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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 5/8/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. (CN107154497)
With respect to claim 1, Song et al. discloses a binder comprising a mixed powder, the mixed powder including a polytetrafluoroethylene resin and a single-walled carbon nanotube (composite conductive agent), wherein a weight ratio of the polytetrafluoroethylene resin to the single-walled carbon nanotube is 0.65:0.8 (overlaps 99.9:0.1 to 80:20). [0066-0068]
With respect to claim 2, Song et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene resin has a standard specific gravity of 2.11 to 2.20.
Further, regarding limitations recited in claim 2 which are directed to specific properties of polytetrafluoroethylene resin recited in said claim, it is noted that once a binder is disclosed to comprise a polytetrafluoroethylene it is therefore substantially the same as the binder of claim 2, it will, inherently, display recited properties. See MPEP 2112.
Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
A reference which is silent about a claimed invention’s features is inherently anticipatory is the missing feature is necessarily present in that which is described in the reference. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949 (1999). Where the claimed and prior art are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claim 8, Song et al. discloses the binder being a binder for a secondary battery. [Abstract]
With respect to claim 9, Song et al. discloses wherein the secondary battery is a lithium ion secondary battery. [Abstract]
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN107154497) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0075930)
With respect to claim 3, Song et al. does not disclose wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube has an average fiber length of less than 100 µm.
Kim et al. discloses a binder comprising polytetrafluoroethylene and a single-walled carbon nanotube that has an average fiber length of less than 100 µm [0032; 0081]
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the binder of Song et al. to include single-walled carbon nanotube has an average fiber length of less than 100 µm, as disclosed in Kim et al., in order to allow for improved flexibility adhesive force and electrical conductivity and allow for improved cycle characteristics
Claim(s) 3 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN107154497) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Yushin et al. (US2019/0123339)
With respect to claim 3, Song et al. does not disclose wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube has an average fiber length of less than 100 µm.
Yushin et al. discloses a binder comprising polytetrafluoroethylene and a single-walled carbon nanotube that has an average fiber length of less than 100 µm [0032; 0081]
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the binder of Song et al. to include single-walled carbon nanotube has an average fiber length of less than 100 µm, as disclosed in Kim et al., in order to allow for improved flexibility adhesive force and electrical conductivity and allow for improved cycle characteristics
Claim(s) 4 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN107154497) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0075930) as applied to claim 3 above in further view of Ma et al. (US 2014/0332731)
With respect to claim 4, Song et al. does not disclose wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube has an average external diameter of 2.5 nm or less.
Ma et al. discloses single walled carbon nanotubes used with a binder that have an average external diameter of 2.5 nm or less [0012; 0031]
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the binder to Song et al. to include single-walled carbon nanotube has an average external diameter of 2.5 nm or less, as disclosed in Ma et al., in order to allow for enhance the overall conductivity.
Claim(s) 5 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN107154497) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Pierce et al. (US2019/0036102)
With respect to claim 5, Song et al. does not disclose wherein the single-walled carbon nanotube has a G/D ratio of 2 or more.
Further, regarding the G/D ratio recited in claim 5 which are directed to specific properties of single-walled carbon nanotube, it is noted that once a binder is disclosed to comprise a single-walled carbon nanotube it is therefore substantially the same as the binder of claim 1, it will, inherently, display recited properties. See MPEP 2112.
Additionally, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore Pierce et al. disclose wherein single-walled carbon nanotube has a G/D ratio of 2 or more. [0035]
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the binder of Song et al. to include single-walled carbon nanotube that have a G/D ratio of 2 or more, as disclosed in Pierce et al., in order to allow for enhance the overall conductivity.
Claim(s) 6, 10-13, 15-16 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN107154497) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Shin et al. (US 2020/0313193)
With respect to claim 6, Song et al. does not disclose wherein the binder has a moisture content of 1,000 ppm or less.
Shin et al. discloses a binder with a moisture content of 1,000 ppm or less [0031]
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the binder to Song et al. to include a moisture content of 1,000 ppm or less, as disclosed in Shin et al., in order to allow for improved cycling performance, including improved storage stability during cycling, and reduced capacity fade.
With respect to claim 10, Song et al. does not disclose a composition for producing an electrode, in a form of a powder comprising the binder of claim 1 and an electrode active material and being substantially free of a liquid medium.
Shin et al. discloses a composition for producing an electrode, in a form of a powder comprising a binder and an electrode active material and being substantially free of a liquid medium. [Abstract; 0030-0050]
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the binder of Song et al. to include a powder comprising a binder and an electrode active material and being substantially free of a liquid medium, as disclosed in Shin et al., in order to allow for improved cycling performance, including improved storage stability during cycling, and reduced capacity fade.
With respect to claim 11, Song et al. discloses wherein the electrode active material is a positive electrode active material. [Abstract; 0012-0050]
With respect to claim 12, Song et al. discloses an electrode mixture comprising the composition for producing an electrode of claim 10. [Abstract; 0012-0050]
With respect to claim 13, Song et al. discloses an electrode using the electrode mixture of claim 12. [Abstract; 0012-0050]
With respect to claim 15, Song et al. discloses a secondary battery having the electrode of claim 13. [Abstract; 0012-0050]
With respect to claim 16, Song et al. discloses wherein the secondary battery is a lithium ion secondary battery.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN107154497) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Yazami et al. (US 7794880)
With respect to claim 7, Song et al. does not disclose having an element ratio of fluorine to carbon (F/C ratio) of 0.4 or more and 3.0 or less as measured by elemental analysis.
Yazami et al. discloses fluorinated carbon nanomaterials for use in electrodes wherein the element ratio of fluorine to carbon (F/C ratio) of 0.4 or more and 3.0 or less as measured by elemental analysis. [Col. 7-Col. 8]
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the binder of Song et al. to include a having an element ratio of fluorine to carbon (F/C ratio) of 0.4 or more and 3.0 or less as measured by elemental analysis, as disclosed in Yazami et al., in order to allow for improved conductivity.
Claim(s) 14 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (CN107154497) and Shin et al. (US 2020/0313193) as applied to claim 13 above in further view of Duong et al. (US 20150303481).
With respect to claim 14, Song et al. does not disclose having a polytetrafluoroethylene resin having a fibrous structure with a fibril diameter (median value) of 20 nm or more.
Duong et al. discloses an electrode powder material comprising PTFE having a fibrous structure with a fibril diameter (median value) of 20 nm or more [0140-0155]
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the PTFE of Song et al. to have a fibrous structure with a fibril diameter (median value) of 20 nm or more, as disclosed in Duong et al., in order to allow for improved conductivity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. 2005/0074392
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-7PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights