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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 2 and 11 have been amended, and claims 12-14 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed 8/24/2026, have been fully considered. As discussed in the interview dated 8/18/2026, applicants’ arguments that Uruno fails to disclose all the aspects of claim 1 are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of record have been withdrawn; however, following further search and consideration, new grounds for rejection have been found, and those are outlined below.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.
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 1-3, 6, 8, 12-14 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uruno et al (WO 2020194430 A1; Henceforth, Uruno) in view of Ayaka (JP 2022083160 A, published 6/3/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Uruno teaches a positive electrode for a battery ([0008]) comprising a current collector and an active material-containing layer on the current collector, wherein the active material-containing layer contains a first binder, first active material particles, and second active material particles ([0007]). The active material layer can be split into sublayers, with the first active material and a first binder in one layer and the second active material and a second binder is in the other layer ([0043] and Figure 2, layers 3b1 and 3b2, annotated below). Uruno teaches the first active material is coated with the first binder with a coating percentage of 85-100% ([0032]), while the second active material is coated with a second binder ([0033]). Uruno teaches having a high degree of coating on the first active material particles prevents the elution of Mn from the lithium-containing manganese oxide active material ([0032]). Uruno additionally specifies the second active material can be coated by the first binder, with a coating percentage of 0-50% ([0033]). The examiner notes Uruno teaches the coating of the second active material by the first binder inhibits the function of the second active material, and the amount of coating of the first binder on the second active material is preferably 0% ([0033]). Uruno does not teach the coverage of the second binder on the second active material.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2, reproduced from Uruno, annotated by the examiner.
Ayaka teaches a composite particle for an energy storage device ([0007]-[0009]) wherein active material particles ([0018]) have conductive material coverage rate of 10% to 72% and a binder coverage rate of 3% to 22% ([0021]). Ayaka teaches that, when the conductive material coverage rate is 20% or more and 70% or less, or the binder coverage rate is 3% or more and 17% or less, the high-rate characteristics of the resulting battery can be further enhanced ([0024]). The examiner notes that, while Ayaka teaches a single layer electrode, the taught coating percentage will be applied to C2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode composite of Uruno by having the second active material covered with binder on the order of 3-22%, as taught by Ayaka in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, to utilize a second active material with the coverage rate taught by Ayaka, in order to enhance the high-rate characteristics of the resulting battery ([0024]). Uruno additionally teaches the second active material should be coated with as little of the first binder, to prevent the inhibition of the second active material ([0032]). Additionally, there would have been a motivation to utilize a high binder coating of the first active material, in order to prevent Mn elution, as taught by Uruno. The examiner notes the range taught by Ayaka overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range.
Regarding claim 2, Uruno and Ayaka teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the first active material is coated with the first binder with a coating percentage of 85-100% ([0032]). Ayaka teaches the coverage of an active material is coated with a binder, in the range of 3-22% ([0021]). The examiner notes the coating percentage of Uruno corresponds to C1 and the coverage taught by Ayaka correspond to C2, respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating percentages of the first and second active materials by the first and second binders, respectively, to be greater than 50% and less than 45%, for the reasons outlined in claim 1, above. Additionally, the examiner notes the range taught by Uruno and Ayaka overlap/encompass the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the coverage rate of the first active material from the range taught by Uruno and the coverage rate of the second active material from Ayaka from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range.
Regarding claim 3, Uruno and Ayaka teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the first active material is coated with the first binder with a coating percentage of 85-100% ([0032]), while Ayaka teaches a coating of an active material by a binder, with a coating percentage of 3-22% ([0033]). The examiner notes the coating percentages correspond to the equivalents of C1 and C2, respectively. The examiner notes that the difference between the coating percents will always be 35% or more, and, since the values taught by Uruno and Ayaka will always be within the range of the instant claim, it anticipates it. See MPEP 2131.03.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a difference between C1 and C2 to be 30% or more, for the reasons outline in claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Uruno and Ayaka teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the first active material particles contain lithium-containing manganese oxide, while the second active material particles contain cobalt-containing compounds ([0028]). Examples of the lithium-containing manganese oxide include LiMn2-xMxO4, where M is selected from Mg, Ti, Cr, Fe, Co, Zn, Al, and Ga, and 0.22 < x < 0.7 ([0029]). The cobalt-containing compounds can be selected from lithium-containing cobalt oxides, lithium nickel-cobalt composite oxides, lithium nickel-cobalt manganese composite oxides, and lithium manganese-cobalt composite oxides ([0030]). The examiner notes that both the first active materials and the second active materials constitute a lithium transition metal composite oxides, and therefore Uruno teaches all the added limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Uruno and Ayaka teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the electrode is manufactured by first preparing a first dispersion containing the first active material and a first binder and a second dispersion, containing the second active material and a second binder ([0050]). Uruno teaches each dispersion is formed by suspending the binder and active material compound in a solvent, with conductive material ([0051] and [0052]). Each dispersion solution undergoes bead mill dispersion to uniformly disperse each material ([0173] and [0174]). The examiner notes each dispersion creates a composite body which contains an active material coated by binder and conductive material, and therefore Uruno teaches all the added limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Uruno and Ayaka teach the electrode according to claim 1. Ayaka teaches Ayaka teaches a composite particle for an energy storage device ([0007]-[0009]) wherein active material particles ([0018]) have conductive material coverage rate of 10% to 72% and a binder coverage rate of 3% to 22% ([0021]). Ayaka teaches, in Table 1, specific examples of binder coverage; for example, Example 1 has a binder coverage of 14.7 %. The examiner notes this lies within the instant range and therefore anticipates it. See MPEP 2133.03(I) Ayaka teaches that, when the conductive material coverage rate is 20% or more and 70% or less, or the binder coverage rate is 3% or more and 17% or less, the high-rate characteristics of the resulting battery can be further enhanced ([0024]). The examiner notes that, while Ayaka teaches a single layer electrode, the taught coating percentage will be applied to C2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a coating of a second active material by a second binder between 10 and 45%, for the reasons outline in claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 13, Uruno and Ayaka teach the electrode according to claim 1. Urano teaches an embodiment ([0043]), where there are distinct regions in the catalysts layer (3b1 and 3b2, Figure 2, above), where there is a first binder and a first active material in one region, and a second active material and a second binder in the other region ([0048]). The examiner notes Uruno teaches conductive material may also be included in the first and second regions ([0044]). Therefore, Uruno teaches all the added limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Uruno and Ayaka teach the electrode according to claim 1. Urano teaches the coverage rate of the first active material by the first binder is 85-100% ([0032]), and Ayaka teaches the coating of their active material by a binder is between 3 and 22% ([0021]). The examiner notes that the coverage rate of the first layer taught by Urano is greater than the coverage rate taught by Ayaka.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a coating of a second active material by a second binder between 10 and 45%, for the reasons outline in claim 1, above.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uruno and Ayaka as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tooru et al. (WO 2022230654 A1, published November 3rd, 2022; Henceforth, Tooru).
Regarding claim 4, Uruno and Ayaka teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the second binder may be polyvinylidene fluoride or polytetrafluoroethylene, but teaches the first binder is different from the second binder ([0027]). Uruno does not teach the first binder is a fluorine-containing compound. Ayaka only teaches that fluorine-based binders are preferred for its active material composite with low coating percentages ([0020]).
Tooru teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery ([0009]) with a current collector and a composite layer formed on the surface of the current collector ([0015]). The composite layer consists of a first mixture layer on the current collector and a second mixture layer laminated on the surface of the first mixture layer, where both layers includes an active material, a binder, and a conductive agent ([0022]). Tooru teaches the active material, conductive agent, and binder contained in the first combination layer and the second combination layer may be the same or may be different from each other ([0022]). Tooru teaches examples of binders include fluororesins, such as PTFE and polyvinylidene fluoride ([0021]). Tooru further teaches, in Example 1 ([0036]), the use of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3 in each active material layer with PTFE and acetylene black, with the only difference being the ratio between the amounts used in each layer ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create an electrode with two active material layers with different amounts of binder coating the active material particles, as taught by Uruno and Ayaka, with fluororesin binders, as taught by Tooru in the same field of endeavor. Tooru demonstrates the precedent for those in the art to use fluororesins as binders in two different active material layers in a battery. The substitution for one set of binders for another is a simple substitution for one element for another known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation that the substitution of the first binder of Uruno for the fluororesins of Tooru would have been successful, as the binder would be performing the same function it had in an analogous system. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 5, Uruno and Ayaka teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno does not teach the binders have the same composition; Uruno teaches the opposite ([0027]). Ayaka does not teach the use of two binders.
Tooru teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery ([0009]) with a current collector and a composite layer formed on the surface of the current collector ([0015]). The composite layer consists of a first mixture layer on the current collector and a second mixture layer laminated on the surface of the first mixture layer, where both layers includes an active material, a binder, and a conductive agent ([0022]). Tooru teaches the active material, conductive agent, and binder contained in the first combination layer and the second combination layer may be the same or may be different from each other ([0022]). Tooru teaches, in Example 1 ([0036]), the use of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3 in each active material layer with PTFE and acetylene black, with the only difference being the ratio between the amounts used in each layer ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create an electrode with two active material layers with different amounts of binder coating the active material particles, as taught by Uruno and Ayaka, with equivalent fluororesin binders in each active material layer, as taught by Tooru in the same field of endeavor. Tooru demonstrates the precedent for those in the art to use the same fluororesin binders in each active material layers of the electrode. The substitution for one set of binders for another is a simple substitution for one element for another known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation that the substitution of the binders of Uruno and Ayaka for the fluororesins of Tooru would have been successful, as the binder would be performing the same function it had in an analogous system. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 7, Uruno and Ayaka teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno does not teach that the first and second active materials have the same composition. Ayaka does not teach a second active material.
Tooru teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery ([0009]) with a current collector and a composite layer formed on the surface of the current collector ([0015]). The composite layer consists of a first mixture layer on the current collector and a second mixture layer laminated on the surface of the first mixture layer, where both layers includes an active material, a binder, and a conductive agent ([0022]). Tooru teaches the active material, conductive agent, and binder contained in the first combination layer and the second combination layer may be the same or may be different from each other ([0022]). Tooru teaches, in Example 1 ([0036]), the use of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3 in each active material layer with PTFE and acetylene black, with the only difference being the ratio between the amounts used in each layer ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create an electrode with two active material layers with different amounts of binder coating the active material particles, as taught by Uruno and Ayaka, with equivalent active materials in each active material layer, as taught by Tooru in the same field of endeavor. Tooru demonstrates the precedent for those in the art to use the same active material in each active material layer of the electrode. The substitution for one set of active materials for another is a simple substitution for one element for another known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation that the substitution of the active materials of Uruno and Ayaka for those taught by Tooru would have led to an operational battery, as the active materials would be performing the same function it had in an analogous system. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uruno, in view of Uchida et al. (US-8343656-B2, Henceforth, Uchida) and Ayaka.
Regarding claim 9, Uruno teaches a battery with a positive electrode and a negative electrode ([0008]), wherein the positive electrode comprises a current collector and an active material-containing layer on the current collector, wherein the active material-containing layer contains a first binder, first active material particles, and second active material particles ([0007]). The active material layer can be split into sublayers, with the first active material and a first binder in one layer and the second active material and a second binder is in the other layer ([0043] and Figure 2, layers 3b1 and 3b2, above). Uruno teaches the first active material is coated with the first binder with a coating percentage of 85-100% ([0032]), while the second active material is coated with a second binder, with a coating percentage of 0-50% ([0033]). The examiner notes the coating percentages correspond to the equivalents of C1 and C2, respectively and the coating percent of the first active material is greater than that for the second active material. The examiner notes this positive electrode matches the description of the electrode of claim 1. Uruno teaches that the positive and negative electrodes are separated by a separator, and the resulting group is impregnated with an non-aqueous electrolyte ([0087]).
Urano does not explicitly teach that an electrolyte layer is arranged between the anode and cathode, nor the coating rate of the second active material by the second binder.
Uchida teaches a lithium-ion battery (page 2, column 4, lines 18-19) where it an electrode produced applying an compound material layer comprised of an active material and a binder to a current collector (page 1, column 2, lines 22-27). Uchida teaches that it is preferable for separator sheets to be in between of the positive and negative electrodes of the resulting battery. However, when a solid electrolyte is used, the separator is not required, since the electrolyte per se can function as a separator in such cases (page 12, column 23, lines 38-44). Uchida does not teach the coverage rate of the second active material by a second binder.
Ayaka teaches a composite particle for an energy storage device ([0007]-[0009]) wherein active material particles ([0018]) have conductive material coverage rate of 10% to 72% and a binder coverage rate of 3% to 22% ([0021]). Ayaka teaches that, when the conductive material coverage rate is 20% or more and 70% or less, or the binder coverage rate is 3% or more and 17% or less, the high-rate characteristics of the resulting battery can be further enhanced ([0024]). The examiner notes the coating percentage would correspond to C2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a positive electrode with two active material layers with different amounts of binder coating the active material particles, as taught by Uruno, with a negative electrode and an electrolyte layer in between the two electrodes, as taught by Uchida, and a coverage rate of a second active material by a binder, as taught by Ayaka. Uchida demonstrates the precedent for those in the art to use a solid electrolyte in place of a separator in a battery. The substitution for one set of active materials for another is a simple substitution for one element for another known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation that the substitution of the separator of Uruno for the electrolyte layer taught by Uchida would have been successful, as the solid electrolyte would be performing the same function it had in an analogous system, acting as both an electrolyte and a separator.
There would have been a motivation, to utilize a second active material with the coverage rate taught by Ayaka, in order to enhance the high-rate characteristics of the resulting battery ([0024]). Uruno additionally teaches the second active material should be coated with as little of the first binder, to prevent the inhibition of the second active material ([0032]). Additionally, there would have been a motivation to utilize a high binder coating of the first active material, in order to prevent Mn elution, as taught by Uruno. The examiner notes the range taught by Ayaka overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range.
Regarding claim 10, Uruno, Uchida and Ayaka teach the battery of claim 9. Uruno teaches the battery may be a rechargeable battery, specifically a lithium-ion battery (Uruno: [0083]; Uchida: page 2, column 4, lines 18-19). Therefore, Urano teaches the additional limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooru, and further in view of Uruno and Ayaka.
Regarding claim 11, Tooru teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery ([0009]) with a current collector and a composite layer formed on the surface of the current collector ([0015]). The composite layer consists of a first mixture layer on the current collector and a second mixture layer laminated on the surface of the first mixture layer, where both layers includes an active material, a binder, and a conductive agent ([0022]). Tooru teaches that, to manufacture the electrode, the raw materials for the first/second active material layer (the active material, the binder, and conductive material) are dry-mixed and rolled to produce a sheet-like first/second mixture layer ([0027]-[0029]). The first active material layer is the bonded to the current collector, and the second active material layer is bonded to the first active material layer ([0027] and [0029]). Tooru does not teach the coating percentage of the binder on the active materials.
Uruno teaches a positive electrode for a battery ([0008]) comprising a current collector and an active material-containing layer on the current collector, wherein the active material-containing layer contains a first binder, first active material particles, and second active material particles ([0007]). The active material layer can be split into sublayers, with the first active material and a first binder in one layer and the second active material and a second binder is in the other layer ([0043] and Figure 2, layers 3b1 and 3b2, annotated below). Uruno teaches the first active material is coated with the first binder with a coating percentage of 85-100% ([0032]), while the second active material is coated with a second binder ([0033]). Uruno teaches having a high degree of coating on the first active material particles prevents the elution of Mn from the lithium-containing manganese oxide active material ([0032]). Uruno additionally specifies the second active material can be coated by the first binder, with a coating percentage of 0-50% ([0033]). The examiner notes Uruno teaches the coating of the second active material by the first binder inhibits the function of the second active material, and the amount of coating of the first binder on the second active material is preferably 0% ([0033]). Uruno does not teach the coverage of the second binder on the second active material.
Ayaka teaches a composite particle for an energy storage device ([0007]-[0009]) wherein active material particles ([0018]) have conductive material coverage rate of 10% to 72% and a binder coverage rate of 3% to 22% ([0021]). Ayaka teaches that, when the conductive material coverage rate is 20% or more and 70% or less, or the binder coverage rate is 3% or more and 17% or less, the high-rate characteristics of the resulting battery can be further enhanced ([0024]). The examiner notes that, while Ayaka teaches a single layer electrode, the taught coating percentage will be applied to C2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create an electrode with two active material layers with different amounts of binder coating the active material particles, as taught by Uruno and Ayaka, following the methodology taught by Tooru in the same field of endeavor. Tooru demonstrates the precedent for those in the art to dry mix the active material, binder, and conductive material together in order to form a composite active material that can be applied to the current collector of an electrode. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation that the use of the methodology taught by Tooru to make an electrode with the percent coverages taught by Uruno and Ayaka would have been successful, as the method would be performed in an identical manner with similar materials as it had been demonstrated successfully with previously.
There would have been a motivation to use the active materials with two different coating percentages of binder on the active material, as taught by Uruno in the same field of endeavor, following the methodology taught by Tooru, since having a high degree of coating on the first active material particles prevents the elution of Mn from the lithium-containing manganese oxide active material ([0032]), while having a smaller amount of binder coating on the second cobalt-containing active material helps ensure the active material gas-reduction effect is not inhibited by the binder ([0033]).
Additionally, there would have been a motivation, to utilize a second active material with the coverage rate taught by Ayaka, in order to enhance the high-rate characteristics of the resulting battery ([0024]). The examiner notes the range taught by Ayaka overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 12-14 are alternatively rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uruno et al (WO 2020194430 A1; Henceforth, Uruno) in view of Fuse et al. (JP 2007103382 A; Henceforth, Fuse).
Regarding claim 1, Uruno teaches a positive electrode for a battery ([0008]) comprising a current collector and an active material-containing layer on the current collector, wherein the active material-containing layer contains a first binder, first active material particles, and second active material particles ([0007]). The active material layer can be split into sublayers, with the first active material and a first binder in one layer and the second active material and a second binder is in the other layer ([0043] and Figure 2, layers 3b1 and 3b2, annotated above). Uruno teaches the first active material is coated with the first binder with a coating percentage of 85-100% ([0032]), while the second active material is coated with a second binder ([0033]). Uruno teaches having a high degree of coating on the first active material particles prevents the elution of Mn from the lithium-containing manganese oxide active material ([0032]). Uruno additionally specifies the second active material can be coated by the first binder, with a coating percentage of 0-50% ([0033]). The examiner notes Uruno teaches the coating of the second active material by the first binder inhibits the function of the second active material, and the amount of coating of the first binder on the second active material is preferably 0% ([0033]). Uruno does not teach the coverage of the second binder on the second active material.
Fuse teaches a lithium secondary battery with an anode material and a binder, wherein the surface coverage rate of the active material by the binder is in the range of 20 to 55% ([0023]). Fuse teaches examples ([0043]-[0047]) where the coverage rate is 33% ([0043]), 21% ([0044]), 31% ([0045]) 18 % ([0046]) and 57% ([0047]). The examiner notes that, while Fuse teaches a single layer electrode, the taught coating percentage will be applied to C2. The examiner notes the first 4 examples lie within the instant range of coverage for the second active material and therefore anticipate it. See MPEP 2133.03 (I). Fuse teaches utilizing an electrode with this coverage results in a negative electrode with lower resistance values (being less than 6.5 Ohms) and a low double layer capacitance between the electrolyte and electrode ([0008]), resulting in batteries with high charge acceptance and less electrode swelling ([0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode composite of Uruno by having the second active material covered with binder on the order of 20-55%, as taught by Fuse in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, to utilize a second active material with the coverage rate taught by Fuse, to make a battery with a high charge acceptance and low electrode swelling ([0009]). Uruno additionally teaches the second active material should be coated with as little of the first binder, to prevent the inhibition of the second active material ([0032]) in addition to a high binder coating of the first active material, in order to prevent Mn elution, as taught by Uruno.
Regarding claim 2, Uruno and Fuse teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the first active material is coated with the first binder with a coating percentage of 85-100% ([0032 the surface coverage rate of the active material by the binder is in the range of 20 to 55% ([0023]). Fuse teaches examples ([0043]-[0047]) where the coverage rate is 33% ([0043]), 21% ([0044]), 31% ([0045]) 18 % ([0046]) and 57% ([0047]). The examiner notes the coating percentage of Uruno corresponds to C1 and the coverage taught by Fuse correspond to C2, respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating percentages of the first and second active materials by the first and second binders, respectively, to be greater than 50% and less than 45%, for the reasons outlined in claim 1, above. Additionally, the examiner notes the range taught by Uruno overlap/encompass the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the coverage rate of the first active material from the range taught by Uruno from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range.
Regarding claim 3, Uruno and Fuse teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the first active material is coated with the first binder with a coating percentage of 85-100% ([0032]), while the surface coverage rate of the active material by the binder is in the range of 20 to 55% ([0023]). Fuse teaches examples ([0043]-[0047]) where the coverage rate is 33% ([0043]), 21% ([0044]), 31% ([0045]) 18 % ([0046]) and 57% ([0047]). The examiner notes the coating percentages correspond to the equivalents of C1 and C2, respectively. The examiner notes that the difference between the coating percents will be 35% or more, when utilizing the coverages taught in examples 1-4 of Fuse. Thus, since the values taught by Uruno and Fuse examples 1-4 will be within the range of the instant claim, it anticipates it. See MPEP 2131.03.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a difference between C1 and C2 to be 30% or more, for the reasons outline in claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Uruno and Fuse teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the first active material particles contain lithium-containing manganese oxide, while the second active material particles contain cobalt-containing compounds ([0028]). Examples of the lithium-containing manganese oxide include LiMn2-xMxO4, where M is selected from Mg, Ti, Cr, Fe, Co, Zn, Al, and Ga, and 0.22 < x < 0.7 ([0029]). The cobalt-containing compounds can be selected from lithium-containing cobalt oxides, lithium nickel-cobalt composite oxides, lithium nickel-cobalt manganese composite oxides, and lithium manganese-cobalt composite oxides ([0030]). The examiner notes that both the first active materials and the second active materials constitute a lithium transition metal composite oxides, and therefore Uruno teaches all the added limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Uruno and Fuse teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the electrode is manufactured by first preparing a first dispersion containing the first active material and a first binder and a second dispersion, containing the second active material and a second binder ([0050]). Uruno teaches each dispersion is formed by suspending the binder and active material compound in a solvent, with conductive material ([0051] and [0052]). Each dispersion solution undergoes bead mill dispersion to uniformly disperse each material ([0173] and [0174]). The examiner notes each dispersion creates a composite body which contains an active material coated by binder and conductive material, and therefore Uruno teaches all the added limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Uruno and Fuse teach the electrode according to claim 1. the surface coverage rate of the active material by the binder is in the range of 20 to 55% ([0023]). Fuse teaches examples ([0043]-[0047]) where the coverage rate is 33% ([0043]), 21% ([0044]), 31% ([0045]) 18 % ([0046]) and 57% ([0047]). As noted in claim 1, above, while Ayaka teaches a single layer electrode, the taught coating percentage will be applied to C2. The examiner notes that examples 1-4 lie within the instant range and therefore anticipates it. See MPEP 2133.03(I). The examiner notes the coating percentage would correspond to C2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a coating of a second active material by a second binder between 10 and 45%, for the reasons outline in claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 13, Uruno and Fuse teach the electrode according to claim 1. Urano teaches an embodiment ([0043]), where there are distinct regions in the catalysts layer (3b1 and 3b2, Figure 2, above), where there is a first binder and a first active material in one region, and a second active material and a second binder in the other region ([0048]). The examiner notes Uruno teaches conductive material may also be included in the first and second regions ([0044]). Therefore, Uruno teaches all the added limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Uruno and Fuse teach the electrode according to claim 1. Urano teaches the coverage rate of the first active material by the first binder is 85-100% ([0032]), and Fuse teaches the surface coverage rate of the active material by the binder is in the range of 20 to 55% ([0023]). Fuse teaches examples ([0043]-[0047]) where the coverage rate is 33% ([0043]), 21% ([0044]), 31% ([0045]) 18 % ([0046]) and 57% ([0047]). The examiner notes, in each case, that the coating rate of the active material taught by Uruno is greater than that taught by Fuse.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a coating of a second active material by a second binder between 10 and 45%, for the reasons outline in claim 1, above.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uruno and Fuse as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tooru.
Regarding claim 4, Uruno and Fuse teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno teaches the second binder may be polyvinylidene fluoride or polytetrafluoroethylene, but teaches the first binder is different from the second binder ([0027]). Uruno does not teach the first binder is a fluorine-containing compound. Fuse teaches that fluorine-based binders can be used for its active material composite with coating percentages ranging between 20 and 55% ([0023] and [0027]).
Tooru teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery ([0009]) with a current collector and a composite layer formed on the surface of the current collector ([0015]). The composite layer consists of a first mixture layer on the current collector and a second mixture layer laminated on the surface of the first mixture layer, where both layers includes an active material, a binder, and a conductive agent ([0022]). Tooru teaches the active material, conductive agent, and binder contained in the first combination layer and the second combination layer may be the same or may be different from each other ([0022]). Tooru teaches examples of binders include fluororesins, such as PTFE and polyvinylidene fluoride ([0021]). Tooru further teaches, in Example 1 ([0036]), the use of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3 in each active material layer with PTFE and acetylene black, with the only difference being the ratio between the amounts used in each layer ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create an electrode with two active material layers with different amounts of binder coating the active material particles, as taught by Uruno and Fuse, with fluororesin binders, as taught by Tooru in the same field of endeavor. Tooru demonstrates the precedent for those in the art to use fluororesins as binders in two different active material layers in a battery. The substitution for one set of binders for another is a simple substitution for one element for another known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation that the substitution of the first binder of Uruno for the fluororesins of Tooru would have been successful, as the binder would be performing the same function it had in an analogous system. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 5, Uruno and Fuse teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno does not teach the binders have the same composition; Uruno teaches the opposite ([0027]). Fuse teaches multiple binders can be utilized in their monolayered electrode ([0027]).
Tooru teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery ([0009]) with a current collector and a composite layer formed on the surface of the current collector ([0015]). The composite layer consists of a first mixture layer on a current collector and a second mixture layer laminated on the surface of the first mixture layer, where both layers includes an active material, a binder, and a conductive agent ([0022]). Tooru teaches the active material, conductive agent, and binder contained in the first combination layer and the second combination layer may be the same or may be different from each other ([0022]). Tooru teaches, in Example 1 ([0036]), the use of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3 in each active material layer with PTFE and acetylene black, with the only difference being the ratio between the amounts used in each layer ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create an electrode with two active material layers with different amounts of binder coating the active material particles, as taught by Uruno and Fuse, with equivalent fluororesin binders in each active material layer, as taught by Tooru in the same field of endeavor. Tooru demonstrates the precedent for those in the art to use the same fluororesin binders in each active material layers of the electrode. The substitution for one set of binders for another is a simple substitution for one element for another known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation that the substitution of the binders of Uruno and Fuse for the fluororesins of Tooru would have been successful, as the binder would be performing the same function it had in an analogous system. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 7, Uruno and Fuse teach the electrode according to claim 1. Uruno does not teach that the first and second active materials have the same composition. Fuse does not teach a second active material.
Tooru teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery ([0009]) with a current collector and a composite layer formed on the surface of the current collector ([0015]). The composite layer consists of a first mixture layer on the current collector and a second mixture layer laminated on the surface of the first mixture layer, where both layers includes an active material, a binder, and a conductive agent ([0022]). Tooru teaches the active material, conductive agent, and binder contained in the first combination layer and the second combination layer may be the same or may be different from each other ([0022]). Tooru teaches, in Example 1 ([0036]), the use of LiNi0.5Co0.2Mn0.3 in each active material layer with PTFE and acetylene black, with the only difference being the ratio between the amounts used in each layer ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create an electrode with two active material layers with different amounts of binder coating the active material particles, as taught by Uruno and Fuse, with equivalent active materials in each active material layer, as taught by Tooru in the same field of endeavor. Tooru demonstrates the precedent for those in the art to use the same active material in each active material layer of the electrode. The substitution for one set of active materials for another is a simple substitution for one element for another known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation that the substitution of the active materials of Uruno and Fuse for those taught by Tooru would have led to an operational battery, as the active materials would be performing the same function it had in an analogous system. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 9-10 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uruno, in view of Uchida and Fuse.
Regarding claim 9, Uruno teaches a battery with a positive electrode and a negative electrode ([0008]), wherein the positive electrode comprises a current collector and an active material-containing layer on the current collector, wherein the active material-containing layer contains a first binder, first active material particles, and second active material particles ([0007]). The active material layer can be split into sublayers, with the first active material and a first binder in one layer and the second active material and a second binder is in the other layer ([0043] and Figure 2, layers 3b1 and 3b2, above). Uruno teaches the first active material is coated with the first binder with a coating percentage of 85-100% ([0032]), while the second active material is coated with a second binder, with a coating percentage of 0-50% ([0033]). The examiner notes the coating percentages correspond to the equivalents of C1 and C2, respectively and the coating percent of the first active material is greater than that for the second active material. The examiner notes this positive electrode matches the description of the electrode of claim 1. Uruno teaches that the positive and negative electrodes are separated by a separator, and the resulting group is impregnated with an non-aqueous electrolyte ([0087]).
Urano does not explicitly teach that an electrolyte layer is arranged between the anode and cathode, nor the coating rate of the second active material by the second binder.
Uchida teaches a lithium-ion battery (page 2, column 4, lines 18-19) where it an electrode produced applying an compound material layer comprised of an active material and a binder to a current collector (page 1, column 2, lines 22-27). Uchida teaches that it is preferable for separator sheets to be in between of the positive and negative electrodes of the resulting battery. However, when a solid electrolyte is used, the separator is not required, since the electrolyte per se can function as a separator in such cases (page 12, column 23, lines 38-44). Uchida does not teach the coverage rate of the second active material by a second binder.
Fuse teaches a lithium secondary battery with an anode material and a binder, wherein the surface coverage rate of the active material by the binder is in the range of 20 to 55% ([0023]). Fuse teaches examples ([0043]-[0047]) where the coverage rate is 33% ([0043]), 21% ([0044]), 31% ([0045]) 18 % ([0046]) and 57% ([0047]). The examiner notes the first 4 examples lie within the instant range of coverage for the second active material and therefore anticipate it. See MPEP 2133.03 (I). Fuse teaches utilizing an electrode with this coverage results in a negative electrode with lower resistance values (being less than 6.5 Ohms) and a low double layer capacitance between the electrolyte and electrode ([0008]), resulting in batteries with high charge acceptance and less electrode swelling ([0009]). The examiner notes the coating percentage would correspond to C2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create a positive electrode with two active material layers with different amounts of binder coating the active material particles, as taught by Uruno, with a negative electrode and an electrolyte layer in between the two electrodes, as taught by Uchida, and a coverage rate of a second active material by a binder, as taught by Fuse. Uchida demonstrates the precedent for those in the art to use a solid electrolyte in place of a separator in a battery. The substitution for one set of active materials for another is a simple substitution for one element for another known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation that the substitution of the separator of Uruno for the electrolyte layer taught by Uchida would have been successful, as the solid electrolyte would be performing the same function it had in an analogous system, acting as both an electrolyte and a separator.
Additionally, there would have been a motivation, to utilize a second active material with the coverage rate taught by Fuse, to make a battery with a high charge acceptance and low electrode swelling ([0009]). Uruno additionally teaches the second active material should be coated with as little of the first binder, to prevent the inhibition of the second active material ([0032]) in addition to a high binder coating of the first active material, in order to prevent Mn elution, as taught by Uruno.
Regarding claim 10, Uruno, Uchida and Fuse teach the battery of claim 9. Uruno teaches the battery may be a rechargeable battery, specifically a lithium-ion battery (Uruno: [0083]; Uchida: page 2, column 4, lines 18-19). Therefore, Urano teaches the additional limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 11 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooru, and further in view of Uruno and Fuse.
Regarding claim 11, Tooru teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery ([0009]) with a current collector and a composite layer formed on the surface of the current collector ([0015]). The composite layer consists of a first mixture layer on a current collector and a second mixture layer laminated on the surface of the first mixture layer, where both layers includes an active material, a binder, and a conductive agent ([0022]). Tooru teaches that, to manufacture the electrode, the raw materials for the first/second active material layer (the active material, the binder, and conductive material) are dry-mixed and rolled to produce a sheet-like first/second mixture layer ([0027]-[0029]). The first active material layer is the bonded to the current collector, and the second active material layer is bonded to the first active material layer ([0027] and [0029]). Tooru does not teach the coating percentage of the binder on the active materials.
Uruno teaches a positive electrode for a battery ([0008]) comprising a current collector and an active material-containing layer on the current collector, wherein the active material-containing layer contains a first binder, first active material particles, and second active material particles ([0007]). The active material layer can be split into sublayers, with the first active material and a first binder in one layer and the second active material and a second binder is in the other layer ([0043] and Figure 2, layers 3b1 and 3b2, annotated below). Uruno teaches the first active material is coated with the first binder with a coating percentage of 85-100% ([0032]), while the second active material is coated with a second binder ([0033]). Uruno teaches having a high degree of coating on the first active material particles prevents the elution of Mn from the lithium-containing manganese oxide active material ([0032]). Uruno additionally specifies the second active material can be coated by the first binder, with a coating percentage of 0-50% ([0033]). The examiner notes Uruno teaches the coating of the second active material by the first binder inhibits the function of the second active material, and the amount of coating of the first binder on the second active material is preferably 0% ([0033]). Uruno does not teach the coverage of the second binder on the second active material.
Fuse teaches a lithium secondary battery with an anode material and a binder, wherein the surface coverage rate of the active material by the binder is in the range of 20 to 55% ([0023]). Fuse teaches examples ([0043]-[0047]) where the coverage rate is 33% ([0043]), 21% ([0044]), 31% ([0045]) 18 % ([0046]) and 57% ([0047]). The examiner notes the first 4 examples lie within the instant range of coverage for the second active material and therefore anticipate it. See MPEP 2133.03 (I). Fuse teaches utilizing an electrode with this coverage results in a negative electrode with lower resistance values (being less than 6.5 Ohms) and a low double layer capacitance between the electrolyte and electrode ([0008]), resulting in batteries with high charge acceptance and less electrode swelling ([0009]). The examiner notes that, while Fuse teaches a single layer electrode, the taught coating percentage will be applied to C2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create an electrode with two active material layers with different amounts of binder coating the active material particles, as taught by Uruno and Ayaka, following the methodology taught by Tooru in the same field of endeavor. Tooru demonstrates the precedent for those in the art to dry mix the active material, binder, and conductive material together in order to form a composite active material that can be applied to the current collector of an electrode. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation that the use of the methodology taught by Tooru to make an electrode with the percent coverages taught by Uruno and Ayaka would have been successful, as the method would be performed in an identical manner with similar materials as it had been demonstrated successfully with previously.
There would have been a motivation to use the active materials with two different coating percentages of binder on the active material, as taught by Uruno in the same field of endeavor, following the methodology taught by Tooru, since having a high degree of coating on the first active material particles prevents the elution of Mn from the lithium-containing manganese oxide active material ([0032]), while having a smaller amount of binder coating on the second cobalt-containing active material helps ensure the active material gas-reduction effect is not inhibited by the binder ([0033]).
Additionally, there would have been a motivation, to utilize a second active material with the coverage rate taught by Fuse, to make a battery with a high charge acceptance and low electrode swelling ([0009]). Uruno additionally teaches the second active material should be coated with as little of the first binder, to prevent the inhibition of the second active material ([0032]) in addition to a high binder coating of the first active material, in order to prevent Mn elution, as taught by Uruno.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11929489 B2 (Henceforth US’489) in view of Uruno, Ayaka, Tooru, and/or Uchida, as outlined in Table I, below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims substantially teach the subject matter of the instant claims 1-14, except:
A second binder in the second deposition layer and the coverage rate of the first and second active materials by the first and second binders, wherein the coverage of the second active material by the second binder is less than 50% (Claims 1 and 11)
The coverage rate of the first active material by the first binder is greater than 50% and the coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder is 45% or less (Claim 2)
The difference in coverage rate of the first active material by the first binder and the second active material by the second binder is greater than 30% (Claim 3)
The first binder and the second binder are a fluorine-containing binder (Claim 4)
The first binder and the second binder have the same composition (Claim 5)
The first active material and the second active material are a lithium transition metal composite oxide (Claim 6)
The first active material and the second active material have the same composition (Claim 7)
The first electrode layer contains a first composite body in which the first binder and a first conductive material are dispersed on a surface of the first active material; and the second electrode layer contains a second composite body in which the second binder and a second conductive material are dispersed on a surface of the second active material (Claim 8).
A battery including a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode and the anode, wherein at least one of the cathode and the anode is the electrode according to claim 1 (Claim 9)
The battery is a lithium ion battery (Claim 10)
The coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder is from 10% to 45% (Claim 12)
The second electrode layer consists of the second active material, the second binder, and optionally a second conductive material (a coverage rate of the first active material with binder is greater than a coverage rate of the second active material with binder (Claim 13)
A coverage rate of the first active material with binder is greater than a coverage rate of the second active material with binder (Claim 14)
Table I:
Reference Patent US 11929489 B2
Instant Claims
Additional Art
1-3, 6, 8, 11-14
Urano and Akaya
4, 5 and 7
Urano, Tooru and Akaya
9 and 10
Urano, Uchida and Akaya
Regarding a second binder in the second deposition layer and the coverage rate of the first and second active materials by the first and second binders, wherein the coverage of the second active material by the second binder is less than 50%, Urano and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and/or 11, above.
Regarding the coverage rate of the first active material by the first binder is greater than 50% and the coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder is 45% or less, Urano and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2, above.
Regarding the difference in coverage rate of the first active material by the first binder and the second active material by the second binder is greater than 30%, Urano and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3, above.
Regarding the first binder and the second binder are a fluorine-containing binder, Urano, Tooru and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4, above.
Regarding the first binder and the second binder have the same composition, Urano, Tooru and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5, above.
Regarding the first active material and the second active material are a lithium transition metal composite oxide, Urano and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 6, above.
Regarding the first active material and the second active material have the same composition, Urano, Tooru and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7, above.
Regarding the first electrode layer contains a first composite body in which the first binder and a first conductive material are dispersed on a surface of the first active material; and the second electrode layer contains a second composite body in which the second binder and a second conductive material are dispersed on a surface of the second active material, Urano and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8, above.
Regarding a battery including a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode and the anode, wherein at least one of the cathode and the anode is the electrode according to claim 1, Urano, Uchida and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 9, above.
Regarding the battery is a lithium ion battery, Urano, Uchida and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 10, above.
Regarding the coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder is from 10% to 45%, Urano and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 12, above.
Regarding the second electrode layer consists of the second active material, the second binder, and optionally a second conductive material (a coverage rate of the first active material with binder is greater than a coverage rate of the second active material with binder, Urano and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 13, above.
Regarding a coverage rate of the first active material with binder that is greater than a coverage rate of the second active material with binder, Urano and Ayaka disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 14, above.
Alternatively, claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11929489 B2 (Henceforth US’489) in view of Uruno, Fuse, Tooru, and/or Uchida, as outlined in Table II, below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims substantially teach the subject matter of the instant claims 1-14, except:
A second binder in the second deposition layer and the coverage rate of the first and second active materials by the first and second binders, wherein the coverage of the second active material by the second binder is less than 50% (Claims 1 and 11)
The coverage rate of the first active material by the first binder is greater than 50% and the coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder is 45% or less (Claim 2)
The difference in coverage rate of the first active material by the first binder and the second active material by the second binder is greater than 30% (Claim 3)
The first binder and the second binder are a fluorine-containing binder (Claim 4)
The first binder and the second binder have the same composition (Claim 5)
The first active material and the second active material are a lithium transition metal composite oxide (Claim 6)
The first active material and the second active material have the same composition (Claim 7)
The first electrode layer contains a first composite body in which the first binder and a first conductive material are dispersed on a surface of the first active material; and the second electrode layer contains a second composite body in which the second binder and a second conductive material are dispersed on a surface of the second active material (Claim 8).
A battery including a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode and the anode, wherein at least one of the cathode and the anode is the electrode according to claim 1 (Claim 9)
The battery is a lithium ion battery (Claim 10)
The coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder is from 10% to 45% (Claim 12)
The second electrode layer consists of the second active material, the second binder, and optionally a second conductive material (a coverage rate of the first active material with binder is greater than a coverage rate of the second active material with binder (Claim 13)
A coverage rate of the first active material with binder is greater than a coverage rate of the second active material with binder (Claim 14)
Table II:
Reference Patent US 11929489 B2
Instant Claims
Additional Art
1-3, 6, 8, 11-14
Urano and Fuse
4, 5 and 7
Urano, Tooru and Fuse
9 and 10
Urano, Uchida and Fuse
Regarding a second binder in the second deposition layer and the coverage rate of the first and second active materials by the first and second binders, wherein the coverage of the second active material by the second binder is less than 50%, Urano and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and/or 11, above.
Regarding the coverage rate of the first active material by the first binder is greater than 50% and the coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder is 45% or less, Urano and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2, above.
Regarding the difference in coverage rate of the first active material by the first binder and the second active material by the second binder is greater than 30%, Urano and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 3, above.
Regarding the first binder and the second binder are a fluorine-containing binder, Urano, Tooru and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 4, above.
Regarding the first binder and the second binder have the same composition, Urano, Tooru and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5, above.
Regarding the first active material and the second active material are a lithium transition metal composite oxide, Urano and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 6, above.
Regarding the first active material and the second active material have the same composition, Urano, Tooru and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 7, above.
Regarding the first electrode layer contains a first composite body in which the first binder and a first conductive material are dispersed on a surface of the first active material; and the second electrode layer contains a second composite body in which the second binder and a second conductive material are dispersed on a surface of the second active material, Urano and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8, above.
Regarding a battery including a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode and the anode, wherein at least one of the cathode and the anode is the electrode according to claim 1, Urano, Uchida and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 9, above.
Regarding the battery is a lithium ion battery, Urano, Uchida and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 10, above.
Regarding the coverage rate of the second active material by the second binder is from 10% to 45%, Urano and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 12, above.
Regarding the second electrode layer consists of the second active material, the second binder, and optionally a second conductive material (a coverage rate of the first active material with binder is greater than a coverage rate of the second active material with binder, Urano and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 13, above.
Regarding a coverage rate of the first active material with binder that is greater than a coverage rate of the second active material with binder, Urano and Fuse disclose such a teaching. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 14, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights