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 Amendment
The amendment filed 07/07/2026 has been entered. Support for new claim 12 is found in [0132, 0137] of the specification.
The amendment to claim 6 overcomes the 35 USC 112(b) rejection thereto, which is now withdrawn.
The objection to the specification is now withdrawn, in view of the amendment clarifying “SP value”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been considered.
Arguments regarding claim 1 condition (2) are persuasive to overcome the use of Medlege as a secondary teaching reference, since Applicant persuasively points out that Medlege’s teaching towards hydroxylated polymer binder with high surface energy would be chemically incompatible with the solid sulfide electrolyte of primary reference Kubo. Therefore, Medlege is no longer relied upon below.
Arguments regarding claim 1 condition (4) do not appear commensurate in scope with the claim since “a total product of a specific surface area and a content mass fraction of each of the inorganic solid electrolyte (SE), the active material (AC), and the conductive auxiliary agent (CA) is 5.0 to 15.0 m2/g” implies summation of multiplication (i.e., “total” and “product”) calculation steps performed by examiner in the rejection of record. However, in further view of specification [0029-0032], the claimed “total product of a specific surface area and a content mass fraction” is now interpreted as the BET specific surface area of the composite electrode mixture. The new ground of rejection applied below reflects such.
Remarks regarding claim 12 are not particularly persuasive because the limitations of claim 12 are new and have not yet been examined, thus required further search. Claim 12 is addressed in a rejection below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 2013/0142943 A1, previously cited) – as evidenced TWI (The Welding Institute, “TYPICAL VALUES OF SURFACE ENERGY FOR MATERIALS AND ADHESIVES”, <https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/faq-what-are-the-typical-values-of-surface-energy-for-materials-and-adhesives>, 2017) – in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0373540 A1, previously cited – hereinafter “Lee ‘540”), and Kaguera et al. (US 20190267613 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo teaches an electrode composition (electrode composition, [0012, 0027]) comprising:
an inorganic solid electrolyte (SE) (solid electrolytes 2, [0027] and Fig. 2; inorganic options in [0034]) having an ion conductivity of a metal belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 of the periodic table (lithium-ion conductivity of the electrode / electrolyte / resultant lithium-ion secondary battery, [0003-0004, 0032]);
an active material (AC) (active materials 1, [0027] and Fig. 2);
a conductive auxiliary agent (CA) (a conductive material to improve conductivity may be mixed in together with the active material, the solid electrolyte, the binder, and the solvent, to make a slurry-form electrode composition; [0037]);
a polymer binder (B) (binder 3, [0027] and Fig. 2; a binder having an amine group introduced into the terminal of hydrogenated butadiene rubber may be employed as the binder, [0016-0017]; other polymeric binder examples of acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber(ABR), polyvinylidene fluoride(PVDF), styrene-butadiene rubber(SBR), etc. per [0035]); and
a dispersion medium (D) (a good solvent for the binder is used in the slurry-form electrode composition, in which active material / solid electrolyte / binder can be uniformly dispersed; [0027]),
wherein the polymer binder (B) includes a polymer binder (B1) that is dissolved in the dispersion medium (D) (the “good solvent for the binder” refers to a solvent in which the solubility of the binder is 5% or more, [0013]), and
the polymer binder (B1), the inorganic solid electrolyte (SE), the active material (AC), and the conductive auxiliary agent (CA) satisfy the following condition … (3):
(3) a content of the polymer binder (B1) in a total solid content is 1.5% by mass or less (in [0043] cathode composition: weight ratio of “active material:sulfide solid electrolyte=75:25”, 1.5 parts of the binder relative to 100 parts of the active material, and 3.0 parts of the conductive additive relative to 100 parts of the active material; in [0045] cathode composition: weight ratio of “active material:sulfide solid electrolyte=58:42”, binder weighed so as to obtain 1.1 parts of thereof relative to 100 parts of the active material; therefore, in both exemplary [0043, 0045] compositions, the binder was ≤ 1.5% by weight of the total solids).
Kubo fails to teach that the polymer binder (B1), the inorganic solid electrolyte (SE), the active material (AC), and the conductive auxiliary agent (CA) satisfy conditions (1), (2), (4):
(1) a mass average molecular weight of a polymer constituting the polymer binder (B1) is 100,000 to 2,000,000,
(2) a value of a polarity element of surface energy of the polymer constituting the polymer binder (B1) is 0.5 mJ/m2 or more,
(4) a total product of a specific surface area and a content mass fraction of each of the inorganic solid electrolyte (SE), the active material (AC), and the conductive auxiliary agent (CA) is 5.0 to 15.0 m2/g.
However, as evidenced by TWI, acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber has a surface energy of 36.0 mJ/m2, polyvinylidene fluoride has a surface energy of 30.3 mJ/m2, and styrene-butadiene rubber has a surface energy of 29.1 mJ/m2 (see “Low energy surfaces - plastics, rubber and composites” table on TWI pg. 2). Therefore, these polymeric binder examples from Kubo [0035] would necessarily meet the claimed limitation of “a value of a polarity element of surface energy of the polymer constituting the polymer binder (B1) is 0.5 mJ/m2 or more”, such that condition (2) above is satisfied by Kubo.
Lee ‘540 is analogous in the art of polymer binders used in batteries and teaches in [0088] that: For example, the first binder polymer may have a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 10,000-600,000, or 100,000-600,000. When the first binder polymer has an excessively high weight average molecular weight, it shows low solubility and the binder solution has excessively increased viscosity, thereby making it difficult to carry out coating (application). When the first binder polymer has an excessively low weight average molecular weight, it is difficult to obtain a uniform coating layer.
Therefore, Lee ‘540 teaches the Mw of a first polymer binder being a result-effective variable which affects coating difficulty and uniformity, teaching a preferable range of 100,000-600,000 as cited above. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply such teaching to modify Kubo and optimize the ease and uniformity of the coating (i.e., of the electrode composite dispersion including the binder polymer) by ensuring the mass average molecular weight of the polymer constituting said polymer binder was in the range taught toward by Lee, which falls within the claimed range of 100,000 to 2,000,000 in condition (1) (see MPEP 2144.05 II and I).
Kaguera is analogous in the art of lithium secondary battery electrode mixture layers and teaches that a BET specific surface area of the electrode mixture layer is equal to or greater than 4.0 m2/g and equal to or less than 8.5 m2/g ([0034]), which overlaps the 5.0 to 15.0 m2/g range of instant condition (4), and teaches that if the BET specific surface area of the electrode mixture falls within the aforementioned range, the amount of cracking in the particles of the positive electrode material occurring at the time of pressing of the electrode is expected to be small ([0058]), and generation of newly generated surfaces of the particles is expected to be inhibited which thus inhibits self-discharge ([0037, 0058, 0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Kubo to ensure that the BET specific surface area of the electrode mixture fell within the aforementioned range taught by Kaguera with the motivation of preventing cracking of the particles in the electrode material and inhibiting self-discharging. Composite electrode BET surface area in the overlapping range taught toward by Kaguera is interpreted to satisfy the claimed “a total product of a specific surface area and a content mass fraction” accounting for each component in an electrode mixture, thereby satisfying condition (4).
Thus, the instant claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and wherein the value of the polarity element is 1.0 mJ/m2 or more (acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber has a surface energy of 36.0 mJ/m2, polyvinylidene fluoride has a surface energy of 30.3 mJ/m2, and styrene-butadiene rubber has a surface energy of 29.1 mJ/m2; per TWI pg. 2 as cited above).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and An electrode sheet (The cathode current collector and the anode current collector may be in a foil-shaped, Kubo [0038]) for an all-solid state secondary battery, comprising: an active material layer formed of the electrode composition (the slurry-form electrode composition is applied onto a cathode current collector or an anode current collector, Kubo [0038]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and An all-solid state secondary battery (a solid battery, Kubo abstract and [0009-0010]) comprising, in the following order: a positive electrode active material layer; a solid electrolyte layer; and a negative electrode active material layer (a solid electrolyte layer is formed through the step of applying a slurry-form electrolyte composition containing a solid electrolyte over the surface of the cathode or anode; they are stacked such that the solid electrolyte layer is sandwiched by the cathode and the anode; Kubo [0038, 0047]), wherein at least one layer of the positive electrode active material layer (a slurry-form cathode composition made in S1 using a cathode active material is applied over a surface of the cathode current collector in S2; Kubo [0038]) or the negative electrode active material layer (a slurry-form anode composition made in S1 using an anode active material is applied over a surface of an anode current collector in S2; Kubo [0038]) is an active material layer formed of the electrode composition according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and A manufacturing method for an electrode sheet for an all-solid state secondary battery (a method for producing an electrode for a solid battery, Kubo Abstract), the manufacturing method comprising: forming a film of the electrode composition (applying the slurry-form electrode composition that has been made onto a base material and drying the slurry-form electrode composition that has been applied; Kubo [0026-0027]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 10 above and A manufacturing method for an all-solid state secondary battery (Manufacturing of a Solid Battery, Kubo [0046]), the manufacturing method comprising: manufacturing an all-solid state secondary battery (stacking of the produced electrodes with electrolyte layer between, Kubo [0038, 0047]) through the manufacturing method according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 2013/0142943 A1, previously cited) – as evidenced TWI (The Welding Institute, “TYPICAL VALUES OF SURFACE ENERGY FOR MATERIALS AND ADHESIVES”, <https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/faq-what-are-the-typical-values-of-surface-energy-for-materials-and-adhesives>, 2017) – in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0373540 A1, previously cited – hereinafter “Lee ‘540”), and Kaguera et al. (US 20190267613 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0023921 A1, previously cited – hereinafter “Lee ‘921”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach that the dispersion medium (D) has an SP value of 17 to 22 MPa1/2.
Lee ‘921 is analogous in the art of electrode active material layer mixtures including binder polymer (Abstract) and teaches that the binder polymer has a solubility parameter of more preferable 15 to 25 MPa1/2 ([0056]) and teaches that It is preferred that the solvent of the second binder polymer (i.e. the second solvent) has a solubility parameter similar to that of the second binder polymer to be used and a low boiling point, so as to achieve uniform mixture and easy removal of the solvent afterward ([0058]). Kubo also teaches toward the good solvent for the binder easily dissolving the binder (Kubo [0013, 0030]) and having a relatively low boiling point in order to evaporate and make it possible to easily produce an electrode for a solid battery which can improve performance of the solid battery (Kubo [0030]).
In view of Lee ‘921 [0056, 0058] as cited above, the solubility parameter (i.e., SP value) of the solvent (i.e., dispersion medium) is a variable which, relative to that of the SP value of the binder, affects the ability of the dispersion medium to effectively dissolve the binder which affects the resultant ease of production and performance of the electrode and overall battery. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to ensure that the SP value of the dispersion medium within modified Kubota was in a preferable range (e.g., binder polymer has a solubility parameter of more preferable 15 to 25 MPa1/2) in addition to having a low boiling point as taught toward by Lee ‘921, in order to effectively dissolve the binder to a desirable amount in order to easily produce the battery as also taught toward by Kubo. See MPEP 2144.05 I-II regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges and routine optimization.
Thereby, claim 2 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 2013/0142943 A1, previously cited) – as evidenced TWI (The Welding Institute, “TYPICAL VALUES OF SURFACE ENERGY FOR MATERIALS AND ADHESIVES”, <https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/faq-what-are-the-typical-values-of-surface-energy-for-materials-and-adhesives>, 2017) – in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0373540 A1, previously cited – hereinafter “Lee ‘540”), and Kaguera et al. (US 20190267613 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hideki et al. (JP-2019009124-A, cited in the 10/19/2023 IDS, with a machine translation attached to the previous Office action and used for line citations below).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach the polymer constituting the polymer binder (B1) contains a constitutional component having a substituent having 8 or more carbon atoms, as a side chain.
Kubo does teach in [0016-0017] does teach that the binder having an amine group introduced into the terminal of hydrogenated butadiene rubber (i.e., a side chain).
Hideki is analogous in the art of coated active material for a lithium ion battery (line 15) and teaches such active material coating contains polymerizable monomers (lines 169-173) and teaches toward ester compounds (Hideki compounds a1-1 and a1-2) having a linear or branched alkyl group (R2, as a side chain) with 8 to 24 carbon atoms (lines 189-199). The above-cited Hideki ester compound examples satisfy one of their four inventive conditions of the polymeric coating resin (per lines 94-97, 169-198), which contributes to the coated active materials exhibiting superior cycle characteristics (per lines 1232-1235). Hideki generally teaches that in order to solve the problem of providing a coated active material for a lithium ion battery excellent in energy density and cycle characteristics (lines 71-75) wherein the coating includes a radical polymerizable monomer (A) that contains an ester compound (a1) represented by the following general formula (1): CH2=C(R1)COOR2, wherein R1 is a hydrogen atom Or a methyl group, and R2 is a linear or branched alkyl group having 8 to 24 carbon atoms (lines 82-87).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further modify the polymer binder of Kubo, as coated/combined with the active material thereof, to include a linear or branched alkyl group as a side chain having 8 to 24 carbon atoms, with the motivation to promote superior cycle characteristics of the resultant battery as taught toward by Hideki,
Thereby, claim 4 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 2013/0142943 A1, previously cited) – as evidenced TWI (The Welding Institute, “TYPICAL VALUES OF SURFACE ENERGY FOR MATERIALS AND ADHESIVES”, <https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/faq-what-are-the-typical-values-of-surface-energy-for-materials-and-adhesives>, 2017) – in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0373540 A1, previously cited – hereinafter “Lee ‘540”), and Kaguera et al. (US 20190267613 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kushida et al. (WO 2019097906 A1 with publication date of 05/23/2019, with citations below to English equivalent US 20200266485 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to teach the polymer binder (B) includes a polymer binder (B2) composed of a polymer having a molecular weight different from that of the polymer binder (B1).
Lee ‘540, as applied to modified Kubo in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a plurality of inorganic particles and a binder polymer positioned on the whole or a part of the surface of the inorganic particles to connect the inorganic particles with one another and fix them, wherein the binder polymer comprises a first binder polymer and a second binder polymer ([0052-0053]). Kubo teaches their binder serving a similar function in that the binder fixes together the inorganic solid electrolyte material, active material, and conductive material as well as fixes such slurry to a collector (Kubo Fig. 2 and [0027, 0037-0038]). Lee ‘540 teaches in [0088, 0090] that each of the first and second binder polymers can have weight average molecular weight of 10,000-600,000. Lee ‘540 [0088] also teaches that: When the first binder polymer has an excessively high weight average molecular weight, it shows low solubility and the binder solution has excessively increased viscosity, thereby making it difficult to carry out coating (application). When the first binder polymer has an excessively low weight average molecular weight, it is difficult to obtain a uniform coating layer. Lee ‘540 [0090] similarly teaches that: When the second binder polymer has an excessively high weight average molecular weight, it shows low solubility and the binder solution has excessively increased viscosity, thereby making it difficult to carry out coating (application). When the second binder polymer has an excessively low weight average molecular weight, it is difficult to obtain a uniform coating layer. Therefore, Lee ‘540 teaches that the two polymer binder molecular weights can be independent from one another and are result-effective variables affecting the ease and uniformity of slurry coating.
Kushida, analogous in the art of polymer binders, teaches a solid electrolyte composition includes an inorganic solid electrolyte (A) having ion conductivity of a metal belonging to Group 1 or Group 2 in the periodic table and a binder (B) which includes a first binder (B1) and a second binder (B2) (Kushida abstract). Kushida teaches the binder (B) have such configuration (i.e., B1 and B2 imparting specific properties) and can allow a layer (a solid electrolyte layer, a negative electrode active material layer, or a positive electrode active material layer) in which an increase in electrical resistance is suppressed to be formed while effectively improving binding properties between solid particles forming the composition ([0060]). Kushida teaches that beneficially: from the viewpoint of improving binding properties between the solid particles, the number-average molecular weight of the polymer forming the first binder (B1) is preferably 10,000 to 1,000,000 and more preferably 30,000 to 500,000 ([0120]), and from the viewpoint of improving initial adhesiveness between the solid particles, the number-average molecular weight of the polymer forming the second binder (B2) is preferably 1000 to 500,000 and more preferably 3000 to 100,000 ([0123]). (These ranges each overlap that taught by Lee ‘540 as cited above wherein the first and second binder polymers can have weight average molecular weight of 10,000-600,000.)
Therefore, in view of both Lee ‘540 and Kushida teaching toward the polymer binder including two types of polymers specifically exhibiting differing molecular weight in two different ranges, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further modify Kubo such that polymer binder (B) includes a polymer binder (B2) composed of a polymer having a molecular weight different from that of the polymer binder (B1) in order to achieve the advantages of both improving binding properties between the solid particles within the layer as well as improving initial adhesiveness between the solid particles, attributed to the differing B1 and B2 within Kushida teaching above.
Thereby, claim 5 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 5 above and teaches wherein the mass average molecular weight of the polymer constituting the polymer binder (B1) is 200,000 to 2,000,000 (the number-average molecular weight of the first binder (B1) is preferably 10,000 to 1,000,000 and more preferably 30,000 to 500,000, Kushida [0120] – see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges), and a mass average molecular weight of the polymer constituting the polymer binder (B2) is 200,000 or less (the number-average molecular weight of the polymer forming the second binder (B2) is preferably 1000 to 500,000 and more preferably 3000 to 100,000, Kushida [0123] – see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Thereby, claim 6 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 2013/0142943 A1, previously cited) – as evidenced TWI (The Welding Institute, “TYPICAL VALUES OF SURFACE ENERGY FOR MATERIALS AND ADHESIVES”, <https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/faq-what-are-the-typical-values-of-surface-energy-for-materials-and-adhesives>, 2017) – in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0373540 A1, previously cited – hereinafter “Lee ‘540”), and Kaguera et al. (US 20190267613 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Velamakanni et al. (US 2010/0285951 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach that wherein in a case where a viscosity at a shear rate of 10 s-1 and a viscosity at a shear rate of 20 s-1 are measured for the electrode composition, and a power approximation expression is created in terms of orthogonal coordinates where a lateral axis indicates the shear rate and a vertical axis indicates the viscosity, an approximate value of a viscosity at a shear rate of 1 s-1 is 5,000 cP or more, and an absolute value of an exponent part of the power approximation expression is 0.6 or less.
Examiner notes that “in a case where a viscosity at a shear rate of 10 s-1 and a viscosity at a shear rate of 20 s-1 are measured for the electrode composition, and a power approximation expression is created in terms of orthogonal coordinates where a lateral axis indicates the shear rate and a vertical axis indicates the viscosity” is a product-by-process limitation regarding a test or measurement conducted on the claimed product, but that patentable weight is given to the positively-claimed product features of “an approximate value of a viscosity at a shear rate of 1 s-1 is 5,000 cP or more, and an absolute value of an exponent part of the power approximation expression is 0.6 or less”.
Velamakanni is pertinent to the problem of dispersion, coating, and formation of electrode layers ([0013, 0021, 0026]) from mixtures including solid, polymer electrolyte, and solvent components ([0013, 0023-0024]). Velamakanni teaches that Shear rate (S) and shear viscosity (V) are related by the following equation, known as the "Power Law Fluid" equation: V=kS(n-1) where "k" is a constant that indicates viscosity at 1 sec-1 and "n" is the Power Law Index (PLI), which indicates of the effect of shear on viscosity ([0037]). Velamakanni teaches in Table I (under [0038]) an inventive example (Ex. 5) in which an anode in ink in an aprotic-organic solvent exhibited viscosity of 5.79 Pa*s ( = 5,790 cP; i.e., more than 5,000 cP) at the shear rate of 1 sec-1 and a Power Law Index of 0.5016 (i.e., absolute value of the exponent part is |(n-1)| = |0.5016-1| = |-0.4984| = 0.4984, which is less than 0.6). Velamakanni Ex. 5 has a good result of completely drying but not incinerating in a 140°C oven (Table I: “No” to “Incineration” for Ex. 5; see also [0034, 0038]), and does not strongly flocculate (Table I: “weak” to “Flocculation” for Ex. 5). Velamakanni teaches that an ink that will not self-ignite during drying will be safer to manufacture, handle and use, which is an inventive goal ([0020, 0027]) and that high, uniform dispersion (i.e., weak flocculation) is also an inventive goal ([0013-0015, 0032]). Kubo also teaches toward the goal of uniform dispersion (Kubo [0027]) and teaches a drying step of the electrode composition to remove solvent (Kubo [0027, 0030]).
Since Kubo is silent toward properties of viscosity and power estimation exponent, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to turn toward the teachings of Velamakanni Example 5 for exemplary ink slurry properties for use in electrode manufacturing, in which the ink did not dangerously self-ignite (for safer processing) and which only weakly flocculated (for better dispersion); as cited above, the 5,790 cP viscosity at 1 sec-1 and Power Law exponent part having an absolute value of 0.4984 (for Ex. 5 per Velamakanni Table I) fall within and satisfy the claimed ranges. Further modifying the electrode composition of Kubo to exhibit similar viscosity at 1 sec-1 shear rate and Power Law exponent to those of Velamakanni, with motivation of avoiding self-ignition and high flocculation, would have been obvious.
Thereby, claim 7 is rendered obvious.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 2013/0142943 A1, previously cited) – as evidenced TWI (The Welding Institute, “TYPICAL VALUES OF SURFACE ENERGY FOR MATERIALS AND ADHESIVES”, <https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/faq-what-are-the-typical-values-of-surface-energy-for-materials-and-adhesives>, 2017) – in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0373540 A1, previously cited – hereinafter “Lee ‘540”), and Kaguera et al. (US 20190267613 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki (WO 2013129254 A1, machine translation attached for citations).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kubo teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but fails to explicitly teach that the polymer binder (B) further includes a non-dissolved type particulate binder (B2) that is insoluble in the dispersion medium (D) and present in a particle shape.
Sasaki is analogous in the art of electrodes including binders and teaches a slurry composition for a secondary battery negative electrode includes a particulate binder and water-soluble polymer and water (lines 1267-1269) wherein water with or without an additional liquid functions as a solvent to dissolve the water-soluble binder but only disperse the particulate binder (lines 1284-1287). Sasaki teaches this combination wherein the particulate binder is dispersed and the water-soluble polymer is dissolved achieves the result of the particulate binder and the water-soluble polymer adsorbing to the surface of the negative electrode active material, whereby the dispersion of the negative electrode active material which is preferable (lines 1288-1291). Sasaki sections 1-1 and 1-2 detail the production of the independent water-soluble polymer binder (e.g. polymerized monomers of methacrylic acid, butyl acrylate, etc. – translation lines 1709-1719) and the particulate binder (e.g. polymerized butadiene, styrene, etc. – translation lines 1725-1729 ), and section 1-3 details preparation of the composite binder containing both water-soluble polymer and particulate binder (which is only dispersed, not dissolved, per translation lines 1739-1740).
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the polymer binder of modified Kubo with the dual composition binder taught by Sasaki including both the water-soluble polymer binder and the dispersed (non-dissolved) particulate binder with the motivation of achieving adsorption of said particulate binder onto the electrode active material and thus achieving preferable dispersion of the electrode active material.
Thus, the instant claim 12 is rendered obvious.
Relevant Art
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasuda (US 20210320322 A1 – not prior art) teaches a solid-electrolyte-containing composition comprising a sulfide-based inorganic electrolyte; an active material; a dispersion medium and a polymer binder having low surface energy ([0074] & [0160]). While Yasuda does not disclose any specific values for the surface energy of the polymer, Yasuda recognizes that a low surface energy of the polymer results in in the polymer being not likely to adsorb (and likely to repel) to the inorganic solid electrolyte particles having high polarity by partially coating solid particle surfaces without coating the entirety of the solid particle surfaces. Thus, an ion conduction path or an electron conduction path formed by contact between the solid particles can be sufficiently constructed and thus an increase in interface resistance between the solid particles is suppressed and high battery performance is exhibited as taught by Yasuda ([0074]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to lower and optimize the surface energy of the polymer, as a result effective variable, in view of improving battery performance as taught by Yasuda above. [A]fter KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights