DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on July 15, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 remain pending in the Application. Applicant’s amendment to the claims and the specification have overcome all of the previous objections of record, except for claim 7.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 17 should recite “the electrode active material layer slurry”.
In claim 7, line 2 should recite “carboxymethyl”.
In claim 11, line 13 should recite “the electrode active material layer slurry”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20150129267 A (Paik ‘267 – citing to the previously attached English translation) in view of US 20040023115 A1 (Kato ‘115).
Regarding claim 1, Paik ‘267 discloses a method of manufacturing an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (a method of manufacturing a lithium-ion secondary battery using a slurry composition having a polymer binder composition that can significantly contribute to improving the adhesion between the current collector and the electrode active material layer; [0004]), comprising:
mixing together an electrode active material and a first ionic polymer to prepare a first slurry (the electrode slurry composition comprises a first polymer salt and an electrode active material; [0006]),
mixing together the first slurry and a second ionic polymer to prepare a second slurry (the electrode slurry composition comprises a second polymer salt; [0006]),
mixing together the second slurry and a water-soluble binder to prepare an electrode active material layer slurry (the electrode slurry composition may further contain a rubber-based binder; [0011]; see [0080] of the present specification where the water-soluble binder may be a rubber-based binder, for example, a styrene-butadiene rubber), and
coating the electrode active material layer slurry on a current collector, drying and compressing the electrode active material layer slurry (the electrode slurry composition is coated onto a current collector, dried, and pressed; [0042], [0047], and [0085]) to manufacture an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery (the electrode slurry composition coated onto the current collector is a cathode for use in a lithium secondary battery; [0042] – [0043]),
wherein an amount of the first ionic polymer is about 20 to about 90 wt% based on a total amount of 100 wt% of the first ionic polymer and the second ionic polymer (the first polymer salt and the second polymer salt may have a mass ratio of 1:9 to 9:1, and furthermore, a mass ratio of 3:7 to 7:3, which overlaps with the claimed range; [0009] & [0025]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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)).
The electrode slurry composition comprises a polymer salt mixture containing a first polymer salt and a second polymer salt, an electrode active material, and a solvent ([0006]; [0018]; [0042]). The electrode slurry composition may further contain a rubber-based binder ([0011]). The slurry can be prepared by mixing the above-mentioned components ([0037]).
Paik ‘267 discloses all of the recited components in claim 1 within the claimed range, which are to be mixed together to form an electrode slurry that is to be coated onto a current collector to manufacture a cathode for a lithium secondary battery.
However, Paik ‘267 does not expressly teach the order of the mixing steps recited in claim 1, that is, a first step of mixing together an electrode active material and a first ionic polymer to prepare a first slurry, a second step of mixing together the first slurry and a second ionic polymer to prepare a second slurry, and a third step of mixing together the second slurry and a water-soluble binder to prepare an electrode active material slurry.
Nevertheless, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, because it has been held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); MPEP 2144.04(IV).
In regard to the method of Paik ‘267, it would have been obvious to form a first slurry by mixing together the electrode active material and the first polymer salt, then form a second slurry by mixing together the first slurry and the second polymer salt, and finally, form an electrode active material slurry by mixing together the second slurry and the water-soluble binder.
Accordingly, the method of manufacturing an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery in claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the disclosure of Paik ‘267.
Paik ‘267 further discloses the water-soluble binder (SBR) is included in an amount of 5.04% based on 100% of the active material (in example 1 that 1.77 g of SBR as the water-soluble binder was added; [0067]; the total mass of the active material in example 1 was 35.1 (34.05 g of graphite plus 1.05 g of SiOx); 1.77 divided by 35.1 times 100% is equal to 5.04 %).
However, Paik ‘267 does not disclose wherein:
the water-soluble binder is included in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrode active material layer slurry.
Kato ‘115 discloses an optimum addition amount of the rubber-like binder containing a butadiene unit is not more than 3% by weight with respect to the weight of the active material in the negative electrode active material mixture ([0068]). The rubber-like binder containing the butadiene unit is often added to the mixture in the form of an aqueous dispersion of the rubber particles and the addition amount thereof is generally determined in consideration of the binding force between the negative electrode material mixture layer and the copper core material ([0068]). However, since the rubber particles are basically insulative, the particles, if added in an excessive amount, cover the surface of the graphite particles of the negative electrode active material, deteriorating the charge/discharge characteristics of the negative electrode ([0068]). Accordingly, the addition amount of the rubber-like binder needs to be controlled to 3% by weight or less ([0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the amount of the water-soluble binder to be included in an amount of 3 wt% or less based on 100 wt% of the electrode active material, overlapping with the claimed range, in the method of manufacturing an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery, as taught by Paik ‘267, to prevent deterioration of the charge/discharge characteristics of the negative electrode, as suggested by Kato ‘115.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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)).
Regarding claim 2, Paik ‘267 discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the electrode active material comprises a negative electrode active material or a positive electrode active material (the electrode active material can be a negative electrode active material or a positive electrode active material; [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 2, wherein:
the negative electrode active material (when the electrode active material of claim 2 is a negative electrode active material) comprises a carbon-based negative electrode active material, a silicon-carbon composite, or a combination thereof (the negative electrode active material may a carbon-based active material, a silicon-based active material, or a combination thereof; [0028]).
Regarding claim 4, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 2, wherein:
the negative electrode active material (when the electrode active material of claim 2 is a negative electrode active material) comprises crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, or a combination thereof (the negative electrode active material may comprise a carbon-based active material such as crystalline carbon, amorphous carbon, or a combination thereof; [0028]).
Regarding claim 5, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 2, wherein:
the negative electrode active material (when the electrode active material of claim 2 is a negative electrode active material) comprises graphite, a silicon-carbon composite, or a combination thereof (the negative electrode active material may comprise graphite, or a combination of a silicon-based active material and a carbon-based active material, wherein the carbon-based active material may be graphite; [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the first ionic polymer and the second ionic polymer comprise cellulose-based compounds (the first polymer salt is a polymer lithium salt, e.g., a lithium salt of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), and the second polymer salt is a polymer sodium salt, e.g., a sodium salt of CMC; [0006] – [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the first ionic polymer and the second ionic polymer comprise carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, an alkali metal alt thereof, or a combination thereof (the first polymer salt is a polymer lithium salt, e.g., a lithium salt of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), and the second polymer salt is a polymer sodium salt, e.g., a sodium salt of CMC; [0006] – [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the first ionic polymer and the second ionic polymer are the same or different (the second polymer salt may be different form the first polymer salt; [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the first ionic polymer is a lithium-containing cellulose-based compound (the first polymer salt is a polymer lithium salt, e.g., a lithium salt of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC); [0006] – [0008]), and the second ionic polymer is a sodium-containing cellulose-based compound (the second polymer salt is a polymer sodium salt, e.g., a sodium salt of CMC; [0006] – [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the first ionic polymer is a lithium-containing cellulose-based compound (the first polymer salt is a polymer lithium salt, e.g., a lithium salt of carboxymethylcellulose (CMC); [0006] – [0008]), and the second ionic polymer is a sodium-containing cellulose-based compound (the second polymer salt is a polymer sodium salt, e.g., a sodium salt of CMC; [0006] – [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the amount of the first ionic polymer is about 40 to about 60 wt% based on the total amount of 100 wt% of the first ionic polymer and the second ionic polymer (the first polymer salt and the second polymer salt may have a mass ratio of 3:7 to 7:3, which overlaps with the claimed range; [0009] & [0025]).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, 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)).
Regarding claim 11, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the total amount of the first ionic polymer and the second ionic polymer is about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrode active material slurry (in example 1, 1 wt% Li-CMC and 1 wt% Na-CMC was included in a solid mass amount of 0.18 g; [0067]; the total mass of the active material in example 1 was 35.1 (34.05 g of graphite plus 1.05 g of SiOx); 0.18 divided by 35.1 times 100% is equal to about 0.51 %, which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 12, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the water-soluble binder comprises a rubber-based binder, a polymer resin binder, or a combination thereof (the electrode slurry composition may further contain a rubber-based binder, e.g., styrene-butadiene rubber, acrylate-styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber, or acrylonitrile-styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber (SBR); [0011] & [0035]).
Regarding claim 13, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 12, wherein:
the rubber-based binder (when the water-soluble binder of claim 12 is a rubber-based binder) comprises a styrene-butadiene rubber, an acrylated styrene-butadiene rubber, an acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, an acrylic rubber, a butyl rubber, a fluorine rubber, or a combination thereof (the electrode slurry composition may further contain a rubber-based binder, e.g., styrene-butadiene rubber, acrylate-styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber, or acrylonitrile-styrene-butadiene copolymer rubber (SBR); [0011] & [0035]).
Claims 16-18 below are considered product-by-process claims. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Paik ‘267 in view of Kato ‘115 discloses all of the recited components in claim 1 within the claimed ranges, which are to be mixed together to form an electrode slurry that is coated onto a current collector to manufacture a cathode for a lithium secondary battery. Therefore, Paik ‘267 and Kato ‘115 disclose the electrode and the lithium secondary battery comprising the electrode, which would include the same recited components of the electrode within the claimed ranges, that is, an electrode active material, a first ionic polymer, a second ionic polymer, and a water-soluble binder.
Regarding claim 16, Paik ‘267 discloses an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery according to the method as claimed in claim 1 (a coin cell was fabricated using the cathode obtained in the cathode manufacturing example as the working electrode; [0087]; a method of manufacturing a lithium-ion secondary battery using a slurry composition having a polymer binder composition that can significantly contribute to improving the adhesion between the current collector and the electrode active material layer; [0004]; see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 17, Paik ‘267 discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 16, wherein:
a MacMullin number (NM) of the electrode calculated using Equation 1 is less than or equal to about 25 (see below).
The electrode slurry composition comprises a polymer salt mixture containing a first polymer salt and a second polymer salt, an electrode active material, and a solvent ([0006]; [0018]; [0042]). The electrode slurry composition may further contain a rubber-based binder ([0011]). The slurry can be prepared by mixing the above-mentioned components ([0037]).
Paik ‘267 in view of Kato ‘115 discloses all of the recited components in claim 1 within the claimed ranges, which are to be mixed together to form an electrode slurry that is to be coated onto a current collector to manufacture a cathode for a lithium secondary battery.
However, Paik ‘267 does not expressly teach the order of the mixing steps recited in claim 1, that is, a first step of mixing together an electrode active material and a first ionic polymer to prepare a first slurry, a second step of mixing together the first slurry and a second ionic polymer to prepare a second slurry, and a third step of mixing together the second slurry and a water-soluble binder to prepare an electrode active material slurry.
Nevertheless, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, because it has been held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); MPEP 2144.04(IV).
In regard to the method of Paik ‘267, it would have been obvious to form a first slurry by mixing together the electrode active material and the first polymer salt, then form a second slurry by mixing together the first slurry and the second polymer salt, and finally, form an electrode active material slurry by mixing together the second slurry and the water-soluble binder.
Accordingly, the method of manufacturing an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery in claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the disclosure of Paik ‘267.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for an electrode formed by the method of manufacturing an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery in claim 1 to have a MacMullin number (NM) of the electrode calculated using Equation 1 less than or equal to about 25, in view of the disclosure of Paik ‘267 and Kato ‘115.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114 I.).
Regarding claim 18, Paik ‘267 discloses a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising the electrode manufactured according to the method as claimed in claim1 (a coin cell was fabricated using the cathode obtained in the cathode manufacturing example as the working electrode; [0087]; a method of manufacturing a lithium-ion secondary battery using a slurry composition having a polymer binder composition that can significantly contribute to improving the adhesion between the current collector and the electrode active material layer; [0004]; see claim 1 above).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20150129267 A (Paik ‘267 – citing to the previously attached English translation) in view of US 20040023115 A1 (Kato ‘115), and further in view of US 20170117546 A1 (Ko ‘546).
Regarding claim 14, Paik ‘267 discloses the method claimed in claim 12, but does not disclose that the polymer resin binder (when the water-soluble binder of claim 12 is a polymer resin binder) comprises polyethylene oxide, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyacrylonitrile, an ethylene propylene diene copolymer, polyvinylpyridine, chlorosulfonated polyethylene, a latex, a polyester resin, an acrylic resin, a phenol resin, an epoxy resin, polyvinyl alcohol, or a combination thereof.
Ko ‘546 discloses a negative active material for a rechargeable lithium battery ([0019]). The negative active material layer may a binder ([0034]). The binder may be a water-soluble binder ([0035]). The water-soluble binder may include a rubber-based binder or a polymer resin binder ([0037]). The polymer resin binder may be, for example, polyethylene oxide, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyacrylonitrile, an ethylene propylene diene copolymer, polyvinylpyridine, chlorosulfonated polyethylene, a latex, a polyester resin, an acrylic resin, a phenol resin, an epoxy resin, polyvinyl alcohol, or a combination thereof ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a polymer resin binder as the water-soluble binder, for example, polyethylene oxide, because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 15, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite “the water-soluble binder is included in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 3 wt% based on 100% of the electrode active material layer”. Thus, Applicant asserts that the cited value in Paik ‘267 is now outside the range recited in amended claim 1.
However, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive in view of US 20040023115 A1 (Kato ‘115), which discloses that an optimum addition amount of the rubber-like binder containing a butadiene unit is not more than 3% by weight with respect to the weight of the active material in the negative electrode active material mixture ([0068]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190207219 A1 (Eguchi ‘219) discloses a negative electrode active mass for a rechargeable battery, the negative electrode mass including a water-soluble polymer binder; a polymer particle binder; and a negative electrode material, wherein the water-soluble binder, the polymer particle binder, and the negative active material are included in the negative electrode mass in a weight ratio of about 0.5-2.5:0.5-2.5:95-99, based on a sum of 100 parts by weight of the water-soluble polymer binder, the polymer particle binder, and the negative active material ([0005]). .
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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.
/TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
