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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, the method for preparing a modified negative electrode sheet, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
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 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites, “and preferably, and OI value of the petroleum coke secondary particles ranges from 4 to 7”, towards the end of the claim.
By the use of the term ‘preferably’, it is not clear if the range recited after the word “preferably” is required by the claim. The word ‘preferably’ implies that the limitation is optional.
It is recommended to amend the claim by either deleting the word ‘preferably’ from the claim or by providing a definitive term to replace the word ‘preferably’.
Changes are required.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites, “and preferably, a medium particle diameter D50 of the petroleum coke secondary particles ranges from 3 µm to 8 µm”, towards the end of the claim.
By the use of the term ‘preferably’, it is not clear if the range recited after the word “preferably” is required by the claim. The word ‘preferably’ implies that the limitation is optional.
It is recommended to amend the claim by either deleting the word ‘preferably’ from the claim or by providing a definitive term to replace the word ‘preferably’.
Changes are required.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites, “and preferably, a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer ranges from 75 µm to 80 µm”, towards the end of the claim.
By the use of the term ‘preferably’, it is not clear if the range recited after the word “preferably” is required by the claim. The word ‘preferably’ implies that the limitation is optional.
It is recommended to amend the claim by either deleting the word ‘preferably’ from the claim or by providing a definitive term to replace the word ‘preferably’.
Changes are required.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites, “preferably, the conductive agent comprises any one of or a combination of at least two of conductive carbon black, a carbon nanotube, and acetylene black; and preferably, the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride”, towards the end of the claim.
By the use of the term ‘preferably’, it is not clear if the conductive carbon black, carbon nanotube, and acetylene black recited after the word “preferably” are required by the claim; and it is not clear if the polyvinylidene fluoride after the word “preferably” is required. The word ‘preferably’ implies that the limitation is optional.
It is recommended to amend the claim by either deleting the word ‘preferably’ from the claim or by providing a definitive term to replace the word ‘preferably’.
Changes are required.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites, “preferably, a mass ratio of the petroleum coke secondary particles to the conductive agent to the binder in the second negative electrode active material layer is (95-97):(1-1.5):(2.5-3)”, towards the end of the claim.
By the use of the term ‘preferably’, it is not clear if the mass ratio recited after the word “preferably” is required by the claim. The word ‘preferably’ implies that the limitation is optional.
It is recommended to amend the claim by either deleting the word ‘preferably’ from the claim or by providing a definitive term to replace the word ‘preferably’.
Changes are required.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites, “and preferably, an OI value of the petroleum coke secondary particles ranges from 4 to 7”, towards the end of the claim.
By the use of the term ‘preferably’, it is not clear if the range recited after the word “preferably” is required by the claim. The word ‘preferably’ implies that the limitation is optional.
It is recommended to amend the claim by either deleting the word ‘preferably’ from the claim or by providing a definitive term to replace the word ‘preferably’.
Changes are required.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites, “and preferably, a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer ranges from 75 µm to 80 µm”, towards the end of the claim.
By the use of the term ‘preferably’, it is not clear if the range recited after the word “preferably” is required by the claim. The word ‘preferably’ implies that the limitation is optional.
It is recommended to amend the claim by either deleting the word ‘preferably’ from the claim or by providing a definitive term to replace the word ‘preferably’.
Changes are required.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites, “preferably, the conductive agent comprises any one of or a combination of at least two of conductive carbon black, a carbon nanotube, and acetylene black; and preferably, the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride”, towards the end of the claim.
By the use of the term ‘preferably’, it is not clear if the conductive carbon black, carbon nanotube, and acetylene black recited after the word “preferably” are required by the claim; and it is not clear if the polyvinylidene fluoride after the word “preferably” is required. The word ‘preferably’ implies that the limitation is optional.
It is recommended to amend the claim by either deleting the word ‘preferably’ from the claim or by providing a definitive term to replace the word ‘preferably’.
Changes are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by the machine translation of LV (JP 2023503706 A).
Regarding claim 1, LV discloses a modified negative electrode sheet (para. 12, [negative electrode sheet]), comprising a current collector (para. 12, [current collector]), and a first negative electrode active material layer (para. 12, [a first active material layer]) and a second negative electrode active material layer (para. 12, [a second active material layer]) that are sequentially stacked on a surface of the current collector (para. 12, [sequentially provided on at least one surface of the current collector]), negative electrode active materials of the first negative electrode active material layer being needle coke (para. 106, [the first negative electrode active material … can be one … of needle coke]) primary particles (para. 35 and 36, [The first negative electrode active material is a primary particle]), and negative electrode active materials of the second negative electrode active material layer being petroleum coke (para. 115 and 175, [petroleum coke]) secondary particles (para. 36, [The second layer of graphite uses secondary particles]).
Regarding claim 2, LV discloses the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the petroleum coke secondary particles (para. 184, a second negative electrode active material) are prepared by the following method: mixing petroleum coke particles (para. 184, a second negative electrode active material – petroleum coke secondary particles as explained in claim 1 above), a resin (para. 184, [styrene-butadiene rubber]), and a dispersant (para. 184, [deionized water]), and stirring to obtain a mixture, and heating the mixture to obtain the petroleum coke secondary particles.
Regarding the process steps of stirring and heating, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113]
Regarding claim 6, LV discloses the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 2, wherein in the stirring and heating processes, the heating manner is performed as follows: heating the mixture from room temperature to a temperature of 300°C in a time period from 0.5 hours to 2 hours, then heating the mixture from 300°C to 500°C in a time period from 0.5 hours to 1.5 hours, and finally heating the mixture from 500°C to a temperature ranging from 600°C to 700°C in a time period from 1 hour to 3 hours, and maintaining the temperature for 3 hours to 5 hours.
Regarding the process steps of stirring and heating,
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113]
Regarding claim 8, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein a median particle diameter D50 of the needle coke primary particles ranges from 8 µm to 20 µm (para. 15, [12 µm to 20 µm]); and preferably, a median particle diameter D50 of the petroleum coke secondary particles ranges from 3 µm to 8 µm (para. 16, [8 µm to 17 µm]).
Regarding claim 11, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of the needle coke primary particles to the conductive agent to the binder in the first negative electrode active material layer is (96-97):(0.5-1):(2-3); (para. 40, [mass ratio … negative electrode active material: conductive agent: adhesive – 50 to 200: 1 : 0.8 to 4 ]) and preferably, a mass ratio of the petroleum coke secondary particles to the conductive agent to the binder in the second negative electrode active material layer is (95-97):(1-1.5):(2.5-3) para. 40, [mass ratio … negative electrode active material: conductive agent: adhesive – 50 to 200: 1 : 0.8 to 4 ]).
Regarding claim 16, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 2, and further teaches wherein a median particle diameter D50 of the needle coke primary particles ranges from 8 µm to 20 µm (para. 15, [12 µm to 20 µm]); and preferably, a median particle diameter D50 of the petroleum coke secondary particles ranges from 3 µm to 8 µm (para. 16, [8 µm to 17 µm]).
Regarding claim 20, LV discloses a lithium-ion battery (para. 13), comprising a modified negative electrode sheet (para. 12, [negative electrode sheet]), comprising a current collector (para. 12, [current collector]), and a first negative electrode active material layer (para. 12, [a first active material layer]) and a second negative electrode active material layer (para. 12, [a second active material layer]) that are sequentially stacked on a surface of the current collector (para. 12, [sequentially provided on at least one surface of the current collector]), negative electrode active materials of the first negative electrode active material layer being needle coke (para. 106, [the first negative electrode active material … can be one … of needle coke]) primary particles (para. 35 and 36, [The first negative electrode active material is a primary particle]), and negative electrode active materials of the second negative electrode active material layer being petroleum coke (para. 115 and 175, [petroleum coke]) secondary particles (para. 36, [The second layer of graphite uses secondary particles ]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of LV (JP 2023503706 A) and further in view of Nishimura (US 20150125752 A1).
Regarding claim 3, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 2.
LV does not teach wherein the resin comprises phenolic resin.
Nishimura, in the same field of endeavor, negative electrodes, teaches examples of thermosetting resins which include phenolic resin and styrene-butadiene rubber (Nishimura, para. 0059).
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 substituted the styrene-butadiene rubber for phenolic resin, as taught by Nishimura. The simple substitution of a known element (butadiene rubber) for another (phenolic resin) would achieve the predictable result of providing a thermosetting resin having adhesive power, as taught by Nishimura (para. 0059).
Regarding claim 14, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 3, wherein in the stirring and heating processes, the heating manner is performed as follows: heating the mixture from room temperature to a temperature of 300°C in a time period from 0.5 hours to 2 hours, then heating the mixture from 300°C to 5000C in a time period from 0.5 hours to 1.5 hours, and finally heating the mixture from 500°C to a temperature ranging from 600°C to 700°C in a time period from 1 hour to 3 hours, and maintaining the temperature for 3 hours to 5 hours.
Regarding the process steps of stirring and heating, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113]
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of LV (JP 2023503706 A) and further in view of AN (US 20240222612 A1).
Regarding claim 4, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 2.
LV does not teach wherein the dispersant comprises anhydrous ethanol.
AN, in the same field of endeavor, negative electrodes, teaches wherein the dispersant comprises anhydrous ethanol (AN, para. 0137, [the mixed slurry further includes a solvent, and the solvent is selected from at least one of water, anhydrous ethanol, methanol, and isopropyl alcohol]).
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 substituted water for anhydrous ethanol, as taught by AN. The simple substitution of a known element (water) for another (anhydrous ethanol) would achieve the predictable result of providing a solvent to be used in a mixed slurry (para. 0137) in order to prepare a negative electrode material, as taught by AN (para. 0160).
Regarding claim 12, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 3.
LV does not teach wherein the dispersant comprises anhydrous ethanol.
AN, in the same field of endeavor, negative electrodes, teaches wherein the dispersant comprises anhydrous ethanol (AN, para. 0137, [the mixed slurry further includes a solvent, and the solvent is selected from at least one of water, anhydrous ethanol, methanol, and isopropyl alcohol]).
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 substituted water for anhydrous ethanol, as taught by AN. The simple substitution of a known element (water) for another (anhydrous ethanol) would achieve the predictable result of providing a solvent to be used in a mixed slurry (para. 0137) in order to prepare a negative electrode material, as taught by AN (para. 0160).
Claim 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of LV (JP 2023503706 A), and further in view of Wang (US 20230223538 A1).
Regarding claim 5, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 2.
LV does not teach wherein a mass ratio of the petroleum coke particles to the resin is 100: (5 to 10).
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, negative active materials, teaches wherein a mass ratio of the petroleum coke particles to the resin is 100: (5 to 10) (Wang, para. 0120, [selecting at least one of … petroleum coke … adding graded accessories … resin … at a mass ratio of 9:1 to 5:5]).
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 added the LV’s resin at a mass ratio of 5:9, as taught by Wang, in order to control an average particle size and a volume-specific surface area of the particles, as taught by Wang (Wang, para. 0120).
Regarding claim 13, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 3.
LV does not teach wherein a mass ratio of the petroleum coke particles to the resin is 100:(5 to 10).
LV does not teach wherein a mass ratio of the petroleum coke particles to the resin is 100: (5 to 10).
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, negative active materials, teaches wherein a mass ratio of the petroleum coke particles to the resin is 100: (5 to 10) (Wang, para. 0120, [selecting at least one of … petroleum coke … adding graded accessories … resin … at a mass ratio of 9:1 to 5:5]).
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 added the LV’s resin at a mass ratio of 5:9, as taught by Wang, in order to control an average particle size and a volume-specific surface area of the particles, as taught by Wang (Wang, para. 0120).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of LV (JP 2023503706 A), and further in view of LIU (US 2025174666 A1).
Regarding claim 7, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 1.
LV does not teach wherein an OI value of the needle coke primary particles ranges from 8 to 12; and preferably, an OI value of the petroleum coke secondary particles ranges from 4 to 7.
LIU, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches wherein an OI value of the needle coke primary particles ranges from 8 to 12 (para. 0021, [a powder oxygen index (OI) value of the first carbon-based material is 5 to 15]); and preferably, an OI value of the petroleum coke secondary particles ranges from 4 to 7 (para. 0055, [a powder OI value of the second carbon-based material is 2 to 8]).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
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 formed LV’s first and second electrode active materials to have an OI value of 8 to 12 for the first active material and 4 to 7 for the second active material, as taught by LIU, in order for the battery to have good rate performance, as taught by LIU para. 0044).
Regarding claim 15, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 2.
LV does not teach wherein an OI value of the needle coke primary particles ranges from 8 to 12; and preferably, an OI value of the petroleum coke secondary particles ranges from 4 to 7.
LIU, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches
wherein an OI value of the needle coke primary particles ranges from 8 to 12 (para. 0021, [a powder oxygen index (OI) value of the first carbon-based material is 5 to 15]); and preferably, an OI value of the petroleum coke secondary particles ranges from 4 to 7 (para. 0055, [a powder OI value of the second carbon-based material is 2 to 8]).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
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 powder OI value of 8 to 12 for LV’s primary particles and to have a powder OI value of 4 to 7 for LV’s secondary particles, as taught by LIU, in order for the particles to quickly receive ions from the positive electrode, thereby further improving the rate performance of the secondary battery (LIU, para. 0021 and para. 0055).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of LV (JP 2023503706 A), and further in view Tanaami (US 20220013783 A1).
Regarding claim 9, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 1.
LV does not teach that a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer ranges from 75 µm to 80 µm.
LV, however, teaches that a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer can be 70 µm (LV, para. 134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention, to have optimized for second negative electrode active material thickness layer, based on specific needs of the battery cell. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of
Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
LV does not teach wherein a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer ranges from 110 µm to 120 µm.
Tanaami, in the same field of endeavor, negative electrodes, teaches wherein a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer ranges from 110 µm to 120 µm (Tanaami, para. 0056, the [negative electrode more preferably has a thickness of 150 μm to 8 μm]).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
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 increased the thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer of LV to be from 110 to 120 µm, as taught by the ranges provided by Tanaami, in order to more satisfactorily suppress a deterioration in durability and in order to improve the energy density of the electrode layer, as taught by Tanaami (Tanaami, para. 0056).
Regarding claim 17, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 2.
LV does not teach that a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer ranges from 75 µm to 80 µm.
LV, however, teaches that a thickness of the second negative electrode active material layer can be 70 µm (LV, para. 134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention, to have optimized for second negative electrode active material thickness layer, based on specific needs of the battery cell. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of
Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
LV does not teach wherein a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer ranges from 110 µm to 120 µm.
Tanaami, in the same field of endeavor, negative electrodes, teaches wherein a thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer ranges from 110 µm to 120 µm (Tanaami, para. 0056, the [negative electrode more preferably has a thickness of 150 μm to 8 μm]).
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
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 increased the thickness of the first negative electrode active material layer of LV to be from 110 to 120 µm, as taught by the ranges provided by Tanaami, in order to more satisfactorily suppress a deterioration in durability and in order to improve the energy density of the electrode layer, as taught by Tanaami (Tanaami, para. 0056).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the machine translation of LV (JP 2023503706 A), and further in view Friend (US 20140162131 A1).
Regarding claim 10, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer further comprise a conductive agent (para. 40, [conductive carbon black and carbon nanotubes]) and a binder (para. 40, [adhesive]); preferably,
the conductive agent comprises any one of or a combination of at least two of conductive carbon black and a carbon nanotube (para. 37 describes Step S2 of preparing a slurry A containing the first negative electrode active material) (para. 37 describes Step S4 of preparing a slurry B containing the second negative electrode active material) (para. 40 teaches that in step S2 and step S4, a conductive agent includes one or more of conductive carbon black and carbon nanotubes),
LV teaches that the binder/adhesive can be made of adhesives such as polyacrylic acid (LV, para. 129) but LV does not teach that the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride.
Friend, in the same field of endeavor negative electrodes, teaches that exemplary binders for an anode slurry include polymer binders such as polyacrylic acid and polyvinylidene fluoride (Friend, para. 0267).
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 substituted polyacrylic acid for polyvinylidene fluoride, as taught by Friend. The simple substitution of a known element (polyacrylic acid) for another (polyvinylidene fluoride) would achieve the predictable result of providing a binder to be used in a slurry mixture (Friend, para. 0267) in order to form a … electrode composition that can be applied as a coating to a substrate … to form a composite electrode layer adhered to said substrate (Friend, para. 0267).
Regarding claim 18, LV teaches the modified negative electrode sheet according to claim 2, and further teaches wherein the first negative electrode active material layer and the second negative electrode active material layer further comprise a conductive agent (para. 40, [conductive carbon black and carbon nanotubes]) and a binder (para. 40, [adhesive]); preferably,
the conductive agent comprises any one of or a combination of at least two of conductive carbon black and a carbon nanotube (para. 37 describes Step S2 of preparing a slurry A containing the first negative electrode active material) (para. 37 describes Step S4 of preparing a slurry B containing the second negative electrode active material) (para. 40 teaches that in step S2 and step S4, a conductive agent includes one or more of conductive carbon black and carbon nanotubes).
LV teaches that the binder/adhesive can be made of adhesives such as polyacrylic acid (LV, para. 129) but LV does not teach that the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride.
Friend, in the same field of endeavor negative electrodes, teaches that exemplary binders for an anode slurry include polymer binders such as polyacrylic acid and polyvinylidene fluoride (Friend, para. 0267).
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 substituted polyacrylic acid for polyvinylidene fluoride, as taught by Friend. The simple substitution of a known element (polyacrylic acid) for another (polyvinylidene fluoride) would achieve the predictable result of providing a binder to be used in a slurry mixture (Friend, para. 0267) in order to form a … electrode composition that can be applied as a coating to a substrate … to form a composite electrode layer adhered to said substrate (Friend, para. 0267).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights