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 without traverse of claims 1-11, 13 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
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, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (JP-2012099315-A) (see translation), and in further view of Yamada (JP-2012094331-A) (see translation).
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 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, Yamada discloses wherein a PTFE resin is fibrillated (see e.g., Yamada; [0002], [0018], [0039]-[0040], [0050]), wherein an example of the PTFE fibril diameter is 30 nm (see e.g., Yamada; [0070], regarding PTFE fibril diameter in example 8), which falls within the claimed range of 70 nm or less. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fibrillated the PTFE resin of Kanda as disclosed by Yamada such that the fibril diameter is 30 nm in order to form a finer network structure in which active material is strongly retained even if PTFE content is kept lower (see e.g., Yamada; [0050]).
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, modified Kanda teaches the secondary battery electrode mixture according to claim 1, wherein the raw material composition is substantially free of a liquid medium (see e.g., Kanda; [0032], wherein all the raw materials are powders).
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 Yamada (JP-2012094331-A) (see translation) 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 Yamada (JP-2012094331-A) (see translation)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 Yamada (JP-2012094331-A) (see translation) 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
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)