DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/571,722, “METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ELECTRODE COMPOSITION FOR LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES”, was filed with the USPTO on 12/19/2023 and has a foreign priority document of JP2021-102560 filed on 6/21/2021.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 12/19/2023.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/571,722, filed on 6/17/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
The number on the scale bar of Fig. 1 is unclear if it’s 100 µm or 10.0 µm;
The scale bars of Figs 5 and 6 are difficult to read
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation, “sive resin” in paragraph [0110] of the specification filed on 12/19/2023 (also see PGpub US 20240297296 A1, paragraph [0158]), appears to be a typographical error intended to say, “The adhesive resin”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has more than one paragraph and it should not contain “representative figure: figure 1”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-4 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the surface of the electrode active material particles" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing the aforementioned limitation to “a surface of the electrode active material particles”. For examination purposes the aforementioned limitation has been interpreted as “a surface of the electrode active material particles”.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the weight proportion of the first conductive filler" and “the weight of the electrode composition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing the aforementioned limitation to "a weight proportion of the first conductive filler" and “a weight of the electrode composition”. For examination purposes the aforementioned limitations have been interpreted as "a weight proportion of the first conductive filler" and “a weight of the electrode composition”.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the weight proportion of the second conductive filler" and “the weight of the electrode composition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing the aforementioned limitation to "a weight proportion of the second conductive filler" and “a weight of the electrode composition”. For examination purposes the aforementioned limitations have been interpreted as "a weight proportion of the second conductive filler" and “a weight of the electrode composition”.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki et al. (US 20100230641 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oki et al. teaches
a method of manufacturing an electrode composition (see Example 13, [0147]) for lithium-ion batteries, the method (see Example 13, [0147]) including:
a first mixing step (lithium manganate further ultrasonically dispersed in fine particle carbon black (CB) slurry (dispersed by isobutylene-stearylamide maleate), [0147]) of obtaining a powder (powder of CB sticking lithium manganate , [0147]) for electrodes by mixing coated electrode active material particles (lithium manganate particle (diameter of 0.8 μm), [0147]; note: sticking fine particle carbon black to the surface of the lithium manganate, see [0147]) for lithium-ion batteries, in which at least a part of the surface of the electrode active material particles (lithium manganate particle) is coated with a polymer compound (isobutylene-stearylamide maleate, [0147]; note: CB sticking lithium manganate has surface covering rate: 32%, CB coated with isobutylene-stearylamide maleate, therefore at least part of the 32% surface coverage also comprises isobutylene-stearylamide maleate, see [0147]), with a first conductive filler (carbon black (HS-100), see 11.1 parts by weight of carbon black HS-100 in [0147]) having an aspect ratio of 10 or less (3.8, [0147]); and
a second mixing step (2.1 parts of carbon black HS-100 and 20.4 parts CB sticking lithium manganate are mixed by the T. K. homodisper, [0147]) of obtaining an electrode composition (obtain a composite material for positive electrodes, [0147]) by mixing the powder (powder of CB sticking lithium manganate, [0147]) for electrodes with a second conductive filler (carbon black (HS-100), see 2.1 parts by weight of carbon black in [0147]).
Oki et al. does not teach the second conductive filler having an aspect ratio of 15 or more.
A second embodiment of Oki et al. teaches conductive filler (fibrous carbon, [0045]) having an aspect ratio (aspect ratio of the fiber diameter (W) to the fiber length (L) of the fibrous carbon, [0045]) of 15 or more (50 or more, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the Example 13 taught by Oki et al. by adding the fibrous carbon taught by second embodiment of Oki et al. because the aspect ratio of the fibrous carbon is preferably 50 or more from the viewpoint of the conductivity (see Oki et al. [0045]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Oki et al. does not teach wherein the weight proportion of the first conductive filler is 0.2 to 5 wt % based on the weight of the electrode composition.
Example 12 of Oki et al. teaches wherein the weight proportion of the first conductive filler (carbon black (#7550 manufactured by Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd.), [0146]) is 0.2 to 5 wt % (1.8 wt%; 0.4 / 22.5 = 1.8 wt%, [0146]) based on the weight of the electrode composition (0.4 + 20 + 2.1 = 22.5 parts by weight).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the weight proportion of the carbon black (HS-100) taught by Oki et al. to be 1.8 wt% taught by Example 12 of Oki et al. because such a weight proportion is known in the art (see Oki et al. [0146]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Oki et al. does not teach wherein the weight proportion of the second conductive filler is 0.1 to 5 wt % based on the weight of the electrode composition.
A third embodiment of Oki et al. teaches wherein the weight (compounding amount, [0100]) proportion of the second conductive filler (conductive material 2, [0100]) is 0.1 to 5 wt % (2 to 12.5 wt%; note: conductive material 2 is 2 parts by weight or more, 15 parts by weight or less, based on 100 parts by weight by positive electrode active material, see [0100]; minimum weight proportion of conductive material 2 is 2 / 102.2 = 2 wt%; maximum weight proportion of conductive material 2 is 15 / 120 = 12.5 wt%) based on the weight of the electrode composition (102.2 parts by weight to 120 parts by weight; note: positive electrode active material is 100 parts by weight; conductive material 1 is 0.2 part by weight to 5 parts by weight, see [0074]; conductive material 2 is 2 parts by weight to 15 parts by weight, see [0100]; therefore minimum weight of electrode composition is 100 + 0.2 + 2 = 102.2 parts by weight; max weight of the electrode composition is 100 + 5 + 15 = 120 parts by weight).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the weight proportion of the carbon black (HS-100) and the fibrous carbon taught by Oki et al. to be 2 to 5 wt% as taught by third embodiment of Oki et al. to reduce the volume resistivity and to enhance the energy density of the composite material (see Oki et al. [0100]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oki et al. (US 20100230641 A1) in view of Mizuno et al. (US 20160149216 A1, provided on IDS filed 12/19/2023).
Regarding claim 2, Oki et al. does not teach wherein the polymer compound is a polymer containing methacrylic acid, methyl methacrylate, and 2-ethylhexyl methacrylate as essential constituent monomers.
Mizuno et al. teaches wherein the polymer compound (Copolymer (B-1), see Example 3, [0223]) is a polymer containing methacrylic acid (methacrylic acid, see Examples 3, [0223]), methyl methacrylate (methyl methacrylate, see Examples 3, [0223]), and 2-ethylhexyl methacrylate (2-ethylhexyl methacrylate, see Examples 3, [0223]) as essential constituent monomers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the isobutylene-stearylamide maleate taught by Oki et al. with the Copolymer (B-1) taught by Mizuno et al. because among these groups, preferred are the 2-alkylalkyl groups, more preferred are the 2-ethylhexyl group in view of absorption of the electrolyte solution (see Mizuno et al. [0084]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 20190319258 A1): Fig. 2a.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights