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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 03/12/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1 and 3-14 are pending. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claim 14 is new. Claims 5, 8-9, and 13 are amended. Claims 1 and 3-14 are examined herein.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0358792 A1 (“Umeyama”). Supporting evidence provided by VEGA.
Regarding claims 1, 6-7, and 12, Umeyama discloses a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode mixture layer on the negative electrode current collector ([0032]-[0033], [0053]-[0054]). The negative electrode mixture layer comprises a negative electrode active material ([0041]), a sugar alcohol (“polyhydric alcohol plasticizer”) ([0037]-[0039]), a thickener (“binder”) ([0043]), and a binder ([0045]).
Umeyama discloses exemplary sugar alcohols including xylitol which has 5 OH groups per molecule (Fig. 9; [0038]).
Umeyama discloses exemplary thickeners including carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and polyacrylic acid (PAA) ([0043]).
Umeyama does not expressly disclose an amount of the polyhydric alcohol plasticizer is about 5 wt% to about 40 wt% [claim 1] or about 15 wt% to about 25 wt % [claim 12] based on 100 wt% of an amount of the binder. However, Umeyama discloses a mixing amount of the sugar alcohol in the negative electrode mixture may be 0.1 parts by mass to 7.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the carbon-based negative electrode active material. Within the above-described range, the improvement of safety during overcharge can be expected ([0039]). The thickener (“binder”) 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 thickener is provided 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]). The sugar alcohol is, therefore, provided in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 1,400 wt% based on 100 wt% of an amount of the 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 sugar alcohol relative to the amount of thickener to improve safety during overcharge and stabilize the negative electrode active material within in the negative electrode mixture paste.
Regarding claims 3-4, Umeyama discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. As shown by VEGA, the dielectric constant of xylitol is 40.
Regarding claim 8, Umeyama discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Umeyama discloses Example A2 wherein the negative electrode mixture layer comprises CMC (1 part by mass), SBR (1 part by pass), xylitol (1 part by mass), and natural graphite (100 parts by mass) (Fig. 9; [0096], [0098], [0131]). The CMC (i.e. “binder”) is provided in an amount of 0.97 wt% based on a total amount of 100 wt% of the negative electrode mixture layer.
Regarding claim 9, Umeyama discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. As discussed above, Umeyama discloses the negative electrode mixture layer comprises a binder (“additional binder”). Exemplary binders include styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), acrylic rubber (AR), and urethane rubber (UR) ([0045]).
Regarding claim 10, Umeyama discloses the negative electrode of claim 9. Umeyama discloses the thickener (“binder”) is provided 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]). Umeyama further discloses the binder (“additional binder”) is provided 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 ([0045]). Therefore, the mixing ratio of the thickener and the binder falls within the range of about 20:80 to about 80:20 by weight.
Regarding claim 11, Umeyama discloses the negative electrode of claim 1. Umeyama further discloses a rechargeable lithium battery 100 comprising the negative electrode, a positive electrode, and an electrolyte (Figs. 7, 8; [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 13, Umeyama 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. 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.
Claims 1 and 3-13 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, 5-7, 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, 1,3-propylene glycol, 1,4-butanediol, 1,3-butanediol and 2,3-butanediol ([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.
Claim 14 is 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 2013/0209877 A1 (“Kren”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ji discloses the rechargeable lithium battery of claim 1.
As discussed above, Umeyama discloses carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) as the thickener ([0043]). As discussed above, Ji discloses exemplary plasticizers include 1,2-propylene glycol, 1,3-propylene glycol, 1,4-butanediol, 1,3-butanediol and 2,3-butanediol ([0032]).
Kren discloses a paste for producing electrodes for lithium ion batteries (Abstract). Kren discloses the paste comprises at least one plasticizer having an ester-like nature ([0025]-[0026]). Exemplary plasticizers include diols such as 1,3-butanediol, 1,2-propanediol, and 1,4-butanediol; and triols such as glycerol ([0027]). 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 glycerol for the plasticizer of Ji because Kren discloses the compounds are known in the art for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
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 (i.e. glycerol) 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]).
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment to claim 13, the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 112(b) and 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Umeyama provides that the amount of sugar alcohol is already optimized and doesn’t suggest the amount should be further optimized (pp. 8-9). The Office respectfully disagrees. Umeyama provides explicit motivation to optimize the amount of the polyhydric alcohol plasticizer, as noted by applicant (i.e. the improvement of safety during overcharge). The amount of the polyhydric alcohol plasticizer in Umeyama is a result effective variable (Fig. 9; [0039], [0160]). For example, in the sentence following one cited by applicant Umeyama states: “In particular, within a range of 0.3 parts by mass to 5.0 parts by mass, the effect was high.” Absent persuasive evidence, such as secondary considerations including unexpected results, the claimed range is obvious over Umeyama.
Applicant argues the Examiner’s rationale for optimization is not supported by Umeyama (pp. 9, 10-11). The Office acknowledges that Umeyama does not expressly disclose the claimed amount of the polyhydric alcohol plasticizer relative to the amount of the binder. It is the position of the Office that in view of the teachings of Umeyama regarding the amount of the plasticizer and the amount of the thickener (“binder”), the claimed ratio would have been obvious. Umeyama provides motivation to optimize the amount of both components, thereby rendering the claimed ratio obvious, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues that Umeyama teaches away from the claimed range (pp. 9-10). However, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP 2123. The rejection is based on the broader disclosure. The examples shown in Fig. 9 do not constitute a teaching away from the claimed range.
Applicant argues the Office’s rationale to optimize in relation to Ji. It is noted that Ji as modified by Umeyama inherently contains a ratio of plasticizer to binder. 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]). 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]). The claimed ratio would likewise have been obvious for the same reasons. It is the position of the Office that Ji does not teach away from the claimed invention. Ji does disclose a motivation to optimize the amount of the plasticizer as discussed above.
In regard to new claim 14, applicant argues the criticality of the claimed range. While the Office acknowledges the narrower scope of claim 14, applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results and criticality are not persuasive. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Upon further consideration, it is not clear that the disclosed results would be appreciated at any absolute concentration of binder/plasticizer. That is, would the disclosed results be present if the concentration of carboxymethyl cellulose was 0.1 wt% or 5 wt% rather than the tested amount of 1 wt%?
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