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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group II (claims 7-20) in the reply filed on December 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 31, 18th line, replace “LiPF6was” with “LiPF6 was”.
On page 33, 9th line, replace “PH” with “pH” before “meter model”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Ketjen black”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (see the 15th line on page 21, and the 14th line on page 23). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: since a “secondary battery” is claimed in independent claim 17 rather than in claim 18 (“battery module”), it is believed that “secondary battery according to claim 18” should be changed to “secondary battery according to claim 17”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/015230 A1, and further in view of CN 111509232 A (see English equivalent to Ji et al. (US 2023/0032775 A1) for translated text), of which copies of both references were provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated August 19, 2024, and with a machine translation of WO ‘230 being provided with this Office Action.
Regarding independent claims 7 and 17, WO ‘230 discloses a positive electrode slurry of a positive electrode material for use in making a positive electrode sheet of a secondary battery (abstract; pages 2-12 and 19 of the translation under the heading DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS; and Figure 1), in which the positive electrode slurry includes the following components:
a positive electrode material (2) of a secondary battery – see page 19 of translation; and Figure 1; and
a binder comprising a high molecular weight fluorine-containing copolymer that comprises groups R1-R8 (of which these eight groups are instead denoted as Rf1, Rf2, Rf11, Rf12, Rf13, Rf21, Rf22, and Rf23 – see pages 7-15 of the Japanese text of the untranslated document WO ‘230), including that each of R1 and R2 (Rf1 and Rf2) is H, F, or an unsubstituted C1-C8 linear alkyl unsubstituted with fluorine, each of R3 and R4 (Rf11 and Rf12) is independently selected to be either H, F, or C1-C8 linear alkyl substituted with fluorine, R5-R7 (Rf13, Rf21, Rf22) are each independently selected from H, F, or C1-C8 linear or branched alkyl substituted with fluorine, and R8 (Rf23) is a perfluoro-substituted C1-C8 linear alkyl, wherein m, n, and q are molar proportions within the fluorine-containing copolymer having up to 90% of respective repeating units (see page 5 of translation that begins with “Specifically, as the fluorine-containing elastomer” and “The VdF-based fluorine-containing elastomer”), which is within the range of the n and q molar proportions (0<n<100% and 0<q<100%), and share an endpoint of the range of the m molar proportion (m≥90%), as claimed.
WO ‘230 does not explicitly disclose that the binder comprising the high molecular weight fluorine-containing copolymer would have a weight average molecular weight of as high as 600,000 to 2,000,000.
However, Ji et al. (CN ‘232/US ‘775) disclose a positive electrode plate and a method of its manufacture (see US ‘775; abstract; and paragraphs [0005]-[0040]), in which the positive electrode plate includes a current collector and an active substance layer made of a positive electrode active material formed thereon, wherein the positive electrode active material includes a polymeric binder that has a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 to 1,000,000 (see paragraphs [0010] and [0040] of US ‘775), for the purpose of improving high temperature storage and cycle performances of lithium-ion batteries by obtaining a stable positive electrode paste with improved adhesion and uniformity (see paragraphs [0006], [0037], and [0040] of US ‘775).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants’ invention was made to modify the positive electrode slurry of a positive electrode material for use in making a positive electrode sheet of a secondary battery, as disclosed by WO ‘230, by using a fluorine-containing copolymer with an even higher molecular weight of between 100,000 and 1,000,000 that overlaps the range of 600,000 to 2,000,000, as taught by Ji et al., in order to improve high temperature storage and cycle performances of lithium-ion batteries by obtaining a stable positive electrode paste with improved adhesion and uniformity (Ji et al.; paragraphs [0006], [0037], and [0040] of US ‘775).
With regard to the ranges of the weight average molecular weight of Ji et al. and the molar proportions (m, n, and q) of WO ‘230, these ranges would be anticipated and/or obvious since these ranges would be readily contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the obviousness of the ranges in view of the combined teachings of WO ‘230 and Ji et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05. “In the case where 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). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, WO ‘230 discloses that the positive electrode material comprises a lithium-containing phosphate material (see page 15 of translation in the paragraph beginning with “Specifically, the positive electrode active material includes” that corresponds to paragraph [0105] of the Japanese text of the untranslated document WO ‘230), wherein the lithium-containing phosphate material would include a coating layer having lithium ion conductivity (see the next paragraph on page 15 of translation beginning with “Among these”), of which carbon would readily be used as a coating since it has lithium ion conductivity. With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. With regard to the volume average particle size Dv50 of 2 µm or less (of claim 14), WO ‘230 discloses (see the next paragraph on page 15 of translation beginning with “The average particle size”), that the average particle size of the positive electrode active material is 1 to 50 µm, of which WO ‘230 contains the lithium-containing phosphate material as a component of the positive electrode active material. In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the average particle size to avoid poor handling (if too low) and to avoid difficulty in obtaining a flat positive electrode active material layer (if too high) – see the paragraph on page 15 of translation beginning with “The average particle size”).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, WO ‘230 discloses that the positive electrode material further comprises a lithium supplement that includes lithium with metals such as Ni, Co, Al, Mn, Mg, and Fe, including Li2NiO2 (see page 15 of translation in the paragraph beginning with “Specifically, the positive electrode active material includes” that corresponds to paragraph [0105] of the Japanese text of the untranslated document WO ‘230), wherein the pH value of the lithium supplement (with at least a portion of the metals listed above) would be at least 10.0 to control uniformity and morphology to achieve optimal battery performance.
Regarding claims 11, 13, and 15, and incorporating the discussion applied to claim 8 above, although WO ‘230 discloses that the positive electrode material comprises a lithium-containing phosphate material, of which carbon would readily be used as a coating since it has lithium ion conductivity (and would be readily used as a “first” positive electrode material), while also disclosing LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 as one of the preferred positive electrode materials (see paragraph [0106] of the Japanese text of the untranslated document WO ‘230), WO ‘230 does not disclose a second positive electrode material represented by Li1+a[NixCoyMnzMb]O2, wherein the pH value of the second positive electrode active material would be at least 10.0. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selection of one or more of a variety of elemental compositions and ratios would have been readily conducted by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the combined teachings of WO ‘230 and Ji et al., including use of a combination of first and second positive electrode materials, and optimization of the pH value would be advantageous for controlling uniformity and morphology to achieve optimal battery performance, in order to improve high temperature storage and cycle performances of lithium-ion batteries by obtaining a stable positive electrode paste with improved adhesion and uniformity (Ji et al.; paragraphs [0006], [0037], and [0040] of US ‘775). With regard to the types of materials that are suitable for use, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, WO ‘230 discloses that the positive electrode material further comprises a lithium supplement that includes lithium with metals such as Ni, Co, Al, Mn, Mg, and Fe, including Li2NiO2 (see page 15 of translation in the paragraph beginning with “Specifically, the positive electrode active material includes” that corresponds to paragraph [0105] of the Japanese text of the untranslated document WO ‘230).
Regarding claims 18-20, the combined teachings of WO ‘230 and Ji et al. disclose and/or suggest all features of the secondary battery of independent claim 17 above, including that the secondary battery has utility in plurality and in electric vehicles (see paragraph [0002] of Ji et al., for example). As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an electric vehicle is an electrical apparatus (of claim 20), and that a plurality of secondary batteries would form a battery module of a battery pack (of claims 18 and 19) in the electric vehicle, wherein the plurality of secondary batteries would provide higher energy output (power) and higher efficiency (range) for the electric vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure. The Kurihara et al., Tsai et al., and Maruhashi references are also cited in PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is (571)272-1178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN P KERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 March 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights