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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of prosecution, the examiner interprets substantially free of conventional solvent to mean free of conventional solvent, wherein “conventional solvent” is interpreted to be a liquid substance in which solid components of the slurry are dispersed as described in the instant specification ([0008]).
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 1-7, 10, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jo et al. (US 2026/0171470 A1), hereinafter “Jo”.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Jo teaches an anode mixture slurry (corresponding to the claimed battery electrode precursor) for manufacturing an anode (corresponding to the claimed method of making a battery electrode) ([0038]), also referred to by Jo as an anode composite slurry, which is manufactured by mixing components (corresponding to claim 10’s claimed providing of the battery electrode precursor composition comprises mixing) including an anode active material (corresponding to the claimed electrochemically active material) and a photocurable binder (corresponding to the claimed polymerizable binder precursor) ([0063]);
applying the anode mixture slurry (corresponding to the claimed processing of the battery electrode precursor) on an anode current collector (corresponding to the claimed current collector and the disposition of the battery electrode precursor thereon) ([0066]);
a curing process for polymerizing the photocurable binder (corresponding to the claimed transforming of the battery electrode precursor comprising polymerizing the polymerizable binder precursor) thereby binding the anode active material (corresponding to the claimed polymerizable binder precursor forming a binder upon polymerization) ([0068]).
Regarding claim 2, Jo further teaches the anode active material may use Si---C composites (corresponding to the claimed composition of the electrochemically active material being composite particles comprising silicon and carbon) ([0039]) which one skilled in the art would recognize would necessarily be in particulate form.
Regarding claim 3, Jo further teaches the anode composite slurry may include artificial graphite (corresponding to the claimed composition of the electrochemically active material comprising graphite) ([0054]).
Regarding claim 4, Jo further teaches the photocurable binder (corresponding to the claimed polymerizable binder precursor) is a monomer or oligomer (corresponding to the claimed polymerizable binder precursor comprising a monomer and/or an oligomer).
Regarding claim 5, Jo further teaches an example using polyethylene glycol diacrylate as a monomeric curable binder (corresponding to the claimed polymerizable binder precursor) and a viscosity of 50 cps at 25 °C for said binder (corresponding to the claimed liquid form of the polymerizable binder precursor at any temperature in a range of ~20 °C - ~30 °C) ([0089]).
Regarding clam 6, Jo further teaches the anode mixture slurry (corresponding to the claimed battery electrode precursor) may further include a photoinitiator (corresponding to the claimed polymerization initiator).
Regarding claim 7, Jo further teaches the anode composite slurry may include a conductive agent (corresponding to the claimed electrically conductive additive) ([0056]).
Regarding claim 15, Jo further teaches the curing process may be performed by UV light irradiation or electron beam irradiation ([0071]).
Regarding claim 16, Jo further teaches a rolling process (corresponding to the claimed densification of the battery electrode) which may make the anode mixture layer have a predetermined electrode density, understood by one skilled in the art as an increase in density due to compression. Jo discloses a sequence where the anode mixture slurry is dried before rolling and where the curing may take place after drying or after rolling and thus Jo’s process teaches the curing step (corresponding to the claimed transforming step) preceding the rolling step (corresponding to the claimed densification step) as claimed in the instant invention.
Regarding claim 17, Jo further teaches an anode (corresponding to the claimed battery electrode) manufactured from the anode mixture slurry (corresponding to the claimed battery electrode being made according to the method of claim 1) ([0002]) described above with regard to claim 1.
Claims 1, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fauteux (US 5,219,680 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Fauteux teaches a method of preparing a negative electrode for use in a rechargeable battery based on the intercalation of lithium ions (corresponding to the claimed method of making a battery electrode) (col. 1 ln. 65-68) including, preparing (corresponding to the claimed providing step) a mixture comprising uncross-linked polymer or unpolymerized monomer or oligomer (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed polymerizable binder precursor) and amorphous carbon (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed electrochemically active material) (col. 5 ln. 6-15), coating the mixture on a current collector (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed processing the battery electrode precursor composition disposed on a current collector) (col. 5 ln. 21-22) wherein a solvent casting technique may be used (corresponding to claim 12’s claimed processing by casting the battery electrode precursor composition onto the current collector) (col. 5 ln. 31), and the composition is cured (corresponding to claim 1’s transforming the battery electrode precursor by polymerizing) (col. 5 ln. 34).
Claims 1, 10, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Du et al. (US 2018/0323422 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 14, and 15, Du teaches a method for making electrodes for electrochemical devices involving mixing (corresponding to claim 1’s providing step and claim 10’s claimed providing of the battery electrode precursor composition comprises mixing the electrochemically active material and the polymerizable binder precursor) active material particles (corresponding to the claimed electrochemically active material) and radiation curable resin precursors (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed polymerizable binder precursor) then electrostatically spraying (corresponding to claim 1’s processing step and claim 14’s claimed processing of the battery electrode precursor by electrostatic spray coating) the electrode precursor mixture onto a current collector ([0028]) followed by radiation curing the electrode preform to cure the radiation curable precursors into resin (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed transforming of the battery electrode by polymerizing the polymerizable binder precursor) ([0029]) using electron beam radiation (corresponding to claim 15’s claimed polymerizing the polymerizable binder by electron beam treatment) ([0029]), or ultraviolet radiation (corresponding to claim 15’s claimed polymerizing the polymerizable binder by ultraviolet light treatment) ([0031]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Costantino et al. (US 2025/0015289 A1), hereinafter “Costantino”.
Regarding claim 2, Jo teaches an anode active material may comprise Si----C composites (Jo, [0039]), which one skilled in the art would recognize to be provided in powder form although Jo does not explicitly disclose a powder.
However, Costantino teaches an anode for lithium-based energy storage devices which is a silicon-carbon composite mixture (corresponding to the claimed electrochemically active material comprising composite particles of silicon and carbon) comprising a multimodal particle size distribution (Costantino, [0001]) and which may have an electrical conductivity in a range from 0.3 - 2 S/cm providing the electrode with low resistance and thus allowing a faster reaction of the Li-ions with the silicon-carbide composite mixture and increasing the charging speed of the lithium-ion cell (Costantino, [0098]. Thus, it would have been obvious to substitute the anode active material of Jo with the silicon-carbon composite mixture of Costantino in order to construct a battery with an increased charging speed (Costantino, [0098]).
Claims 1, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2024/0274780 A1), hereinafter “Shin”, in view of Jo.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, as interpreted based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue described above, Shin teaches a method for manufacturing a dry electrode film (Shin, [0010]) including:
a step preparing an electrode mixture powder (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed providing of a battery electrode precursor) (Shin, [0056]) which may include an electrode active material (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed electrochemically active material) and a binder resin (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed binder precursor) ([0056]);
a step comprising calendaring of the electrode mixture powder (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed processing of the battery electrode precursor) ([0091]) to obtain a strip-like dry electrode film (Shin, [0098]) which may be laminated onto a current collector (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed battery electrode precursor disposed on a current collector) (Shin, [0100]).
Shin does not teach the resin binder being polymerizable or a step transforming the electrode mixture powder by polymerization.
However, Jo teaches an anode mixture slurry for manufacturing a battery anode including a photocurable binder (corresponding to the claimed polymerizable binder precursor) (Jo, [0063]) and a step polymerizing the photocurable binder as described above (corresponding to the claimed transforming the battery electrode precursor by polymerizing) (Jo, [0068]). Jo further discloses the curing process may be performed on the dried anode mixture layer after flattening by rolling (Jo, [0069]). According to the process by Jo, the functional groups of the photocurable binder monomers or oligomers may form a three-dimensional network surrounding the silicon based anode active material which may increase the cross-linking density, thereby suppressing shrinkage and expansion of the volume of the silicon based anode active material during charging and discharging process, and further preventing the silicon-based anode active material from falling off (Jo, [0048]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Jo’s photocurable binder for Shin’s binder resin and add Jo’s curing step after Shin’s calendaring step to photocure Shin’s dry film as described by Jo (Jo, [0069]) in order to provide a more robust anode less susceptible to volume change as taught by Jo (Jo, [0048]).
Claim 1, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leblanc et al. (US 2009/0226635 A1), hereinafter “Leblanc”, in view of Jo.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Leblanc teaches a process for making positive electrodes for lithium based electrochemical cells (Leblanc, [0001]) including admixing a polyether polymer or copolymer (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed polymerizable binder), at least one lithium salt (corresponding to claim 9’s claimed Li salt), and at least one electrochemically active material (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed electrochemically active material) (Leblanc, [0008]) where the polyether polymer or copolymer may be cross-linkable;
coating the solution/suspension in the form of an electrode thin film onto an electrode support (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed processing the battery electrode precursor disposed on a current collector);
cross-linking of the polymer matrix is carried out thermally, by UV radiation, or with an electron beam (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed transforming the battery electrode comprising polymerizing the polymerizable binder).
Leblanc does not explicitly teach the transforming step occurring after the processing step.
However, Jo discloses a method for making a lithium ion battery electrode as described with regard to claim 1 above. Jo further teaches that performing the curing operation (corresponding to the claimed transforming the battery electrode precursor by polymerizing) after application of the slurry to a current collector, heating, and then rolling (corresponding to the claimed processing the battery electrode precursor to be disposed on a current collector) may increase the light transmittance in the process of irradiating light for polymerization of the photocurable binder, thereby further improving the photopolymerization efficiency (Jo, [0069]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform Leblanc’s process such that coating the electrode thin film onto an electrode support preceded the cross-linking of the polymer matrix in order to more efficiently carry out the photopolymerization as taught by Jo (Jo, [0069]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukuda et al. (US 2019/0288289 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Jo teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed with regard to claim 1 in section 5 above, but is silent as to the making of gas bubbles in the battery electrode precursor composition.
However, Fukuda teaches a method for making a battery electrode comprising forming a slurry (corresponding to the claimed providing of the battery electrode precursor composition) including a negative electrode active material and a first binder (Fukuda, [0092]), then the prepared slurry is injected with gas bubbles (corresponding to the claimed making bubbles in the battery electrode precursor composition during the providing step) then applied to a negative electrode current collector (corresponding to the claimed processing the battery electrode precursor to be disposed on a current collector) (Fukuda, [0092]). The pore size of the reticulated structure finally obtained may be controlled by adjusting the size of the bubbles in the slurry (Fukuda, [0094]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make bubbles in the anode composite slurry taught by Jo in order to control the pore size of the product anode as taught by Fukuda (Fukuda, [0092]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Jo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lavoie et al. (US 2004/0159964 A1), hereinafter “Lavoie”.
Regarding claim 13, Shin further teaches the preparing of the electrode mixture powder comprises kneading then pulverizing (corresponding to the claimed to claim 13’s claimed granulating the battery electrode precursor composition during processing) the electrode active material and the resin binder (Shin, [0026]).
Shin does not teach extrusion of the electrode mixture powder and instead prefers calendaring to obtain a strip-like dry electrode film (Shin, [0098]).
However, Lavoie teaches extrusion of an electrode slurry in the form of a thin electrode sheet directly onto a current collector (Lavoie, [0015]) and that the production of composite cathode thin sheets is most efficient by melt extrusion through a slit die (Lavoie, [0027]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the calendaring process suggested by modified Shin with the extrusion process taught by Lavoie in order to more efficiently form thin electrode sheets (Lavoie, [0015]).
Claims 1, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 11,387,443 B1), hereinafter “Zhao”, in view of Kim et al. (US 7,981,543 B2), hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18, Zhao teaches a method for constructing a silicon-dominant anode (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed method of making a battery electrode) and a silicon-dominant anode made by the method (corresponding to claim 17’s claimed battery electrode made according to the method of claim 1), wherein the method includes mixing a solution comprising a polyamide-imide (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed binder) with silicon powder (corresponding to the claimed electrochemically active material) (Zhao, col. 8 ln. 18-28) then coating (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed processing step) on a copper foil (corresponding to claim 1’s claimed disposition of the electrode precursor on a current collector) (Zhao, col. 9 ln. 9-10). Zhao further teaches an embodiment having an areal capacity between 9 - 15 mAh/cm2 (corresponding to claim 18’s claimed areal capacity loading of ~2 - ~16 mAh/cm2) (Zhao, col. 13 ln. 50-52).
Zhao does not disclose a polymerizable binder precursor or a step polymerizing the said polymerizable binder precursor.
However, Kim teaches inclusion of polymerizable monomers in an electrode slurry (corresponding to the claimed polymerizable binder precursor) (Kim, col. 2 ln. 40-41) and the polymerization of the monomers (corresponding to the claimed transforming the battery electrode precursor by polymerizing) to completely interconnect and fix the constitutional elements of the battery electrode with each other in a three-dimensional network so that the constitutional elements remain static when the electrode active material shrinks and swells during charge/discharge cycles of the battery, and thus the battery can maintain its quality (Kim, col. 3 ln. 11-24). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute Zhao’s polyamide-imide with Kim’s monomers and add Kim’s polymerization step to Zhao’s method in order to produce a silicon dominant anode able to maintain its quality better over multiple charge/discharge cycles (Kim, col. 3 ln. 11-24).
Claims 1, 17, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yata et al. (US 8,110,303 B2), hereinafter “Yata”, in view of Kim.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Yata discloses a method of making a negative-electrode (corresponding to the claimed method of making a battery electrode) and a negative-electrode (corresponding to claim 17’s claimed battery electrode made according to the method of claim 1) made by the method, comprising mixing a slurry (corresponding to the claimed battery electrode precursor composition) graphitized mesocarbon microbeads (corresponding to the claimed electrochemically active material) with polyvinylidene fluoride (corresponding to the claimed binder) then applying and pressing (corresponding to the claimed processing the battery electrode precursor to be disposed on a current collector) the slurry to a copper foil (corresponding to the claimed current collector).
Yata does not teach a polymerizable binder or step transforming the electrode by polymerization.
However, Kim discloses an electrode slurry for a battery comprising an electrode active material and monomers (corresponding to the claimed polymerizable binder precursor) capable of forming a polymer via polymerization (Kim, col. 2 ln. 40-41). Kim teaches the polymerization of the monomers (corresponding to the claimed transforming the battery electrode precursor by polymerizing the polymerizable binder) to completely interconnect and fix the elements in a three-dimensional network allowing the battery to maintain its quality as the electrode active material swells and shrinks during repeated charge/discharge cycles (Kim, col. 3 ln. 11-24). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute Yata’s polymer resin with Kim’s monomers and to add Kim’s polymerization step to Yata’s method in order to provide a more robust battery capable of maintaining its quality across multiple charge/discharge cycles (Kim, col. 3 ln. 11-24).
Regarding claim 19, Yata further teaches a non-aqueous secondary battery (corresponding to the claimed lithium-ion battery) made with the negative-electrode described above with regard to claim 17 (corresponding to the claimed anode of claim 17 disposed on an anode current collector), positive-electrode current collectors (corresponding to the claimed cathode current collector) of the positive-electrode (corresponding to the claimed cathode disposed on the cathode current collector), and a non-aqueous electrolyte (corresponding to the claimed electrolyte) containing lithium salt, which one skilled in the art would recognize ionically couples the anode and the cathode.
Regarding claim 20, Yata further discloses a separator positioned between the positive and negative electrodes (corresponding to the claimed separator electrically separating the anode and cathode) (Yata, col. 8 ln. 11-17, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Yata further discloses an energy capacity of 91 Wh (corresponding to the claimed energy content range of about 1 Wh to about 2000 Wh) (Yata, col.12 ln. 10).
Regarding claim 22, 23, and 24, Yata teaches a method of making a secondary battery (corresponding to claim 23’s claimed method of making a lithium-ion battery) (Yata, col. 11 ln.1 - col. 12 ln. 15) and a battery formed by the method (corresponding to claim 24’s claimed lithium-ion battery made according to the method of claim 23) (Yata, col. 12 ln. 4) which has an energy capacity of 91 Wh (corresponding to claim 24’s claimed energy content range of the lithium-ion battery in the range of about 1 Wh to about 2000 Wh) (Yata, col. 12 ln. 10), wherein the method includes making eleven negative-electrodes according to the method disclosed with regard to claim 1 above (corresponding to claim 22’s claimed making a first electrode according to the method of claim 1 disposed on a current collector), making ten positive electrodes (corresponding to claim 22’s claimed second electrode) (Yata, col. 11 ln. 42-44) each deposited on aluminum foil (corresponding to claim 22’s claimed second electrode disposed on a second current collector) (Yata, col. 11 ln. 6-7), stacking the positive- and negative-electrodes with a separator held between each of the layers to form an electrode-stacked body (Yata, col. 11 ln. 42-47), then pouring a solution of LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate and diethyl carbonate (corresponding to the claimed electrolyte) through a vent hole as an electrolyte (Yata, col. 11 ln. 65 - col. 12 ln. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mattis et al. (US 10,431,819 B2) and (US 10,633,552 B2), and Hellring et al. (US 11,532,820 B2) and (US 9,385,374 B2) involve curable binder precursors and read on claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMRAN S SAUND whose telephone number is (571)270-0845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/SIMRAN S. SAUND/Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights