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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: component 430 as shown in Fig. 4A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
On claims 4 and 17 is recited the limitation wherein the “dry powder electrode material includes 0.5-2% polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)”. Since the claimed percentage is not identified as a weight, mole or volume amount, therefore it is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “fine binder particles” in line 2. Since no fine binder particles are defined on claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the system of claim 13” in line 1. Since claim 13 is related to a method of manufacturing dry powder electrodes, not to a system, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3, 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanihara teaches a manufacturing apparatus (1) to prepare a lithium ion secondary battery electrode (100) [0027 and Fig. 1]. In the manufacturing apparatus (1) a conveying unit (10) transport a current collector (110) (moving current collector web) [0031]. A supply unit (20) is configured to supply granulated particles (130) onto the surface of the collector (110) [0033 and Fig. 1]. The granulated particles (130), which may be produced by dry mixing, include active material particles (132) of at least one type, a binder (134) and may include other materials (for example, an electrically conductive material 136) [0036, 0038 and Fig. 4]. After the supply unit (20) (dry powder dispensing device) deposits the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) on the current collector (110) (moving current collector web) an adjustment unit (32) (spreading device) adjust the accumulation height of the particles and creates a more uniform layer of those particles [0052, 0086 and Fig. 3].
The height adjusted granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) layer is further compacted by the action of a squeegee (30) which helps to maintain the density of the particles in the bottom portion of the stream [0052 and Fig. 3]. After the compaction on the squeegee (30) the current collector (110) (moving current collector web) is conveyed toward a space between a pair of rolling rolls (40) [0064 and Fig. 2]. The rolling rolls (40) further compress and mold the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) to a substantially constant thickness on the surface of the collector (110) (moving current collector web), as a result, the electrode (100) for a lithium ion secondary battery is manufactured [0064 and Fig. 2]. It is further taught that rolling can be performed in a heated state to soften or melt advantageously the binder contained in the granulated powder and to bond the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) together more strongly (binder activation) [0066]. From the teachings above, the limitation “wherein the loose dry powder electrode material remains loose until compacted” is met.
Regarding claim 2, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Tanihara further teaches that the binder (134) is attached to the surface of individual active material particles (132), and the active material particles (132) can be bonded together by the binder (134) [0036 and Fig. 4]. From the previous description and claim 1 discussion the limitations of claim 2 are met.
Regarding claim 3, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Tanihara further teaches that its rolling rolls (40) (calenders) may be adjusted, for example, such that the formed active material layer (120) have the desired properties, for example, thickness or porosity [0065]. From the previous description and claim 2 discussion, the limitation “wherein the surface adherent of the one or more binder materials creates a porous structure between the active material particles” is met and therefore it will result on “increase electrolyte penetration and ionic conduction of the battery electrode”.
Regarding claim 7, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion the squeegee (30) performs “a first compaction to the uniform loose dry powder electrode layer that causes a first decrease in a first height of the uniform loose dry powder electrode layer to a second height” (H to G) [0052 and Fig. 3]. Because of the previous reason the limitation “a first conditioning roller” is met.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Tanihara further teaches that its manufacturing apparatus (1) can be also provided with a liquid binder supply unit (60) configured to supply a liquid binder onto the collector (110) (moving current collector web) [0078 and Fig. 2]. As a result, the collector (110) (moving current collector web) and the active material layer (120) which is formed thereafter can be bonded together more strongly, the active material layer (120) is prevented from peeling and the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) are prevented from slipping down (increased friction), and durability in a long-term use can be increased [0078]. From the previous description the provided liquid binder solution met the limitation of a “primer layer and a surface treatment for the moving current collector web”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, evidenced by Boyce et al. (Design of scalable, next-generation thick electrodes: opportunities and challenges, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 13, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Despite Tanihara does not teach wherein its battery electrode “has a porosity between 20-40% after the compaction against the current collector web”, he further teaches that its rolling rolls (40) (calenders) may be adjusted, for example, such that the formed active material layer (120) have the desired properties, for example, thickness or porosity) [0065].
Boyce evidence that calendaring process is employed as a final step in the electrode-manufacturing process. Typically, the electrode porosity is reduced from approximately 50 to between 20 and 40%, depending on the specification of the electrode [p. 18627; par. 3].
From the previous descriptions the desired porosity range can be achieved.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Tanihara teaches a manufacturing apparatus (1) to prepare a lithium ion secondary battery electrode (100) [0027 and Fig. 1]. In the manufacturing apparatus (1) a conveying unit (10) transport a current collector (110) (moving current collector web) [0031]. A supply unit (20) is configured to supply granulated particles (130) onto the surface of the collector (110) [0033 and Fig. 1]. The granulated particles (130), which may be produced by dry mixing, include active material particles (132) of at least one type, a binder (134) and may include other materials (for example, an electrically conductive material 136) [0036, 0038 and Fig. 4]. After the supply unit (20) (dry powder dispensing device) deposits the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) on the current collector (110) (moving current collector web) an adjustment unit (32) (spreading device) adjust the accumulation height of the particles and creates a more uniform layer of those particles [0052, 0086 and Fig. 3].
The height adjusted granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) layer is further compacted by the action of a squeegee (30) (conditioning roller) which helps to maintain the density of the particles in the bottom portion of the stream [0052 and Fig. 3]. After the compaction on the squeegee (30) (conditioning roller) the current collector (110) (moving current collector web) is conveyed toward a space between a pair of rolling rolls (40) (calenders) [0064 and Fig. 2]. The rolling rolls (40) (calenders) further compress and mold the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) to a substantially constant thickness on the surface of the collector (110) (moving current collector web), as a result, the electrode (100) for a lithium ion secondary battery is manufactured [0064 and Fig. 2]. It is further taught that rolling can be performed in a heated state to soften or melt advantageously the binder contained in the granulated powder and to bond the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) together more strongly (binder activation) [0066]. From the teachings above, the limitation “wherein the loose dry powder electrode material remains loose until compacted” is met.
Regarding claim 15, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 14. Tanihara further teaches that the binder (134) is attached to the surface of individual active material particles (132), and the active material particles (132) can be bonded together by the binder (134) [0036 and Fig. 4]. From the previous description and claim 14 discussion, the limitations of claim 15 are met.
Regarding claim 16, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 15. Tanihara further teaches that its rolling rolls (40) (calenders) may be adjusted, for example, such that the formed active material layer (120) have the desired properties, for example, thickness or porosity [0065]. From the previous description and claim 15 discussion, the limitation “wherein the surface adherent of the one or more binder materials creates a porous structure between the active material particles” is met and therefore it will result on “increase electrolyte penetration and ionic conduction of the battery electrode”.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Tanihara further teaches that the binder (134) may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [0041]. In a positive electrode, the binder amount contained in the granulated particles may be 0.5-15 mass% and for the case of a negative electrode, the employed amount may be 0.01-10 mass% [0044-0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the binder content ranges disclosed by Tanihara because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, evidenced by Nagai, A. (Applications of polyvinylidene fluoride-related materials for lithium-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 5, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Tanihara further teaches that in the preferred form, the binder (134) is substantially uniformly dispersed and arranged, without local segregations inside the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) or on the outer surface thereof [0036]. From Fig. 4, can be seen that the coverage of the binder (134) with respect to the active material particles (132) is partial.
Nagai evidence that PVDF has several crystalline forms, the most stable of which is the α-form. X-ray diffraction data show that about 50% of PVDF has the α-form structure and the rest is amorphous [p. 158; par. 2].
From the previous teachings the limitation of a “partial crystallization of the PVDF in the battery electrode after the application of heat” can be considered met.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 4. From claim 4 was discussed that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the binder (which may be PVDF) content ranges disclosed by Tanihara.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Tanihara. However, Tanihara teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, active material particles of an anode or cathode, one or more conductive additives, and one or more binder materials were mixed to form a dry powder electrode material. In one embodiment, the one or more binder materials include 0.5-2% PVDF which is mixed with active material particles and conductive additives. The active material particles and one or more binder materials, in one embodiment, were dry mixed to achieve a partial coating of PVDF over the active material particles that is between 50 and 85%. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. “the average coverage of PVDF over the active material particles” would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Torita et al. (US 20170179465 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 7, except “using a second conditioning roller, a second compaction to the uniform loose dry powder electrode layer that causes a second decrease in the second height of the uniform loose dry powder electrode layer to a third height”.
Torita teaches a method of manufacturing a lithium-ion secondary battery electrode sheet according to an embodiment of the present invention includes: a) preparing a strip-shaped collector foil; h) preparing powder of granulated particles; c) conveying the collector foil; d) depositing the powder; e) adjusting the thickness of the powder; and f) pressing the powder [0007]. In this method a powder (220) is prepared by mixing active material particles (241), a binder (242) and may contain additional materials such as a conductive agent [0093]. After the powder (220) (dry mixture powder) deposition on the collector foil (201), the thickness is adjusted first by a squeegee (106) and second by the reduction rollers (101 and 102) [0067, 0074 and Fig. 3]. It is taught that there is a gap difference between the squeegee roller (106a) and the collector foil (201) and between the reduction roller (101) and the collector foil (201), where the gap difference determines the densities of the active material layers (204 and 205) that have passed between the reduction rollers (101 and 102) [0077]. It is taught that the action of the reduction rollers (101 and 102) increases the adhesion between the powder (220) and the collector foil (201) and between the particles of the powder (220), enhancing the its bonding strength [0076].
Torita is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a method of manufacturing dry powder electrodes for lithium-ion batteries comprising mixing active material particles, one or more conductive additives, and one or more binder materials to form a dry powder electrode material; depositing the dry powder electrode material onto a moving current collector web using a dry powder dispensing device; uniformly spreading the deposited loose dry powder electrode material on the moving current collector web using one or more spreading devices and compacting the uniform loose dry powder electrode layer against the current collector web using one or more calenders configured to apply at least one of pressure or heat to the loose dry powder electrode material.
If the manufacturing apparatus (1) of Tanihara is modified to comprise a reduction roller(s) as aught by Torita after its squeegee (30), the claimed limitations would be met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify manufacturing apparatus (1) of Tanihara to include the feature using a second conditioning roller, a second compaction to the uniform loose dry powder electrode layer that causes a second decrease in the second height of the uniform loose dry powder electrode layer to a third height, because Torita teaches that increases the adhesion between the powder (dry mixture powder) and the collector foil and between the particles of the powder (dry mixture powder), enhancing the its bonding strength.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) in view of Torita et al. (US 20170179465 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Fukunaga et al. (WO 2021033521 A1, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 9, Tanihara and Torita teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 8, except “wherein the deposited loose dry powder is uniformly spread using at least one smoothing roller”.
Fukunaga teaches a method for manufacturing a molded article for electrodes [0001]. The method consist of the preparation of an electrode material (10) which is deposited on a support (20) and will be conveyed through a levelling roll (80), a pair of press rolls including a first roll (40) and a second roll (50), and a pair of press rolls including a third roll (60) and a fourth roll (70) are arranged along the conveying direction [0238, 0239 and Fig. 1]. The support (20) may be a current collector [0160]. The electrode material (10) includes an electrode active material and may include a binder and a conductive material [0015, 0092 and 0103]. It is taught that the electrode material (10) can be in powder form and may be made by mixing methods which include, for example, using a ball mill, bead mill, planetary mixer, blade mixer, roll mill, kneader, or disc mill [0150 and 0151]. Regarding the employment of the leveling roll (80), it is taught that it makes possible to manufacture an electrode molded article with excellent uniformity of mass distribution while the roll shape is preferable from the viewpoint of continuity [0224 and 0226].
Fukunaga is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a method of manufacturing electrodes for lithium-ion batteries (which may be in dry powder form) comprising mixing active material particles, one or more conductive additives, and one or more binder materials to form a dry powder electrode material. The electrode mixture is deposited in a moving support, it is uniformly spread by a leveling roll and furthermore compacted by two pairs of press rolls.
If the manufacturing apparatus (1) of Tanihara and Torita is modified to replace the adjustment unit (32) (spreading device) of Tanihara by the leveling roll (80) of Fukunaga the claimed limitations would be met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing apparatus (1) of Tanihara and Torita to include the feature “wherein the deposited loose dry powder is uniformly spread using at least one smoothing roller”, because Fukunaga teaches that it makes possible to manufacture an electrode molded article with excellent uniformity of mass distribution while the roll shape is preferable from the viewpoint of continuity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 20190140254 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Tanihara further teaches that its granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) preparation method is not limited and may be dry mixing [0038]. From the standpoint of increasing the production efficiency and forming a more uniform active material layer, the particle size range of the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) may be about 10-200 μm [0037].
Tanihara does not teach “wherein the dry particles are mixed for a duration and at shear forces sufficient to attach 70-100 percent of fine binder particles onto a surface of the active material”.
Kim teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode for a lithium secondary battery [0035]. In the first step (S1) a conductive material and an electrode active material are dry mixed and then are dry mixed with a binder to obtain electrode mixture powder (step S2) [0036-0039]. The second step (S2) can be performed at room temperature under a rotation speed of 1,000-2,000 rpm and the resultant particles are coated uniformly with the binder on the outer layer thereof [0041 and 0042]. After the dry mixing process the electrode mixture powder is applied to at least one surface of the current collector and it pass through hot press rolls so that the current collector and the electrode mixture powder may be compressed, thereby forming an electrode [0043 and 0044]. It is taught that by the above described dry mixing procedure, the binder and conductive material coated on the surface of electrode active material cause no surface migration phenomenon, which results in an enhanced adhesion of the electrode, and prevents the performance degradation of the lithium secondary battery [0024].
Kim is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a method of manufacturing dry powder electrodes for lithium-ion batteries comprising dry mixing active material particles, one or more conductive additives, and one or more binder materials to form a dry powder electrode material. The dry powder electrode material is deposited on a current collector and it is compacted/heated to obtain a battery electrode.
If the manufacturing method of Tanihara is modified to prepare the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) by dry mixing the components under a rotation speed of 1,000-2,000 rpm, an uniform coating of the binder on the surface of the active particles would be obtained.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) particle size range disclosed by Tanihara because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Tanihara to include the feature “wherein the dry particles are mixed for a duration and at shear forces sufficient to attach 70-100 percent of fine binder particles onto a surface of the active material”, because Kim teaches that by the above described dry mixing procedure, the binder and conductive material coated on the surface of electrode active material cause no surface migration phenomenon, which results in an enhanced adhesion of the electrode, and prevents the performance degradation of the lithium secondary battery.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 17, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 15. Tanihara further teaches that the binder (134) may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) [0041]. In a positive electrode, the binder amount contained in the granulated particles may be 0.5-15 mass% and for the case of a negative electrode, the employed amount may be 0.01-10 mass% [0044-0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the binder content ranges disclosed by Tanihara because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, evidenced by Nagai, A. (Applications of polyvinylidene fluoride-related materials for lithium-ion batteries, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 18, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 17. Tanihara further teaches that in the preferred form, the binder (134) is substantially uniformly dispersed and arranged, without local segregations inside the granulated particles (130) (dry powder electrode material) or on the outer surface thereof [0036]. From Fig. 4, can be seen that the coverage of the binder (134) with respect to the active material particles (132) is partial.
Nagai evidence that PVDF has several crystalline forms, the most stable of which is the α-form. X-ray diffraction data show that about 50% of PVDF has the α-form structure and the rest is amorphous [p. 158; par. 2].
From the previous teachings the limitation of a “partial crystallization of the PVDF in the battery electrode after the application of heat” can be considered met.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) as applied to claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 19, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 17. From claim 17 was discussed that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the binder (which may be PVDF) content ranges disclosed by Tanihara.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Tanihara. However, Tanihara teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, active material particles of an anode or cathode, one or more conductive additives, and one or more binder materials were mixed to form a dry powder electrode material. In one embodiment, the one or more binder materials include 0.5-2% PVDF which is mixed with active material particles and conductive additives. The active material particles and one or more binder materials, in one embodiment, were dry mixed to achieve a partial coating of PVDF over the active material particles that is between 50 and 85%. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. “the average coverage of PVDF over the active material particles” would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanihara et al. (US 20160181651 A1) evidenced by Boyce et al. (Design of scalable, next-generation thick electrodes: opportunities and challenges, see NPL documents for citation)as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Torita et al. (US 20170179465 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Tanihara teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 13. From claim 1 discussion the squeegee (30) of Tanihara performs “a first compaction to the uniform loose dry powder electrode layer that causes a first decrease in a first height of the uniform loose dry powder electrode layer to a second height” (H to G) [0052 and Fig. 3]. Because of the previous reason the limitation “a first conditioning roller” is met.
Tanihara does not teach the feature of employing a “second conditioning roller, a second compaction to the deposited loose dry powder electrode layer to decrease the thickness from the second layer thickness to a third layer thickness”.
Torita teaches a method of manufacturing a lithium-ion secondary battery electrode sheet according to an embodiment of the present invention includes: a) preparing a strip-shaped collector foil; h) preparing powder of granulated particles; c) conveying the collector foil; d) depositing the powder; e) adjusting the thickness of the powder; and f) pressing the powder [0007]. In this method a powder (220) is prepared by mixing active material particles (241), a binder (242) and may contain additional materials such as a conductive agent [0093]. After the powder (220) (dry mixture powder) deposition on the collector foil (201), the thickness is adjusted first by a squeegee (106) and second by the reduction rollers (101 and 102) [0067, 0074 and Fig. 3]. It is taught that there is a gap difference between the squeegee roller (106a) and the collector foil (201) and between the reduction roller (101) and the collector foil (201), where the gap difference determines the densities of the active material layers (204 and 205) that have passed between the reduction rollers (101 and 102) [0077]. It is taught that the action of the reduction rollers (101 and 102) increases the adhesion between the powder (220) and the collector foil (201) and between the particles of the powder (220), enhancing the its bonding strength [0076].
Torita is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a method of manufacturing dry powder electrodes for lithium-ion batteries comprising mixing active material particles, one or more conductive additives, and one or more binder materials to form a dry powder electrode material; depositing the dry powder electrode material onto a moving current collector web using a dry powder dispensing device; uniformly spreading the deposited loose dry powder electrode material on the moving current collector web using one or more spreading devices and compacting the uniform loose dry powder electrode layer against the current collector web using one or more calenders configured to apply at least one of pressure or heat to the loose dry powder electrode material.
If the manufacturing apparatus (1) of Tanihara is modified to comprise a reduction roller(s) as taught by Torita after its squeegee (30) (first conditioning roller), the claimed limitations would be met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify manufacturing apparatus (1) of Tanihara to include the feature of employing a “second conditioning roller, a second compaction to the deposited loose dry powder electrode layer to decrease the thickness from the second layer thickness to a third layer thickness”, because Torita teaches that increases the adhesion between the powder (dry mixture powder) and the collector foil and between the particles of the powder (dry mixture powder), enhancing the its bonding strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights