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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2023, 2/29/2024, 12/5/2024, 8/28/2025, 1/27/2026, and 5/29/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract reads nearly exact to the language of claim 1. Please write the abstract in plain, clear and concise English that sums up the invention. 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).
The substitute specification filed 12/26/2023 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: A clean copy has not been filed with the marked.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof and vice versa. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110229760 A1, HIDAKA et al. in view of CN112164799A PAN et al.
Regarding claim 1. HIDAKA [title] discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery electrode [abstract] binder, comprising at least:
[0019] carboxymethyl cellulose called carboxymethylcellulose and/or a salt thereof having a [0029-0030] degree of carboxymethyl substitution per anhydroglucose unit of “preferably 0.45 to most preferably 1.0 or less” [0079] example 1 discloses 0.87 which is within the instantly claimed range of 0.5 to 1.2 with sufficient specificity
[0032] a viscosity of a 1 % by mass aqueous solution measured with a B-type viscometer (30 rpm) at 25°C of 1,000 to 20,000 mPa-s;
HIDAKA does not disclose a borate salt.
PAN [title] discloses A Boron Cross-Linking Binder, Electrode Plate and Preparation Method where
PAN [0015] discloses “sodium metaborate or its hydrate, when combined with metal oxides to prepare negative electrode active materials, could significantly improve the charge-discharge stability of lithium battery negative electrode materials. However, further research revealed that metaborate and its hydrate can form a stable cross-linked structure with aqueous binders…” and the binder includes [0017] “any one or more of sodium alginate (SA), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and polyacrylic acid.” Carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) reading on the instantly claimed invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a borate salt with the CMC in a binder in order to create a crosslink thereby significantly improving the charge-discharge stability of the electrode materials.
Regarding claim 2. HIDAKA modified by PAN discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery electrode binder according to claim 1, wherein
PAN [0022] discloses the borate salt is contained in a range of 0.2 to 6%, which falls within the instantly claimed range of 0.1% to 20% by mass with respect to 100% by mass of a solid content of the carboxymethyl cellulose or the salt thereof.
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).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the range mass% borate salt disclosed by PAN in the binder disclosed by HIDAKA as the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3. HIDAKA modified by PAN discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery electrode binder according to claim 1,
The product-by-process limitations of claim 3 (wherein when 2 liters of a 0.3% by mass aqueous solution of the carboxymethylated cellulose or the salt thereof having dry mass B is prepared, and entirely filtered through a 250 mesh filter under a reduced pressure condition of -200 mmHg, and dry mass A of a residue on the filter after filtration is measured, the carboxymethylated cellulose or the salt thereof has a ratio of the dry mass A to the dry mass B of less than 50 ppm) are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). In this case HIDAKA discloses the CMC with the degree of substitution as is discuss above in claim 1
Regarding claim 4. HIDAKA modified by PAN discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery electrode binder according to claim 1, wherein
PAN [0015] discloses the borate salt contains at least one selected from sodium borate and lithium borate.
Regarding claim 5. HIDAKA modified by PAN discloses the binder for an electrode of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein
HIDAKA [0047] discloses the carboxymethyl cellulose or the salt has a particle size distribution of less than 50 µm which is obvious over a D90 of less than 100 µm, the D90 being a particle size at which 90% of particles are included when integrated from a minimum value, in a particle size distribution based on a volume average particle size measured by a laser diffraction/scattering particle size distribution meter using methanol as a dispersion medium.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the particle size distribution of HIDAKA fall within the claimed range of a D90 being less than 100µm.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110229760 A1, HIDAKA et al. in view of CN112164799A PAN et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20040170902 A1, INOUE et al.
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 8. HIDAKA modified by PAN discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery electrode composition, comprising: the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery electrode binder according to claim 1;
HIDAKA modified by PAN does not disclose a silicon-based compound.
INOUE [title] discloses A Nonaqueous Electrolyte Battery where
INOUE [0044] discloses a silicon-based compound
Silicone based electrode active materials are well known in the art as of the effective filing date
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a silicon-based active material in the electrode composition,
Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to have used this electrode composition in an electrode as meeting the limitations of claim 7 and to have used this electrode in the battery claimed in the limitations of claim 8 in the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170207445 A1, KITAJIMA et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights