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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 12-28 in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 12-17 are dependent upon claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the independent claim 10 and its dependent claim(s) include 10 and 11, and including 12-17 was a typographical error. Additionally, applicant’s election states claims 1-19 and 18-28, which should be 1-9 and 18-28. After a call to applicant, it was clarified that the claims of group I which were elected for examination are 1-9 and 12-28. Group II includes claims 10 and 11 drawn to a method of using the particles formed by the method of Group I, and therefore are distinct as methods of making particles and a method of using the particles as set forth in the requirement for restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 12-19, 21-26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phares et al (WO 2018/152173).
Phares et al disclose a method of preparing an electrode comprising combining a thermoplastic (curable) binder with an initiator, an ionically conductive salt, a solvent and core particles (electrochemical or ionically conductive; [0027], [0032]-[0034]), wherein the particles then coated with the binder are sprayed and heated (cured, ([0007],[0008]).
The particles include electrochemical materials such as lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), and other known cathode active materials ([0032]), and/or ionically conductive materials including Al2O3, SiO2, MgO, TiO2, ZnO, ZrO2, CuO, CdO ([0034]; instant claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 19, 24, 26, 28). The reference teaches that these particles may be used in combination.
The binder comprises a curable polymer, including PVDF, PTFE, polyethylene oxide, styrene-butadiene, ([0035], claim 7, 15; instant claims 1, 14, 15). While the reference fails to specifically disclose that the polymer is capable of photocuring, the polymers preferred by the reference are the same as those preferred and listed as photocurable by the instant invention, and therefore the polymers of the reference are capable of photocuring (instant claim 1, 13-15, 18, 23).
The salt includes LiClO4, LiBF4, LiPF6, LiTFSI, LiBETI, LiBOB, LiTDI, LiB(CN)4 ([0040]; instant claims 8, 17, 25, wherein examples include fluorinated lithium salts as set forth by the instant claim 17).
The method specifically requires combining the particles with the binder, wherein an ionically conductive salt may be dissolved in the binder ([0040]), aerosolizing and spraying (wherein it is a known process with heat is added “in-flight” to dry the solvent during spraying as per the instant claim 12) the mixture to evaporate the solvent (final particles form a dry powder, and would be substantially free of solvent; instant claim 21) and create the coated particles while being heated (which would cause the polymer and initiator to react and cure the polymer to form the coating on the particles ([0051]-[0058]; examples [0072] use an exemplified temperature of 90o C, which falls within the scope of the teachings of the instant specification for a curing temperature specification [0078]; instant claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 18).
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective fling date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Phares et al, choosing to prepare the dry powder particles wherein the particles having the polymer thereon are cured according to claim 1 and comprise at least the ionically conductively material as the core particles, or wherein the particles are mixed with a solvent, wherein the solvent is evaporated during spraying according to the instant claim 18.
Regarding the weight percentage of the inorganic solid particles being greater than or equal to 60 wt % of the mixture, the reference fails to teach a preferred amount. However, the reference does teach that the particles are selected by the user based on desired final properties, including factors such as size, shape ([0036], [0037]), and that the amount of binder in the mixture is selected to provide the desired coating thickness and allow for electrically contact between particles (suggesting a control of the amount of particles and binder to achieve the desired result) one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed amount of particles through routine experimentation and optimization of the binder and particles to provide a coating and provide the desired ionic conductivity and electrical contact ([0036]-[0040], see especially the last lines of [0043], [0044]; instant claim 20).
Additionally, the reference fails to specifically teach the claimed amount of ionically conductive salt relative to the polymer. However, the reference does teach that the salt is selected to increase the ionic conductivity of the binder material ([0040]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed amount of 50 wt % relative to the weight of the polymer added through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired and optimum ionic conductivity as required by the instant claim 27.
With respect to the amount of moisture in the ionically conductive particles being less or equal to 0.5 wt %, the reference does not specifically disclose the information, However the reference aims to produce a dry coated powder, having as little moisture as possible by evaporating the solvent or aerosol drying ([0045], [0057]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the moisture content to be zero or close to zero, which falls within the scope of the instant claim 22. Alternatively, given the aim of the reference to form a dry powder, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a moisture content of the particles of 0.5 wt% or less through routine experimentation and optimization of the dry powder by removing as much moisture as possible.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phares et al in view of Choi et al (WO 2020/059927 and its machine translation).
Phares et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches core particles which may be electrochemical (electrode active) materials. The reference suggests transition metal oxides, but is not limited thereto, but fails to specifically disclose the materials as set forth by the instant claim 7.
Choi et al disclose a core-shell cathode active material, wherein the shell comprises a carbon-containing material in a binder such as PVDF, and the core comprises a Prussian White, Prussian Blue, and its derivatives (analogs). The reference further teaches that transition metal oxides are also known, and thus teaches that both types of materials are suitable cathode active (electrochemical) materials ([55], [56], [77]). The use of the active material improves the capacity and battery life.
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Phares et al, choosing as the electrochemical particles, that taught to be known and advantages in similar applications by Choi et al, to achieve improved battery life and capacity.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phares et al in view of Kurihara et al (7,754,382).
Phares et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches that polymer such as PVDF, polypyrrole, polythiophene, polyacetylene, polyphenylene, polyphenylene, polyaniline, and other known and appropriate polymers may be included ([0035]), but fails to specifically suggest a polycarbonate.
Kurihara et al disclose a composite particle for an electrode wherein the reference teaches that the particles comprise an active material and a polymer such as polyaniline, polypyrrole, polythiophene, polyparaphenylene, polyethylene oxide, and polyvinylidene carbonate, thus teaching that the polymers of Phares et al and those of Kurihara et al are known and interchangeable, thus the polymers of Kurihara et al are suitable for use with or in the place of those of Phares et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one f ordinary skill in the art to prepare the material of Phares et al, choosing to include a polycarbonate polymer additive to improve particle binder conductivity as taught by Kurihara et al, wherein the resultant particle and polymer shell/ covering also meet the limitations of the instant claim 16.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 12-15, 17-19, 21-26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al (10,411,264).
Pan et al disclose a cathode active material and method of preparing it, wherein the active layer comprises particulates of active material encapsulated by a thin layer or high-elasticity polymer (abstract).
The high-elasticity polymer includes UC curable and thermal curable polymers, such as styrene-butadiene rubber, thermoplastic elastomers, perfluoroelastomers, PVDF, polyethylene oxide, and others (column 15 line 54 to column 17, lines 20). Additionally, a lithium-ion conducting salt may be added, including LiClO4, LiPF6, LiBF4, LiAsF6, LiBOB, and others (column 16, line 58 to column 17, line 5; instant claim 42).
The composition may further include an ion-conducting material particles including LiCO3, Li2O, LiX (X is halogen; claim 41, instant claim 9).
The polymer is added to the mixture with the active material particles and ionically conductive particles when used, in a solvent, and includes a polymerization initiator, and salt when added, spray-dried (wherein it is a known process with heat is added “in-flight” to dry the solvent during spraying as per the instant claim 12, and wherein final particles form a dry powder [column 7, lines 43-58], and would be substantially free of solvent; instant claim 21) and cured as required by the instant claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12-15, 17-19, 23-26, and 28 (column 13, line 56 to column 14, line 518).
Regarding the weight percentage of the inorganic solid particles being greater than or equal to 60 wt % of the mixture, the reference fails to teach a preferred amount. However, the reference does teach that the particles are selected by the user based on desired final properties, including factors such as size, shape (column 5, lines 43-52) one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed amount of particles through routine experimentation and optimization of the binder and particles to provide a coating and provide the desired ionic conductivity and electrical properties of the electrode (capacity, column 25, lines 55-67; instant claim 20).
Additionally, the reference fails to specifically teach the claimed amount of ionically conductive salt relative to the polymer. However, the reference does teach that the salt is selected to increase the ionic conductivity of the binder material (column 16, line 58 to column 17, line 5), and does broadly teach an example of salt to polymer of 20:1 to 2:1 (column 14, lines 50-52) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed amount of 50 wt % relative to the weight of the polymer added through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired and optimum ionic conductivity as required by the instant claim 27.
With respect to the amount of moisture in the ionically conductive particles being less or equal to 0.5 wt %, the reference does not specifically disclose the information, However the reference aims to produce a dry coated powder, having as little moisture as possible by evaporating the solvent or aerosol drying, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the moisture content to be zero or close to zero, which falls within the scope of the instant claim 22. Alternatively, given the aim of the reference to form a dry powder, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a moisture content of the particles of 0.5 wt% or less through routine experimentation and optimization of the dry powder by removing as much moisture as possible.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al in view of Choi et al.
Pan et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches cathode active materials, wherein the reference suggests transition metal oxides, but is not limited thereto, but fails to specifically disclose the materials as set forth by the instant claim 7.
Choi et al disclose a core-shell cathode active material, wherein the shell comprises a carbon-containing material in a binder such as PVDF, and the core comprises a Prussian White, Prussian Blue, and its derivatives (analogs). The reference further teaches that transition metal oxides are also known, and thus teaches that both types of materials are suitable cathode active (electrochemical) materials ([55], [56], [77]). The use of the active material improves the capacity and battery life.
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Pan et al, choosing as the electrochemical particles, that taught to be known and advantages in similar applications by Choi et al, to achieve improved battery life and capacity.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al in view of Kurihara et al (7,754,382).
Pan et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches that polymer such as PVDF, polyethylene oxide and other known and appropriate polymers may be included, but fails to specifically suggest a polycarbonate.
Kurihara et al disclose a composite particle for an electrode wherein the reference teaches that the particles comprise an active material and a polymer such as polyaniline, polypyrrole, polythiophene, polyparaphenylene, polyethylene oxide, and polyvinylidene carbonate, thus teaching that the polymers of Phares et al and those of Kurihara et al are known and interchangeable, thus the polymers of Kurihara et al are suitable for use with or in the place of those of Phares et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the material of Pan et al, choosing to include a polycarbonate polymer additive to improve particle binder conductivity as taught by Kurihara et al, wherein the resultant particle and polymer shell/ covering also meet the limitations of the instant claim 16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722