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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/31/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al (US 20080063939) in view of Wang et al. (CN109354033) and Goodman (CN85103356) is maintained in view of applicant's amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al (US 20080063939) in view of Wang et al. (CN109354033) and Goodman (CN85103356). The machine translation of CN85103356 is replied upon for rejection purposes.
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses a method for producing a positive electrode slurry, the method comprising: mixing a smectite-containing solid mass (montmorillonite), a positive electrode active material (LiCoO2) , and a N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)-containing solvent, to prepare a slurry (para 0052). Ryu does not disclose the method comprising forming the smectite-containing solid mass as recited in the claim. Wang discloses a method for mixing a smectite (montmorillonite), and an N-methyl-2-pyrolidone (NMP)-containing solvent, to prepare a smectite-NMP aqueous solution; subjecting the smectite-NMP aqueous solution to thermal dehydration at a temperature including from 80-150oC for full drying (para 0022), to obtain a smectite-containing solid mass (para 0012-13) that is high adsorption expanded montmorillonite (para 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wang to produce Ryu’s positive electrode slurry. An ordinary skill in the art would have used the method for producing the expanded montmorillonite of Wang and use the expanded montmorillonite as the smectite in the method of Ryu, because Wang discloses that said expanded montmorillonite having low bulk density and high adsorption performance comparable to that of expanded graphite and can be widely used as phase change energy storage materials (abstract and para 0024). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the positive electrode having improved energy storage efficiency. Wang does not specifically disclose preparing the smectite-NMP aqueous solution using an aqueous solution in which smectite is dissolved. However, Goodman discloses a method for preparing a smectite clay that is easily dispersed in an organic medium, wherein the smectite clay is mixed with aqueous solution (water) so that the smectite clay becomes organophilic (abstract, para 0004-0005, and claims). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to prepare the smectite-NMP aqueous solution of Wang by mixing the smectite with water solution, thereby obtaining the smectite with good dispersibility when add to NMP-containing solvent.
Regarding claim 2, Goodman discloses a concentration of the smectite in the aqueous solution in which the smectite is dissolved is greater than or equal to 5 mass % and less than or equal to 20 mass % (10% by weight of dry clay, para 0029).
Regarding claim 3, the references do not disclose a mixing ratio of the aqueous solution in which the smectite is dissolved to the N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)-containing solvent is in a range of 1:0.5 to 1:1.5 in a volume ratio. However, it is well settled that where prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05; In re Harris, 409, F3.d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 P.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). In light of the cited patent case law, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mixing ratio of the aqueous solution in which the smectite is dissolved to the N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)-containing solvent within the claimed range thereby obtaining the smectite with good dispersibility in NMP-containing solvent.
Regarding claim 4, Wang does not disclose the thermal dehydration of the smectite-NMP aqueous solution is performed until a moisture content of the smectite-containing solid mass reaches greater than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 10%. However, Wang discloses the drying process can carried out at 60°C for 30 min, 80°C for 30 min, 100°C for 30 min, 120°C for 30 min, 140°C for 30 min, 180°C for 30 min, or 210°C for 2 h (para 0022), and thus suggests different moisture content of the smectite-containing solid mass, which can include the claimed moisture content of greater than or equal to 5% and less than or equal to 10%.
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the thermal dehydration of the smectite-NMP aqueous solution is performed until a moisture content of the smectite-containing solid mass reaches 0% (fully dried, para 0013).
Regarding claim 6, Ryu does not disclose a concentration of the smectite solid mass in the N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)-containing solvent. However, Ryu discloses a clay mineral in an amount of the range of 5% by weight or less based on the total weight of the electrode material and there is no particular limit to the clay mineral, so long as it has no bad influence on the operation characteristics of the battery, while having congeniality to polar solvents (para 0021 and 0023). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to find a concentration of the smectite solid mass in the N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)-containing solvent thereby forming a composite with a binder so as to reinforce the mechanical strength of the electrode material. Thereby, the clay mineral prevents dissociation of the electrode material resulted by the pressure and contraction applied during the expansion and contraction of electrodes upon charging/discharging (Ryu, para 0020).
Regarding claim 7, Ryu discloses a method for producing a positive electrode, comprising applying a positive electrode slurry obtained by the production method according to claim 1 to a positive electrode current collector (para 0033).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Wang discloses method steps to obtain expanded montmorillonite having low bulk density and high adsorption performance comparable to that of expanded graphite (abstract and para 0024). It is well known in the art the expanded graphite and expanded montmorillonite are used in electrochemical applications, such as electrode materials. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the expanded montmorillonite produced by the method of Wang as the smectite-containing mass with a reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the positive electrode having improved energy storage efficiency. A reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.; and "For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success." In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Also See MPEP 2143. In addition, the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Applicant argued that Ryu does not disclose the thermal dehydration step. As presented above, the thermal dehydration step is disclosed by Wang. The law held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[l]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). Wang discloses subjecting the smectite-NMP aqueous solution to thermal dehydration at a temperature including from 80-150oC for full drying (para 0022), to obtain a fully dried smectite-containing solid mass (para 0012-13) as in claim 5. Even though Wang discloses the sintering the solid mass, the combination of Ryu, Wang and Goodman references still meet the claimed invention because "The transition ‘comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps."); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claims 1-7 remain unpatentable for the reasons of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights