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 .
Remarks
Claims 1, 2 and 8-10 have been amended. Claims 3-5 and 11-20 are as previously presented. Claims 6-7 are withdrawn from consideration. Claim 21 is newly added. Claims 1-5 and 8-21 are currently examined.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejection as set forth within the previous office action has been modified as necessitated by the applicants amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2020/0185726), and further in view of Yoshizumi (US 2021/0188068) and Okada (US 2014/0193709).
As to claim 1, Kubota discloses a cathode electrode film (figure 9 #14, [0059], discussed throughout), comprising: a cathode active material ([0123]-[0124], discussed throughout) and a binder ([0129], discussed throughout).
Kubota discloses wherein the cathode active material conventionally known materials and can be lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide and lithium iron phosphate ([0124]). However, Kubota is silent to wherein the active material consists of manganese dioxide. Yoshizumi disclose a solid battery ([0327]) wherein the cathode active material can be manganese dioxide, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide and lithium iron phosphate ([0260]-[0264]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the manganese dioxide active material from Yoshizumi within Kubota as the only active material as a mere simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I (B)).
Kubota is silent to the term electron beam binder. However, electron beam binder is a binder in which an electron beam was used. Thus, electron beam is a product by process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Alternatively, should the term electron beam impart structure. Kubota discloses wherein the cathode active material is a slurry that is then applied to the current collector complex ([0224]). Okada discloses the use of binders within electrode of electrochemical elements ([0017]) wherein an electron beam is used within the drying step to remove the solvent and dry the slurry ([0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the binder and the drying step from Okada within Kubota because the binder improves battery performance and the drying process does not break down the binder ([0017], [0126], Kubota).
As to claim 3, modified Kubota discloses a cathode electrode (figure 9 #10, [0226], [0238], discussed throughout), comprising: a current collector (figure 9 #11, [0239], discussed throughout); and the cathode electrode film of claim 1 disposed over the current collector (figure 9 #14 and #11, discussed throughout).
As to claim 4, modified Kubota discloses further comprising a carbon coating disposed between the current collector and the cathode electrode film (figure 9 #13, [0239], discussed throughout).
As to claim 5, modified Kubota discloses an energy storage device (figure 9 #100, [0238], discussed throughout), comprising: the cathode electrode of claim 3 (figure 9 #10, [0239], discussed above); an anode electrode (figure 9 #40, [0239], discussed throughout); and a housing ([0254], discussed throughout), wherein the cathode and anode electrodes are disposed within the housing ([0254], discussed throughout).
Claims 8-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2020/0185726), and further in view of Dianetti (US 2022/0166095) as evidence by Huchet (US 2022/0285734).
As to claim 8, Kubota discloses an electrode film () comprising: a cathode electrode material (figure 9 #14, [0059], discussed throughout), comprising: a cathode active material ([0123]-[0124], discussed throughout) and a binder ([0129], discussed throughout) selected from the group consisting of a cellulose, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), a polyolefin, polyalkylenes, polyethers, styrene-butadiene, co-polymers of polysiloxanes, a polysiloxane, branched polyethers, polyvinylethers, co-polymers thereof, and combinations thereof ([0129] and discussed throughout).
Kubota discloses wherein the cathode active material conventionally known materials and can be lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide and lithium iron phosphate ([0124]). However, Kubota is silent to wherein the active material consists of carbon monofluoride. Dianetti discloses an electrochemical cell ([0011], discussed throughout) with a cathode active material comprising carbon monofluoride (CFx, [0032]), lithium cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide ([0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the manganese dioxide active material from Yoshizumi within Kubota as the only active material as a mere simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I (B)).
NOTE: the instant specification uses CFx as carbon monofluoride as does Dianetti. Huchet (US 2022/0285734) is within the same field of endeavor and has CFx wherein x is define and can be 1 to show that it is known as carbon monofluoride and evidence which is consistent with the prior art and the instant specification.
As to claim 9, modified Kubota discloses wherein the polyolefin is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) ([0129], discussed throughout).
As to claim 21, modified Kubota discloses a cathode electrode (figure 9 #10, [0226], [0238], discussed throughout), comprising: a current collector (figure 9 #11, [0239], discussed throughout); and the electrode film of claim 9 disposed over the current collector (figure 9 #14 and #11, discussed throughout) a carbon coating disposed between the current collector and the electrode film (figure 9 #13, [0239], discussed throughout).
Claims 10-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2020/0185726), and further in view of Hu (US 2020/0403266).
As to claim 10, Kubota discloses an electrode film (figure 9 #14, [0059], discussed throughout), comprising: an active material ([0123]-[0124], discussed throughout); a binder ([0129], discussed throughout).
Kubota is silent to the term electron beam binder. However, electron beam binder is a binder in which an electron beam was used. Thus, electron beam is a product by process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.
Kubota closes wherein the cathode active material is a slurry that is then applied to the current collector complex ([0224]). Okada discloses the use of binders within electrode of electrochemical elements ([0017]) wherein an electron beam is used within the drying step to remove the solvent and dry the slurry ([0126]) and wherein carboxymethyl cellulose (which the instant classifies as a cellulose binder, [0041], instant specification) is used within the slurry to control the viscosity of the slurry ([0101]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the binder and the drying step from Okada within Kubota because the binder improves battery performance and the drying process does not break down the binder ([0017], [0126], Kubota) and use the thickening agent from Okada within Kubota to adjust the viscosity of the slurry ([0100]-[0101]) and as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Modified Kubota is silent to the use of a surfactant. Hu discloses a solid state battery ([0069]) wherein a surfactant is used within the cathode ([0329], [0161], [0246]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the surfactant from Hu within the cathode of Kubota as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I) and because the surfactant helps even dispersion of the cathode ([0246], discussed throughout).
As to claim 11, modified Kubota discloses wherein, the active material is a cathode active material ([0123]-[0124], discussed throughout).
As to claim 12, modified Kubota discloses wherein, the cathode active material is selected from the group consisting of carbon monofluoride, manganese dioxide, lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium cobalt oxide (LCO), nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC), nickel cobalt aluminum oxide (NCA), lithium titanate (LTO), lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP), and combinations thereof ([0123]-[0124], discussed throughout).
As to claim 13, modified Kubota discloses wherein, the electrode film comprises about 85-95 wt. % of the active material ([0133], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 14, modified Kubota discloses wherein, the surfactant is selected from the group of consisting of a non-ionic surfactant, a polymeric surfactant, and combinations thereof ([0161], [0295], polyvinylpyrrolidone, Hu, discussed throughout).
As to claim 16, modified Kubota discloses wherein, the surfactant is selected from the group consisting of a polyethylene glycol derivative, polyvinylpyrrolidone, poly(ethyleneimine), poly(acrylic acid), and combinations thereof ([0295], Hu, discussed throughout).
As to claim 17, modified Kubota discloses wherein, the electrode film comprises about 0.01-0.5 wt. % of surfactant ([0161], [0295], discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 18, modified Kubota discloses further comprising a conductive additive ([0123], [0130], discussed throughout).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kubota as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Youn (KR 2021/0030788 see attached translation).
As to claim 15, modified Kubota is silent to wherein, the surfactant comprises a molecular weight of at most about 50,000 g/mol. You discloses a surfactant used within a lithium ion battery (page 2 and throughout) wherein the surfactant is polyvinylpyrrolidone (page 2 and throughout) and wherein the molecular weight is 20,000 to 40,000 (page 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the molecular weight of the polyvinylpyrrolidone form Youn within modified Kunota as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Kubota as applied to claims 10 and 18 above, and further in view of Yoshizumi (US 2021/0188068).
As to claim 19 and 20, Kubota is silent to wherein, the electrode film comprises about 1-10 wt. % of the conductive additive (claim 19) and the electrode film comprises about 3-15 wt. % of the binder (claim 20).
Yoshizumi disclose a solid battery ([0327]) with a cathode comprising the cathode active material ([0260]-[0264]), a conductive additive the content of the conductive additive is 1-10 weight percent of the cathode active material ([0274]) ([0274]) and a binder ([0274]) wherein the content of the binder is 1-10 weight percent of the cathode active material ([0274]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the weight percentages from Yoshizumi within modified Kubota as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants agreements directed to the newly amended claim limitations of the independent claims are addressed within the new rejection above that were necessitated by the applicants amendments.
In regards to applicants arguments that are addressed to the criticality and unexpected results, the examiner does not contest the criticality and unexpected results of the instant examples. However, the applicants instant claimed invention do not meet the criteria of being awarded the criticality and unexpected results of the instant examples i.e. commensurate in scope. The instant examples use exact active materials, binder extra and the ranges of each component. Thus the instant claims are not commensurate in scope with the instant examples. Please see MPEP 716.02 for requirements to be awarded criticality and unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
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 BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights