DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following. Figure 7 shows a chart with time as the x-axis and a dual y-axis with temperature and rotor power. The vertical line on the right portion of the graph has one arrow pointing to the temperature axis on the right and one arrow pointing to the rotor power axis on the left. It is unclear what portion of the line(s) is/are overlapping or what axis corresponds to what line. Appropriate correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 reads “obtaining an admixture by performing a first dry-mixing the starting material” which appears to mean “obtaining an admixture by performing a first dry-mixing of the starting material”.
Claim 1 reads “obtaining an intermediate material by adding a binder to a cooled admixture and performing a second dry mixing” but should read “obtaining an intermediate material by adding a binder to the cooled admixture and performing a second dry mixing” since the admixture has been previously state in the claim.
Claim 4 reads “obtained by placing the starting material in a stirrer with a blade and performing the first dry-mixing the starting material” which appears to mean “obtained by placing the starting material in a stirrer with a blade and performing the first dry-mixing of the starting material”.
Claim 7 reads “obtained by performing the second dry-mixing the binder and the cooled admixture” which appears to mean “obtained by performing the second dry-mixing of the binder and the cooled admixture”.
Claim 20 reads “A vehicle comprising a lithium battery of claim 19.” but should read “A vehicle comprising the lithium battery of claim 19.” since the lithium battery has been previously stated in claim 19.
The above claims have been interpreted with the above suggested modifications applied. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al (US 20200168895) from the filed information disclosure sheet (IDS) in view of Kwak et. al (US 20260221413).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode for a secondary battery [0014] where the active material may contain a lithium metal oxide [0037]. The first method step taught by Kim includes combining an active material [0017] in a first mixture (starting material) [0023]. The method taught by Kim is one where no solvents are used in the electrode preparation process [0013] so that no drying step is needed [0022]. Therefore, all mixing steps for the electrode assembly process recited by Kim are dry-mixing steps and will be referred to as such. Kim teaches a first dry mixing of the starting material [0017]. After the first dry-mixing step, a binder is added to the mixture (admixture), and a second dry mixing step is performed [0018]. Kim teaches that the electrode mixture can be shaped and processed into an electrode of various forms [0070]. One embodiment of the resulting electrode is a film made using a rolling method [0048]. Kim does not explicitly teach that a pair of rollers is used to perform the rolling step.
Kwak teaches a method for the manufacture of an electrode for a secondary battery [0171] with a lithium active material [0051-0052]. Kwak teaches that the electrode mixture (intermediate material) is rolled between a plurality of rollers (pair of rollers) [0030] to create the electrode film (Figure 1a and 1b). One motivation to use pairs of rollers is to be able to adjust the spacing and speed ratio between the rollers which determines film thickness [0124].
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 Kim with the teachings of Kwak to use a pair of rollers to obtain the electrode. Using a pair of rollers allows for control of the film’s shape by tuning the roller speeds and nip gap.
Kim is silent to cooling the admixture after the first dry-mixing and before adding the binder.
Kwak teaches that the electrode film is a dry film [0035] and contains a binder comprising a polymer [0016]. When working with a binder, Kwak teaches the influence of temperature on the binder when kneading (mixing) the electrolyte mixture (admixture) [0114]. If the temperature is too low, the binder will not effectively fibrillate making film formation during calendaring difficult [0114], and if the temperature is too high the fibrillization takes place too quickly causing excessive breakdown of the fibers [0114]. One motivation to control the admixture temperature when working with a binder is to ensure proper fibrillization.
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 Kim with the teachings of Kwak to cool the admixture before adding the binder. A dry-mixing process such as blending, milling, or an analogous process can raise the temperature of the mixture due to friction/shearing forces as is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool the admixture after the first dry mixing to prevent an unfavorable reaction with the binder.
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim further teaches that the starting material also contains a conductive material [0030, 0101]. The purpose of adding a conductive material is to promote ion conductivity in the battery structure.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches that the mixing step can be performed for 30 seconds to 2 minutes or for 2 minutes to 10 minutes [0103-0104] to create uniformity in the mixture [0103]. Kim does not explicitly teach that the first dry-mixing is done in a stirrer with a blade, or that the dry-mixing is about 10 minutes to about 60 minutes, or that the blade line speed of the mixing is about 5 m/s to 30 m/s.
Kwak teaches a dry-mixing process where the material is fed into a blender [0102]. A blender is a well know mixer that uses a stirrer with a blade. Kwak also teaches that the mixing may be performed at 1000 to 2000 rpm for 2 to 10 minutes [0104] or 5000 rpm to 20000 rpm for 30 seconds to 2 minutes [0103]. The goal of using these mixing times and speeds is to create a mixture with uniform distribution of the active material [0102].
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 Kim with the teachings of Kwak to use a mixer with a stirrer with a blade for obtaining an admixture. The motivation behind this mixing style is to achieve a uniform distribution of active material using a solvent free dry-mixing technique.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to adjust the dry-mixing time and mixing speed of the starting material to be about 10 minutes to 60 minutes and the blade line speed to about 5 m/s to 30 m/s. The mixing time will be influenced by the amount of material being mixed, the type of material being mixed, and the level of mixture uniformity desired. Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The recited blade line speed of claim 4 can be converted to rpm using the diameter of the mixing blade stirrer. Both blade line speed in m/s and rpm are well known units for measuring mixing speed for a blender type-mixer, and optimizing the mixing speed is influenced by the same factors listed above for mixing time. The motivation to use these mixing times and speeds is to uniformly distribute the active material.
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim is silent to cooling the admixture after the first dry-mixing and before adding the binder. Kim is therefore silent to cooling the admixture at a temperature of 30 °C or less.
Kwak teaches that the temperature of the mixture is important to control the fibrilization properties of the binder as discussed above. If the admixture in claim 5 is “cooled at a temperature of about 30 °C or less”, the mixture does not need to reach a specified temperature, but instead it simply has to exposed to an environment where the temperature is about 30 °C or less which includes room temperature (25 °C) for an unspecified amount of time. Cooling at room temperature for an unspecified amount of time can be accomplished by transferring the mixture between vessels or even holding the mixture in a mixing vessel in a typical laboratory setting which is assumed to be room temperature unless climate control is specified.
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 Kim with the teachings of Kwak to cool the admixture at room temperature for the purpose of controlling the fibrilization of the binder.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches that the binders used may be polytetrafluoroethylene, polyethylene oxide, and polyvinylidene fluoride [0029, 0057] or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches a second [0018] dry-mixing [0021] step to produce an electrode mixture (intermediate material). In this second mixing step a binder is added [0018]. Kwak also teaches that the second mixing can be done at a temperature of 20 °C to 60 °C [0032]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches that the second mixture (intermediate material) is made by adding a binder [0018] to the first mixture (admixture). Kim also teaches that the second mixing is a dry mixing [0021] which can be done for about 10 minutes [0077]. Kim does not explicitly teach that the admixture is cooled before mixing, that mixing is done in a stirrer with a blade, or that the blade line speed of the mixer is about 2 m/s to about 10 m/s.
Kwak teaches that admixture is done in a blender [0102]. A blender is a well know mixer that uses a stirrer with a blade. Kwak also teaches that the mixing may be performed at 1000 to 2000 rpm for 2 to 10 minutes [0104] or 5000 rpm to 20000 rpm for 30 seconds to 2 minutes [0103]. The goal of using these mixing times and speeds is to create a mixture of uniform distribution of the active material [0102].
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 Kim with the teachings of Kwak to use a mixer with a stirrer with a blade for obtaining the intermediate material. The motivation behind this mixing style is to achieve a uniform distribution of active material using a solvent free dry-mixing technique.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mixer with a mixing time of about 5 to 10 minutes and a blade line speed to about 2 m/s to 10 m/s. Regarding the mixing time, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding the mixing speed, the blade line speed can be converted to rpm using the diameter of the mixing blade stirrer. Both blade line speed in m/s and rpm are well known units for measuring mixing speed for a blender type-mixer, and optimizing the mixing speed is influenced by the same factors listed previously for mixing time. The motivation for using these mixing times and speeds is to uniformly distribute the active material.
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches that an electrode is formed from the electrode mixture (intermediate material) [0048-0049]. The electrode is formed into a film shape by a rolling technique [0049]. Kim does not explicitly teach that a first and second pair of rollers are used to obtain the electrode.
Kwak teaches that the electrode film is formed by using a plurality of rollers [0123]. Additionally, Figures 1a an 1b of Kwak show a series of rollers, including a first and second pair of rollers, that the intermediate material is being rolled through to create the electrode film shown wound on the right most roller.
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 Kim with the teachings of Kwak to use a rolling or calendaring apparatus with a first and second pair of rollers in series to create an electrode film form the intermediate mixture.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. Kim does not explicitly teach that the speed ratio of the first pair or rollers is the same or that the speed ratio of the second pair of rollers has a speed ratio of 1:3 to 1:10.
Kwak teaches a plurality of rollers as discussed above and further teaches that the speed ratio of the rolls may be controlled in a range between 1 and 10 times [0129]. The speed ratio is varied according to the size of the rolls and can be varied to produce a shearing force on the material [0011].
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 Kim with the teachings of Kwak to use a rolling or calendaring process with pairs of rollers operating at the same or different speed ratios to achieve the desired result of forming a film with or without a shearing force applied. By using rollers at the same speed, the film thickness and density can be adjusted without further fibrilization of the binder, and by using rollers with a varied rotational speed ratio a shearing force can be applied to the film to influence fibrilization of the binder component.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. Kim does not explicitly teach that the nip gap of the rollers is about 200 µm to 800 µm or that the intermediate material is rolled 1 to 3 times with the first pair of rollers to form a sheet.
Kwak teaches that the gap between the rolls (nip gap) is controlled for the purpose of adjusting the thickness of the film (sheet) rolled through them [0126]. Kwak teaches that the resulting sheet can have an average thickness from 50 µm to 300 µm [0126], and that the calendaring (rolling) can be done one or more times [0127]. These variable are adjusted to control the thickness and density of the sheet [0130].
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 Kim with the teachings of Kwak to set the nip gap of the first rollers to about 200 µm to 800 µm and to roll the intermediate material 1 to 3 times. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The motivation to adjust the nip gap and amount of rolling is to adjust the sheet’s thickness and density.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. Kim does not explicitly teach that the intermediate sheet or the final electrode is a free standing film.
Kwak teaches that the film containing an active material, binder, and conductive material produced by calendaring (rolling) is a freestanding film (self-standing membrane) [0010-0011]. Kwak also teaches that the final electrode film is a self-standing membrane [0011, 0131]. A self-standing membrane without a solvent has little to no flowability and does not require a drying step which results in various manufacturing benefits [0132]. Low flowability makes the self-standing membrane easy to handle without damage allowing the film or electrode product to be easily formed into a desired shape, and eliminating the drying step removes a manufacturing step to increase production efficiency [0132]. A self-standing membrane is also easier to handle for further processing such as dipping coating [0133] or lamination [0012] with another battery element.
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 Kim with the teachings of Kwak to make the sheet and electrode a self-standing membrane for the ease of handling in further processing steps.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 as described above. Kim does not explicitly teach that the nip gap of the rollers is about 50 µm to 200 µm or that the sheet is rolled 1 to 10 times with the second pair of rollers.
Kwak teaches that the gap between the rolls (nip gap) is controlled for the purpose of adjusting the thickness of the electrode film rolled through them [0126]. Kwak teaches that the resulting electrode film can have an average thickness from 50 µm to 300 µm [0126], and that the calendaring (rolling) can be done one or more times [0127]. These variable are adjusted to control the thickness and density of the electrode film [0130].
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 Kim with the teachings of Kwak to set the nip gap of the second rollers to about 50 µm to 200 µm and to roll the sheet 1 to 10 times. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside similar ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The motivation to adjust the nip gap and amount of rolling with the second rollers is to adjust the electrode’s thickness and density.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Kim in view of Kwak teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kim also teaches that the recited electrode is used in a secondary battery with a lithium containing active material [0037], and Kim teaches that a lithium secondary battery can be used in a car [0003].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al (US 20200168895) from the filed information disclosure sheet (IDS) and Kwak et. al (US 20260221413) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Enokihara. et. al (US 20220294020).
Regarding claim 2, Kim and Kwak teach all the limitations of claim 1 above. Neither reference teaches that the starting material further comprises a sulfide-based solid electrolyte.
Enokihara teaches a method for preparing a solid electrode for a lithium secondary battery [0028]. Enokihara further teaches that a solid electrolyte may be included in the pendular phase (starting material) of the electrode material [0078]. The solid electrolyte can be a sulfide solid electrolyte [0044] which serves as an ionically conductive material.
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 Kim and Kwak further in view of Enokihara to include a sulfide-based solid electrolyte in the starting material. The motivation to use a sulfide-based solid electrolyte is to increase the ionic conductivity of the starting material.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et. al (US 20200168895) from the filed information disclosure sheet (IDS) and Kwak et. al (US 20260221413) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of Kim M. et. al (US 20230369558).
Regarding claim 14, Kim and Kwak teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 above. Kim further teaches that by applying a shearing stress to the binder in the electrode material mixture (sheet) the plurality of fibers can form a network between a binder and particles [0024, 0026]. This is a phenomenon well known in the art as fibrilization. Neither reference explicitly teaches that this shearing force applied between a second pair of rollers is what causes the binder to form fibers in the sheet.
Kim M. teaches a method for manufacturing a free-standing film (self-standing membrane) for making an electrode for a secondary battery [0002]. Kim M. also teaches a two-roll mill (pair of rollers) is used to process the electrode film [0049]. When using the pair of rollers, Kim M. teaches that a shearing force is generated on the self-standing membrane between the pair of rollers when a different gear ratio (rotational speed ratio) is used [0058]. This shearing force is used for the purpose of activating a binder and producing a self-standing membrane [0021].
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 Kim and Kwak further in view of Kim M. to adjust the rotational speed ratio between the second pair of rollers to generate shear force for the purpose of fibrilizing a binder and creating a self-standing membrane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE R ALTVATER whose telephone number is (571)270-3162. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00 am - 4 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291.
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.
/N.R.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights