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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/07/2023, 04/23/2025, and 04/01/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification filed on 12/07/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 10-12, 15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhong et al. (US 2022/0077453 A1; hereinafter “Zhong”).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, Zhong discloses a positive electrode slurry, positive electrode sheet, and lithium battery (Title/Abstract; see also [0029] which describes LMO, a positive electrode active material), comprising:
a positive electrode current collector (as shown in Fig 1); and
a positive electrode active material (LMO, [0029]), a conductive agent (conductive material, [0010]), an aqueous binder (see [0030] which describes e.g. PTFE in an alcohol solvent, e.g. methanol, an aqueous solvent), and a functional additive (polyvinylpyrrolidone, [0026], which reads on the recited functional additive, as evidenced by the Instant Specification, see e.g. claim 7).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Zhong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zhong further discloses that the functional additive has a molecular weight of 200-100000 or 10000-30000 (polyvinylpyrrolidone, [0026], which has a molecular weight falling within the recited ranges, as evidenced by the Instant Specification, see e.g. claim 7).
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 20, Zhong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zhong further discloses that the functional additive is (polyvinylpyrrolidone, [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zhong further discloses that the positive electrode active material is lithium manganate (lithium manganese oxide, [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zhong further discloses that the conductive agent is acetylene black (acetylene black, [0031]).
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 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.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 13, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (US 2022/0077453 A1; hereinafter “Zhong”), as applied to claims 1, 12, or 17 above.
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 18, Zhong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zhong further discloses that the aqueous binder should be included in an amount of 1-8 wt% ([0030]) and the functional additive should be included in an amount of 0.5-10 wt% with respect to the additive solution ([0028]), which should be included in an amount of 5 wt% or less ([0029]), but does not explicitly disclose a weight ratio of binder to additive of 1:(0.02-0.1).
Zhong is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode slurries comprising functional additives.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (1-8 wt% to 5 wt% or less of 0.5-10 wt% reasonably appears to significantly overlap with 1:(0.02-0.1)) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Zhong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zhong further discloses that the aqueous binder should be included in an amount of 1-8 wt% ([0030]) and the functional additive should be included in an amount of 0.5-10 wt% with respect to the additive solution ([0028]), which should be included in an amount of 5 wt% or less ([0029]), and further discloses that the positive electrode active material should be included in an amount of 82-99 wt% ([0029]) and the conductive agent should be included in an amount of 0-10 wt% ([0031]), but does not explicitly disclose a mass ratio of positive electrode active material to conductive agent to a sum of the aqueous binder and the functional additive is (94-98):(0.5-6):(2-5).
Zhong is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode slurries comprising functional additives.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges ((82-99%):(0-10%):(1-8%+5% or less of 0.5-10%) reasonably appears to significantly overlap with (94-98):(0.5-6):(2-5)) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 3-4, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (US 2022/0077453 A1; hereinafter “Zhong”), as applied to claims 1, 12, or 17 above, in view of Pan et al. (U S2023/0068865 A1; hereinafter “Pan”).
Regarding claims 3-4, 14, and 19, Zhong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zhong discloses the aqueous binder (as noted above), and gives an example as being PTFE or other thermoplastic polymer ([0030]), but does not disclose specifically copolymerized butyl acrylate, acrylonitrile, and acrylamide.
Pan teaches a battery binder for lithium ion batteries (Title). Pan teaches a binder for lithium ion battery plates which has a high adhesive force, and can improve battery performance ([0028-0029]). Pan teaches that one binder is copolymerized from a plurality of lipophilic and hydrophilic monomers, e.g. butyl acrylate, acrylonitrile, and acrylamide ([0071]).
Zhong and Pan analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely aqueous binders for lithium ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize the binder of Pan as the aqueous binder of Zhong with the reasonable expectation that such a binder would have a high adhesive force and improve battery performance, as suggested by Pan.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (US 2022/0077453 A1; hereinafter “Zhong”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kao et al. (US 2017/0256789 A1; hereinafter “Kao”).
Regarding claim 9, Zhong discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zhong discloses the positive electrode active material (as noted above), but does not appear to be particularly concerned with the specifics of said material, and therefore does not disclose an average particle size D50 of 0.2 mm to 1.5 mm.
Kao teaches lithium metal oxide containing batteries (Title). Kao teaches that a lithium metal oxide powder is comprised of primary particles having a median size of 0.1 mm to 3 mm, which improve performance particularly when the secondary particles of the lithium metal oxide deagglomerate when forming the cathode of the lithium ion battery (Abstract).
Zhong and Kao analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode active materials for lithium ion batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely design the positive electrode active material of Zhong to have a median particle size, i.e. D50, between 0.1 mm to 3 mm, with the reasonable expectation that such a size would improve performance of the battery, as suggested by Kao. It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (0.1-3 significantly overlaps with 0.2-1.5) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schofield et al. (US 2016/0268633 A1) discloses copolymers as performance enhancers for lithium ion cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 06/05/2026
Prosecution Insights