion improver ([0019-0029]). Onomichi teaches a degree of substitution for CMC can be in a range of 0.25 to 0.6, and teaches a most preferable range of 0.4 to 0.45 for optimal handleability, electrode slurry coating, and electrode slurry adhesion ([0024]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and arrive at a degree of substitution of the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose within the claimed range, for the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose of Wang, as Onomichi teaches improved handleability, electrode slurry coating, and electrode slurry adhesion are best achieved within the claimed range.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, modified Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Wang discloses based on a total mass of the negative electrode active substance layer, a mass percentage of the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose is 0.2% to 1% (Wang, Example 9: negative electrode slurry has 0.5% by mass of CMCLi [0112]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, modified Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Wang discloses the negative electrode active substance layer further comprises a negative electrode active substance (Wang, surface-modified silicon particles [0015-0023], Example 9 [0112]), and
a binder (Wang, [0035], Example 9: polystyrene-acrylic acid copolymer and polyvinyl alcohol [0112]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, modified Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Wang discloses the negative electrode active substance comprises at least one of artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, mesocarbon microbeads, silicon oxide, or pure silicon (Wang, silicon particles [0015, 0072], carbon [0023], Example 9: amorphous porous silicon particles coated in carbon [0112]).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wang as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al., KR 20130138523 A.
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, modified Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Wang does not disclose “a viscosity of an aqueous solution containing the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose at a mass percentage of 1% is 20,000 cP to 50,000 cP.” However, this limitation is taught by Kim.
Kim teaches a negative electrode comprising a copper current collector and an aqueous solution (negative electrode mixture layer [0067]). Kim teaches the negative electrode mixture comprises 1 wt% carboxymethyl cellulose, and a viscosity of the mixture is “adjusted to about 20,000 cp, which is a viscosity easy to apply to the copper thin film” ([0067]). Examiner notes modified Wang’s negative electrode slurry is also applied to a copper foil current collector (Wang, [0037, 0067]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a viscosity of an aqueous solution containing the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose at a mass percentage of 1% be 20,000 cP, in the negative electrode plate of modified Wang, and would have a reasonable expectation of success, as Kim teaches an electrode mixture having a viscosity of 20,000 cP can be easily applied to a copper current collector.
The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Claims 3, 8, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wang as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Jeong et al., US 20170309896 A1.
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, modified Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Wang does not disclose “a number-average molecular weight of the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose is 50 x104 to 100 x104.” However, this limitation is taught by Jeong.
Jeong teaches a negative electrode mix comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose lithium salt (“CMC—Li salt” [0011-0013]), wherein the CMC—Li salt may have a number average molecular weight of 70×104 to 500×104 ([0020]). Jeong teaches when the number average molecular weight of CMC—Li is lower than the cited range, a large amount of thickening agent is used to compensate for a low viscosity, and when the number average molecular weight exceeds the cited range, viscosity becomes difficult to control and improvement of rapid charging characteristics may be insufficient ([0020]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and arrive at a number average molecular weight within the claimed range, for the lithium carboxymethyl cellulose of modified Wang, as Jeong teaches viscosity and charging characteristics are favorable within a broader range of 70×104 to 500×104 .
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, modified Wang discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Wang does not disclose “a coating weight of the negative electrode active substance layer is 5.2 mg/cm2 to 11.7 mg/cm2.” However, this limitation is also taught by Jeong.
Jeong teaches a negative electrode mix comprising a carboxymethyl cellulose lithium salt (“CMC—Li salt” [0011-0013]). Jeong teaches a high enough coating weight of the negative electrode mix is needed to increase the energy density of the battery, but too high of a coating weight will result in poor rapid-charging characteristics ([0006-0008, 0016]). Jeong teaches a preferred coating weight range is 8 mg/cm2 to 20 mg/cm2 (converted from Jeong’s “200 mg/25 cm2 to 500 mg/25 cm2 ” range [0016-0017]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and arrive at a coating weight within the claimed range, in the negative electrode active substance layer of modified Wang, as Jeong teaches an overlapping coating weight range will increase energy density of the battery, while not sacrificing rapid-charging performance.
Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
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 BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights