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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 are 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.
In claim 1, lines 7-9 what are the metes-and-bounds of the term “proportion of an area”? For example, does this proportion of an area have to be continuous or can it be discontinuous? As claims 2-4 depend directly from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
In claim 1, lines 7-9, what are the metes-and-bounds of the term “an aggregated state”? For example, does this mean that the binder and conductive agent are assembled together? If so, what is the distance for defining what can be counted as assembled together and not assembled together? As claims 2-4 depend directly from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
In claim 1, lines 7-9, what are the metes-and-bounds of “image analysis of a cross section of the mixture layer”? What types of image analysis are included and excluded from this term? Is there a specific cross sectional plane that is required or is this intended to encompass all potential cross sections of the mixture layer? As claims 2-4 depend directly from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ahn et al. (US 2019/0020016, hereinafter “Ahn”; listed in the IDS filed 10 July 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising:
a positive electrode (see [0026]-[0029]);
a negative electrode (see [0042]-[0043]); and
a non-aqueous electrolyte (see [0042]-[0043]), wherein
the positive electrode has a core (equated to aluminum foil, see [0026]-[0029]) and a mixture layer formed on the core (mixture layer equated to slurry applied to aluminum foil, see [0026]-[0029]), and
the mixture layer includes a positive electrode active material (NCM, see [0026]-[0029]), a binder (PVdF, see [0026]-[0029]), and a conductive agent (carbon nanotubes, see [0026]-[0029]), and a proportion of an area of the binder and the conductive agent in an aggregated state determined by image analysis of a cross section of the mixture layer is less than or equal to 2.2% of an area of the cross section (Ahn teaches a method of making which is identical to that of the claimed invention (see rejection for claim 5 below), including using materials that are identical to the materials used by Applicant’s invention – NCM as the positive electrode active material (see [0026]-[0029]), PVdF as the binder (see [0026]-[0029]), and carbon nanotubes as the conductive agent (see [0026]-[0029])), and so it must follow that if the Applicant’s invention results in a proportion of an area of the binder and the conductive agent in an aggregated state determined by image analysis of a cross section of the mixture layer is less than or equal to 2.2% of an area of the cross section, then the battery of Ahn must also exhibit this feature as it is produced in an identical manner with identical materials).
If it is not taken that the limitation “and a proportion of an area of the binder and the conductive agent in an aggregated state determined by image analysis of a cross section of the mixture layer is less than or equal to 2.2% of an area of the cross section” is inherent in view of Ahn, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed because an image of a cross section, which is broad enough to encompass any cross section of the mixture layer with any possible scale, could intentionally be chosen that was absent of any binder and the conductive agent in an aggregated state. An image analysis of this cross section would show a proportion of the area of the binder and the conductive agent in an aggregated state to be 0%.
Regarding claim 4, Ahn teaches wherein the conductive agent is carbon nanotube (carbon nanotubes, see [0026]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Ahn teaches a method for manufacturing a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising a positive electrode (see [0026]-[0029]), a negative electrode (see [0042]-[0043]), and a non-aqueous electrolyte (see [0042]-[0043]), wherein the positive electrode has a core (equated to aluminum foil, see [0026]-[0029]) and a mixture layer formed on the core (mixture layer equated to slurry applied to aluminum foil, see [0026]-[0029]), the method including:
a step of preparing a positive electrode mixture slurry including a positive electrode active material (NCM, see [0026]-[0029]), a binder (PVdF, see [0026]-[0029]), a conductive agent (carbon nanotubes, see [0026]-[0029]), and a dispersion medium (NMP as solvent, see [0026]-[0029]); and
a step of applying the positive electrode mixture slurry on the core (see [0026]-[0029]), and drying and compressing a resulting coating film to form the mixture layer (see [0026]-[0029]),
wherein in preparing the positive electrode mixture slurry, a binder solution is produced in which at least a part of the binder is dissolved in the dispersion medium in advance (see [0027]), and the binder solution is mixed with a slurry precursor including the positive electrode active material, the conductive agent, and the dispersion medium (see [0028]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2019/0020016; listed in the IDS filed 10 July 2024).
Regarding claim 3, Ahn teaches values provided in Example 1 (see [0026]-[0029]). Calculating the total content of the binder and the conductive agent in Example 1 of Ahn provides a mass % of ((1.531g of carbon nanotubes + 4.592 g of PVdF) / (1.531g of carbon nanotubes + 4.592 g of PVdF + 300 g of NCM)) x 100 = 2.0 mass % based on a mass of the mixture layer. Though Ahn is silent to specifically teaching wherein this value is less than or equal to 1.5 mass%, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2018/0159126, hereinafter “Choi”; listed in the IDS filed 25 September 20253)3.
Regarding claim 2, Ahn teaches wherein a thickness of the positive electrode slurry layer is 20 μm (see [0026]-[0029]), and the positive electrode includes a core (aluminum foil, see [0026]-[0029], no thickness specified) and the slurry, but is silent to wherein a thickness of the positive electrode is greater than or equal to 150 μm.
Choi teaches an aluminum positive electrode collector (see [0055]), wherein the collector has a thickness of 3 µm to 500 µm (see [0056]).
In view of Choi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery of Ahn to include wherein a thickness of the positive electrode is greater than or equal to 150 µm, because it is a typical thickness for the positive electrode. Furthermore, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 29 September 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights