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 without traverse of Group II, claims 10-17 in the reply filed on 28 Jul, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 11 and 15 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 11 recites the limitation "the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer particles" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of “the lithium secondary battery according to claim 14” renders the claim indefinite. This is because, even though claim 14 recites “A positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery,” this phrase is a statement of intended use for the positive electrode, and does not invoke a definite, particular lithium secondary battery as part of the claimed invention. There is therefore insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the lithium secondary battery according to claim 14” in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 20160041299, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 10, Kim et al. discloses a positive electrode current collector (see e.g. electrode 100, [0069], which may be a positive or negative electrode as per [0004]) coated with an adhesion enhancement layer (see e.g. conductive adhesive portion 130, Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a metal current collector (see e.g. current collector 110, [0069] and Figs. 1-2); and
the adhesion enhancement layer on at least one surface of the metal current collector (see e.g. [0069] and Fig. 1, conductive adhesion portion 130 is on one surface of collector 110), the adhesion enhancement layer comprising a hydrocarbon-based water-soluble binder polymer (see e.g. polyvinyl alcohol, which is water soluble, [0018]-[0019]), a polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer (see e.g. polyvinylidene fluoride, [0018]-[0019]), and a first conductive material (see e.g. conductive material, [0018] and [0020]),
wherein the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer is distributed in island arrays over the at least one surface of the metal current collector (see e.g. Fig. 2 and [0069]-[0071], conductive adhesion portion 130 is distributed on the surface of collector 110 in a series of protrusion that read on island arrays).
As to claim 12, Kim et al. discloses a positive electrode current collector coated with the adhesion enhancement layer according to claim 10,
wherein the hydrocarbon-based water-soluble binder polymer is at least one selected from the group consisting of polyvinylalcohol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, maleic anhydride, tannic acid poly acrylic acid and poly acrylamide (see e.g. polyvinyl alcohol and/or polyvinylpyrrolidone, [0018]-[0019]).
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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20160041299, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 109988322, as read via machine translation).
As to claim 11, Kim et al. discloses a positive electrode current collector coated with the adhesion enhancement layer according to claim 10, wherein the adhesion enhancement layer comprises a hydrocarbon-based water-soluble binder polymer (see e.g. polyvinyl alcohol, which is water soluble, Kim et al.: [0018]-[0019]), and a polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer (see e.g. polyvinylidene fluoride, Kim et al.: [0018]-[0019]. Note that Kim et al. discloses that the adhesive may comprise one or more of polyvinyl alcohol and polyvinylidene fluoride, implying that both may be present in some embodiments).
Kim et al. does not disclose the relative amount of the hydrocarbon-based water-soluble binder polymer and the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer, and does not disclose that the hydrocarbon-based water-soluble binder polymer is present in an amount of 5 to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer particles.
Chen teaches an adhesive coating for a lithium-ion battery electrode (see e.g. emulsion, Chen: [0017]-[0018]) that also comprises a hydrocarbon-based water-soluble binder polymer (see e.g. water-soluble polymer, Chen: [0018]) and a polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer (see e.g. fluoropolymer emulsion particles, which may be polyvinylidene fluoride, Chen: [0018] and [0028]). Chen’s fluoropolymer-based adhesive coating comprises an embodiment in which the water-soluble binder polymer is present in an amount of 0.5 to 60 parts by weight (see e.g. Chen: [0025]) and the fluoropolymer is present in an amount of 0.5 to 60 parts by weight (see e.g. Chen: [0031]), which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the instantly-claimed limitation that the hydrocarbon-based water-soluble binder polymer is present in an amount of 5 to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer particles. Chen further teaches that this adhesive coating solves the problems of low surface energy, poor surface wettability, poor adhesion to other materials, and solubility in solvents associated with fluoropolymers, and further has environmental advantages such as being non-toxic and pollution-free (see e.g. Chen: [0017]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to replace the adhesion enhancement layer in the positive electrode current collector of Kim et al. with the adhesive coating taught by Chen, which comprises a hydrocarbon-based water-soluble binder polymer present in an amount of 5 to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer particles in the emulsion. This is because Chen teaches that this adhesive coating performs the same function of being an adhesive coating for a lithium-ion battery electrode and because Chen teaches that this adhesive coating solves the problems of low surface energy, poor surface wettability, poor adhesion to other materials, and solubility in solvents associated with fluoropolymers, and further has environmental advantages such as being non-toxic and pollution-free.
Claim(s) 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20160041299, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Solvay (Solef® PVDF for Flexible Battery Separators, 2013).
As to claim 13, Kim et al. discloses a positive electrode current collector coated with the adhesion enhancement layer according to claim 10.
Kim et al. discloses a polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer that is polyvinylidene fluoride, which has a melting point above 150°C, and therefore Kim et al. does not disclose that wherein the melting point of the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer is from 50 C to 150 C.
Solvay teaches the use of a polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer with a melting point in the range of 130°C to 136°C, which overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed range of 50°C to 150°C (see e.g. Solef 21216, shown in the table of pg. 2 of Solvay). Solvay further teaches that this polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer offers the advantages of electrochemical stability, solubility for easy processing, and durable adhesion with electrodes (see e.g. Solvay: pg. 1, para 6).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode current collector of Kim et al. by replacing Kim et al.’s polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer with the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer taught by Solvay, wherein the melting point of the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer is from 50°C to 150°C. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a substitution because Solvay teaches that this polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer offers the advantages of electrochemical stability, solubility for easy processing, and durable adhesion with electrodes.
Claim(s) 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20160041299, as read via machine translation) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Oyama et al. (US 2019/0103610).
As to claim 14, Kim et al. discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: the positive electrode current collector coated with the adhesion enhancement layer according to claim 10; and
a positive electrode active material layer disposed on the adhesion enhancement layer (see e.g. electrode composite, which comprises an electrode active material, Kim et al.: [0004]-[0005]. The conductive adhesion portion adheres to the electrode mixture as per Kim et al.: [0013], and therefore is disposed on the adhesion portion), the positive electrode active material layer comprising a positive electrode active material (see e.g. electrode active material, Kim et al.: [0005]).
Kim et al. does not describe this positive electrode active material layer in detail, and does not disclose that the positive active material layer comprises a second conductive material, and a binder polymer.
Oyama et al., also working in the field of positive electrodes for lithium secondary batteries, teaches a positive electrode active material layer (cathode mixture layer, Oyama et al.: [0022]) disposed on an electrode current collector in which the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material (see e.g. cathode material, Oyama et al.: [0022]), a second conductive material (see e.g. conductive auxiliary agent, Oyama et al.: [0059]), and a binder polymer (see e.g. PVdF binder resin, Oyama et al.: [0059] and [0101]- [0103]). Oyama et al. further teaches that this positive electrode active material layer is capable of easily increasing the active material density in the electrode (see e.g. Oyama et al.: [0014]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to modify the positive electrode of Kim et al. by replacing Kim et al.’s positive electrode active material layer with the positive electrode active material layer taught by Oyama et al., which comprises a second conductive material, and a binder polymer. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a substitution because Oyama et al. teaches that this positive electrode active material layer is capable of easily increasing the active material density in the electrode.
As to claim 15, Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al. teaches the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 14 wherein the positive electrode active material is represented by the following Formula 1:
<Formula 1>
Li1+aFe1-xMx(PO4-b)Xb wherein M is at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Ga, Cu, V, Nb, Zr, Ce, In, Zn and Y, and X is at least one selected from the group consisting of F,S, and N, and -0.5≤a≤0.5, 0≤x≤0.5, and 0≤b≤0.1
(see e.g. cathode material of the formula LixAyMzPO-4, where A may be Fe, Mn, Co, or Ni, M may be Mg, Ca, Co, Sr, Ba, Ti, Zn, B, Al, Ga, In, Si, Ge, and 0≤x≤1.1, 0.8≤y≤1.1, and 0≤z≤0.2, Oyama et al.: [0045]. When A=Fe, x=1, y=1, and z=0, the formula of Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al. simplifies to LiFePO4.
In the instantly-claimed formula, when M=Mg, a=0, x=0, and b=0, the positive electrode active material also becomes LiFePO4. Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al.’s positive electrode active material therefore lies within the scope of the instantly-claimed formula).
Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al. as applied above teaches that the collector is made of metal (see e.g. Kim et al.: [0004]), but does not specify that this collector is made of aluminum.
However, Oyama et al. teaches a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery in which the collector is made of roughened aluminum (see e.g. aluminum foil, Oyama et al.: [0059], [0138]). Oyama et al. further teaches that when an electrode current collector having a roughened surface is used it is possible to suppress the peeling between the electrode current collector and the cathode active material (see e.g. Oyama et al.: [0012]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive electrode of Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al. by using roughened aluminum as the metal for the metal current collector in the manner taught by Oyama et al.. Said artisan would have been motivated to use roughened aluminum because Oyama et al. teaches that this material suppresses the peeling between the electrode current collector and the cathode active material.
As to claim 16, Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al. teaches the positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 14,
wherein the binder polymer of the positive electrode active material layer is a polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer (see e.g. PVdF binder resin, Oyama et al.: [0059] and [0101]- [0103]).
As to claim 17, Kim et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (see e.g. secondary battery, Kim et al.: [0001]). Kim et al.’s lithium secondary battery comprises a positive electrode that comprises a positive current collector that meets all of the limitations of the positive electrode of claim 10 as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Kim et al.’s positive electrode does not read on the positive electrode of claim 14 because Kim et al. does not disclose that the positive active material layer comprises a second conductive material, and a binder polymer.
Oyama et al., also working in the field of positive electrodes for lithium secondary batteries, teaches a positive electrode active material layer (cathode mixture layer, Oyama et al.: [0022]) disposed on an electrode current collector in which the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material (see e.g. cathode material, Oyama et al.: [0022]), a second conductive material (see e.g. conductive auxiliary agent, Oyama et al.: [0059]), and a binder polymer (see e.g. PVdF binder resin, Oyama et al.: [0059] and [0101]- [0103]). Oyama et al. further teaches that this positive electrode active material layer is capable of easily increasing the active material density in the electrode (see e.g. Oyama et al.: [0014]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the instantly-claimed invention to modify the positive electrode of Kim et al. by replacing Kim et al.’s positive electrode active material layer with the positive electrode active material layer taught by Oyama et al., which comprises a second conductive material, and a binder polymer. Said artisan would have been motivated to make such a substitution because Oyama et al. teaches that this positive electrode active material layer is capable of easily increasing the active material density in the electrode. Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al. therefore teaches a lithium secondary battery that comprises the positive electrode according to claim 14.
Further regarding claim 17, Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al. further teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising a negative electrode (see e.g. anode, Kim et al.: [0003]); and a separator (see e.g. separator, Kim et al.: [0003]).
While Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al. does not explicitly state that the separator is disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, one of ordinary skill in the art of batteries prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to place the separator between the positive and negative electrodes of the lithium secondary battery of Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al., because the battery would not function as a battery without a separator providing separation between the positive and negative electrodes.
Further regarding claim 17, Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al. does not explicitly state that the battery comprises an electrolyte. However, one of ordinary skill in the art of batteries prior to the filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to provide the lithium secondary battery of Kim et al. in view of Oyama et al. with an electrolyte because said artisan would have understood that a lithium secondary battery cannot function as a battery without an electrolyte to transport ions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT HILTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)-272-3066. 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.
/A.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 08/07/2026
Prosecution Insights