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 the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 07/06/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-15 are pending. Claims 2-3 and 7 are cancelled. Claims 15 is new. Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 12, and 14 are amended. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-15 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110459773 A (“Wang” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-6, Wang discloses a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (Abstract; [0015], [0018], [0023]). The negative electrode comprises a current collector and a negative active material layer on the current collector ([0030], [0035]).
The negative electrode active material layer comprises an electrode active material, a binder, and a flexible agent (polyhydric alcohol plasticizer”) ([0017]-[0019], [0025], [0027]). The flexible agent is a polyhydric alcohol with 2, 3, 4, or 5 carbon atoms such as ethylene glycol, 1,3-propanediol, 1,2-propanediol, or a combination thereof ([0019]-[0020]). The binder can be sodium carboxymethyl cellulose ([0027]), and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) is used in examples ([0075]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. It is deemed that the dielectric constant is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed polyhydric alcohol plasticizer. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. In an example, Wang discloses a negative electrode slurry is provided with a solid content of 50% and the flexible agent is added at a weight ratio of weight ratio of distilled water to flexible agent 99:1 ([0075]). This leads to an amount of the flexible agent of 1 wt% based on a total amount of 100 wt% of the negative active material layer.
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. In an example, an additional binder of styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) is provided ([0075]).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses the negative electrode of claim 9. In the example, the ratio of SBR:CMC is 1.5:1 (approximately 67:33).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Wang discloses a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the negative electrode, a positive electrode, and an electrolyte ([0094]-[0095]). Though Wang is silent regarding the electrolyte, it is inherently present.
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 11. It is deemed that the binder being configured to increase the solubility of the polyhydric alcohol plasticizer in the electrolyte is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed binder and polyhydric alcohol plasticizer. See the sections of MPEP 2112 cited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110459773 A (“Wang” – machine translation cited herein).
Regarding claim 12, Wang discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Wang does not expressly disclose an amount of the polyhydric alcohol plasticizer is about 15 wt% to about 25 wt% based on 100 wt% of an amount of the binder. However, Wang discloses flexible agent itself has the swelling properties of organic solvents on polymer materials, and after entering the polymer chains of the adhesive, it can reduce the rigidity of the adhesive. Meanwhile, the hydroxyl groups in the flexible agent can form hydrogen bonds with the polar groups in the binder that have not interacted with the positive and negative electrode materials, thereby reducing the interaction of the polar groups in the binder and causing the rigid network structure formed to dissociate to a certain extent. This further reduces the hardness and brittleness of the electrode, solves the problem of breakage of the positive electrode during processing and use, and improves the processing yield and safety of the battery. It also solves the problem of graphite shedding during the use of the negative electrode, and improves the service life of the negative electrode. Due to improvements in electrode slurry, the cycle life of lithium-ion batteries prepared from it has also been correspondingly improved ([0018]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of the polyhydric alcohol plasticizer relative to the amount of the binder through routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110459773 A (“Wang” – machine translation cited herein) in view of US 2019/0067698 A1 (“Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Wang discloses the flexible agent is a polyhydric alcohol with 2, 3, 4, or 5 carbon atoms but is silent regarding the polyhydric alcohol is glycerol.
Matsumoto discloses a binder resin for a secondary battery electrode (Abstract). The binder resin may be combined with additives such as a plasticizer that improves the flexibility of an electrode ([0101]). Examples of the plasticizer include hydroxy group-containing compounds. Specific examples thereof include glycols, glycerins (i.e. glycerol), and erythritols ([0104]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flexible agent of Wang with glycerol because Matsumoto shows it to be known in the art for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111933905 A (“Ji” – machine translation cited herein) in view of US 2017/0358792 A1 (“Umeyama”).
Regarding claims 1, 6-7, and 12, Ji discloses a negative electrode sheet comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active coating formed on the negative electrode current collector ([0037]). The negative electrode active coating comprises a negative electrode active material ([0010], [0014], [0029]), a binder ([0010], [0014], [0031]), and a plasticizer ([0010], [0014], [0032]). Exemplary plasticizers include 1,2-propylene glycol (i.e. 1,2-propanediol) and 1,3-propylene glycol (i.e. 1,3-propanediol) ([0032]). These each have 2 OH groups per molecule.
Ji discloses the type of the binder is not particularly limited, and those skilled in the art can select it according to actual needs. For example, the binder may be at least one selected from acrylamide-based binders and acrylonitrile-based binders ([0031]). Ji is silent regarding the binder being an aqueous linear polymer binder comprising a cellulose-based compound, an acrylate-based compound, or a combination thereof.
Umeyama discloses a negative electrode mixture paste comprising a thickener (“binder”). The thickener imparts adhesiveness to the negative electrode mixture paste. As a result, the state where the negative electrode active material is dispersed in the negative electrode mixture paste can be stabilized. The dried thickener has a function of bonding particles of the negative electrode active material to each other or bonding the negative electrode active material to the negative electrode current collector. When water is used as the solvent, for example, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) or polyacrylic acid (PAA) can be used as the thickener ([0043]). For these reasons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the CMC or PAA of Umeyama in the negative electrode active coating of Ji.
Ji discloses the amount of the plasticizer is 0.1 to 0.5 wt% based on the total mass of the negative electrode active material, the conductive agent, the binder and the plasticizer ([0027]). Umeyama discloses the thickener (“binder”) is included in an amount of about 0.5 parts by mass to 2.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material ([0043]). With Ji discloses that the negative electrode active material is provided in an amount of 93.5-97.9 wt% ([0011], [0028]), the plasticizer is, therefore, provided in an amount of about 4.7 wt% to about 98 wt% based on 100 wt% of an amount of the thickener (“binder”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of the amount of the plasticizer relative to the amount of thickener because Ji teaches the plasticizer is provided in the above amount to provide a better plasticizing effect and improve the toughness of the negative electrode sheet after coating and drying, but also ensure that the residual amount of propylene glycol and/or butylene glycol in the negative electrode sheet is moderate thereby limiting an increase in impedance ([0027]) and Umeyama teaches the thickener is provided in the above amount to provide adhesiveness to the negative electrode mixture paste, therefore, the state where the negative electrode active material is dispersed in the negative electrode mixture paste can be stabilized ([0043]).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Ji discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. It is deemed that the dielectric constant is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed polyhydric alcohol plasticizer. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claim 8, modified Ji discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Umeyama discloses the thickener (“binder”) is included in an amount of about 0.5 parts by mass to 2.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material ([0043]). With Ji discloses that the negative electrode active material is provided in an amount of 93.5-97.9 wt% ([0011], [0028]), the thickener is therefore provided in an amount of about 0.51 wt% to about 2.1 wt%. The amount of the claimed binder would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the amount of thickener disclosed by Umeyama overlaps the amount of binder as claimed. 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). Furthermore, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ji discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Ji discloses the negative electrode active coating comprises a binder (“additional binder”). Exemplary binders include acrylamide binders (i.e. polyacrylamide) and acrylonitrile binders (i.e. polyacrylonitrile) ([0014], [0031]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ji discloses the negative electrode of claim 9. Ji discloses the binder (“additional binder”) is included in an amount of 1-4 wt% ([0011], [0028]). Umeyama discloses the thickener (“binder”) is included in an amount of about 0.5 parts by mass to 2.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material ([0043]). With Ji discloses that the negative electrode active material is provided in an amount of 93.5-97.9 wt% ([0011], [0028]), the thickener is therefore provided in an amount of about 0.51 wt% to about 2.1 wt%. This leads to a ratio of thickener (“binder”) to binder (“additional binder”) of about 11:89 to about 68:32.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ji discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Ji further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the negative electrode, a positive electrode, and an electrolyte ([0038], [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ji discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 11. It is deemed that the effect of the binder on polyhydric alcohol plasticizer solubility is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed binder, plasticizer, and electrolyte. See the sections of MPEP 2112 cited above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111933905 A (“Ji” – machine translation cited herein) in view of US 2017/0358792 A1 (“Umeyama”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0067698 A1 (“Matsumoto”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, modified Ji discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Ji discloses the plasticizer having multiple hydroxy groups, such as 1,2-propylene glycol (i.e. 1,2-propanediol) and 1,3-propylene glycol (i.e. 1,3-propanediol) ([0032]). Ji is silent regarding the polyhydric alcohol plasticizer is glycerol, ethylene glycol, or a combination thereof [claim 5] and the polyhydric alcohol plasticizer is glycerol [claim 15].
Matsumoto discloses a binder resin for a secondary battery electrode (Abstract). The binder resin may be combined with additives such as a plasticizer that improves the flexibility of an electrode ([0101]). Examples of the plasticizer include hydroxy group-containing compounds. Specific examples thereof include glycols, glycerins (i.e. glycerol), and erythritols ([0104]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the plasticizer of Ji with glycerol because Matsumoto shows it to be known in the art for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The data presented in applicant’s specification is considered to show the presence of unexpected results in the claimed invention. See Experimental Examples 1-7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-7, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to rejection over Umeyama have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-13 under 35 USC 103 over Umeyama has been withdrawn. However, in view of the amendment to the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CN 110459773 A (“Wang”).
Applicant's arguments, see pp. 7-8, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to Ji have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s primary argument appears to be that Ji does not disclose the polyhydric alcohol plasticizer is glycerol, ethylene glycol, erythritol, 1,2-propanediol, 1,3-propanediol, or a combination thereof. However, Ji discloses exemplary plasticizers include 1,2-propylene glycol (i.e. 1,2-propanediol) and 1,3-propylene glycol (i.e. 1,3-propanediol) ([0032]). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-9, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to Kren have been fully considered and are persuasive. Moreover, the data presented in the specification has been considered from the viewpoint of unexpected results. The data presented is considered to show the presence of unexpected results in the invention of claim 14 and is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The rejection of claim 14 has been withdrawn.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights