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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2024/0274780 A1), hereinafter “Shin”, in view of Shanghai 3F FR002A data sheet (dated 25 Jan. 2007 as accessed through the WayBack Machine, https://web.archive.org/web/20070125173907/http:/www.sh3f.com:80/sfinternet/html/product/chanpin/cn/fusuliao/a008_FR002A.pdf?GXHC_GX_jst=fc7f7070662d6164&GXHC_gx_session_id_=90e1fa5d73a5c2c6&), hereinafter “3F”, and evidenced by Liu et al. (Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 2015, 109, 1-5), hereinafter “Liu”, wherein, an English Google image translation of 3F is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches an electrode (Shin, [0001]), a current collector (corresponding to the claimed core), and a dry electrode film (corresponding to the claimed mixture sheet) laminated onto the surface of the current collector (corresponding to the claimed bonding of the mixture sheet on a surface of the core) (Shin, [0100]), wherein the dry electrode film includes an active material and a binder and the binder is fibrillized (corresponding to the claimed fibrillated fibrous binder) (Shin, [0061]).
The examiner notes that claim 1 and its dependents are drawn to a product and not a means of measuring, thus the recitation “as determined by X-ray diffractometry” is given patentable weight only insofar as it provides structural implications for the product and not for the actual manipulations involved therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claimed measurement steps merely imply the claimed binder crystallite range as determined by any measurement method capable of doing so.
Shin is silent to crystallite size of the binder.
However, Shin discloses the binder may be polytetrafluoroethylene and 3F teaches a polytetrafluoroethylene micro powder FR002A (hereinafter FR002A) that possesses excellent heat resistance, chemical stability, and is easily and uniformly blended with other materials (3F, par. 1). Furthermore, Liu discloses the crystallite size of FR002A is 29.0 nm (Liu, pg. 2 col. 1 par. 2, Table 1). 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 Shin’s binder with the FR002A of 3F in order to provide Shin’s dry electrode film with excellent heat resistance and chemical stability and to allow for easy and uniform blending with the active material (3F, par. 1). The resulting dry electrode film would further satisfy the claimed limitation of the binder having a crystallite size of 20 to 32 nm as evidenced by Liu (Liu, Table 1).
Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches the content of the binder may be 0.1 – 10 % inclusive based on the total weight of the electrode composition, which overlaps with the claimed binder content range in the mixture sheet. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Shin teaches the binder may be polytetrafluoroethylene (Shin, [0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Shin modified by 3F and evidenced by Liu suggests an electrode including all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Shin further discloses the use of the electrode in a secondary battery (corresponding to the claimed non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery) with a lithium-containing non-aqueous electrolyte (Shin, [0030]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of 3F and evidenced by Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanihara et al. (US 9,960,409), hereinafter “Tanihara”.
Regarding claim 3, Shin modified by 3F and evidenced by Liu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose the claimed binder content ratio between three equal regions. Shin also discloses that the dry electrode film may be laminated onto a current collector by roll pressing at a temperature of 20 – 200 °C but is silent to other conditions of the process.
Tanihara teaches a set of rolling conditions and that an electrode formed by said rolling conditions can provide a battery with a comparatively high capacity of 20 Ah or more. 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 add Tanihara’s conditions to the roll pressing lamination of Shin in order to provide a battery with a comparatively high capacity of 20 Ah or more (Tanihara, col. 13 ln. 28 – 31).
Instant Specification [0049]
Prio Art
the positive electrode mixture sheet and the core was pressed (linear pressure: 1 t/cm) by using two rollers at room temperature
The lamination roll functions to attach the dry electrode film to at least one surface of the current collector (Shin, [0108])
Roll linear pressure: 1 t/cm to 2 t/cm, Rolling temperature: 25 °CC (Tanihara (col. 13 ln. 30-45)
The thickness of the positive electrode was regulated within a range of 170 - 180 µm
distance between rolling rolls 30 - 120 µm (Tanihara (col. 13 ln. 30-45)
The density of the positive electrode active material was regulated to 3.6 g/cc
Positive electrode active material layer density: 1.5 to 4.5 g/cm3 inclusive. (Tanihara (col. 13 ln. 30-45)
The resulting electrode lamination roll pressing process suggested by Shin and Tanihara is substantially the same as that disclosed by the instant disclosure.
Thus, a range of (c – a)/(a + b + c) values overlapping with the claimed range would have flowed naturally from the teachings of Shin and Tanihara. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Yamada et al. (US 2024/0290982 A1), hereinafter “Yamada”.
Regarding claim 6, Shin teaches a method for manufacturing a dry electrode film (Shin, [0010]) including,
step S10 comprising preparing an electrode mixture powder (Shin, [0051]) by mixing an electrode active material and a binder, wherein Shin’s disclosure is directed to providing a dry electrode using no solvent (corresponding to the claimed electrode mixture having a solids content of 100 %) (Shin, [0059]);
step S20 forming an electrode film member (corresponding to the claimed mixture sheet) by roll pressing (corresponding to the claimed rolling) the electrode mixture powder (Shin, [0091]);
a step of laminating the dry electrode film on one surface of a current collector (corresponding to the claimed core) by pressing and attaching (corresponding to the claimed bonding onto the surface of the core).
Shin does not disclose a reduction rate of the binder crystallite size during fibrillization.
However, the instant specification discloses an example method wherein the binder is fibrillated by mixing at room temperature for 1 minute at 28,000 rpm resulting in a reduction rate of the binder crystallite size by 4 % (instant specification, [0047], [0050]). Shin teaches the binder fibrilization may be carried out by high-shear mixing (Shin, [0073]) and provides a time range of 0.5 – 2 minutes for the mixing (Shin, [0060]), which overlaps with the time disclosed in the example from the instant specification. Yamada teaches mixing of a raw material containing a binder and an electrode active material at 1,000 – 30,000 RPM to prevent fibril formation proceeding excessively leading to an electrode mixture sheet having poor strength and flexibility without adversely affecting production due to slow mixing speeds. Yamada also discloses carrying out the mixing at 20 degrees or less to suppress heat generation (Yamada, [0194]). 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 add the mixing conditions of Yamada to the high-shear mixing step of Shin to ensure Shin’s electrode film member maintains its strength and flexibility without slowing production and to suppress heat generation during mixing (Yamada, [0194]).
The mixing method of Shin modified by Yamada is substantially the same as that disclosed by the instant specification.
Instant specification [0047]
Prior Art
28,000 RPM
RPM : 1,000 – 30,000 (Yamada, [0194])
Room temperature
≤ 20 °C (Yamada, [0194])
1 minute
0.5 – 2 minutes (Shin, [0060])
Thus, an overlapping binder crystallite reduction rate would have flowed naturally from the teachings of Shin and Yamada. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Shin teaches microparticles of binder, which may be polytetrafluoroethylene, with a diameter of 10 – 2,000 µm (Shin, [0057], [0061]), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Yamada as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of 3F and evidenced by Liu.
Regarding claim 7, Shin teaches the binder may be polytetrafluoroethylene (Shin, [0061]) but does not disclose a binder crystallite size after fibrillation.
However, 3F teaches polytetrafluoroethylene FR002A as described above regarding claim 1, and that FR002A possesses excellent heat resistance, chemical stability, and is easily and uniformly blended with other materials (3F, par. 1). 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 Shin’s polytetrafluoroethylene with FR002A in order to construct an electrode with excellent heat resistance and chemical stability and to allow for easy blending of the binder with the active material in the first step (3F, par. 1).
Liu further evidences that FR002A has a crystallite size of 29 nm (Liu, pg. 2 col. 1 par. 2, Table 1).
Thus, Shin modified by Yamada and 3F and evidenced by Liu suggest an electrode film member wherein the fibrillization of the binder is performed in substantially the same manner as that of the instant disclosure’s example 1 (as discussed regarding claim 6 above) and thus, a reduction rate overlapping with the 4 % reduction rate of the instant example 1 would naturally flow from the teachings of Shin, Yamada, 3F, and Liu. For the 29 nm crystallites of FR002A, a 4 % reduction rate would result in a crystallite size of 27.84 nm (as calculated by the examiner), and thus, a reduction rate range overlapping with the 4 % reduction rate of the instant example 1 would provide a crystallite size range overlapping with 27.84 nm (which lies within the claimed range) for the 29.0 nm crystallites of FR002A. Therefore, the crystallite size range after fibrillization suggested by Shin, Yamada, and 3F and further evidenced by Liu would overlap with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 5-7 of Application No. 19/153,696. Claim 2 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 7 of Application No. 19/153,696. Claim 3 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 5 of Application No. 19/153,696. Claim 4 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 6 of Application No. 19/153,696. Claim 5 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 4 of Application No. 19/153,696. Claims 6-8 of this application is patentably indistinct from claim 1 of Application No. 19/153,696. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-7 of copending Application No. 19/153,696 in view of 3F and evidenced by Liu.
Regarding claim 1, claims 5-7 of the 696 application recite all the limitations of the instant claim 1 (see also claim 5 of the 696 application) except the claimed crystallite size.
However, 3F teaches a polytetrafluoroethylene micropowder FR002A, and that FR002A possesses excellent heat resistance, chemical stability, and is easily and uniformly blended with other materials (3F, par. 1) and Liu discloses a crystallite size of 29.0 nm for FR002A (Liu, pg. 2 col. 1 par. 2, Table 1). 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 FR002A for the 629 application’s fibrous binder in order to construct an electrode with excellent heat resistance and chemical stability and to allow for easy blending of the binder with the active material in the first step (3F, par. 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 19/153,696 in view of 3F and evidenced by Liu as applied to claim 1 above because the claims overlap with the instant claim 2.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 3 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 19/153,696 in view of 3F and evidenced by Liu as applied to claim 1 above because the recited claims overlap.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-7 of copending Application No. 19/153,696 in view of 3F and evidenced by Liu as applied to claim 1 above because the recited claims overlap.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 19/153,696 in view of 3F and evidenced by Liu.
Regarding claim 5, claim 8 of the 696 application recites all the limitations of the instant claim 5 (see also claim 5 of the 696 application) except the binder crystallite size.
However, 3F teaches FR002A, which possesses excellent heat resistance, chemical stability, and is easily and uniformly blended with other materials (3F, par. 1). Liu further discloses a crystallite size of 29.0 nm for FR002A (Liu, pg. 2 col. 1 par. 2, Table 1). 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 FR002A for the 629 application’s fibrous binder in order to construct an electrode with excellent heat resistance and chemical stability and to allow for easy blending of the binder with the active material in the first step (3F, par. 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/153,696 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of the 696 application recites all the limitations of the instant claim 1 except the claimed reduction rate range.
However, the fibrillization methods of the 696 application and the instant disclosure are substantially the same. Thus, a reduction rate range overlapping with the instantly claimed reduction rate range would have flowed naturally from the 696 application. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/153,696 as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of 3F and evidenced by Liu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of the 696 application recites all the limitations of the instant claim 7 except the crystallite size range after fibrillization.
However, 3F teaches FR002A, and that FR002A possesses excellent heat resistance, chemical stability, and is easily and uniformly blended with other materials (3F, par. 1) and Liu discloses a crystallite size of 29.0 nm for FR002A (Liu, pg. 2 col. 1 par. 2, Table 1). 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 FR002A for the 629 application’s fibrous binder in order to construct an electrode with excellent heat resistance and chemical stability and to allow for easy blending of the binder with the active material in the first step (3F, par. 1).
The 696 application and the instant disclosure provide fibrillization methods substantially the same as each other, thus a reduction rate range overlapping with the claimed 4 – 40 % and in turn a range of crystallite sizes overlapping with the instant claim 7, would flow naturally from the 696 application. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 8 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/153,696 in view of 3F and evidenced by Liu as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shin.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of the 696 application modified by 3F and evidenced by Liu recites all the limitations of the instant claim 8 except the initial binder particle sizes.
However, Shin teaches binder particles with a diameter in the range of 10 – 2,000 µm form films with uniform thickness and density ensuring excellent physical properties (Shin, [0057]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add Shin’s particle range to the binder of the 696 application’s claim 1 in order to produce a uniform electrode film with excellent physical properties (Shin, [0057]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jin et al. (CN 112164797 A) teaches a method similar to claim 6. Sugihara (US 2018/0219249) teaches a rolling method similar to the instant disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2024/0014396) and Kushida et al. (US 2023/0006245) teach binder nanoparticle ranges overlapping with claims 1 and 7 but do not specifically disclose crystallinity. Hong et al. (US 2021/0005861) and Fujii (US 2024/0030442) teach crystallite sizes below 10 nm.
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