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 filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states: “Applicant’s experimental evidence demonstrates that CT/AT varies depending on binder composition and ratio, even within aqueous electrode systems, Li’s general aqueous teaching does not make it inevitable that Li’s electrode sheet would meet 1 ≤ CT/AT ≤ 10. These properties do not arise inherently from aqueous electrode processing in general, but instead result from deliberate compositional and structural control. For example, in paragraph 0012 of Li, CMC is considered as one binder that can be used. While in the current disclosures, comparative sheets using conventional aqueous binder systems (e.g., CMC-NA/LA-133) are shown to produce CT/AT values above 10 and exhibit degraded mechanical/electrical outcomes, despite being aqueous electrode sheets and even when corona treatment is applied (see, e.g., Comparative Example 1). This internal evidence demonstrates that CT/AT is a result of the disclosed technical measures that tune cohesion relative to adhesion.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Li, xanthan gum is not chosen from among a list including CMC as one of several obvious choices, but is the binder used in the primary example embodiment [0089]. In the Comparative Examples of the claimed invention, the two examples, Comparative Example 1 and Comparative Example 2, that fall outside the claimed range of 1 ≤ CT/AT ≤ 10 either do not use xanthan gum or there is no corona treatment present [Table 1]. The example of the claimed invention also refers to general mixing and drying process steps (in addition to corona treatment) [0080 PGPub version].
Li discloses examples that use xanthan gum and polyethyleneimine together to improve cathode performance [0071, 0086, 0087, 0089] for a cathode that uses an active material of LiFePO4 [0071, 0086, 0087, 0089] on an aluminum foil collector [0119]. The surface of the current collector is treated with plasma corona treatment so as to raise the surface energy [0007, 0021]. The corona treatment is shown to promote better long term adhesion [0125]. Xanthan gum and PEI are included at a range of 2.5:2 for high capacity [0090, 0087]. The claimed invention also uses a corona treatment, the LiFePO4 active material, an aluminum foil collector, and a ratio range of 2:1 – 1:15 (xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine) to achieve the best claimed mechanical properties [0017, 0012, 0080, 0033]. Because Li discloses the same aqueous xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine ratio value within the range, LiFePO4 cathode active material, aluminum foil collector, and corona surface treatment for the recognized effect of raised surface energy and better long term adhesion and capacity, Examiner maintains that Li inherently discloses a bond strength AT between the positive electrode active substance layer and the current collector and cohesive CT of the positive electrode active substance layer itself that satisfies the relationship of 1 ≤ CT/AT ≤ 10.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (PGPub 2015/0188120).
Considering Claim 1, Li discloses an aqueous positive electrode sheet (aqueous dispersion [0018] for a cathode electrode [0008, 0007] that uses aqueous-based binders [0012], and the electrode is in sheet form after coating on current collector foil layer [0074, Abstract 0023]), comprising a current collector (current collector foil [Abstract, 0119]) and a positive electrode active substance layer (positive active material deposited [0008, 0007] on foil to form coating layer [Abstract, 0023]), the positive electrode active substance layer comprises an aqueous binder (aqueous binder such as xanthan gum [0012, 0086, 0087, 0089]).
Li discloses examples that use xanthan gum and polyethyleneimine together to improve cathode performance [0071, 0086, 0087, 0089] for a cathode that uses an active material of LiFePO4 [0071, 0086, 0087, 0089] on an aluminum foil collector [0119]. The surface of the current collector is treated with plasma corona treatment so as to raise the surface energy [0007, 0021]. The corona treatment is shown to promote better long term adhesion [0125]. Xanthan gum and PEI are included at a range of 2.5:2 for high capacity [0090, 0087]. The claimed invention also uses a corona treatment, the LiFePO4 active material, an aluminum foil collector, and a ratio range of 2:1 – 1:15 (xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine) to achieve the best claimed mechanical properties [0017, 0012, 0080, 0033]. Because Li discloses the same aqueous xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine ratio value within the range, LiFePO4 cathode active material, aluminum foil collector, and corona surface treatment for the recognized effect of raised surface energy and better long term adhesion and capacity, it appears that Li inherently discloses a bond strength AT between the positive electrode active substance layer and the current collector and cohesive CT of the positive electrode active substance layer itself that satisfies the relationship of 1 ≤ CT/AT ≤ 10.
Considering Claim 2, Li discloses that a high contact angle for the aqueous dispersion on Al foil for the inferior untreated Al foil is 41.8 °, which suggests inferior wetting [0118]. Because Li discloses the same aqueous xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine ratio value within the range, LiFePO4 cathode active material, aluminum foil collector, and corona surface treatment for the recognized effect of raised surface energy and better long term adhesion and capacity, it appears that Li inherently discloses a contact angle that reads upon the range of 5°-90°, or 20°-70°.
Considering Claim 3, Li discloses that the corona treatment is shown to promote better long term adhesion [0125]. Xanthan gum and PEI are included at a range of 2.5:2 for high capacity [0090, 0087]. The claimed invention also uses a corona treatment, the LiFePO4 active material, an aluminum foil collector, and a ratio range of 2:1 – 1:15 (xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine) to achieve the best claimed mechanical properties [0017, 0012, 0080, 0033]. Because Li discloses the same aqueous xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine ratio value within the range, LiFePO4 cathode active material, aluminum foil collector, and corona surface treatment for the recognized effect of raised surface energy and better long term adhesion and capacity, it appears that Li inherently discloses a bond strength AT of 6-45 N/m, or 10-35 N/m, or a cohesive CT of 40-240 N/m, or 60-120 N/m.
Considering Claim 5, Li discloses that the corona treatment is shown to promote better long term adhesion [0125]. Xanthan gum and PEI are included at a range of 2.5:2 for high capacity [0090, 0087]. The claimed invention also uses a corona treatment, the LiFePO4 active material, an aluminum foil collector, and a ratio range of 2:1 – 1:15 (xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine) to achieve the best claimed mechanical properties [0017, 0012, 0080, 0033]. Because Li discloses the same aqueous xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine ratio value within the range, LiFePO4 cathode active material, aluminum foil collector, and corona surface treatment for the recognized effect of raised surface energy and better long term adhesion and capacity, it appears that Li inherently discloses a ratio of CT to AT of 2-8, or 3-5.
Considering Claim 6, Li discloses that a proportion of the aqueous binder in the positive electrode active substance layer is 0.5-10 weight%, optionally 1.5-5 weight%, based on the total weight of the positive electrode active substance layer (weights of PEI and xanthan gum of 2 weight% and 2.5 weight% respectively based on positive electrode [0089, 0087]).
Considering Claim 7, Li discloses that the current collector comprises surface modified aluminum foil (surface treated aluminum foil [0021, 0119]).
Considering Claim 8, Li discloses that the current collector comprises the current collector pretreated and activated by high surface energy (surface of current collector is treated to raise the surface energy [Abstract, 0058]), and the pretreatment process comprises corona treatment, plasma treatment (corona plasma treatment [0021]).
Considering Claim 10, Li discloses that the positive electrode active substance layer comprises a positive electrode active material, and the positive electrode active material is selected from one or more of lithium iron phosphate, lithium manganese phosphate, lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium nickel manganese oxide, lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (each composition listed for cathode active material [0008]).
Considering Claim 11, Li discloses that the positive electrode active substance layer comprises a conductive agent, and the conductive agent comprises one or more of conductive carbon black, conductive graphite, graphene, and carbon nanotubes (conductive additive comprises these choices [0010, 0020]).
Considering Claims 12-15, Li discloses that the aqueous binder is a compound mixture of xanthan gum and polyethyleneimine, and a compound ratio is 2:1 – 1:15 (xanthan gum and PEI are included at a range of 2.5:2 for high capacity [0090, 0087]), and the average molecular weight Mn of the polyethyleneimine is 2000 – 50000 g/mol (PEI MW = 25,0000 g/mol [0089]).
Considering Claim 16, Li discloses that the corona treatment is shown to promote better long term adhesion [0125]. Xanthan gum and PEI are included at a range of 2.5:2 for high capacity [0090, 0087], and a conductive agent is included [0010, 0020]. The claimed invention also uses a corona treatment, the LiFePO4 active material, an aluminum foil collector, and a ratio range of 2:1 – 1:15 (xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine) to achieve the best claimed mechanical properties [0017, 0012, 0080, 0033]. Because Li discloses the same aqueous xanthan gum to polyethyleneimine ratio value within the range, LiFePO4 cathode active material, conductive agent, aluminum foil collector, and corona surface treatment for the recognized effect of raised surface energy and better long term adhesion and capacity, it appears that Li inherently discloses a membrane resistance of the positive electrode is 0.3 to 1 Ω.
Considering Claims 17 and 19, Li discloses a power consumption apparatus and secondary battery (completed cells [0129] that can be used in a portable electronic device or vehicle [0004]) comprising the aqueous positive electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (PGPub 2015/0188120).
Considering Claim 9, Li discloses that the surface of the current collector is treated with plasma corona treatment so as to raise the surface energy [0007, 0021]. The corona treatment is shown to promote better long term adhesion [0125]. The corona energy density is also limited so as to not damage the Al foil surface and promote long term adhesion [0125]. Because the known corona treatment is applied and controlled at a certain known level to raise the surface energy and promote long term adhesion [0125], routinely experimenting with and coming up with a treatment voltage of 5-30 kV or 10-25 kV would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Considering Claims 18 and 20, Li discloses that the LiFePO4 treated cathode demonstrates excellent discharge capacity [0128]. Because LiFePO4 and xanthan gum provides a low cost, environmentally friendly material [0005], using the improved materials in a known combined battery pack and electric vehicle application for a good performance and low cost application [0004] would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (PGPub 2015/0188120) and further in view of Luo (CN 111668487 (see attached Machine Translation)).
Considering Claim 21, Li discloses that the average molecular weight Mn of the polyethyleneimine is 2000 – 50000 g/mol (PEI MW = 25,0000 g/mol [0089]). However, Li is silent to the molecular weight of the xanthan gum.
Luo discloses an analogous xanthan gum water-based binder for an electrode slurry [Abstract]. The molecular weight of the xanthan gum may be up to 300,000 [0030]. This practical xanthan gum provides an excellent binding effect that inhibits volume expansion of the battery active materials, and is part of a good coating effect [0023, 0024].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the xanthan gum of Li with the molecular weight xanthan gum teaching of Luo in order to provide a practical xanthan gum that has an excellent binding effect that inhibits volume expansion of the battery active materials, and is part of a good coating effect [0023, 0024].
Conclusion
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 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 CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/ Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights