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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 07/09/2026.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-15 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, 13 and 15 have been amended.
Claim(s) 5 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 07/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Tabata have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 07/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 5 and 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The amendments to claim 1 have limited the solvent to N-ethyl pyrrolidone only. The claim originally recited N-methylpyrrolidone in the alternative (disclosed in Hiruta). The addition of the amount of organic additive within the cathode paste has further changed the scope of claim 1 and all dependent claims originally not dependent on claim 3. The elimination of the alternatives in claim 3 has also changed the scope of said claim. Accordingly, the scope of the claims has changed and necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection, set for above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2-6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2001-035495 (A), Hiruta et al. (hereinafter “Hiruta”) in view of JP2018-088383 (A), Takanashi, JP 2019/079710 A, Tabata and US 2016/0126538 A1, Hanelt et al. (hereinafter “Hanelt”).
Regarding claims 1 and 6
Hiruta teaches a cathode paste (corresponding to a positive electrode paste) for producing a cathode (i.e., positive electrode) of a lithium-ion cell [para. 0015], the cathode paste comprising:
a metallic lithium mixed oxide selected from:
a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt mixed oxide of the formula LiNixMnyCozO2, wherein x+y+z=1 and x≥0.6 (LiNi1-XMXO2, where M consists of one or more elements such as Ti, Mn, Co, Al, Mg, Ga, etc., and where 0 ≤ x < 1) [para. 0016], or
a lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum mixed oxide of the formula LiNixCoyAlzO2, wherein x+y+z=1 and x≥0.8 (LiNi1-XMXO2, where M consists of one or more elements such as Ti, Mn, Co, Al, Mg, Ga, etc., and where 0 ≤ x < 1) [para. 0016],
polyvinylidene difluoride as an electrode binder or an electrode binder comprising polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF is used as an organic binder) [para. 0041];
a solvent (n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone) [para. 0041], and
an organic additive component (corresponding to an organic acid) [paras. 0020, 0023-0024 and 0046].
Hiruta is silent to the organic additive comprising ethyl acetoacetate or anhydrous acetic acid.
Takanashi teaches a cathode paste comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide for producing a cathode for a lithium-ion battery [paras. 0003 and 0019], wherein an organic additive component such as acetic acid (acetate esters) and a chelating agent such as ethyl acetoacetate (also referred as ethyl acetoethyl) can be added to the solvent to suppress the hydrolysis reaction thereby allowing the solution to be stable over a long period of time [paras. 0054 and 0061-0063].
Hiruta and Takanashi are analogous inventions in the field of cathode pastes comprising lithium transition metal composite oxides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cathode paste of Hiruta to comprise ethyl acetoacetate, as discloses in Takanashi, in order to suppress the hydrolysis reaction thereby allowing the solution to be stable over a long period of time [paras. 0061-0063].’
Modified Hiruta does not teach organic additive being present in the solvent in a proportion of 0.1 to 10% by weight.
Tabata teaches a cathode paste wherein 3 to 5% by weight of an organic acid is added to neutralize the lithium hydroxide (LiOH) produced by reaction with moisture in the atmosphere [paras. 0026 and 0029].
Tabata further discloses that, regardless of the type of acid, the higher the amount of acid added, the lower the basicity and viscosity of the positive electrode mixture after 2 hours of exposure to air [para. 0048].
Modified Hiruta and Tabita are analogous inventions in the field of cathode pastes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the ethyl acetoacetate present in the solvent in a proportion of 3 to 5% by weight, as discloses in Tabata, for the purpose of neutralizing the lithium hydroxide (LiOH) produced by reaction with moisture in the atmosphere. 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].
Furthermore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the proportion of the ethyl acetoacetate, a chelating agent, in the solvent (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired viscosity, gelation and stability of the paste [Tabata, paras. 0026, 0029 and 0048]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Modified Hiruta teaches the solvent comprising n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone [para. 0041]. Modified Hiruta does not teach N-ethylpyrrolidone.
In the same field of endeavor of electrode pastes for lithium-ion batteries, Hanelt teaches that N-ethylpyrrolidone and N-methylpyrrolidone are equivalent solvents known in the art [Abstract and para. 0085]. Therefore, because these two solvents were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute N-methylpyrrolidone for N-ethylpyrrolidone [MPEP 2144.06].
Further, because Hanelt teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solvents, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Hanelt teaches that N-ethylpyrrolidone leads to the anticipated success, the selection of N-ethylpyrrolidone would have been within ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Regarding claim 2
Regarding the limitation “wherein the cathode paste is stable with respect to its viscosity properties at room temperature for a period of at least 2 weeks”, because the cathode paste disclosed in Hiruta is identical to the one claimed, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
The court has held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Examiner notes that modified Hiruta teaches the incorporation of the chelating agent for suppressing hydrolysis reactions thereby allowing long term storage stability for 1 to 3 months [Takanashi, paras. 0061-0062].
Regarding claim 3
Modified Hiruta teaches the cathode paste as set forth above,comprising at least one of the following additional features: the organic additive component is present in the solvent in a proportion of 0.5 to 7% by weight [3 to 5% by weight) [Tabata, paras. 0026 and 0029]; and the-N-ethylpyrrolidone is present in the solvent in a proportion of from 60 to 99.9% by weight. (the solvent is present in an amount of 30 wt % or more in order to uniformly disperse the composition and to prevent problems with uniformity and surface smoothness during coating) [Hiruta, para. 0026].
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].
Regarding claim 4
Modified Hiruta teaches the cathode paste as set forth above, comprising at least one of the following additional features: the organic additive component is or comprises an organic acid and/or the organic additive component is or comprises a C-H acidic organic compound (ethyl acetoacetate) [Hiruta, paras. 0020-0021; Takanashi, paras. 0062-0063].
Regarding claim 5
Modified Hiruta teaches the cathode paste as set forth above, comprising at least one of the following additional features: the organic additive component is Ethyl acetoacetate [Takanashi, para. 0062].
Regarding claim 8
Modified Hiruta teaches the cathode paste as set forth above, wherein the proportion of solvent in the cathode paste is in the range from 10 to 50% by weight (30 wt % or more in order to uniformly disperse the composition and to prevent problems with uniformity and surface smoothness during coating) [Hiruta, para. 0026].
Regarding claim 9
Modified Hiruta teaches the cathode paste as set forth above, comprising at least one of the following additional features: the polyvinylidene difluoride is a polyvinylidene difluoride homopolymer (the binder comprises PVDF, a known homopolymer) [Hiruta, para. 0041].
Regarding claim 10
Modified Hiruta teaches the cathode paste as set forth above, wherein the cathode paste comprises a conductive agent (the paste comprises a conductive agent such as carbon powder) [Hiruta, para. 0017].
Regarding claim 11
Hiruta teaches a method for producing a cathode paste (corresponding to a positive electrode paste) [para. 0015], the method comprising:
providing a solvent (n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone) and an organic additive component (corresponding to an organic acid) [paras. 0020, 0023-0024, 0041 and 0046];
dissolving an electrode binder based on polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) in the solvent with mixing (PVDF is used as an organic binder dispersed in the solvent, wherein the component substances are mixed using a stirrer) [para. 0024, 0027 and 0041];
selecting a metallic lithium mixed oxide from:
a lithium-nickel-manganese-cobalt mixed oxide of the formula LiNixMnyCozO2, wherein x+y+z=1 and x≥0.6 (LiNi1-XMXO2, where M consists of one or more elements such as Ti, Mn, Co, Al, Mg, Ga, etc., and where 0 ≤ x < 1) [para. 0016], or
a lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum mixed oxide of the formula LiNixCoyAlzO2, wherein x+y+z=1 and x≥0.8 (LiNi1-XMXO2, where M consists of one or more elements such as Ti, Mn, Co, Al, Mg, Ga, etc., and where 0 ≤ x < 1) [para. 0016],
and mixing the metallic lithium mixed oxide with the solvent having the dissolved electrode binder (“thee positive electrode active material and conductive material are mixed with an organic binder, dispersed in a solvent”) [paras. 0024 and 0041-0042].
Hiruta is silent to the organic additive comprising ethyl acetoacetate or anhydrous acetic acid.
Takanashi teaches a cathode paste comprising a lithium transition metal composite oxide for producing a cathode for a lithium-ion battery [paras. 0003 and 0019], wherein an organic additive component such as acetic acid (acetate esters) and a chelating agent such as ethyl acetoacetate (also referred as ethyl acetoethyl) can be added to the solvent to suppress the hydrolysis reaction thereby allowing the solution to be stable over a long period of time [paras. 0054 and 0061-0063].
Hiruta and Takanashi are analogous inventions in the field of cathode pastes comprising lithium transition metal composite oxides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cathode paste of Hiruta to comprise ethyl acetoacetate, as discloses in Takanashi, in order to suppress the hydrolysis reaction thereby allowing the solution to be stable over a long period of time [paras. 0061-0063].
Modified Hiruta does not teach organic additive being present in the solvent in a proportion of 0.1 to 10% by weight.
Tabata teaches a cathode paste wherein 3 to 5% by weight of an organic acid is added to neutralize the lithium hydroxide (LiOH) produced by reaction with moisture in the atmosphere [paras. 0026 and 0029].
Tabata further discloses that, regardless of the type of acid, the higher the amount of acid added, the lower the basicity and viscosity of the positive electrode mixture after 2 hours of exposure to air [para. 0048].
Modified Hiruta and Tabita are analogous inventions in the field of cathode pastes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the ethyl acetoacetate present in the solvent in a proportion of 3 to 5% by weight, as discloses in Tabata, for the purpose of neutralizing the lithium hydroxide (LiOH) produced by reaction with moisture in the atmosphere. 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].
Furthermore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the proportion of the ethyl acetoacetate, a chelating agent, in the solvent (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired viscosity, gelation and stability of the paste [Tabata, paras. 0026, 0029 and 0048]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Modified Hiruta teaches the solvent comprising n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone [para. 0041]. Modified Hiruta does not teach N-ethylpyrrolidone.
In the same field of endeavor of electrode pastes for lithium-ion batteries, Hanelt teaches that N-ethylpyrrolidone and N-methylpyrrolidone are equivalent solvents known in the art [Abstract and para. 0085]. Therefore, because these two solvents were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute N-methylpyrrolidone for N-ethylpyrrolidone [MPEP 2144.06].
Further, because Hanelt teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solvents, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Hanelt teaches that N-ethylpyrrolidone leads to the anticipated success, the selection of N-ethylpyrrolidone would have been within ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Regarding claim 12
Hiruta modified by Takanashi (see above) teaches a method for the production of lithium-ion cells [Hiruta, paras. 0011, 0013-0017 and 0022-0024], the method comprising applying the cathode paste according to claim 1 to a current collector and drying the cathode paste to provide a cathode of the cells (the positive electrode paste composition prepared and manufactured as described above onto the surface of a current collector sheet to form a positive electrode layer, and subsequently dried) [Hiruta, paras. 0028 and 0030-0031].
Regarding claim 13
Hiruta modified by Takanashi (see above) teaches a method of producing a lithium-ion cell having at least one cathode (corresponding to a positive electrode) and at least one anode (corresponding to a negative electrode) [Hiruta, paras. 0028 and 0030-0033], the method comprising forming the at least one cathode by applying the cathode paste according to claim 1 to a current collector and drying the cathode paste (the positive electrode paste composition prepared and manufactured as described above onto the surface of a current collector sheet to form a positive electrode layer, and subsequently dried) [Hiruta, paras. 0028 and 0030-0031].
Regarding claim 14
Modified Hiruta teaches the method as set forth above, wherein cathode paste is dried in a temperature range from 50°C to 150°C (the drying temperature is preferably 80°C or higher) [Hiruta, para. 0030].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiruta in view of Takanashi, Tabata and Hanelt, as applied to claims 1, 2-6 and 8-14, and further in view of Saimen.
Regarding claim 15
Modified Hiruta is silent to forming the at least one cathode takes place at atmospheric pressure conditions and/or under normal air conditions.
Saimen teaches a method of producing a lithium-ion cell having at least one cathode (corresponding to a positive electrode) and at least one anode (corresponding to a negative electrode) [paras. 0038 and 0078-0083], the method comprising forming the at least one cathode at atmospheric pressure conditions (thereby reading on the limitation “at 25°C and 1 bar”) [para. 0080].
Modified Hiruta and Saimen are analogous inventions in the field of methods of producing a lithium-ion cell having at least one cathode and at least one anode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the cathode of modified Hiruta under atmospheric pressure, as disclosed in Saimen, as such is a known suitable pressure condition for forming a cathode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Modified Hiruta teaches the cathode paste as set forth above, wherein the organic additive may comprise acetic acid in a proportion of 1 to 5% by weight (3 to 5 wt %) [Takanashi, paras. 0054 and 0061-0063; Tabata, paras. 0026 and 0029].
Modified Hiruta does not teach anhydrous acetic acid.
Conclusion
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 MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights