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 Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed June 29, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Based on applicant’s amendments the rejection below has been updated to address the amendments.
Claims 1 and 11
Applicant argues that neither Yersak nor Wang teaches or suggests a thermoset binder composed of residues of cross-linkable monomers wherein the cross-linkable monomers form cross-links during cell processing.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner improperly characterized Wang as teaching cross-linkable monomers, that Wang’s materials are merely polymeric primer materials, and that the proposed combination relies upon impermissible hindsight.
The argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Yersak expressly teaches a ceramic particle-containing layer disposed over the negative electrode active layer that includes ceramic particles and a thermoset binder. As discussed in the previous Office Action, Yersak discloses numerous suitable binder chemistries including polymer precursors, monomers, and monomer systems capable of forming the disclosed polymeric binders. While Applicant argues that Yersak does not expressly disclose that cross-linking occurs during cell processing, obviousness does not require an ipissimis verbis disclosure. Yersak expressly contemplates polymer precursors and monomer systems used to form its thermoset binder. Formation of a thermoset binder logically requires curing of cross-linkable monomers to produce the final cross-linked polymer network.
Wang teaches that suitable cross-linkable monomer systems include polyimide, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyurethane, and related polymeric materials capable of crosslinking. Therefore, Wang teaches the cross-linkable monomers chemistry omitted from the explicit disclosure of Yersak.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Yersak’s thermoset binder necessarily must originate from cross-linkable monomer systems, and Wang merely identifies conventional examples of such monomer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize Wang’s known cross-linkable monomer chemistry when forming the thermoset binder of Yersak.
Applicant argues that Wang primarily emphasizes low-crosslinked primer layers.
The argument has been considered but is not persuasive. A reference must be considered for everything it teaches, not merely its preferred embodiment. Wang expressly discloses embodiments containing greater amounts of crosslinked polymeric material. The fact that Wang also discloses embodiments having lower degrees of crosslinking does not negate its teaching that cross-linkable polymer systems are suitable materials for battery electrode coatings. A reference does not teach away simply because it expresses a preference for one embodiment over another where alternative embodiments are expressly disclosed.
Applicant further argues that Wang is directed to primer layers rather than ceramic particle-containing layers.
However, both Yersak and Wang are direct to battery electrode coating technologies utilizing polymeric binder systems. The references are reasonably pertinent to the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected Wang’s binder chemistry to be applicable to ceramic coating of Yersak because both references address adhesion and coating integrity for lithium-ion battery electrodes.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to substitute Wang’s known cross-linkable monomer systems for the thermoset binder disclosed by Yersak in order to obtain a cured thermoset binder having improved mechanical integrity and adhesion.
Applicant also alleges hindsight reconstruction.
The rejection does not rely upon Applicant’s disclosure but instead relies upon Yersak’s disclosure of thermoset binders together with Wang’s disclosure of suitable cross-linkable monomer systems for battery electrode coatings. The combination merely employs known materials according to their established functions and therefore represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Accordingly, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 is maintained.
Dependent claims
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are patentable because the independent claims are patentable.
The argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Because the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 is maintained, the rejection of claims 2-10 and 12-18 is likewise maintained for the reasons previously set forth in the Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 7, 9, 16, 17, and 18 merely clarify grammar, dependency, or weight-percent language and do not patentably distinguish the claimed subject matter over the applied references.
Furthermore, the thickness ranges, particle-size ranges, ceramic compositions, binder compositions, and weight-percent limitations continue to overlap or fall within the ranges disclosed by Yersak and therefore remain obvious as matters of routine optimization, as explained in the previous Office Action.
Additional Arguments
Applicant argues that neither reference teaches cross-linking during call processing.
The examiner maintains that curing of thermoset binder necessarily occurs during manufacture of the electrode coating. Yersak expressly teaches thermoset binder, while Wang teaches suitable cross-linkable monomer systems. Performing the curing step during manufacture of the battery cell would have been an obvious manufacturing process for producing the disclosed thermoset binder.
Applicant argues that several polymers listed by Yersak are commonly thermoplastic.
The Examiner notes that Yersak expressly defines suitable binders to include polymer precursors and monomer systems. Wang teaches that such precursor systems may be cross-linkable. Whether particular polymers may alternatively exist in thermoplastic form does not negate the combined teachings of the references regarding formation of thermoset binder systems.
Applicant argues Wang teaches away.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Wang expressly discloses both lower and higher crosslink embodiments. Disclosure of multiple embodiments does not constitute teaching away.
Applicant identifies advantages including improved SEI protection, dendrite suppression, thermal conductivity, and improved wetting.
No objective evidence has been submitted demonstrating that these alleged advantages are unexpected relative to the closest prior art or that they are commensurate in scope with the pending claims. Attorney argument cannot substitute for objective evidence of nonobviousness.
Claim Objections
Applicant amended claims 9 and 15 to correct the informalities identified in the previous Office Action. The examiner withdraws the previous objections to claim 9 and 15.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak, Thomas A. et. al. (US 20220255063 A1), herein after Yersak, in further view of Wang, Yong-Zhong et al. (CN 101884125 A), herein after Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Yersak teaches a negative electrode for a rechargeable lithium-ion battery [0017] comprising:
A negative electrode current collector ([0055], negative electrode current collector (32));
A negative electrode active layer ([0063]):
disposed over the negative electrode current collector (Fig. 2A, disposed on current collector 32);
composed of negative electrode active material ([0063]);
A ceramic particle-containing layer ([0017], [0064]):
disposed over the negative electrode active layer (Fig. 2A, disposed on current collector 32);
composed of ceramic particles and a thermoset binder ([0020]).
Yersak further teaches that the thermoset binder may comprise polymer precursors, monomer or monomer systems ([0073-0077]). Additionally, Yersak teaches the thermoset binder may include, but not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0073], [0077] binder 60). However, Yersak does not explicitly disclose that the thermoset binder is composed of cross-linkable monomers that for cross-links during cell processing. Wang teaches cross-linkable monomer system suitable for forming cross-linked polymeric binder materials for battery electrode coatings ([0056]). Additionally, Wang teaches that cross-linkable monomers may include, but are not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to utilize Wang’s known cross-linkable monomer systems in the thermoset binder of Yersak.
Regarding claims 2-10, Yersak and Wang teach all the limitations of claims 1, as stated above.
Regarding claim 2, Yersak teaches the thermoset binder may include, but not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0073], [0077] binder 60). However, Yersak does not explicitly teach cross-linkable monomers include multi-functional moieties. Wang teaches that cross-linkable monomers may include, but are not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0056]). Yersak and Wang are analogous in the art of battery electrode coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention that the binders disclosed in Yersak are formed from cross-linkable monomers include multi-functional moieties, as taught by Wang.
Regarding claim 3, Yersak further teaches the thermoset binder may include, but not limited to, acrylic polymers, vinylic polymers, epoxy polymers, urethane, more specifically polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0073], [0077] binder 60).
Regarding claim 4, the claimed ceramic particle-containing layer thickness range of about 0.1 to 30 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 1 to 100 microns ([0023]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 5, the claimed ceramic particle-containing layer thickness range of about 0.3 to 10 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 1 to 100 microns ([0023]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 6, Yersak further teaches the ceramic particles may include, but not limited to, zirconia and alumina ([0023]).
Regarding claim 7, the claimed ceramic particles have an average size ranging from about 0.1 to 10 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 0.1 to 20 microns ([0018]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed ceramic particles have an average size ranging from about 0.2 to 2 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 0.1 to 20 microns ([0018]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 9, Yersak further teaches the binder (binder 60) may be present in an amount, based on the total weight of the ceramic particles and binder, with ranges from 1-40 weight percent ([0074]). Correspondingly, the claimed ceramic particle content ranges from 60-99 weight percent ([0074]). The claimed binder range of about 0.1-20 weight percent overlaps and falls within the range disclosed by Yersak. Correspondingly the claimed ceramic particles content of about 80-99 weight percent represent the complimentary portion of the composition and likewise falls within the ranges is inherently disclosed by Yersak. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 10, Yersak further teaches the negative active material is a carbon-based negative active material, a silicon-based negative active material, or a combination thereof [0063].
Regarding claim 11, Yersak further teaches a rechargeable lithium-ion battery cell, each cell including ([0006], Fig. 1, electrochemical cell (lithium-ion battery/battery) 10, Fig. 3):
A negative electrode ([0017]) comprising:
a negative electrode current collector ([0055], negative electrode current collector (32));
negative electrode active layer) ([0063]):
disposed over the negative electrode current collector (Fig. 2A, disposed on current collector 32);
composed of negative electrode active material ([0063]);
a ceramic particle-containing layer ([0017], [0064]):
disposed over the negative electrode active layer (Fig. 2A, disposed on current collector 32);
composed of ceramic particles and a thermoset binder ([0020]);
A positive electrode ([0055], positive electrode 22) including:
Positive active material ([0079]);
An electrolyte contacting the negative electrode and positive electrode ([0055], negative electrode 22, positive electrode 24, separator 26).
Yersak further teaches that the thermoset binder may comprise polymer precursors, monomer or monomer systems ([0073-0077]). Additionally, Yersak teaches the thermoset binder may include, but not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0073], [0077] binder 60). However, Yersak does not explicitly disclose that the thermoset binder is composed of cross-linkable monomers that for cross-links during cell processing. Wang teaches cross-linkable monomer system suitable for forming cross-linked polymeric binder materials for battery electrode coatings ([0056]). Additionally, Wang teaches that cross-linkable monomers may include, but are not limited to, polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to utilize Wang’s known cross-linkable monomer systems in the thermoset binder of Yersak.
Regarding claims 12-18, Yersak and Wang teach all the limitations of claims 11, as stated above.
Regarding claim 12, Yersak further teaches a separator interposed between the negative and positive electrode ([0055], negative electrode 22, positive electrode 24, separator 26).
Regarding claim 13, Yersak further teaches the thermoset binder may include, but not limited to, acrylic polymers, vinylic polymers, epoxy polymers, urethane, more specifically polyimide, polyvinyl acetate (PVA), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyurethane ([0073], [0077] binder 60).
Regarding claim 14, the claimed ceramic particle-containing layer thickness range of about 0.1 to 30 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 1 to 100 microns ([0023]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 15, Yersak further teaches the ceramic particles may include, but not limited to, zirconia and alumina ([0023]).
Regarding claim 16, the claimed ceramic particles have an average size ranging from about 0.1 to 10 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 0.1 to 20 microns ([0018]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed ceramic particles have an average size ranging from about 0.2 to 2 microns overlaps with the thickness range disclosed by Yersak of about 0.1 to 20 microns ([0018]). It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 18, Yersak further teaches the binder (binder 60) may be present in an amount, based on the total weight of the ceramic particles and binder, with ranges from 1-40 weight percent ([0074]). Correspondingly, the claimed ceramic particle content ranges from 60-99 weight percent ([0074]). The claimed binder range of about 0.1-20 weight percent overlaps and falls within the range disclosed by Yersak. Correspondingly the claimed ceramic particles content of about 80-99 weight percent represent the complimentary portion of the composition and likewise falls within the ranges is inherently disclosed by Yersak. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select thickness within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights