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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/10/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining the nonelected claims would not constitute a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses, or employing different search queries), in this case Group I is classified in H01M4/0404, H01M4/483 and Group II in H01M4/134.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/10/26.
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.
Claim 7 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 7 claims the functional polymer has a “molecular weight of greater than or equal to about 10,000 grams per mole and less than or equal to about 400,000 grams per mole”, but does not explain how this number is being measured or reported. The specification does not further clarify this This renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would not be able to determine what functional polymers would fall into the scope of this claim because they would not know what to measure about a given polymer to see if it overlaps with this range.
Typically, the molecular weight for a polymer is reported as a number average or weight average molecular weight. This number is not claimed as either and the specification does not provide a special definition.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
For the purposes of examination, the molecular weight of claim 7 will be interpreted to include either number average or weight average molecular weight, or similar cases to the instant where neither was specified.
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.
(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 1-3, 6, 9, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20170149050-A1 (H).
Regarding claim 1, H teaches a method of manufacturing a negative electrode for a battery that cycles lithium ions [0005], the method comprising: depositing a precursor mixture on a substrate to form a precursor layer [0190], the precursor mixture comprising an electroactive negative electrode material comprising a lithiated silicon suboxide (LSO) material [0187] Li2SiO3, Li4SiO4, a polymer binder [0189] SBR/CMC, a functional polymer [0189] PAA, and an aqueous solvent [0189] pure water, the LSO material comprising a basic compound [0187] lithium carbonate, and the functional polymer comprising an acidic functional group [0189] PAA and removing the aqueous solvent from the precursor layer [0190] dried under a vacuum to form the negative electrode on the substrate.
The following claimed method step “formulated to react with the basic compound in the LSO material to neutralize the pH of the precursor mixture;” is a step that will happen on its own provided that all other claimed steps are performed and all claimed materials are provided. The method of H necessarily teaches that the basic compound is “formulated to react with the basic compound in the LSO material to neutralize the pH of the precursor mixture” because all other method steps have been performed and all necessary materials have been provided as explained above. The basic component will necessarily react with the acidic group to neutralize the pH because that is what happens naturally when an acidic and basic compound are placed in solution. Further, H teaches the PAA may partially change to lithium PA [0131], which is the result of LiCO3 being neutralized.
Therefore, even though H does not explicitly teach the neutralization of the basic compound, H still anticipates the instant claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, H teaches the functional polymer comprises a poly(carboxylic acid), and wherein the acidic functional group comprises a carboxyl functional group (−C(=O)OH) [0189] PAA.
Regarding claim 3, H teaches the functional polymer comprises poly(acrylic acid) [189] PAA.
Regarding claim 6, H does not explicitly teach the functional polymer is configured to react with lithium ions in the precursor mixture to form a lithium salt of the functional polymer, wherein the lithium salt of the functional polymer is insoluble in the aqueous solvent, and wherein the lithium salt of the functional polymer is configured to deposit on surfaces of the LSO material to form a physical barrier that prevents chemical reactions from occurring between the LSO material and the aqueous solvent.
However, the claim language “configured to react…”, “configured to deposit” are directed towards inherent properties of the claimed functional polymer. H teaches a functional polymer and LSO compound that meet the structural requirements of the instant claim 6, so the functional polymer of H must necessarily react with lithium ions in the precursor mixture to form an insoluble lithium salt of the functional polymer which is then deposited on the surfaces of the LSO material to prevent chemical reactions from occurring between the LSO and aqueous solvent. This means claim 6 is anticipated by H even though the limitations are not explicitly taught.
Regarding claim 9, H teaches the polymer binder comprises styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (Na-CMC) [0189].
Regarding claim 10, H teaches the basic compound comprises lithium carbonate (LiCO3) [0187].
Regarding claim 11, H teaches the electroactive negative electrode material comprises the LSO material and graphite [0132] “graphite”, [0189] “second conductive additive”.
Regarding claim 12, H teaches the precursor mixture further comprises an electrochemically inactive, electrically conductive carbon-based material [0189] CNT.
Regarding claim 13, H teaches preparing the precursor mixture by introducing the LSO material into a solution comprising the polymer binder, the functional polymer, and the aqueous solvent [0189]. While this mixing is taught to be the same step, this meets the requirements for claim 13 because the claim does not specify the solution needs to be mixed separately.
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.
Claim 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20170149050-A1 (H) in view of US-20230348659-A1 (A) and CN-104272508-A (HK).
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of H are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
H teaches a binder for an electrode comprising an acidic functional group where the acidic functional group is acrylic acid [0189].
H does not teach the functional polymer comprises a poly(sulfonic acid), and wherein the acidic functional group comprises a sulfo functional group (−S(=O)2-OH).
A teaches a hyperbranched anionic phenylene polymer comprising sulfo functional groups (see Fig. 1A). A teaches the benefit of the polymer (referred to as sPPP going forward, as it is sulfophenylated polyphenylene) is it possesses a high ionic conductivity [0304], as well as high chemical stability [0079] and improved mechanical properties [0080]. A teaches the sPPP can be used in battery products (Abstract).
HK teaches that higher ionic conductivity in a polymer binder for an anode containing an acid group is beneficial because it reduces diffusion resistance [0108].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to use the binder of A in the anode of H because HK teaches this would bring the benefit of lower diffusion resistance and A teaches the material has the additional benefits of chemical stability and improved mechanical properties. It would have been obvious to do because H teaches a polymer binder with an acid group, HK teaches a motivation to seek a higher ionic conductivity polymer binder with acid groups and A teaches sPPP which comprises sulfonic acid groups and has a high ionic conductivity. This means this modification would amount to no more than the simple substitution of one known option for a polymer binder with an acid group with another polymer binder with an acid group to achieve a known benefit with a reasonable chance of success.
Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over the cited references.
Regarding claim 5, A teaches the functional polymer comprises sulfo-phenylated poly(phenylene) (sPPP) (see Fig. 1A).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20170149050-A1 (H).
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of H are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
H further teaches the functional polymer has a molecular weight of between 250,000 and 1,000,000 [0191].
H does not teach the functional polymer has a molecular weight greater than or equal to about 10,000 grams per mole and less than or equal to about 400,000 grams per mole.
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the range of H and the claimed range of the instant claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, the teachings of H are explained in the rejection of claim 1. H teaches the aqueous solvent is added to the solid components of the precursor after the solids are mixed [0189].
H does not teach preparing the precursor mixture by preparing a first mixture comprising the LSO material and the functional polymer, preparing a second mixture comprising the polymer binder and the aqueous solvent, and then introducing the first mixture into the second mixture.
Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (see MPEP § 2144.04, IV, C)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to perform the step of mixing the LSO and functional polymer first, then mixing the polymer binder (SBR/CMC) and aqueous solvent together, and finally combining the two mixtures because doing so would amount to no more than selecting a different order of mixing.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20170149050-A1 (H) in view of US-20260088277-A1 (W).
Regarding claim 8, H teaches the LSO material has a nanoporous structure including open nanopores, and wherein the functional polymer is sized such that the functional polymer can infiltrate the open nanopores of the LSO material.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20170149050-A1 (H) in view of US-20230348659-A1 (A) and CN-104272508-A (HK).
Regarding claim 15, H teaches a method of manufacturing a negative electrode for a battery that cycles lithium ions [0005], the method comprising: depositing a precursor mixture on a negative electrode current collector to form a precursor layer [0190], the precursor mixture comprising an electroactive negative electrode material comprising a lithiated silicon suboxide (LSO) material [0187] Li2SiO3, Li4SiO4, a polymer binder [0189] SBR/CMC, a functional polymer [0189] PAA, and an aqueous solvent [0189] pure water, the LSO material comprising a basic compound [0187] lithium carbonate, and the functional polymer comprising an acidic functional group [0189] PAA and removing the aqueous solvent from the precursor layer [0190] dried under a vacuum to form the negative electrode on the negative electrode current collector.
H teaches assembling the negative electrode and the negative electrode current collector into a stack comprising a positive electrode disposed on a positive electrode current collector and a separator sandwiched between opposed facing surfaces of the negative electrode and the positive electrode, the positive electrode comprising lithium ions [0193].
H teaches a binder for an electrode comprising an acidic functional group where the acidic functional group is acrylic acid [0189].
H does not teach the functional polymer comprises a poly(sulfonic acid), and wherein the acidic functional group comprises a sulfo functional group (−S(=O)2-OH).
A teaches a hyperbranched anionic phenylene polymer comprising sulfo functional groups (see Fig. 1A). A teaches the benefit of the polymer (referred to as sPPP going forward, as it is sulfophenylated polyphenylene) is it possesses a high ionic conductivity [0304], as well as high chemical stability [0079] and improved mechanical properties [0080]. A teaches the sPPP can be used in battery products (Abstract).
HK teaches that higher ionic conductivity in a polymer binder for an anode containing an acid group is beneficial because it reduces diffusion resistance [0108].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to use the binder of A in the anode of H because HK teaches this would bring the benefit of lower diffusion resistance and A teaches the material has the additional benefits of chemical stability and improved mechanical properties. It would have been obvious to do because H teaches a polymer binder with an acid group, HK teaches a motivation to seek a higher ionic conductivity polymer binder with acid groups and A teaches sPPP which comprises sulfonic acid groups and has a high ionic conductivity. This means this modification would amount to no more than the simple substitution of one known option for a polymer binder with an acid group with another polymer binder with an acid group to achieve a known benefit with a reasonable chance of success.
The following claimed method step “formulated to react with the basic compound in the LSO material to neutralize the pH of the precursor mixture;” is a step that will happen on its own provided that all other claimed steps are performed and all claimed materials are provided. The method of H necessarily teaches that the basic compound is “formulated to react with the basic compound in the LSO material to neutralize the pH of the precursor mixture” because all other method steps have been performed and all necessary materials have been provided as explained above. The basic component will necessarily react with the acidic group to neutralize the pH because that is what happens naturally when an acidic and basic compound are placed in solution.
Therefore, claim 15 is unpatentable over the cited references.
Regarding claim 16, HK teaches the functional polymer comprises sulfo-phenylated poly(phenylene) (sPPP) (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 17, H does not explicitly teach the functional polymer is configured to react with lithium ions in the precursor mixture to form a lithium salt of the functional polymer, wherein the lithium salt of the functional polymer is insoluble in the aqueous solvent, and wherein the lithium salt of the functional polymer is configured to deposit on surfaces of the LSO material to form a physical barrier that prevents chemical reactions from occurring between the LSO material and the aqueous solvent.
However, the claim language “configured to react…”, “configured to deposit” are directed towards inherent properties of the claimed functional polymer. H teaches a functional polymer and LSO compound that meet the structural requirements of the instant claim 6, so the functional polymer of H must necessarily react with lithium ions in the precursor mixture to form an insoluble lithium salt of the functional polymer which is then deposited on the surfaces of the LSO material to prevent chemical reactions from occurring between the LSO and aqueous solvent.
Regarding claim 18, H teaches the polymer binder comprises styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (Na-CMC) [0189].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights