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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US-2024-0339617-A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 05APR2024, 06APR2026 and 10APR2026 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 13-15, “40,000 to 300,000” (line 7 of Claim 1 and line 8 of Claim 13) “400,000 to 2,000,000” (line 8 of Claim 1 and line 9 of Claim 13), “80,000 to 100,000” (line 2 of claims 4 and 14), and “800,000 to 1,000,000” (line 3 of claim 4 and line 2 of Claim 15) render the claim indefinite due to a lack of units associated with the quantity– the constraint surrounding this quantity is unclear. Units must be associated with all numerical values where necessary; the values may otherwise be meaningless without them. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the scope of the claimed invention, and the public would not be able to determine the boundaries of what constitutes infringement (see MPEP 2173, MPEP 2111.01(II)).
For examination on the merits, the terms “40,000 to 300,000” (line 7 of Claim 1 and line 8 of Claim 13) “400,000 to 2,000,000” (line 8 of Claim 1 and line 9 of Claim 13), “80,000 to 100,000” (line 2 of claims 4 and 14), and “800,000 to 1,000,000” (line 3 of claim 4 and line 2 of Claim 15) is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification (MPEP 2111, MPEP 2111.01(I), (II)).
Claims 2, 3, 5-12 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of claim 1 identified hereinabove.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-3, 6-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerlau (US-20150104712-A1; “Kerlau”) in view of Yang (US-20150125747-A1; “Yang”) as evidenced by Hirose (JP-2016066529-A; “Hirose”), a machine translation of which is being made of record and is used as the citation copy throughout this rejection.
Regarding Claims 1 and 13, Kerlau teaches lithium ion (secondary) batteries (an electronic apparatus) with a case (housing) made of aluminum, aluminum alloys and 300-series stainless steel (metal) [0201]. Kerlau teaches a negative electrode [0015] with a negative electrode active material layer [0027] containing a binder [0130]. Kerlau teaches the binder may be a mixture of styrene-butadiene rubber and polyacrylic acid [0141]. Kerlau teaches the binder polymers have a weight average molecular weight of 200,000 to 3,000,000 [0141], which overlaps with the claimed range of 40,000 to 300,000 for the weight-average molecular weight of the first binder and 400,000 to 2,000,000 for the weight-average molecular weight of the second binder.
Kerlau does not teach the mass percentage of the first binder based on a mass of the binder.
Yang teaches in the anode active material layer polyacrylic acid and styrene-butadiene rubber binders [0026], in a ratio of 2:8 to 5:5 of polyacrylic acid: styrene-butadiene rubber [0051, 0064], which falls within the claimed range of 10% to 90% of styrene-butadiene rubber based on a mass of the binder. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). Yang also teaches the binder is for an anode (negative electrode) [0009] that also has an anode active material [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion secondary battery of Kerlau by utilizing a ratio of 2:8 to 5:5 of polyacrylic acid: styrene-butadiene rubber in the anode active material layer as taught by Yang [0064]. Kerlau and Yang each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries.
Yang provides the adequate motivation for incorporating these features readily known in the art by teaching that if the weight ratio of the water-based binder – which may be styrene-butadiene rubber [0064] - exceeds the upper limit of such range, the mechanical property of the electrode active material layer may be improved, but the resistance thereof may increase. Also, if the weight ratio of the thermally cross-linkable polymer binder exceeds the upper limit of such range, the mechanical property of the electrode active material layer may decrease and the stability of the electrode active material slurry may be deteriorated. Therefore, when such weight ratio range is satisfied, the cross-linked polymer network can be formed in an appropriated amount, thereby relieving the volume expansion of the anode active material layer [0063], which is the stated motivation of the applicant (Specification, [0003]).
Kerlau teaches the concentration of reinforcing structure-polymer in the solution depends on the weight average molecular weight of the polymer and will be readily determined by a skilled man [0093], providing the motivation to change the weight average molecular weight of the binder polymer to best work with the concentration of reinforcing structure-polymer [0141]. In addition, regarding molecular weights, Hirose teaches when the molecular weight of polyacrylic acid is 500,000 or more and 1.25 million or less, particularly good maintenance ratio and initial efficiency are obtained. If the molecular weight is 500,000 or more, the electrode structure can be reliably prevented from being destroyed. Further, when the molecular weight is 1.25 million or less, the slurry viscosity does not become too high, and as a result, the solid content can be increased, so that an optimum slurry can be obtained (second full paragraph of Page 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the molecular weight of both binders in Kerlau for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Moreover, because the effect of molecular weight on viscosity, electrode structure, maintenance ratio and initial efficiency is documented, there is no evidence indicating the binder polymers molecular weight is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges in molecular weights of the first and second binders disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379.
Regarding Claim 2, Yang teaches polyacrylic acid and styrene-butadiene rubber [0027], in a ratio of 2:8 to 5:5 [0026], which falls within the claimed range of 20% to 80% based on a mass of the binder. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang teaches polyacrylic acid and styrene-butadiene rubber [0027], in a ratio of 2:8 to 5:5 [0026], which overlaps the claimed range of 40% to 60% based on a mass of the binder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379.
Regarding Claims 6, Kerlau teaches that the first active material comprises 2 to 10 wt% binder based on the total weight of the active material layer [0141], which falls within the claimed range of 1% to 10% based on a mass of the negative electrode material layer. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claim 7, Kerlau teaches that the first active material comprises 2 to 10 wt% binder based on the total weight of the active material layer [0141], which overlaps the claimed range of 3% to 7% based on a mass of the negative electrode material layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379.
Regarding Claim 8, Kerlau teaches that the active material layer of the negative electrode comprises silicon oxide ([0015], [0147], [0149]). Kerlau teaches that the negative electrode active material may also comprise electroactive carbon materials such as graphite [0130].
Regarding Claim 9-10, Kerlau teaches that the active material layer of the negative electrode comprises 16 wt% of silicon (based on a mass of the negative electrode active material) ([0015], [0147]), which falls within the claimed ranges of 3% to 70% from Claim 9 and 10% to 50% from Claim 10. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Kerlau teaches a case for lithium-ion cells (secondary battery) made of aluminum, aluminum alloys, titanium alloys (metal alloys) and 300-series stainless steel (metal housing) [0201]. Furthermore, Kerlau teaches the wound cell may be inserted into a cylindrical case [0200].
Regarding Claim 15, Kerlau teaches that a polyacrylic acid binder has a weight average molecular weight of 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 [0148], which overlaps with the claimed range of 800,000 to 1,000,000. Kerlau teaches the binder may be a mixture of styrene-butadiene rubber and polyacrylic acid [0141]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges in molecular weights of the first and second binders disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerlau (US-20150104712-A1; “Kerlau”) in view of Yang (US-20150125747-A1; “Yang”) and Kimura (JP-2011210668-A; “Kimura”), a machine translation of which is being made of record and is used as the citation copy throughout this rejection, as evidenced by Hirose (JP-2016066529-A; “Hirose”) and further in view of Ota (JP-2012212546-A; “Ota”), a machine translation of which is being made of record and is used as the citation copy throughout this rejection.
Kerlau in view of Yang as evidenced by Hirose teach the limitations of Claim 1 and 13 as discussed above.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Kerlau teaches lithium ion (secondary) batteries (an electronic apparatus) with a case (housing) made of aluminum, aluminum alloys and 300-series stainless steel (metal) [0201]. Kerlau teaches a negative electrode [0015] with a negative electrode active material layer [0027] containing a binder [0130]. Kerlau teaches the binder may be a mixture of styrene-butadiene rubber and polyacrylic acid [0141]. Kerlau teaches that binder polymers have a weight average molecular weight of 200,000 to 3,000,000 [0141], which overlaps with the claimed range of 400,000 to 2,000,000 for the weight-average molecular weight of the second binder. Kerlau teaches that a polyacrylic acid binder has a weight average molecular weight of 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 [0148], which overlaps with the claimed range of 800,000 to 1,000,000.
Kerlau does not teach the mass percentage of the first binder based on a mass of the binder nor the molecular weight of the first binder, styrene-butadiene rubber polymers in the range of 80,000 to 100,000.
Yang teaches in the anode active material layer polyacrylic acid and styrene-butadiene rubber binders [0026], in a ratio of 2:8 to 5:5 of polyacrylic acid: styrene-butadiene rubber [0051, 0064], which falls within the claimed range of 10% to 90% of styrene-butadiene rubber based on a mass of the binder. Prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping, or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP 2131.03 and Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). Yang also teaches the binder is for an anode (negative electrode) [0009] that also has an anode active material [0020].
Yang does not teach the molecular weight of the first binder, styrene-butadiene rubber polymers.
Kimura teaches styrene-butadiene rubber with a weight-average molecular weight of 120,000 in the negative electrode active layer (second full paragraph of Page 12). Moreover, Kimura teaches styrene butadiene rubber with a weight average molecular weight between 100,000 and 1,000,000, which overlaps with the claimed range of 80,000 to 100,000 (first paragraph of Page 7). Kimura teaches that the active material layer may also include polyacrylic acid (fourth full paragraph of Page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lithium-ion secondary battery of Kerlau in view of Yang as evidenced by Hirose by utilizing styrene-butadiene rubber with a weight-average molecular weight of 100,000 in the negative electrode active material layer as taught by Kimura. Kimura constitutes prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by falling in the same field of endeavor of batteries. Kimura seeks to improve battery performance in terms of both low-temperature characteristics and cycle characteristics (third full paragraph of Page 14), the stated goal of the Applicant (Specification, [0003]).
Kerlau teaches the concentration of reinforcing structure-polymer in the solution depends on the weight average molecular weight of the polymer and will be readily determined by a skilled man [0093], providing the motivation to change the weight average molecular weight of the binder polymer to best work with the concentration of reinforcing structure-polymer [0141] as is readily known in the art. In addition, regarding molecular weights, Hirose teaches when the molecular weight of polyacrylic acid is 500,000 or more and 1.25 million or less, particularly good maintenance ratio and initial efficiency are obtained. If the molecular weight is 500,000 or more, the electrode structure can be reliably prevented from being destroyed. Further, when the molecular weight is 1.25 million or less, the slurry viscosity does not become too high, and as a result, the solid content can be increased, so that an optimum slurry can be obtained (second full paragraph of Page 17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the molecular weight of both binders in Kerlau for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Moreover, because the effect of molecular weight on viscosity, electrode structure, maintenance ratio and initial efficiency is documented, there is no evidence indicating the binder polymers molecular weight is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges in molecular weights of the first and second binders disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379.
Moreover, Ota teaches that mixing two components having the same composition and different molecular weights causes the free volume in the polymer to increase, the segment motion to become active, contributing to high ionic conductivity (eighth full paragraph of Page 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ionic conductivity in the polymer binders to meet the cycle and rate characteristics of the lithium secondary battery, as taught by Ota (second full paragraph of Page 9) in the context of styrene-butadiene random copolymer (first full paragraph of Page 4), for example.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerlau (US-20150104712-A1; “Kerlau”) in view of Yang (US-20150125747-A1; “Yang”) as evidenced by Hirose (JP-2016066529-A; “Hirose”), Bartosz (“22 Different Types of Rubber”; “Bartosz”) and Scientific Polymer Products Inc. (“Poly(acrylic acid)”; “Scientific Polymer Products Inc.”).
Kerlau in view of Yang as evidenced by Hirose teach the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Additionally, as described above, Kerlau teaches a styrene-butadiene copolymer, and such polymers are known to read on the claimed formulas.
Bartosz teaches the following molecular structure for styrene-butadiene, wherein R4 – R10 of Claim 5 are all Hydrogens, matching structure units B and C:
[AltContent: textbox (Structure Unit C)][AltContent: textbox (Structure Unit B)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
458
1125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1, Duplicated from Page 10 of Bartosz
Scientific Polymer Products Inc. teaches the following molecular structure for polyacrylic acid, wherein R1 – R3 of Claim 5 are all Hydrogens, matching structure unit A:
PNG
media_image2.png
323
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2, Duplicated from Page 2 of Scientific Polymer Products, Inc.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-2018013131-A1 to Yamamoto S. teaches that poly (acrylic acid) preferably has a weight-average molecular weight in the range of 500,000 to 10,000,000; teaches a weight-average molecular weight in this range results in slower gelation of a negative-electrode mixture slurry containing the partially neutralized poly (acrylic acid), thus making it easy to manufacture a negative electrode plate [0028]
KR-20200132721-A to Kim H., a machine translation of which is being made of record and is used as the citation copy throughout this rejection, teaches a main dispersant with a weight average molecular weight of 10,000 to 500,000 g/mol (first full paragraph of Page 7) and an auxiliary dispersant with a weight average molecular weight of 800 to 50,000 g/mol (first full paragraph of Page 9) for an electrode in a lithium secondary battery (second full paragraph of Page 1) including styrene-butadiene rubber (second full paragraph of Page 12)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-0315. The examiner can normally be reached 8a.m.-5p.m..
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE/
Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights