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 Status
Claims 1-4, 9 and 12 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 6 and 10 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in [0009] and [0012].
Claims 5-8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Kim in view of Jo is improper because it would frustrate the intended purpose of Kim (pg. 11).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., making use of the ferroelectric characteristics of PVDF) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, the office needs not present evidence of the ferroelectrics of Jo functioning as a binder because the modification does not substitute the ferroelectric of Jo for the binder of Kim. The modification of Kim in view of Jo adds the ferroelectric of Jo to the positive electrode of Kim as stated in the rejection.
Applicant argues that there is no evidence that modifying Kim in view of Jo would promote movement of lithium ions and improvement of the performance of the electrode as alleged in the rejection of record (pg. 12, para. 2).
This argument is not found persuasive because i) Kim and Jo are analogous art directed to the fabrication of positive electrodes for lithium batteries, ii) Jo motivates a PHOSITA to perform the modification by teaching the promotion of the movement of lithium ions in and improvement in the performance of a positive electrode ([0012]) and iii) Kim and Jo being from the same field and having the same objective of providing improved positive electrodes provides a reasonable expectation of success to a PHOSITA in performing the modification.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 8 and 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20090087743-A1) in view of Jo (KR-20060105909-A, machine translation used for rejection below) and Tanaka’032 (US 20140045032 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses a method of manufacturing ([0076]) a secondary battery ([0003]; [0059]) positive electrode ([0076]), comprising:
preparing ([0076]) an admixture (“2 g of PVDF 10 wt % (solvent: N-methylpyrrolidone)”; [0076]) comprising a binder (“PVDF”; [0007]) and a first solvent (“solvent: N-methylpyrrolidone”; [0076]);
preparing a positive electrode slurry (“third mixture”; [0076]) comprising a positive electrode active material (“LiCoO.sub.2”; [0076]), a binder (“aminopropyltriethoxy silane”; [0076]), a conductive agent (“CNT powder”; [0076]), and a second solvent (“10 g of N-methylpyrrolidone”; [0076]);
preparing a coating slurry (“a slurry, which is an active material layer forming composition”; [0076]) comprising the admixture ([0076]) and the positive electrode slurry ([0076]);
applying (“sprayed”; [0076]) the coating slurry ([0076]) to a substrate (“current collector”; [0076]); and drying ([0076]) the applied coating slurry ([0076]).
Kim does not disclose wherein the ferroelectric component comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of BaTiO3, (Ba, Sr)TiO3, PbTiO3, LiNbO3, Pb(Zr, Ti)O3, SrBi2Ti2O9, and amorphous V2O5.
Jo discloses a method of manufacturing ([0025]) a secondary battery [0028]) positive electrode ([0028]), comprising:
preparing an admixture (“ferroelectric material”; [0027]) comprising a ferroelectric component (component of [0027] selected to be “BaTiO3, (Ba, Sr) TiO3, PbTiO3, LiNbO3, Pb(Zr, Ti)O3,amorphous V2O5” per [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim by adding the ferroelectric component of Jo to the positive electrode of Kim in order to promote the movement of lithium ions in and improve the performance of the electrode as taught by Jo ([0012]).
Kim in view of Jo fails to disclose the admixture comprising the ferroelectric component.
Tanaka’032 discloses adding a ferroelectric component (“BaTiO3”; [0040]) to a solvent (“acetone”; [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kim in view of Jo by adding the ferroelectric component of Jo to the first solvent of Kim in view of Jo as taught by Tanaka’032 ([0040]) such that the admixture comprised the ferroelectric component and the first solvent as claimed. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to disperse the ferroelectric component and prepare a slurry as taught by Tanaka’032 ([0042]).
The examiner notes that this modification merely adds the ferroelectric component of Jo to Kim and does not involve a substitution of Kim’s ferroelectric for Jo’s substitution.
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 discloses wherein the drying ([0076]) is performed at a temperature ([0076]) but fails to disclose of 75 to 95˚C.
Jo discloses wherein the drying ([0026]) of a coating slurry (“applied paste”; [0026]) is performed at a temperature of 75 to 95˚C (“50 to 200 ˚C”; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 by substituting the drying temperature of Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 for a drying temperature of 75 to 95˚C in order to predictably obtain a dried positive electrode as taught by Jo ([0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 discloses wherein the secondary battery positive electrode ([0076]) manufactured by the method ([0076]) comprises the ferroelectric component (Jo [0016]), the positive electrode active material ([0076]), the binder ([0076]), and the conductive agent ([0076]) but fails to disclose and wherein the ferroelectric component has a particle size of 100 nm to 5 um.
Jo discloses wherein a ferroelectric component ([0018]) has a particle size ([0018]) of 3 um or less (“3 um or less”; [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 by substituting the undisclosed particle size of the ferroelectric component of Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 for a particle size of 100 nm to 3 um in order for each particle of the ferroelectric component to exhibit remarkable ferroelectricity as taught by Jo ([0018]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 discloses a content of the ferroelectric component (Jo [0027]) but fails to disclose “is 1 to 10 wt% based on 100 wt% of the positive electrode”.
Jo discloses wherein a content of a ferroelectric component ( [0019]) is 0.1 to 10 wt% based on 100 wt% of the positive electrode (0.1 to 10 wt% per [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 by substituting the undisclosed content of the ferroelectric component of Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 for a ferroelectric component content of 1 to 10 wt% in order to achieve an effect from the component and prevent the increase of the resistance as taught by Jo ([0019])
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 discloses wherein the positive electrode active material (“LiCoO.sub.2”; [0076]) comprises LiCoO2 ([0076]).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 discloses a secondary battery ([0003]) comprising a positive electrode ([0076]) according to claim 10. Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the secondary battery has a capacity of 120 to 180 mAh/g at 2C to 5C.
However, Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 discloses identical ferroelectrics (Jo [0015]) and positive electrode active materials ([0076) to that of the instant invention. Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 also discloses overlapping ranges for the particle size of the ferroelectric (Jo [0013]). Therefore, Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 renders the instant claim obvious because of the disclosure of a substantially identical composition to that of the instant invention. In this respect, the courts have held the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20090087743-A1) in view of Jo (KR-20060105909-A, machine translation used for rejection below) and Tanaka’032 (US 20140045032 A1) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Yang (KR20160040873A, machine translation used for rejection below).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 fails to disclose wherein the admixture is prepared by performing ultrasonic dispersion for 7 to 15 minutes.
Yang discloses wherein a mixture (“slurry”; [0036]) is prepared by performing ultrasonic dispersion (“ultrasonic waves and a homogenizer”; [0036]) for 7 to 15 minutes (“10 minutes”; [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 by adding the ultrasonic dispersion of Yang to the preparation of the admixture in order to help the binder and ferroelectric component disperse as suggested by Yang ([0036]).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20090087743-A1) in view of Jo (KR-20060105909-A, machine translation used for rejection below) and Tanaka’032 (US 20140045032 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Tanaka (US-20170110734-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 discloses wherein the coating slurry ([0076]) is manufactured by mixing (“stirred”; [0076]) the admixture ([0076]) and the positive electrode slurry ([0076]) but fails to disclose for 7 to 15 minutes.
Tanaka discloses wherein a coating slurry (“A slurry for positive electrode-use”; [0229]) is manufactured by mixing for 7 to 15 minutes (“10 minutes”; [0229]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 by substituting the undisclosed mixing time of Kim for the mixing time of Tanaka in order to predictably obtain a coating slurry for positive electrode use as taught by Tanaka ([0229]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 discloses wherein the drying ([0076]) is performed at a temperature ([0076]) but fails to disclose of 75 to 95˚C.
Tanaka discloses wherein the drying ([0211]) of a coating slurry ([0211]) is performed at a temperature of 75 to 95˚C (“90 ˚C”; [0211]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 by substituting the drying temperature of Kim in view of Jo and Tanaka’032 for the drying temperature of Tanaka in order to predictably obtain a dried positive electrode as taught by Tanaka ([0211]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
