DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/281080, “POSITIVE ELECTRODE FOR NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERIES, METHOD FOR PRODUCING POSITIVE ELECTRODE FOR NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERIES, AND NONAQUEOUS ELECTROLYTE SECONDARY BATTERY”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 3/26/21 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 3/26/21.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 6/15/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/15/26 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive applicant presents the following arguments.
Shinoda is directed to solving a problem associated with PVDF flexibility, whereas Ishii is directed to solving a problem in that nitrile based resin is difficult to dissolve in solvent after drying. The particle size teachings of Ishii are specifically tailored to address solubility of nitrile-based resins; therefore, there is no motivation to apply Ishii’s particle size teaching for nitrile-based resin to Shinoda’s PVDF, which is a different type of resin. In response, Ishii at paragraph [0110] teaches that D10 should be selected in a particular range so that “the fluidity of the binder particle aggregate can be ensured. Hence, for example, ratholes or bridges can be prevented when discharging the binder particle aggregate from a storage hopper. If the D10 diameter of the binder particle aggregate is not less than the above-mentioned lower limit, dust is suppressed when handling the binder particle aggregate”. This includes teachings that the D10 value is selected at least in part for mechanical reasons, such as ability of the binder to be discharged from a storage hopper and suppression of dust. Ishii at paragraph [0112] teaches that D90 should be selected in a particular range so that “the solubility of the binder particle aggregate in a solvent can be improved, and the coatability of the slurry composition can be further enhanced.” This includes teachings that the D90 value is selected at least in part for mechanical reasons, such as sizing particles to facilitate solubility, as large particles would be slower to dissolve, or coatability, as large particles could cause unevenness in coating. Ishii does not teach that these teachings are specific to the chemical composition of the binder. Instead, as these suggestions are at least in part mechanical in nature, a skilled artisan would have expected the same benefits to be transferable to the binder particles of Shinoda. Applicant’s argument that the difference in chemical composition of the binders of Shinoda and Ishii would negate the proposed combination is not found persuasive.
Shinoda and Ishii address different problems; therefore, there is not motivation to combine these references. In response, as described in MPEP 2123 I, “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” Here, Shinoda and Ishii are analogous battery art, and Ishii suggests a reason to select a particular particle size for binder particles. The references being drawn to different problems does not negate the teaching used in the rejection.
Applicant’s Table 1 demonstrates that Examples 1 and 2 simultaneously provide improvement in stability and improvement in peel strength, leading to improved adhesion and suppressed variance in battery characteristics. To the contrary, Ishii teaches limiting the D90/D10 ratio to 10 or less to improve solubility of nitrile-based resins, which is contrary to the approach of the present invention. In response, as stated in MPEP 2144 IV, “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” Here, applicant argues that the rejection is deficient simply because it is not crafted with art recognizing and addressing the problem applicant intends to solve. However, the prior art is not required to solve the same problem as does applicant.
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 of this title, 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, 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Shinoda (US 2021/0376319) and Ishii (US 2019/0144586).
Regarding claim 1, Shinoda teaches a positive electrode (paragraph [0006, 0017-0018]) for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (paragraphs [0136]), comprising
a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode mixture layer formed on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (paragraph [0006, 0017-0018]), wherein
the positive electrode mixture layer contains a positive electrode active material, a conductive agent, and a binder (paragraph [0018]),
a weight average molecular weight of the binder is 1,300,000 or more (paragraph [0105]), and,
as to the 6/15/26 amendment, wherein the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride (paragraph [0006, 0087-0088, 0105]).
Shinoda does not appear to teach wherein in a particle size distribution of the binder, D10 and D90 satisfy D90-D10≥100 µm.
In the battery art, Ishii teaches an electrode composition comprising a D90-D10 value of ≥ 100 µm (paragraphs [0110-0113] generally suggest the claimed range; see also Table 1, Example 6 exhibits a D10 of 34 and a D90 of 203, for a D90-D10 value lying within the claimed range), and that such a composition provides a desirable combination of fluidity, solubility, coatability and uniformity (paragraphs [0110, 0112]) and favorable characteristics such as desirable fluidity, coatability and high-voltage characteristics (paragraph [0233]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the binder of Shinoda to have a D90-D10 value of ≥ 100 µm since Ishii teaches that binders having D90 and D10 values consistent with this inequality may provide favorable characteristics associated with solubility, uniformity, fluidity, coatability and/or high-voltage characteristics as taught by Ishii.
Regarding claim 2, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Shinoda further teaches wherein, in the positive electrode mixture layer, a content of the binder relative to 100 parts by mass of the positive electrode active material is less than 1 part by mass (“may be 1.0% mass or less”, paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 4, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Shinoda further teaches a method (paragraphs [0126-0128, 0134]) for producing a positive electrode (paragraph [0006, 0017-0018]) for non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (paragraphs [0136]), comprising: a positive electrode mixture slurry preparation step of preparing a positive electrode mixture slurry by mixing a positive electrode active material, a conductive agent, and a binder (paragraph [0128]); and
a positive electrode mixture layer formation step of forming a positive electrode mixture layer by applying the positive electrode mixture slurry onto a surface of a positive electrode current collector and performing drying and rolling (paragraphs [0018, 0134, 0166]), wherein a weight average molecular weight of the binder is 1,300,000 or more (paragraph [0105]) and the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride (paragraph [0006, 0087-0088, 0105]).
Shinoda does not expressly teach wherein the mixing is performed by kneading.
In the battery art, Ishii teaches preparing a positive electrode material layer comprising a kneading step performed for 20 minutes at 60 rpm (paragraph [0219]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize kneading for the benefit of ensuring that the mixture is fully mixed, homogenized and/or kneaded as taught by Ishii.
Shinoda does not appear to teach wherein in a particle size distribution of the binder, D10 and D90 satisfy D90-D10≥100 µm. However, this limitation is obvious in view of Ishii as previously described in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Shinoda further teaches the positive electrode as a subcomponent of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery further including a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (paragraph [0136]).
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Park (US 2016/0233512) binder comprising particles of different sizes, but smaller than claimed range;
Yamamoto (US 2019/0044148) binder comprising particles of different sizes, but smaller than claimed range;
Wang (US 2019/0305316) binder composition comprising fibrilized and non-fibrilized particles having differing sizes.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights