DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/736625, “NEGATIVE ELECTRODE FOR RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY AND RECHARGEABLE LITHIUM BATTERY INCLUDING SAME”, was filed on 6/7/24 and is a Continuation-In-Part of application 16/889905 (patented as USP 12,021,239), which was filed with the USPTO on 6/2/20 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 6/3/2019.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 10/29/24.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 16/889905, filed on 6/2/20, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujino (US 2006/0099505).
Regarding claim 1 and 18, Fujino teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a negative electrode; a positive electrode including a positive active material; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Figure 6, paragraphs [0011, 0058, 0067]),
wherein the negative electrode is a negative electrode (e.g. Figure 1) comprising: a negative active material layer including a silicon (Si)-containing negative active material (item 12A, paragraph [0033]), and a binder (item 12B, paragraph [0029]),
wherein the binder includes an acryl copolymer (paragraph [0036], where the acrylic monomers are interpreted to be acryl monomers within an inventive polymer).
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 8-12, 14 and 16 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claims 8-12, 14 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fujino (US 2006/0099505) and Kim (US 2014/0186680).
Regarding claims 1-7 and 18, Regarding claim 1 and 18, Fujino teaches a rechargeable lithium battery, comprising: a negative electrode; a positive electrode including a positive active material; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Figure 6, paragraphs [0011, 0058, 0067]),
wherein the negative electrode is a negative electrode (e.g. Figure 1) comprising: a negative active material layer including a silicon (Si)-containing negative active material (item 12A, paragraph [0033]), and a binder (item 12B, paragraph [0029]),
wherein the binder includes an acrylic monomer comprising compounds (paragraph [0036]).
Fujino teaches a binder including acrylic monomers(paragraph [0036]) and further teaches that the binder should function as a cushion to absorb expansion and shrinkage of the anode active material in order to prevent cracking and separation (see abstract, paragraph [0014]).
However, Fujino does not appear to teach wherein the binder includes an acryl copolymer further including a cyano group-containing repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2, an amide group-containing first repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 1, and a sulfonate group-containing third repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 3.
In the battery art, Kim teaches a binder (e.g. Figure 1 item 5), wherein the binder is an acryl copolymer further including an amide group-containing first repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 1, a cyano group-containing second repeating unit represented by Chemical Formula 2, and a sulfonate group-containing third repeating unit (paragraph [0009] describes a binder which is a copolymer including a second monomer unit. Paragraph [0012] teaches that the second monomer unit may include “at least one of” amide, cyano, and sulfide containing monomers. Paragraph [0012] teaches various amide, cyano and sulfonate monomer units within the scope of the Chemical formulas 1, 2 and 3) Kim further teaches that the binder inhibits delamination and promotes stability and durability (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the negative electrode of Fujino by substituting the binder of Kim for the binder of Fujino for the benefit of incorporating a binder known to promote stability and durability as taught by Kim.
Such a modification merely requires the simple substitution of one known particulate binder for another to yield predictable results; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists accordance with MPEP 2141.
Regarding claim 9, Fujino and Kim remain as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches the binder having an exemplary molecular weight lying within the range of 200,000 to 700,000 (See last row of Table 1; paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Fujino and Kim remain as applied to claim 1. Fujino further teaches the binder included at 5 parts by mass (paragraph [0073]), thus it would have been obvious to use a binder content in the 3 to 20 wt% range in the combined embodiment.
Regarding claim 13, Fujino and Kim remain as applied to claim 1. Fujino further teaches wherein the negative active material includes Si (paragraph [0033]).
Claims 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fujino (US 2006/0099505), Kim (US 2014/0186680) and Adachi (WO 2019/065471 published 4/4/2019; citations taken from EP 3691004 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fujino and Kim remain as applied to claim 4. Kim does not expressly teach wherein the copolymer includes about 49.9 mol % to about 95 mol % of the first repeating unit, about 5 mol % to about 50 mol % of the second repeating unit, and about 0.1 mol % to about 20 mol % of the third repeating unit.
However, it has been held that generally differences in concentration or temperature will not support patentability unless there is evidence of criticality MPEP 2144.04 IIA. In this case, even if applicant’s Table 1 were found to suggest criticality, the content of the first repeating unit of the inventive embodiments is narrower in scope than the claimed range, thus, the evidence does not support criticality of the claimed invention.
Alternatively, in the battery art, Adachi teaches that a binder may be provided with 10-80 wt % of an amide unit for the benefit of balancing the materials characteristics of a polymer containing the monomer (paragraph [0038]; e.g. 53% at Example 3 of table 1-1). The actual concentration required for the lesser components is unclear because “about” may have a greater significance when only small amounts are required.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention configure the binder to include a large percent of amide unit relative to the cyano and sulfonate units for the benefit of providing desirable materials characteristics as taught by Adachi.
Regarding claim 14, Fujino remains as applied to claim 1. Fujino does not expressly teach wherein a thickness of the negative electrode is about 30 μm to about 120 μm.
In the battery art, Adachi teaches that a negative electrode may be configured to have a thickness of 80 μm (paragraph [0178]). A skilled artisan would have understood that a minimum functional thickness exists because the active material, which stores lithium ions to provide capacity to the battery, must have sufficient mass to give a desired capacity (paragraph [0111]). Moreover, Adachi further teaches that a compactness to the battery is desirable (paragraph [0145]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention configure negative electrode to have a thickness of 80 μm since this size provides an adequate balance of capacity and compactness in view of Adachi.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fujino (US 2006/0099505), Kim (US 2014/0186680) and Iida (US 2013/0288120).
Regarding claim 10, Fujino and Kim remain as applied to claim 1. The cited art does not appear to teach wherein a glass transition temperature of the copolymer is about 130° C. to about 160° C.
In the battery art, Iida teaches a binder for a lithium ion battery (paragraph [0100]) which may have a glass transition temperature such as 150 C (Table 1, Example 1) for the benefit of providing good formability and bonding properties (paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of invention to configure the binder to have a glass transition temperature at a value within the range of 130 to 160 C for the benefit of providing good formability and boding properties for the binder as taught by Iida.
Claims 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fujino (US 2006/0099505), Yamada (US 2020/0280057) and Chu (US 2024/0413334).
Regarding claims 15, Fujino remains as applied to claim 1. Fujino does not appear to teach wherein the binder further includes a styrene-butadiene rubber.
In the battery art, Yamada teaches that styrene-butadiene rubber can be added to a binder as an additive for improving characteristics such as the binding function or dispersibility of the primary binder (paragraph [0287]).
Additionally, in the battery art, Chu teaches that a binder may be configured as a mixture of a first polymeric binder and a second binder such as styrene-butadiene rubber (paragraphs [0026-0030]), mixed at 10 to 90% by mass (paragraph [0066]), such as 1.6 wt% first binder to 1.4 wt% SBR (paragraph [0076])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include styrene-butadiene rubber in the binder composition for the benefit of modifying the properties of the first binder as taught by Yamada and/or Chu.
As to claim 16, the requirement that the SBR is included in a content within the range of less than 10:more than 0 to about 3:7 is prima facie obvious because no criticality is associated with the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05), and additionally, since this range overlaps the range and examples suggested by the prior art for including SBR as an additive to a binder composition.
It is noted that Oh (US 2020/0381735) is by the same inventors as the instant application, but is published more than one year before the effective filing date of claims 15 and 16 which are not supported by the priority documents.
Claims 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Oh (US 2020/0381735), Yamada (US 2020/0280057) and Chu (US 2024/0413334).
Regarding claims 15, Oh teaches a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract), comprising: a negative electrode; a positive electrode including a positive active material; and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Figure 1, paragraphs [0019]),
wherein the negative electrode is a negative electrode comprising: a negative active material layer including a silicon (Si)-containing negative active material (paragraph [0006]), and a binder (paragraph [0006]),
wherein the binder includes an acryl copolymer (paragraph [0025]).
Oh does not appear to teach wherein the binder further includes a styrene-butadiene rubber.
In the battery art, Yamada teaches that styrene-butadiene rubber can be added to a binder as an additive for improving characteristics such as the binding function or dispersibility of the primary binder (paragraph [0287]).
Additionally, in the battery art, Chu teaches that a binder may be configured as a mixture of a first polymeric binder and a second binder such as styrene-butadiene rubber (paragraphs [0026-0030]), mixed at 10 to 90% by mass (paragraph [0066]), such as 1.6 wt% first binder to 1.4 wt% SBR (paragraph [0076])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include styrene-butadiene rubber in the binder composition for the benefit of modifying the properties of the first binder as taught by Yamada and/or Chu.
As to claim 16, the requirement that the SBR is included in a content within the range of less than 10:more than 0 to about 3:7 is prima facie obvious because no criticality is associated with the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05), and additionally, since this range overlaps the range and examples suggested by the prior art for including SBR as an additive to a binder composition.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-14 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,021,239 (hereinafter ‘239).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,021,239 (hereinafter ‘239) in view of Yamada (US 2020/0280057) and Chu (US 2024/0413334).
Although the claims 1-14 and 17 are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘239 claims a negative electrode, and battery containing the negative electrode, with the negative electrode comprising a copolymer binder that is similar to or the same as that of the instant invention.
The claims of ‘239 may emphasize different monomers of the copolymer binder, but include the same monomers overall. For example, claim 8 of ‘239 appears to include all of the presently claimed monomers and is therefore claims a copolymer having a scope readable on the broader claims of the instant applications. The dependent claims 2-14 and 17 of the present application are found to be obvious for being similar to or the same as the dependent claims of ‘239.
Dependent claims 15 and 16 are found to be obvious in view of Yamada and Chu which cure the deficiency of ‘239 for reasons previously set forth in the 103 obviousness rejections.
Since ‘441 claims an embodiment lying within the scope of the instant claim 1, and further adds dependent limitations which are combinable to yield the invention of instant claim 1, the instant invention is found to be obvious over that of ‘441.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Sonobe (US 2021/0057747) a binder composition comprising large percentage of cyano group monomer;
Shibuya (US 2019/0013523) binder composition comprising primarily an acrylamide monomer and an amine compound;
Wakizaka (US 2012/0189898) binder for separator type layer, primarily acrylate based.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights