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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Kanda (JP-2012099315-A) is applied in combination with new reference Suthar (WO-2020131752-A1) (see equivalent US-20220062806-A1 for reference).
Suthar discloses a porous PTFE membrane, wherein the PTFE may be in the form of a fine powder (see e.g., Suthar; [0040], [0094], [0096]), and wherein the fibrils of the PTFE may be 5-200 nm (see e.g., Suthar; [0036]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 70 nm or less. Suthar is further analogous art because Suthar discloses that the PTFE membrane may have application in energy devices such as fuel cells (see e.g., Suthar; [0002], [0007], [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the fibril diameter of the PTFE as disclosed by Kanda have a fibril diameter of 5-200 nm as disclosed by Suthar in order to have a desired high tensile strength (see e.g., Suthar; [0003], [0037]).
Applicant argues that Kanda provides a process in which PTFE having a fibrous structure is not formed. However, independent claim 1 is a product claim, not a process claim. Therefore, the combination of Kanda with Suthar provides that the PTFE is fibrillated with a fibril diameter that overlaps with the fibril diameter as claimed.
Applicants’ arguments regarding Yamada are moot because Yamada is no longer used as a secondary reference. Furthermore, both Kanda and Suthar disclose that the PTFE may be a powder.
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.
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.
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(s) 1-5, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (JP-2012099315-A), and in further view of Suthar (WO-2020131752-A1) (see equivalent US-20220062806-A1 for reference).
Regarding claim 1, Kanda discloses a secondary battery electrode mixture (see e.g., Kanda; [0032]) comprising an electrode active material and a binder, wherein the secondary battery electrode mixture is obtained using a powdery raw material ("raw material" is interpreted as any precursor material to form the electrode; that is, as in the instant invention, synthetic PTFE is also raw material because PTFE is a precursor component for forming the electrode) composition including an electrode active material and a binder (see e.g., Kanda; [0032]), the binder in the raw material composition is a powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin (see e.g., Kanda; [0043]-[0045], regarding example 1 wherein PTFE powder is used as the binder, [0048], regarding example 2 using PTFE powder, [0037], regarding PTFE may be selected as the binder material among PTFE, PP, and PE).
Kanda discloses that the particle diameter of the PTFE binder may be 50 to 500 nm (see e.g., Kanda; [0013], [0041], [0045]) and in an example 2 the diameter of the PTFE is 50 to 100 nm (see e.g., Kanda; [0048]), which overlaps with the claimed polytetrafluoroethylene resin diameter (median value) of 70 nm or less. Kanda does not explicitly disclose the polytetrafluoroethylene resin having a fibrous structure with a fibril diameter (median value) of 70 nm or less. However, Suthar discloses a porous PTFE membrane, wherein the PTFE may be in the form of a fine powder (see e.g., Suthar; [0040], [0094], [0096]), and wherein the fibrils of the PTFE may be 5-200 nm (see e.g., Suthar; [0036]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 70 nm or less. Suthar is further analogous art because Suthar discloses that the PTFE membrane may have application in energy devices such as fuel cells (see e.g., Suthar; [0002], [0007], [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the fibril diameter of the PTFE as disclosed by Kanda have a fibril diameter of 5-200 nm as disclosed by Suthar in order to have a desired high tensile strength (see e.g., Suthar; [0003], [0037]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kanda teaches the secondary battery electrode mixture according to claim 1, which is for a lithium-ion secondary battery (see e.g., Kanda; [0043], [0048], [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Kanda discloses a secondary battery electrode mixture (see e.g., Kanda; [0032]) comprising an electrode active material and a binder, wherein the secondary battery electrode mixture is obtained using a powdery raw material ("raw material" is interpreted as any precursor material to form the electrode; that is, as in the instant invention, synthetic PTFE is also raw material because PTFE is a precursor component for forming the electrode) composition including an electrode active material and a binder (see e.g., Kanda; [0032]), the binder in the raw material composition is a powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin (see e.g., Kanda; [0043]-[0045], regarding example 1 wherein PTFE powder is used as the binder, [0048], regarding example 2 using PTFE powder, [0037], regarding PTFE may be selected as the binder material among PTFE, PP, and PE), wherein the raw material composition is substantially free of a liquid medium (see e.g., Kanda; [0032], wherein all the raw materials are powders).
Kanda discloses that the particle diameter of the PTFE binder may be 50 to 500 nm (see e.g., Kanda; [0013], [0041], [0045]) and in an example 2 the diameter of the PTFE is 50 to 100 nm (see e.g., Kanda; [0048]), which overlaps with the claimed polytetrafluoroethylene resin diameter (median value) of 70 nm or less. Kanda does not explicitly disclose the polytetrafluoroethylene resin having a fibrous structure with a fibril diameter (median value) of 70 nm or less. However, Suthar discloses a porous PTFE membrane, wherein the PTFE may be in the form of a fine powder (see e.g., Suthar; [0040], [0094], [0096]), and wherein the fibrils of the PTFE may be 5-200 nm (see e.g., Suthar; [0036]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 70 nm or less. Suthar is further analogous art because Suthar discloses that the PTFE membrane may have application in energy devices such as fuel cells (see e.g., Suthar; [0002], [0007], [0026]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the fibril diameter of the PTFE as disclosed by Kanda have a fibril diameter of 5-200 nm as disclosed by Suthar in order to have a desired high tensile strength (see e.g., Suthar; [0003], [0037]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kanda teaches the secondary battery electrode mixture according to claim 1. As a property of the material, PTFE has a water absorption of <0.01%, which falls within the claimed moisture content range of 500 ppm or less (500 ppm is equal to 0.05%). The property of the water absorption of <0.01% is shown in the virgin PTFE datasheet1.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kanda teaches the secondary battery electrode mixture according to claim 1. As a property of the material, PTFE has a specific gravity of 2.14-2.20, which falls within the claimed standard specific gravity range of 2.11 to 2.20. The property of the specific gravity of 2.14-2.20 is shown in the virgin PTFE datasheet2.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kanda teaches a secondary battery electrode mixture sheet comprising the secondary battery electrode mixture according to claim 1 (see e.g., Kanda; [0047], regarding positive electrode material on current collector, which corresponds to the claimed mixture sheet).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kanda teaches a secondary battery comprising the secondary battery electrode mixture sheet according to claim 8 (see e.g., Kanda; [0047] regarding the electrode for a solid-state lithium battery formed as shown in [0052]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (JP- 2012099315-A) (see translation) and Suthar (WO-2020131752-A1) (see equivalent US-20220062806-A1 for reference), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sympatec "Sympatec, Particle size distribution of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder, Accessed Via Wayback Machine 10/15/0219".
Regarding claim 6, modified Kanda teaches the secondary battery electrode mixture according to claim 1. Kanda discloses in the manufacturing process of the PTFE resin that the particle diameter of the secondary particles is 100 to 500 µm (see e.g., Kanda; [0037]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 500 µm or more. Kanda does not explicitly disclose wherein the powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin includes 50% by mass or more of a polytetrafluoroethylene resin having a secondary particle size of 500 µm or more. However, Sympatec discloses that PTFE powder may be agglomerated such that the particle size is in the range of 100 to 700 µm (see e.g., Sympatec; page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing of the PTFE particles disclosed by Kanda such that the particles are agglomerated to a secondary particle size of 500 to 700 µm, which is within the range disclosed by Sympatec. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a better pourability and dosing of the material (see e.g., Sympatec; page 1). That is, the agglomeration step disclosed by Sympatec may be performed after step (b) of ball milling disclosed by Kanda such that the primary particles are all formed back into secondary particles of 500-700 µm, which satisfies the 50% by mass or more as claimed, such that pourability and moldability are improved in step (c) of pressing or rolling to form the composite electrode.
Regarding claim 7, modified Kanda teaches the secondary battery electrode mixture according to claim 1. Kanda discloses in the manufacturing process of the PTFE resin that the particle diameter of the secondary particles is 100 to 500 µm (see e.g., Kanda; [0037]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 500 µm or more. Kanda does not explicitly disclose wherein the powdered polytetrafluoroethylene resin includes 80% by mass or more of a polytetrafluoroethylene resin having a secondary particle size of 500 µm or more. However, Sympatec discloses that PTFE powder may be agglomerated such that the particle size is in the range of 100 to 700 µm (see e.g., Sympatec; page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing of the PTFE particles disclosed by Kanda such that the particles are agglomerated to a secondary particle size of 500 to 700 µm, which is within the range disclosed by Sympatec. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a better pourability and dosing of the material (see e.g., Sympatec; page 1). That is, the agglomeration step disclosed by Sympatec may be performed after step (b) of ball milling disclosed by Kanda such that the primary particles are all formed back into secondary particles of 500-700 µm, which satisfies the 80% by mass or more as claimed, such that pourability and moldability are improved in step (c) of pressing or rolling to form the composite electrode.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (JP- 2012099315-A) (see translation) and Suthar (WO-2020131752-A1) (see equivalent US-20220062806-A1 for reference) as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Luo (US-20100129704-A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kanda teaches the secondary battery electrode mixture sheet according to claim 8. Kanda does not explicitly disclose the electrode is for a negative electrode, wherein the electrode active material includes silicon as a constituent element. However, Luo discloses that PTFE binder may be used in a negative electrode wherein the negative electrode active material includes silicon (see e.g., Luo; [0045], table 1, regarding example 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have use the PTFE disclosed by Kanda in a negative electrode with silicon as constituent element as disclosed by Luo in order to achieve a high specific capacity, good rate properties, and good cycling performance (see e.g., Luo; table 3).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (JP- 2012099315-A) (see translation) and Suthar (WO-2020131752-A1) (see equivalent US-20220062806-A1 for reference) as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Shin (US-20200259180-A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kanda teaches the secondary battery electrode mixture sheet according to claim 8, which is for a positive electrode (see e.g., Kanda; [0008]). Kanda does not explicitly disclose the positive electrode has a density of 3.0 g/cc or more. However, Shin discloses a positive electrode which includes PTFE (see e.g., Shin; table 3, 4) wherein the positive electrode has a density of 3.05 g/cc (see e.g., Shin; table 5), which falls within the claimed range of 3.0 g/cc or more. Shin is further analogous art because Shin discloses the electrodes including the PTFE is dry (see e.g., Shin; [0122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode disclosed by Kanda to have density of 3.05 g/cc as disclosed by Shin in order to have a positive electrode in a battery that exhibits improved performance such as coulombic efficiency, capacity, cycling performance or conductivity (see e.g., Shin; [0052]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kanda teaches the secondary battery electrode mixture sheet according to claim 8. Kanda does not explicitly disclose the electrode is for a negative electrode and has a density of 1.3 g/cc or more. However, Shin discloses a PTFE applied in a negative electrode (see e.g., Shin; table 3, 4) wherein the negative electrode has a density of 1.42 g/cc (see e.g., Shin; table 5), which falls within the claimed range of 1.3 g/cc or more. Shin is further analogous art because Shin discloses the electrodes including the PTFE is dry (see e.g., Shin; [0122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the PTFE disclosed by Kanda in a negative electrode with a density of 1.42 g/cc as disclosed by Shin in order to have an electrode in a battery that exhibits improved performance such as coulombic efficiency, capacity, cycling performance or conductivity (see e.g., Shin; [0052]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
1 "Seal & Design Inc., Virgin PTFE Datasheet" (see attached NPL)
2 "Seal & Design Inc., Virgin PTFE Datasheet" (see attached NPL)
Prosecution Insights