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 and remarks filed (1 – 20 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Lee et al. (US 20220077468 A1, hereinafter Lee) presents a method of manufacturing an electrode of an all-solid-state battery using the wet process for preparing a slurry including a binder and solvent in the form of a solution. Whereas applicant implements a binder solution that is introduced into an active material in dry powder form stirring it and evaporating the solvent to create a dry complex.
Lee fails to teach or suggest the recited "obtaining an intermediate product" and "obtaining a complex”. The mixture powder obtained is an intermediate material for preparing the secondary slurry, and the electrode is manufactured by coating the secondary slurry on a current collector. That is, the complex of claim 1 is a powder for dry pressing, while the mixture powder of Lee is an intermediate material for making the wet secondary slurry. Therefore, the process of obtaining the recited "complex" of claim 1 cannot be equated to Lee's process for obtaining the mixture powder.
Lee fails to teach or suggest the recited "manufacturing a negative electrode" limitation of claim 1.
Lee explicitly states that the discussed process employs the wet slurry coating process, not the dry compression process. Because Lee only discusses the dry compression process but does not employ the dry compression process in the presented method of manufacturing an all solid-state electrode, the process of Lee is not identical to the method of claim 1.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Lee / Lee as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
It should be noted that applicant’s claim 1 does not make any recitation of evaporating the solvent to create a dry complex. The closest claim language that matches applicant’s argument is found in claim 9, which reads, wherein in the obtaining of the complex, the intermediate product is stirred while evaporating the solvent. Noting, that there still is no limitation or requirement that the complex obtained is dry complex only that to obtain the intermediate product, the binder solution comprising a rubber-based binder comprising styrene- butadiene rubber and a solvent is stirred while evaporating the solvent. Nor is their verbiage limiting that the solvent need to be fully evaporated, only that the intermediate product is stirred while evaporating the solvent, i.e, that stirring at a higher temperature would suffice in obtaining applicant’s complex. Highlighting, that this limitation was taught by Arikawa which teaches on ([0258]) that the active material (A), which comprise the negative electrode active material, styrene-butadiene rubber, and solvent, ([0245]) was mixed with spheronized natural graphite (mean particle size (d50) 17 μm) particles (50 g) were added thereto and stirred at the above-mentioned temperature (heated up to 70° C) with removing the solvent through evaporation, thereby giving a powdery, negative electrode active material. As such, modifying the drying step as taught by Arikawa is understood to comprise obtaining the intermediate product by stirring at a temperature in a range of about 40 0C to 80 0C while evaporating the solvent. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products.Ultimately, applicant’s claims are found to rely on subject matter that has not been claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dry complex) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
& d.) As noted in applicant’s argument Lee teaches that mixture powder obtained is an intermediate material for preparing the secondary slurry. As such, the obtaining an intermediate product comprising the binder solution and a negative electrode active material that is provided in a powder form is understood to be disclosed. Highlighting, that while applicant has limiting verbiage for obtaining a complex in which the rubber-based binder is attached to the surface of the negative electrode active material; and manufacturing a negative electrode by pressing the complex. Applicant does not have verbiage limiting that the complex is a powder for dry pressing, as noted above the complex is only limited by being obtained via the intermediate product being stirred while evaporating the solvent. As such, while the mixture powder of Lee is may be an intermediate material for making the wet secondary slurry, as claimed is sufficient. Additionally, applicant’s claims are found to rely on subject matter that has not been claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dry pressing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read
As noted in applicant’s arguments Lee teaches that the process of Lee is a two-step wet process. The mixture powder is an intermediate material for preparing the secondary slurry, and the electrode is manufactured by coating the secondary slurry on a current collector. Additionally, as noted in the previous office action of (10 – 17 – 2025) Lee teaches on ([0055]) that the electrode active material may be a positive electrode active material or a negative electrode active material, and the active material may be an active material commonly used for a positive electrode or a negative electrode of a secondary battery. As such, it is understood that Lee teaches fabricating an manufacturing a negative electrode
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Lee / Lee as modified.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
A.) Claim(s) 1, 6, 8 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20220077468 A1, hereinafter Lee)Regarding claim 1,
A method of manufacturing a negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery, comprising:
preparing a binder solution comprising
a rubber-based binder comprising styrene- butadiene rubber and
a solvent;
obtaining an intermediate product comprising the binder solution and a negative electrode active material that is provided in a powder form;
obtaining a complex in which the rubber-based binder is attached to the surface of the negative electrode active material; and
manufacturing a negative electrode by pressing the complex.
Lee teaches the following:
, c.) & e.) ([0023]) teaches the method comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a first binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry. ([0055]) teaches that the electrode active material may be a positive or negative electrode active material.
([0053]) teaches that the aqueous binder may be one or a mixture of two or more selected from the group consisting of styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR).
([0023]) teaches that drying the primary slurry to prepare a mixture powder; mixing the mixture powder, a conductive agent, and a second binder with a second solvent to prepare a secondary slurry.
([0043]) teaches that the mixture powder has a form in which the electrode active material and the solid electrolyte are bonded through the first binder
([0043]) teaches that a dry compression process is used in which an electrode active material, a conductive agent, and a solid electrolyte are prepared in powder form, then charged into a predetermined mold and then pressed.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the negative electrode active material comprises natural graphite, artificial graphite, or combinations thereof.
Lee teaches the following:
([0057]) A carbon material capable of storing and releasing lithium ions, lithium metal, silicon, or tin may be generally used as a negative electrode active material used for the negative electrode. Typical examples of the high-crystalline carbon include various kinds of high-temperature sintered carbon, such as natural graphite, amongst others.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the intermediate product further comprises a conductive material.
Lee teaches the following:
([0023]) drying the primary slurry to prepare a mixture powder (comprising an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a first binder); mixing the mixture powder, a conductive agent, and a second binder with a second solvent to prepare a secondary slurry. As such, after drying and forming an intermediate product, a conductive agent / material is added to the intermediate product.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising
mixing the complex and a conductive material before the manufacturing of the negative electrode.
Lee teaches the following:
([0023]) teaches that drying the primary slurry to prepare a mixture powder; mixing the mixture powder, a conductive agent, and a second binder with a second solvent to prepare a secondary slurry; and coating the secondary slurry on a current collector. As such, the complex is understood to comprise and be mixed with a conductive material before manufacturing the electrode.
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.
B.) Claim(s) 2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in further view of Han et al. (US 20220209238 A1, hereinafter Han)
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the styrene-butadiene rubber is provided in a non-crosslinked form.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee is silent on the styrene-butadiene rubber being provided in a non-crosslinked form. In analogous art for an electrode binder composition for a rechargeable battery the binder comprising a styrene-butadiene based elastomer rubber (SBR), ([0025]) and an active material, carbonaceous and graphite materials, ([0154]), Han suggests details regarding on the styrene-butadiene rubber being provided in a non-crosslinked form, and in this regard, Han teaches the following:
([0136]) teaching that the styrene-butadiene based elastomer rubber including lots of non-crosslinked polymers having a gel content greater than about 0 wt % and less than about 20% may be prepared. As such, the binder utilized are understood to be non-crosslinked polymers including styrene-butadiene based elastomer rubber. Highlighting, ([0103]) clarifies that the styrene-butadiene based elastomer rubber (SBR) binder itself comprises a gel content less than 20 wt %.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying the styrene-butadiene based elastomer rubber binder to comprise a non-crosslinked styrene-butadiene based elastomer rubber binder, as taught by Han. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a non-crosslinked styrene-butadiene based elastomer rubber binder as it provides for elasticity to an electrode mixture due to the rubber component, and reduce the thickness of an electrode, and when cutting the coated electrode, electrode defects due to delamination may be remarkably decreased, ([0104]). Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.C.) Claim(s) 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in further view of Hattori et al. (US 4547560 A, hereinafter Hattori)Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the styrene-butadiene rubber comprises an amount of about 10 wt% to 50 wt% of styrene based on the total weight of the styrene-butadiene rubber.
Regarding Claim 3, Lee is silent on the styrene-butadiene rubber comprises an amount of about 10 wt% to 50 wt% of styrene. In analogous art for a styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber having excellent tensile strength, resilience, and abrasion resistance,
(Abstract) teaches a SBR having excellent tensile strength, resilience, and abrasion resistance as well as a reduced heat buildup property, which comprises 10% to 40% by weight of styrene units and the balance of butadiene units
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying the styrene-butadiene based elastomer rubber binder to comprise 10% to 40% by weight of styrene units, as taught by Hattori. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include 10% to 40% by weight of styrene units in the styrene-butadiene based elastomer rubber binder as it provides for a SBR having excellent tensile strength, resilience, and abrasion resistance as well as a reduced heat buildup property, (Abstract). Additionally, the case law for overlapping ranges may be recited. Where, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of weight % of styrene units that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).Furthermore, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
D.) Claim(s) 4 – 5, 13 & 17 – 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in further view of Yoon et al. (US 20170214051 A1, hereinafter Yoon)Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the solvent comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of cyclohexane, toluene, xylene, and hexyl butyrate
Lee teaches the following:
([0054]) teaches that the first solvent may be N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), acrylonitrile (ACN), dimethylformamide (DMF) or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and water.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee is silent on the solvent comprises at least one of cyclohexane, toluene, xylene, and hexyl butyrate. In analogous art for an electrode active material slurry comprising preparing a clustered complex by mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and binder, ([0023]), Yoon suggest details regarding the solvent comprises at least one of cyclohexane, toluene, xylene, and hexyl butyrate, and in this regard, Yoon teaches the following:
([0070]) teaches that the solvent suitably may be any one selected from the group consisting of cyclohexanone, toluene, xylene, tetralin, amongst others.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying the composition to include a solvent comprising at least one of cyclohexanone, toluene, xylene, tetralin, amongst others, as taught by Yoon. Highlighting, one would be motivated to utilize a solvent comprising at least one of cyclohexanone, toluene, xylene, tetralin, amongst others as it provides a means for dissolving the binder, ([0106]). Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the binder solution comprises an amount of about 1 wt% to 10 wt% of the rubber-based binder and
an amount of about 90 wt% to 99 wt% of the solvent, based on the total weight of the binder solution.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee is silent on the amount of rubber-based binder and solvent that the binder solution comprises. In analogous art as applied above, Yoon suggest details regarding the amount of rubber-based binder and solvent that the binder solution comprises, and in this regard, Yoon teaches the following
([0054]) teaches that the first binder may have a content of about 1 to 5 wt %, or particularly of about 2 to 4 wt %, based on 100 wt % of a mixture of the active material and the solid electrolyte. ([0067]) teaches that the second binder suitably may have a content of about 1 to 10 wt %. As such, the total binder composition comprises from about 2 wt % to 15 wt %.
([0011]) teaches that the term “slurry” as used herein refers to a fluid mixture comprising a solid content and a liquid (e.g., solvent). The slurry suitably may have a solid content greater than about 20 wt %. With ([0040]) noting that the term “about” is understood as within a range of normal tolerance in the art, for example within 2 standard deviations of the mean. “About” can be understood as within 10%. As such, a solid content greater than 10% is understood to fall within the range of “about”, meaning that the remaining of the portion of the slurry is solvent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying the composition to include the specified amounts of rubber-based binder and solvent in the binder solution, as taught by Yoon. Highlighting one would be motivated to include the specified amounts of rubber-based binder and solvent in the binder solution as it provides for electrode active material slurry having improved dispersibility and adhesion property to strongly adhere the electrode active material with a current collector, ([0011]).
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising
drying the complex in vacuo at a temperature in a range of about 40 °C to 80 °C before the manufacturing of the negative electrode.
Lee teaches the following:
([0043]) teaches that a dry compression process is used in which an electrode active material, a conductive agent, and a solid electrolyte are prepared in powder form, then charged into a predetermined mold and then pressed. Alternatively, a slurry coating process is used in which electrode compositions are mixed together with a solvent and a binder to prepare a slurry composition, which is coated and then dried.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee is silent on drying in vacuo at a temperature in a range of about 40 °C to 80 °C. In analogous art as applied above, Yoon suggest details regarding drying the complex in vacuo at a temperature in a range of about 40 °C to 80 °C, and in this regard, Yoon teaches the following:
([0098]) teaches that after the heat treatment, the solvent may be reduced by vacuum drying. The vacuum drying may be performed at a temperature of about 40 to 200° C., or particularly of about 60 to 150° C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying manufacturing process to include a vacuum drying after forming the electrode complex, as taught by Yoon. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a step of vacuum drying the formed complex as it provides for the solvent to be reduced, ([0098]).Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the negative electrode has a thickness in a range of 50 µm to 300 µm.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee is silent on the negative electrode having a thickness in a range of 50 µm to 300 µm. In analogous art as applied above, Yoon suggest details regarding the negative electrode having a thickness in a range of 50 µm to 300 µm, and in this regard, Yoon teaches the following:
([0095]) teaches that the current collector may be generally formed at a thickness of about 3 μm to 500 μm. ([0096]) teaches that, the cathode active material slurry and/or the anode active material slurry may be applied on each current collector, at a thickness of about 100 μm to 500 μm. As such, this provides for a negative electrode having a thickness in the range of 103 μm to 1000 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying the negative electrode to have thickness in a range of 50 µm to 300 µm, as taught by Yoon, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known electrode thickness, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Yoon. Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Wherein, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Furthermore, the case law for the change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the negative electrode comprises an amount of about 0.1 wt% to 15 wt% of the rubber-based binder based on the total weight of the negative electrode.
Regarding Claim 18, Lee is silent on the negative electrode comprises an amount of the rubber-based binder to be about 0.1 wt% to 15 wt%. In analogous art as applied above, Yoon suggest details regarding the negative electrode comprising an amount of the rubber-based binder to be about 0.1 wt% to 15 wt%, and in this regard, Yoon teaches the following:
([0028]) teaches that the first binder suitably may have a content of about 1 to 5 wt %. With ([0029]) adding that the second binder suitably may have a content of about 1 to 10 wt %. As such, the total weight of binder content ranges from about to 2 to 15 wt %.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying the electrode to comprise an amount of the rubber-based binder to be about 0.1 wt% to 15 wt% , as taught by Yoon. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include the rubber-based binder to be about to 2 to 15 wt % as it provides for a slurry having improved dispersibility and adhesion property to strongly adhere the electrode active material with a current collector, ([0011]). E.) Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in further view of Kouichirou Maeda (WO 2018163776 A1, hereinafter Maeda)
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the negative electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of about 5 µm to 50 µm.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee is silent on the negative electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of about 5 µm to 50 µm. In analogous art for a binder for all-solid-state batteries, ([0001]) the binder comprising a butyl-styrene, ([0014]) and active materials, ([0005]), Maeda suggest details regarding the negative electrode active material has an average particle diameter (D50) in a range of about 5 µm to 50 µm, and in this regard, Maeda teaches the following:
([0062]) teaches that the negative electrode active material is particulate, the average particle size of the negative electrode active material is usually 1 μm to 50 μm, preferably 15 μm to 30 μm, from the viewpoint of improving battery characteristics such as initial efficiency, load characteristics, and charge/discharge cycle characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying and optimize the negative electrode active material to comprise an average particle size in the range of 1 μm to 50 μm, as taught by Maeda. Highlighting, one would be motivated to optimize the negative electrode active material to comprise an average particle size in the range of 1 μm to 50 μm as it provides for tailoring battery characteristics such as initial efficiency, load characteristics, and charge/discharge cycle characteristics, ([0062]). F.) Claim(s) 9 – 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in further view of Arikawa et al. (US 20140356708 A1, hereinafter Arikawa)
Regarding claim(s) 9 – 10 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein in the obtaining of the complex, the intermediate product is stirred while evaporating the solvent.
Wherein in the obtaining of the complex, the intermediate product is stirred at a temperature in a range of about 40 °C to 80 °C while evaporating the solvent.
Regarding Claim(s) 9 – 10, Lee is silent on the intermediate product is stirred in a range of about 40 °C to 80 °C, while evaporating the solvent. In analogous art for a negative electrode active material that comprise a styrene-butadiene rubber, ([0182]) and solvent, ([0195]), Arikawa suggest details regarding the intermediate product is stirred in a range of about 40 °C to 80 °C, while evaporating the solvent, and in this regard, Arikawa teaches the following:
& 10a.) ([0258]) teaches that the active material (A), which comprise the negative electrode active material, styrene-butadiene rubber, and solvent, ([0245]) was mixed with spheronized natural graphite (mean particle size (d50) 17 μm) particles (50 g) were added thereto and stirred at the above-mentioned temperature (heated up to 70° C) with removing the solvent through evaporation, thereby giving a powdery, negative electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying the process to include stirring the solvent at a temperature of up to 70° C, as taught by Arikawa. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a step of stirring the solvent at a temperature of up to 70° C, as it provides a means for removing the solvent through evaporation, thereby giving a powdery material, ([0258]). Highlighting that is stirring at a temperature in a range of about 40 °C to 80 °C is understood to provide for evaporating the solvent. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144. Furthermore, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Wherein, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Furthermore, the case law for the change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
G.) Claim(s) 11 – 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in further view of Kong et al. (US 20170288193 A1, hereinafter Kong)
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the complex is formed by the rubber-based binder binding a first negative electrode active material and
a second negative electrode active material adjacent thereto.
Lee teaches the following:
([0057]) teaches that various types of materials can be used as a negative electrode active material. Amongst those are low-crystalline carbon and high-crystalline carbon include various kinds of high-temperature sintered carbon, such as natural graphite, Kish graphite.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee is silent on utilizing more than one / a second negative electrode active material. In analogous art for a negative electrode current collector comprising of a negative electrode material mixture, (Abstract), Kong suggest details regarding utilizing more than one / a second negative electrode active material, and in this regard, Kong teaches the following:
([0037]) teaches that the negative electrode active material may include carbon and graphite material, for example, suitably may include one or more selected from the group consisting of natural graphite, artificial graphite, expanded graphite, amongst others.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying the composition to a plurality of negative electrode active material, as taught by Kong, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known negative electrode active material, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Kong. Highlighting, that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Wherein, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 11,
Wherein the rubber-based binder between the first negative electrode active material and the second negative electrode active material has a size in a range of about 1 µm to 4 µm.
Lee teaches the following:
([0010]) teaches that the binder is in the form of particles having an average particle size (D50) of about 0.01 μm to 10 μm,
H.) Claim(s) 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and in further view of Hu et al. (US 20220140309 A1, hereinafter Hu)Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the negative electrode is manufactured by pressing the complex using a rolling mill equipped with a pair of rollers.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee is silent on the electrode being manufactured by pressing the complex using a rolling mill. In analogous art for the fabrication of an electrode that comprises a binder of styrene butylene rubber, ([0053]) along with a negative electrode active material include carbon such as non-graphitized carbon and graphite carbon, ([0051]), the fabrication comprises rolling an electrode via at least one pair of rolling rolls, (Abstract), Hu suggest details regarding pressing the complex using a rolling mill, and in this regard, Hu teaches the following:
([0054]) teaches that each pair of rolling rolls 21 and 22 may include an upper roll for pressing the electrode 10 from the upper portion and a lower roll for pressing the electrode from the lower portion. The electrode 10 is inserted into a space between the upper roll and the lower roll.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee. By modifying the fabrication technique to include at least one pair of rolling rolls 21 and 22 for forming an electrode, as taught by Hu. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement at least one pair of rolling rolls 21 and 22 for forming an electrode as it provides for a continuous manufacturing technique, as illustrated in (Fig. 1) and provides for fabricating an electrode that maintains and comprises a uniform thickness of the electrode after rolling, ([0008]). I.) Claim(s) 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hu and in further view of Kang et al. (US 20230042207 A1, hereinafter Kang)
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 15,
Wherein a roll speed ratio of the pair of rollers is equal.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee as modified by Hu is silent on the roll speed ratio of the pair of rollers being equal. In analogous art for manufacturing an electrode that comprise an electrode active material, a conductive material and a binder resin, ([0017]), Kang suggest details regarding the roll speed ratio of the pair of rollers being equal, and in this regard, Kang teaches the following:
([0116]) teaches that the two rollers in at least one of the roll press unit may have a rotation speed ratio controlled to 1:1-1:3. Where a rotation speed ratio controlled to 1:1 is understood to be equal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an electrode comprising the steps of mixing an electrode active material, a solid electrolyte and a binder with a first solvent to prepare a primary slurry of Lee as modified by Hu. By further augmenting the system such that the rotation speed ratio of the roll press unit to comprise a ratio that is equal / 1:1, as taught by Kang. Highlighting, one would be motivated to augmenting the rotation speed ratio of the roll press unit to comprise a ratio that is equal / 1:1 as it provides for tailoring the crystallinity may be controlled by adjusting the gap or speed ratio between the two rollers of the roll press unit, ([0119]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. (US 20190229328 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) an electrode for a solid-state battery is provided. The electrode active material layer of the electrode shows improved mechanical properties, such as elasticity or rigidity, of the electrode layer through the crosslinking of a binder resin. Thus, it is possible to inhibit or reduce the effect of swelling and/or shrinking of the electrode active material during charging/discharging.
Park et al. (US 20240243244 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a system for controlling a thickness of an electrode includes a first press configured to accommodate an electrode powder consecutively supplied and press the electrode powder into an electrode sheet in the form of a film, a second press disposed downstream of the first press and configured to receive the electrode sheet and press the received electrode sheet, a measuring device disposed downstream of the second press and configured to measure a thickness of the electrode sheet in real time, and a controller configured to change an operating condition of the first press or an operating condition of the second press based on thickness information measured by the measuring device.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743