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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "…increasing an electrolyte concentration of the slurry" on Page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 24 depends on claim 21 which does not mention an electrolyte as a part of the method of manufacturing the electrode. It is unclear what electrolyte is being referred to. For the purposes of examination, any inclusion of an electrolyte in the electrode would satisfy the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 13-14, 17, 20, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20230104437 A1).
With regards to claim 13, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing an electrode comprising: forming a slurry comprising an active material supported on an inactive material (conductive additive) and a solvent (¶ 0062). Kim does not specifically teach the conductive additive as an inactive material; however, in ¶ 0011, Kim teaches graphite as the conductive material which reads on the inactive material. Kim also does not specifically teach the active material supported on the inactive material. In ¶ 0062, Kim teaches that the active and inactive material are mixed and therefore contact each other which reads on the active material being supported on the inactive material. Kim goes on to teach mixing an additive material (dispersant) into the slurry and coating the slurry onto a substrate (current collector) and drying the slurry to form the electrode (¶ 0062). Kim teaches the electrode comprising a body laminated to the substrate (current collector), wherein the body comprises the active material and the inactive material (conductive additive) and a plurality of cracks defined in a first surface of the body formed by evaporation of the additive material during the drying of the slurry (¶ 0037, ¶ 0062, and ¶ 0073). Kim does not specifically teach a plurality of cracks defined in a first surface of the body formed by evaporation of the additive material during the drying of the slurry. However, Kim teaches that the additive (dispersant) is included in the solvent and also teaches that it gives control over crack formation (0067). Kim also teaches that during drying, the removal rate of this solvent leads to the formation of cracks in the electrode (0073). Kim does not specifically teach that the mixing occurs in a first and second period.
However, in ¶ 0079, Kim teaches the mixing in two steps then coating and drying the slurry in a final step. During the first mixing step, Kim teaches mixing the binder and the solvent and in the second step, Kim teaches mixing the conducive additive (inactive material) (¶ 0079). Kim does not teach mixing the additive (dispersant) in this second step; however, Kim explains that a combination of steps, elements, components, or constituents whether specifically mentioned or not, fall within the scope of their invention (¶ 0076).
As Kim teaches including the additive in the slurry, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the second mixing step as taught by Kim to include mixing the additive during the second step before the final drying step as there are no unexpected results. MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious).
With regards to claim 14, Kim teaches that the active material comprises at least one of oxygen, sulfur, selenium, or tellurium and the inactive material comprises carbon (¶ 0011 - ¶ 0012; the active material can be LiFePO4 which contains oxygen and the inactive material can be the conductive additive which can be selected from the one or more forms of carbon).
With regards to claim 17, Kim teaches that the solvent is aqueous based (¶ 0067). Kim also teaches that the additive reduces the surface tension of the slurry (¶ 0066). As the additive reduces the surface tension of the slurry, it would be expected to have a surface tension less than or equal to that of the solvent.
With regards to claim 20, Kim teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the drying is performed at a temperature ranging from 50°C to 70°C (¶ 0068). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regards to claim 31, Kim does not specifically teach that the second period is after the first period. However, Kim teaches a first mixing step and second mixing step that occurs after the first mixing (¶ 0079).
With regards to claim 32, Kim teaches the method of claim 13, wherein mixing the additive material into the slurry comprises adding an amount of additive material to the slurry to form a mixture of the additive material and the slurry that includes less than 50 percent, by weight, of the additive material (¶ 0062 and ¶ 0067). Kim does not specifically teach mixing the additive material into the slurry for the second period.
However, as discussed earlier, Kim teaches a two-step mixing where the conductive additive (inactive material) is mixed in the second step (¶ 0079). Kim does not teach mixing the additive (dispersant) in this second step; however, Kim explains that a combination of steps, elements, components, or constituents whether specifically mentioned or not, fall within the scope of their invention (¶ 0076).
Since Kim teaches including the additive (dispersant) in the slurry (¶ 0062), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the second mixing step as taught by Kim to include mixing the additive during the second step before the final drying step as there are no unexpected results. MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 15-16, 18, and 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20230104437 A1) in view of Hatanaka et al. (US 20180337420 A1) and evidenced by HPV Chemicals and Louisiana State University (LSU).
With regards to claim 15, Kim teaches the method of claim 13. Kim teaches that the additive may be an alcohol or a surfactant, however, Kim does not teach that the additive material comprises at least one of dipropylene glycol dimethyl ether, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, dipropylene glycol methyl ether, or propylene glycol methyl ether.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hatanaka teaches an electrode comprising an active material, an inactive material (conductive carbon protective layer) and a solvent coated on to a current collector (¶ 0036). Hatanaka teaches that it is desirable to include, in the solvent, an additive that can increase film formability (¶ 0055). Hatanaka goes on to teach ethylene glycol monobutyl ether as an example of such additive (¶ 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select the surfactant material to be made of the ethylene glycol monobutyl ether that provides the benefit of an increased film formability as taught by Hatanaka as a selection of a known material for a known intended use as both are used as additives within an electrode. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
With regards to claim 16, Kim teaches water as a solvent (¶ 0067). Kim does not teach that a boiling point of the additive material is higher than or equal to a boiling point of the solvent.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hatanaka discloses that it is desirable to include, in the solvent, an additive such as ethylene glycol monobutyl ether to increase film formability (¶ 0055). Similar to Kim, Hatanaka teaches water as a solvent. Water has a boiling point of 100°C and the additive has a higher boiling point of 170.8°C according to HPV Chemicals (Page 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the additive as taught by Hatanaka with the solvent taught by Kim and Hatanaka as this would predictably aid in film formability and allow for proper removal of the solvent and additive during drying.
With regards to claim 18, Kim teaches a non-aqueous based solvent (¶ 0066; Kim teaches NMP as a conventional solvent however, Kim teaches water as a preferred solvent as NMP is toxic and expensive to dispose). Kim does not teach that a surface tension of the additive material is greater than or equal to a surface tension of the solvent. However, Kim teaches that when water is used as the solvent, the wetting of the current collector by the electrode slurry is not as good as when the nonaqueous solvent is used since water has a high surface tension (¶ 0066). Kim recommends including an additive to reduce the surface tension of the solvent and in turn, improve the wetting capability of the slurry (¶ 0066).
In a similar field of endeavor, Hatanaka teaches an electrode comprising an active material, an inactive material (conductive carbon protective layer) and a solvent coated on to a current collector (¶ 0036). Similar to Kim, Hatanaka also teaches NMP as an example of a solvent, along with other non-aqueous based solvents such as THF (¶ 0055). Hatanaka goes on to teach that depending on the solvent used, it is desirable to include an additive that can increase film formability (¶ 0055). Hatanaka teaches ethylene glycol monobutyl ether as one such additive (¶ 0055). According to LSU the surface tension of THF is 26.4 dyn/cm at 25°C (page 1) and HPV Chemicals teaches that the surface tension of ethylene glycol monobutyl ether is 27.4 dyn/cm at 25°C (Page 5).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the solvent and additive of Kim for the THF solvent and ethylene monobutyl ether additive as taught by Hatanaka as a simple substitution of known materials as the THF is a non-aqueous solvent and the ethylene monobutyl ether is a known additive in order to aid in film formability of the slurry and improve the wetting capability of the slurry.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
With regards to claim 21, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing an electrode comprising: forming a slurry comprising an active material supported on an inactive material (conductive additive) and a solvent; mixing the slurry coating the slurry onto a substrate; and drying the slurry for a third period to form the electrode (¶ 0062). Kim teaches the electrode comprising a body laminated to the substrate, wherein the body comprises the active material and the inactive material and a plurality of cracks defined in a first surface of the body (¶ 0037, ¶ 0062, and ¶ 0073). Kim goes on to teach optimizing solvent properties in slurries by using additives to control surface characteristics (¶ 0007), however, Kim does not teach flocculating the slurry.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hatanaka teaches an electrode comprising an active material, an inactive material (conductive carbon protective layer) and a solvent coated on to a current collector (¶ 0036). Hatanaka teaches that it is desirable to include, in the solvent, an additive such as ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, that can increase film formability (¶ 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select ethylene glycol monobutyl ether as the additive material as taught by Hatanaka in the method taught by Kim as it controls surface characteristics such as flocculation. As Hatanaka teaches the same material as the additive, the addition of the additive would read on flocculating the slurry.
With regards to claim 22, Kim in view of Hatanaka teaches the method of claim 21. Kim teaches adding an additive to the slurry and that drying the slurry evaporates the flocculant (additive in solvent), which causes formation of the plurality of cracks (¶ 0073). Kim does not specifically teach drying the slurry for the third period evaporates the flocculant. However, Kim teaches that the additive (flocculant) is included in the solvent and also teaches that it gives control over crack formation (0067). Kim also teaches that during drying, the removal rate of this solvent leads to the formation of cracks in the electrode (0073). Kim does not specifically teach the drying for the third period; however, the drying occurs after it is coated onto a substrate (current collector) which is when the third period occurs (¶ 0079).
With regards to claim 23, Kim in view of Hatanaka teaches the method of claim 22. Kim teaches optimizing solvent properties in slurries by using additives to control surface characteristics (¶ 0007), however, Kim does not teach that the flocculant comprises at least one of dipropylene glycol dimethyl ether, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, dipropylene glycol methyl ether, or propylene glycol methyl ether.
Hatanaka discloses ethylene glycol monobutyl ether as an example of such additive (¶ 0055). Hatanaka does not teach the additive as a flocculant, however, Hatanaka teaches the same material as the additive, the additive taught by Hatanaka reads on the flocculant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include the ethylene glycol monobutyl ether taught by Hatanaka as the additive taught by Kim to control surface characteristics such as flocculation.
With regards to claim 24, Kim and Hatanaka do not specifically teach the method of claim 21 wherein flocculating the slurry comprises increasing an electrolyte concentration of the slurry. Incorporating a flocculant material would increase the electrolyte concentration as is consistent with the instant specification (¶ 0034) thus will be interpreted this way.
It is unclear if the addition of the flocculant (additive) inherently increases the electrolyte concentration. As modified Kim discloses ethylene glycol monobutyl ether as the same material used as the flocculant, it would inherently increase the electrolyte concentration given the scope of the claims. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
With regards to claim 25, Kim in view of Hatanaka teaches the method of claim 21. Kim teaches applying a mechanical force to the slurry (¶ 0079, mixing the slurry in a speed mixer reads on applying a mechanical force to the slurry).
With regards to claim 27, Kim in view of Hatanaka teaches the method of claim 21. Kim does not specifically teach that the second period is after the first period. However, Kim teaches a first mixing step and second mixing step that occurs after the first step (¶ 0079).
With regards to claim 28, Kim in view of Hatanaka teaches the method of claim 21. Kim teaches adding an amount of an additive to the slurry to form a mixture of the additive and the slurry that includes less than 50 percent, by weight, of the additive (¶ 0062 and ¶ 0067). Kim does not specifically teach the additive material as a flocculant.
However, as discussed earlier, Kim teaches a two-step mixing where the conducive additive (inactive material) is mixed in the second step (¶ 0079). Kim does not teach mixing the additive in this second step; however, Kim explains that a combination of steps, elements, components, or constituents whether specifically mentioned or not, fall within the scope of their invention (¶ 0076).
Since Kim teaches including the additive in the slurry (¶ 0062), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the second mixing step as taught by Kim to include mixing the additive during the second step before the final drying step as there are no unexpected results. MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
With regards to claim 29, Kim teaches the method of claim 13. Kim also teaches optimizing solvent properties in slurries by using additives to control surface characteristics (¶ 0007), however, Kim does not teach the method wherein mixing of the additive material into the slurry for the second period comprises flocculating the slurry.
However, as discussed earlier, Hatanaka also teaches that it is desirable to include, in the solvent, an additive that can increase film formability (¶ 0055). Hatanaka also teaches the flocculant (ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) as an example of such additive (¶ 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include the ethylene glycol monobutyl ether taught by Hatanaka as the additive taught by Kim to control surface characteristics such as flocculation.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20230104437 A1) in view of Shen et al. (US-20200067125-A1).
With regards to claim 19, Kim does not specifically teach the method of claim 13, wherein the drying is performed under ambient temperature. However, Kim teaches that the slurry can be dried at any suitable temperature (¶ 0068).
In a similar field of endeavor, Shen teaches a method of preparing an electrode comprising mixing an active material, conductive agent, binder and a solvent to form a slurry (¶ 0070). Shen then teaches coating the slurry onto a substrate and drying the slurry at room temperature to obtain the electrode (¶ 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, through routine experimentation, to dry the slurry taught by Kim at ambient temperature as taught by Shen as this is a suitable temperature that would predictably yield an electrode.
Claim(s) 26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20230104437 A1) in view of Hatanaka et al. (US 20180337420 A1) and in further view of Jensen et al. (US 5035962 A).
With regards to claim 26, Kim in view of Hatanaka teach the method of claim 21. Kim and Hatanaka do not teach the method wherein flocculating the slurry comprises flocculating the slurry to a degree of flocculation of greater than 1.01.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jensen teaches a method of making an anode (Page 3, Col. 5, lines 55-60). Jensen teaches that a degree of flocculation is desired as it structures particles in a way that increased interparticle contact and in turn facilitates the development of electrical conductivity.
It would have been obvious ton one of ordinary sill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include some degree of flocculation such as 1.01 or greater as taught by Jensen in the slurry taught by Kim in view of Hatanaka. This would predictably increase the interparticle contact between particles, increasing the electrical conductivity of the electrode.
With regards to claim 30, Kim in view of Hatanaka teach the method of claim 29. Kim and Hatanaka do not teach the method wherein flocculating the slurry comprises flocculating the slurry to a degree of flocculation of greater than 1.01.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jensen teaches a method of making an anode (Page 3, Col. 5, lines 55-60). Jensen teaches that a degree of flocculation is desired as it structures particles in a way that increased interparticle contact and in turn facilitates the development of electrical conductivity.
It would have been obvious ton one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include some degree of flocculation such as 1.01 or greater as taught by Jensen in the slurry taught by Kim in view of Hatanaka. This would predictably increase the interparticle contact between particles, increasing the electrical conductivity of the electrode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728