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 .
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.
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 . 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.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-9, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shinoda et al. (US 2021/0376319 A1), hereinafter “Shinoda.”
Regarding claim 1, Shinoda discloses an electrode-forming composition comprising an organic compound, in this PVDF (¶ [0087], Table 1), a fluorinated binder, in this case the binder (¶ [0040] & [0127]) includes a fluorine-containing copolymer (¶ [0049], Table 1), a conductive carbon material, in this case the conductive additive (¶ [0040] & [0127]), and an active material (¶ [0040] & [0127]);
wherein the organic compound has acidic functional groups and/or salts thereof, in this case the PVDF a functional group (¶ [0094]-[0095]); and
the fluorinated binder has a weight-average molecular weight of 600,000 to 3,000,000, in this case 600,000 to 2,000,000 (¶ [0071]), and is included in an amount from 0.01 wt% to 1.0 wt%, in this case the binder includes up to 20 wt% of the fluorine-containing copolymer (Table 1) and the binder makes up 1.5 wt% of the solids (Table 2), which results in a fluorinated binder loading of up to 0.3 wt%1.
Shinoda does not specify that the organic compound possess four or more acidic functional groups. Shinoda does teach that the inclusion of the functional group improves adhesion between the positive electrode mixture and current collector (¶ [0094]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have provided a sufficient number of functional groups in order to have provided the desired adhesion between the active material layer and current collector (see ¶ [0094]), thereby facilitating improved electrode operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided at least four acidic functional groups in order to have facilitated improved electrode operation.
Regarding claim 2, Shinoda further discloses that the weight- average molecular weight of 700,000 to 2,000,000, in this case 600,000 to 2,000,000 (¶ [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Shinoda discloses the same fluorinated binder, which would possess the recited heat of fusion. Furthermore, it is unclear what effect or difference would be made in this material’s heat of fusion by changing the recited method of measuring this value.
Regarding claim 4, Shinoda further discloses that the fluorinated binder is modified with polar functional groups (¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Shinoda further discloses that the organic compound is included in an amount from 0.01 wt% to 1.0 wt%, in this case the binder includes up to 20 wt% of the fluorine-containing copolymer (Table 1) and the binder makes up 1.5 wt% of the solids (Table 2), which results in a fluorinated binder loading of up to 0.3 wt%2.
Regarding claim 6, Shinoda does not specify that the organic compound possess five or more acidic functional groups. Shinoda does teach that the inclusion of the functional group improves adhesion between the positive electrode mixture and current collector (¶ [0094]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have provided a sufficient number of functional groups in order to have provided the desired adhesion between the active material layer and current collector (see ¶ [0094]), thereby facilitating improved electrode operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided at least five acidic functional groups in order to have facilitated improved electrode operation.
Regarding claim 7, Shinoda further discloses the carboxylic acid groups (¶ [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Shinoda further discloses the carboxylic acid groups (¶ [0057]).
Regarding claim 9, Shinoda further discloses that the organic compound is a polymer, in this case PVDF (¶ [0087]).
Regarding claim 13, Shinoda further discloses a dispersant, in this case a dispersion medium (¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 17, Shinoda further discloses that the active material includes an oxide containing at least Li, in this case a lithium-nickel composite oxide (¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 18, Shinoda further discloses an electrode comprising a current collecting substrate and an electrode mixture layer according to claim 1formed on at least one side of the current collecting substrate (¶ [0017]).
Regarding claim 19, Shinoda further discloses an energy storage device, in this case a lithium ion secondary battery (¶ [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.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda as applied to claim 13, above, and further in view of Seol et al. (US 2018/0159131 A1), hereinafter “Seol.”
Regarding claim 14, Shinoda does not disclose that the dispersant includes a nonionic polymer. However, Seol teaches an electrode-forming composition that includes a nonionic polymeric dispersant, in this case polyvinylpyrrolidone (¶ [0091]-[0092]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a nonionic polymer in the dispersant would have improved the dispersion efficiency of the conductive agent (¶ [0091]), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included a nonionic polymer in the dispersant in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Regarding claim 15, Shinoda does not disclose that the nonionic polymer is polyvinylpyrrolidone. However, Seol teaches an electrode-forming composition that includes a nonionic polymeric dispersant, in this case polyvinylpyrrolidone (¶ [0091]-[0092]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a nonionic polymer in the dispersant would have improved the dispersion efficiency of the conductive agent (¶ [0091]), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included polyvinylpyrrolidone in the dispersant in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Regarding claim 16, Shinoda is silent as to the dispersant loading. However, Seol teaches including the dispersant at a loading of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the active material (¶ [0094]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing the dispersant at such a loading would have improved the dispersion efficiency of the conductive agent (¶ [0091]), thereby facilitating improved electrode performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the dispersant at a loading of 0.001 wt% to 1 wt% in order to have facilitated improved electrode performance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda as applied to claim 19, above, and further in view of Finsy et al. (US 2022/0278362 A1), hereinafter “Finsy.”
Regarding claim 20, Shinoda does not disclose an all solid-state battery. However, Finsy teaches that fluorinated binders (¶ [0019]) are suitable for solid state batteries (e.g., ¶ [0029]-[0030]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that including the electrode disclosed by Shinoda in the solid state battery taught by Finsy would have yielded the predictable result of a functional solid state battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the electrode of claim 18 in a solid state battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are 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: no prior art reference could be found that fairly teaches or suggests an electrode-forming composition comprising an organic compound, a fluorinated binder, a conductive carbon material, and an active material where the organic compound has a weight-average molecular weight from 250 to 2,000.000 as required by claim 10 or the monomers recited in claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1
1.5
w
t
%
b
i
n
d
e
r
*
20
w
t
%
f
l
u
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
100
w
t
%
b
i
n
d
e
r
=
0.3
w
t
%
f
l
u
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
2
1.5
w
t
%
b
i
n
d
e
r
*
20
w
t
%
f
l
u
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
100
w
t
%
b
i
n
d
e
r
=
0.3
w
t
%
f
l
u
o
r
i
n
a
t
e
d
p
o
l
y
m
e
r
Prosecution Insights