DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 102
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR20230069510) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a binder for a lithium secondary battery ([0001]) comprising a mixture of dextran (chitosan CS [0010], [0028]) and gallic acid (GA [0028]) obtained through physical stirring. The instant claim includes a recitation describing the manner in which the binder is formed: by physical stirring. Said recitation appears to be product-by-process language. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the dextran and the gallic acid form a chemical bond through the physical stirring(hydrogen bonds [0045]). The instant claim includes a recitation describing the manner in which the binder is formed: by physical stirring. Said recitation appears to be product-by-process language. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the chemical bond between the dextran and the gallic acid comprises a hydrogen bond([0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the chemical bond between the dextran and the gallic acid comprises a covalent bond through polymerization([0045], [0055]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the binder is prepared by adding the gallic acid to a dextran solution, followed by the physical stirring([0022]). The instant claim includes a recitation describing the manner in which the binder is formed: by physical stirring. Said recitation appears to be product-by-process language. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the mixture of the dextran and the gallic acid forms a multidimensional contact with an anode active material([0018], [0052], [0075]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses an anode for the lithium secondary battery comprising the binder of claim 1([0033], [0096]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim a lithium secondary battery ([0001], [0021]) comprising a binder including a mixture of dextran and gallic acid ([0028], [0084]) obtained through physical stirring. The instant claim includes a recitation describing the manner in which the binder is formed: by physical stirring. Said recitation appears to be product-by-process language. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113.
5. Claim(s) 8, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevenson et al. (US 4,391,642).
Regarding claim 8, Stevenson discloses a method of preparing a binder (claim 1) for a lithium secondary battery comprising: dissolving dextran in a solvent to form a dextran solution(claim 1, Col. 4, lines 45-49); adding gallic acid to the dextran solution(claim 1, Col. 4, lines 45-49); and after the adding of the gallic acid to the dextran solution, physically mixing the dextran solution including the added gallic acid to form a mixture(claim 1). Regarding the preamble language “for a lithium secondary battery” this language does not appear to limit structure but does appear to recite a purpose or intended use. According to MPEP § 2111.02, “[i]f the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. As it applies to the instant claim, the preamble appears to merely state the purpose or intended use of the invention. As such, the preamble per se is not considered a limitation. (Id.)
Regarding claim 9, Stevenson discloses the solvent is a polar solvent comprising water(Col. 4, lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 11, Stevenson discloses the physically mixing is performed by stirring after the adding of the gallic acid to the dextran solution(Col. 4, lines 45-49).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20230069510) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses GS-CS is expected to contribute to extending cycle life by more effectively accommodating rapid volume changes of silicon electrodes during lithiation and delithiation processes and suppressing electrode collapse due to the strong adhesion of GA in addition to solubility in aqueous solution ([0029]) but does not explicitly disclose a weight of the gallic acid is 4 to 6 wt %, based on 100 wt % of a total weight of the mixture of the dextran and the gallic acid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the binder of Kim with a weight of the gallic acid is 4 to 6 wt %, based on 100 wt % of a total weight of the mixture of the dextran and the gallic acid in order to balance lithiation and delithiation processes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
9. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20230069510) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claims 1 and 15 above.
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses Si electrodes based on the fabricated CS-GA binder showed excellent adhesion strength, charge capacity, cycling and rate capability performance and exhibited excellent resistant to volume expansion of Si([0030]) but does not explicitly disclose the anode has an adhesive strength, measured by 180° peel-off test, of 20 gf/mm or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the anode of Kim with the anode has an adhesive strength, measured by 180° peel-off test, of 20 gf/mm or more in order to balance cycling and rate capability performance and resistance to volume expansion of Si, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
10. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR20230069510) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses to further understand the excellent cycle characteristics and rate capacity of the Si@CS-GA binder electrode, the interfacial resistance of the Si@CS-GA and Si@C electrodes were measured at the first cycle and the 50th, 100th, and 150th cycles using the EIS measurement method ([0076]) but does not explicitly disclose the lithium secondary battery has a resistance of 30 Ω or less after 50 repeated charge/discharge cycles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery of Kim with the lithium secondary battery has a resistance of 30 Ω or less after 50 repeated charge/discharge cycles in order to maintain excellent cycle characteristics and rate capacity.
11. Claim(s) 10, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 4,391,642) as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 10, Stevenson discloses the dextran and the gallic acid during the physically mixing are mixed such that a weight of the gallic acid is 0.1 to 10% by weight (claim 1) which overlaps the claim range of 4 to 6 wt % based on a total weight of 100 wt % of the mixture, thus reading on the limitation.
Stevenson is explicitly silent to the claimed range however “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). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Stevenson does not explicitly disclose a temperature of the dextran solution during the physically mixing is 30 to 50° C (claim 12) and a time of the stirring during the physically mixing is 11 to 13 hours(claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of Stevenson with disclose a temperature of the dextran solution during the physically mixing is 30 to 50° C and a time of the stirring during the physically mixing is 11 to 13 hours in order to balance bond formation and completion of reaction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05 (II-A).
12. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (US 4,391,642) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Kim et al. (KR20230069510) with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 14, Stevenson discloses the binder composition useful for bonding materials such as silica (Col. 5, lines 11-14) but does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
casting the mixture onto an electrode; and drying the electrode after the casting.
Kim teaches water soluble binder including chitosan grafted gallic acid for silicon anodes and lithium ion battery containing the same (title). Kim teaches casting the mixture onto an electrode; and drying the electrode after the casting([0031], [0058], [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Stevenson with casting the mixture onto an electrode; and drying the electrode after the casting as taught by Kim as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights