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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuzaki (US 2017/0352886 A1).
Regarding claims 1-12, Matsuzaki teaches a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode comprising a current collector and an electrode mixture layer disposed on a surface of the current collector, wherein the electrode mixture layer is formed from a composition including an active material such as lithium iron phosphate, a conductive aid and a binder comprising a polymer which is a lithium salt of carboxyl-group containing polymer ([0094]-[0100] & [0123]-[0129]); wherein the polymer has a neutralization degree of 70 mol% or higher ([0064]); a relative amount of a structural unit derived from a crosslinkable monomer in the polymer with respect to an entire amount of a structural unit derived from a monomer other than the crosslinkable monomer is 0.001 mol% to 2.5 mol% ([0056]); and a relative amount of a structural unit derived from an ethylenically unsaturated monomer having a carboxyl group in the polymer with respect to all the structural units of the polymer is 50 mass% or more ([0029]-[0035]). Matsuzaki further teaches a 1 mass% aqueous solution of the polymer has a viscosity of 1 mPa.s to 500 mPa.s at 25°C and a 3 mass% aqueous solution of the polymer has a viscosity of 50,000 mPa.s to 1,000,000 mPa.s at 25°C ([0065]-[0067]) but does not explicitly teach a 5 mass% aqueous solution of the polymer having a viscosity of 10,000 mPa.s or more at 25°C. However, since Matsuzaki teaches a binder polymer having the presently claimed composition, as noted above, the claimed property would be expected to be inherent in Matsuzaki’s binder. While Matsuzaki is silent as to the lithium ion secondary battery comprising a polymer solid electrolyte, “if 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. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)”. See MPEP 2112.02 II. Accordingly, the limitation in the preamble of “of a lithium ion secondary battery comprising a polymer solid electrolyte” is found to be a purpose or intended use recitation which does not further limit the structure or the composition of the claimed electrode binder and is thus not considered a claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki (US 2017/0352886 A1) in view of Kim (US 2019/0280332 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Matsuzaki teaches the lithium ion secondary battery of claim 13, wherein the electrolyte is a liquid non-aqueous electrolyte ([0128]) but is silent as to a polymer solid electrolyte. Kim teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a solid polymer electrolyte comprising a polymer such as polyethylene carbonate ([0015]-[0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a solid polymer electrolyte comprising a polymer such as polyethylene carbonate as a suitable alternative to liquid non-aqueous electrolytes since polymer solid electrolytes including polyethylene carbonate are environmental-friendly without problems such as liquid leakage while being able to be formed as thin film and can achieve an ionic conductivity as high as 10-3 S/cm which is on the order of liquid electrolytes as taught by Kim ([0004]-[0007]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights