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 .
Summary
This is the second Office Action based on Application filed 18/161,867 filed and is in response to Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 11/03/2025.
Claims 1-25 are previously pending, of those claims, claims 1, 11-12, and 14have been amended, and new claim 26 has been added. Claims 1-26 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORI (WO 2009/144543 A1) in view of PARK (US 2016/0156038 A1) and CHENG (US 2017/0098818 A1).
With respect to claims 14. HORI teaches a method for producing an electrode, that includes carbon bond active material particles are formed in which a first conductive material is evenly bound to a surface of active material particles 153 via a binder 161 (abstract). An electrode mix paste is formed by mixing the carbon bond active material particles, conductive material, a binder, and a solvent in a mixer (paragraph 0011). The carbon bond active material particles may be formed by a spray dry method (paragraph 0020). With the spray dry method, the carbon bond active material particles in which the first conductive material is evenly bound over the entire surface of the active material particles via the binder are appropriately formed (paragraph 0021). The active material particles of the first conductive material may be bound by the first binder by spraying a liquid formed by mixing the first binder and a solvent, while the active material particles and the conductive material are fluidized, and then drying the mixture of the active material particles, the conductive material and the liquid (paragraph 0022). The liquid formed by mixing the binder and the solvent is sprayed to the active material particle and the first conductive material being fluidized (paragraph 0023). Due to this, the active material particles and the conductive material contact each other via the liquid binder (paragraph 0023). Under this condition, the liquid binder is dried to bind the active material particle and the conductive material with the binder (paragraph 0023). Therefore the carbon bond active material particles in which the first conductive material is evenly bound over the entire surface of the active material particles via the binder are formed (paragraph 0023). The effect of the invention is that the active material particles 154, the conductive material 159, and the binder 163 are evenly dispersed in the solvent even if the raw materials are mixed for a short period of time (paragraph 0050).
HORI teaches the active material may be LiNiO2, the conductive material may be acetylene black, and the binder may be polyvinylidene fluoride (paragraph 0039). Further as seen in Figure 3, the separately encapsulated particles are not bonded to one another, as the carbon bond active material particles are evenly dispersed (paragraph 0035).
HORI does not explicitly teach reacting a polymerization initiator with a binder to form the coating of the binder on the core particles.
PARK teaches a binder with a core shell structure (abstract). The binder provides excellent adhesive strength and elasticity (abstract). There is a need for a binder and an electrode material that may have a strong adhesive strength so as to prevent separation between the electrode active material and the collector (paragraph 0008). Conventional solvent based binder, such as PVDF does not meet such a requirement, so binders prepared by emulsion polymerization is studied (paragraph 0009). Thus, the emulsion polymerization method of forming the binder is used (paragraph 0030). Such a method includes the use of a polymerization initiator (paragraph 0032).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the use of the PVDF binder of HORI with the binder formed by the emulsion polymerization utilizing at least a polymerization initiator of PARK, as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Neither HORI nor PARK explicitly teaches wherein exteriors of the encapsulated core particles are configured to bind to others of the encapsulated core particles when exposed to heat.
CHENG teaches an electrostatic dry powder spray process for making battery electrodes (abstract). The method includes mixing a dry powder of an active material, a binder and a electrically conductive material, and the depositing by electrostatic spray deposition (paragraph 0029). After the electrode is deposited by the dry powder coating process, it is followed by a baking step to fuse the electrode components without causing strong adhesion to the metal foil (paragraph 0040) and this is taken to fuse the active material and the binder.
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the electrode components of HORI be capable of being bound to each other, as taught by CHENG, as CHENG teaches that the baking step will fuse the electrode components together, and therefore this is a known application and would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed.
Claim(s) 14-17, 21-22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORI (WO 2009/144543 A1) in view of HOLMAN (US 2004/0018430 A1) and CHENG (US 2017/0098818 A1).
With respect to claims 14 and 21. HORI teaches a method for producing an electrode, that includes carbon bond active material particles are formed in which a first conductive material is evenly bound to a surface of active material particles 153 via a binder 161 (abstract). An electrode mix paste is formed by mixing the carbon bond active material particles, conductive material, a binder, and a solvent in a mixer (paragraph 0011). The carbon bond active material particles may be formed by a spray dry method (paragraph 0020). With the spray dry method, the carbon bond active material particles in which the first conductive material is evenly bound over the entire surface of the active material particles via the binder are appropriately formed (paragraph 0021). The active material particles of the first conductive material may be bound by the first binder by spraying a liquid formed by mixing the first binder and a solvent, while the active material particles and the conductive material are fluidized, and then drying the mixture of the active material particles, the conductive material and the liquid (paragraph 0022). The liquid formed by mixing the binder and the solvent is sprayed to the active material particle and the first conductive material being fluidized (paragraph 0023). Due to this, the active material particles and the conductive material contact each other via the liquid binder (paragraph 0023). Under this condition, the liquid binder is dried to bind the active material particle and the conductive material with the binder (paragraph 0023). Therefore the carbon bond active material particles in which the first conductive material is evenly bound over the entire surface of the active material particles via the binder are formed (paragraph 0023). The effect of the invention is that the active material particles 154, the conductive material 159, and the binder 163 are evenly dispersed in the solvent even if the raw materials are mixed for a short period of time (paragraph 0050).
HORI teaches the active material may be LiNiO2, the conductive material may be acetylene black, and the binder may be polyvinylidene fluoride (paragraph 0039). Further as seen in Figure 3, the separately encapsulated particles are not bonded to one another, as the carbon bond active material particles are evenly dispersed (paragraph 0035).
HOLMAN teaches encapsulating electrode particles via polymerization of tetrafluoroethylene in supercritical carbon dioxide (paragraph 0140). In the method the active material core is mixed with a PEDT emulsion, liquid carbon dioxide, and a small amount of an initiator (paragraph 0147). The mixture is reacted to form the active material encapsulated in the PTFE/PEDT blend (paragraph 0147). The supercritical carbon dioxide is taken to be the claimed solvent.
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the method of forming the polymer layer on the active material of HORI with the method of forming the encapsulating binder layer of HOLMAN as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results.
Neither HORI nor PARK explicitly teaches wherein exteriors of the encapsulated core particles are configured to bind to others of the encapsulated core particles when exposed to heat.
CHENG teaches an electrostatic dry powder spray process for making battery electrodes (abstract). The method includes mixing a dry powder of an active material, a binder and a electrically conductive material, and the depositing by electrostatic spray deposition (paragraph 0029). After the electrode is deposited by the dry powder coating process, it is followed by a baking step to fuse the electrode components without causing strong adhesion to the metal foil (paragraph 0040) and this is taken to fuse the active material and the binder.
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the electrode components of HORI be capable of being bound to each other, as taught by CHENG, as CHENG teaches that the baking step will fuse the electrode components together, and therefore this is a known application and would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed.
With respect to claim 15. HOLMAN teaches the use of supercritical CO2 (paragraph 0150).
With respect to claim 16. HOLMAN further teaches the mixture is reacted with energetic stirring (paragraph 0147) which is taken to be the claimed agitating.
With respect to claim 17. HORI teaches the active material particle may be a lithium containing metal oxide, such as lithium cobalt oxide as an alternative to the lithium nickel oxide (paragraph 0122).
With respect to claim 22. HORI teaches the binder may further be one of PVDF or polyethylene oxide (paragraph 0125).
With respect to claim 24. HORI teaches the spray dry method of forming the binder material on the core particles (paragraph 0021). Further as seen in Figure 3, the separately encapsulated particles are not bonded to one another, as the carbon bond active material particles are evenly dispersed (paragraph 0035).
With respect to claim 25. HOLMAN teaches the contents of the reactor are heated with energetic stirring (paragraph 0147).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORI (WO 2009/144543 A1) in view of HOLMAN (US 2004/0018430 A1) and CHENG (US 2017/0098818 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of YU (US 2017/0104217 A1).
Claim 18 is dependent upon claim 14, which is rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of HORI, HOLMAN, and CHENG, and claim 19 is dependent upon claim 17. HORI however does not explicitly teach the core particles comprise an ionically conductive metal oxide.
YU teaches a material 100 for use in a battery that includes an active material 102 and a coating material 104 coated on the active material (paragraph 0043). The active material may then include metal oxides which include at least one of Zno (paragraph 0046). Further the metal oxides undergo reactions to store or release energy, such as MnO which reacts to form Mn and Li20 (paragraph 0046). Both ZnO and Li2) are taken to be the claimed ionically conductive metal oxides (see paragraph 0034 of the present application specification).
At the time the invention was filed one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the active material of HORI with the active material of YU as this is a simple substitution of one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results.
With respect to claim 20. YU then teaches in an alternate embodiment the active material may include metal sulfides (paragraph 0047). For example tin sulfide may react with lithium ions to form Li/Sn alloy and lithium sulfide, Li2S (paragraph 0047).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,735,704 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patent ‘704 claims a method of spraying a mixture of core particles coated with a binder which at least partially encapsulate the core particles, the binder include at least a conductive material, the mixture is sprayed, and then heated, so that the core particles are melted and bound to the substrate or adjacent coated particles (claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 of claims 11-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of claims 11-12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claim to overcome the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-2 and 6-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1-2 and 6-9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to recite that “wherein exteriors of the separate at least partially encapsulated core particles are configured to bind to others of the separate at least partially encapsulated core particles when exposed to heat”. In contrast Applicant Argues that HORI teaches the binder binds the conductive material, and therefore would not bind to the other particles. This argument is persuasive and this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages , filed 110/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-17, 21-22, and 24-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of HORI and PARK or HORI and HOLMAN have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of HORI, HOLMAN or PARK, and CHENG (US 2017/0098818 A1).
Applicant argues that the claim has been amended to recite “wherein exteriors of the at least partially encapsulated core particles are configured to bind to others of the at least partially encapsulated core particles when exposed to heat”. Applicant argues that HORI does not have the particles bind to each other, as they bind to the conductive additive. Then Applicant argues that HOLMAN relies on the electrolyte as opposed to the encapsulate material to bind the coated particles together. Applicant argues that PARK is silent with respect to this feature. This argument is not necessarily persuasive. However, in order to advance prosecution new grounds of rejection are further made in view of CHENG.
CHENG teaches after the electrode is deposited by the dry powder coating process, it is followed by a baking step to fuse the electrode components without causing strong adhesion to the metal foil (paragraph 0040) and this is taken to fuse the active material and the binder.
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 JONATHAN G JELSMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722