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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/18/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Specifically, the Examiner notes that although English abstracts of each of the cited foreign patent documents have been included, no legible copies of the cited foreign patent documents were found in the application file. Accordingly, the cited foreign patent documents have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Although Claim 1 references “Equation (1)” and “Equation (2)”, these designations are not explicitly found within the claim. It is understood from the instant specification [0097-0102] that Equation (1) refers to “X1 = XC/XN ··· (1)” and Equation (2) refers to “X2 = XL/XN ··· (2)”. However, to increase clarity, the designations (1) and (2) should read Equation (1) and Equation (2), respectively. Furthermore, the Examiner suggests removing the three dots within each equation, since three dots commonly refers to an ellipsis, and can indicate an omission. The Examiner suggests altering to read: “Equation (1): X1 = XC/XN” and “Equation (2): X2 = XL/XN”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN-111139002-A; see also attached English translation for citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu discloses a secondary battery [0002, 0006, 0046-0047, 0106, 0109] comprising:
a positive electrode [0106, 0109];
a negative electrode [0106, 0107-0108]; and
an electrolytic solution [0109, 0124],
wherein the negative electrode includes: a negative electrode active material layer including a negative electrode binder (water-soluble binder) [0046, 0106-0108].
Liu discloses that the negative electrode binder (water-soluble binder) is a multi-component copolymer comprising monomer represented by formulas (1), (2), and (3) [0054]. The monomers represented by Formula (1) are acrylic acid, methacrylonitrile, or acrylonitrile [0059]. The monomers represented by Formula (2) are N,N-diethylacrylamide, acrylamide, or 2-acrylamide-2-phenylethanesulfonic acid [0066]. The monomers represented by Formula (3) are acrylonitrile, sodium acrylate, acrylic acid, or methacrylic acid [0071]. Although Formula (3) indicates sodium acrylate as the possible monomer, Liu further discloses that the monomers of Formula (3) are designed to be highly water-soluble and contain COOM or COOH, and that M can be represented by Li (i.e. lithium acrylate) [0067-0070].
Therefore, although not explicitly taught in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the monomer of Formula (1) to be acrylonitrile, to have selected the monomer of Formula (2) to be acrylamide, and to have selected the monomer of Formula (3) to be lithium acrylate with a reasonable expectation that selecting the binder to be a ternary copolymer formed of acrylonitrile, acrylamide, and lithium acrylate would result in a successful negative electrode binder.
Although Liu does not explicitly teach “a coating film” provided on a surface of the negative electrode active material, Liu discloses that the lithium-ion battery is charged and discharged [0110, 0112]. When the binder is ternary copolymer formed of acrylonitrile, acrylamide, and lithium acrylate, the process of charging and discharging is understood to inherently result in the formation of a coating film on the surface of the negative electrode active material layer, as evidenced by the instant specification [0054, 0128, 0135, 0174-0175]. See MPEP 2112, I-II; MPEP 2112.01, I-II.
As previously discussed (see above), Liu renders obvious that “the negative electrode binder includes a copolymer of acrylamide, lithium acrylate, and acrylonitrile”.
The limitation “a C1s spectrum, an N1s spectrum, and an Li1s spectrum are detected by surface analysis of the negative electrode using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy” is a product-by-process limitation. Although the structure implied by the process is considered, the patentability of a product does not depend on the process by which it was made. See MPEP 2113, I. The method of characterizing the surface of the negative electrode does not impart additional structure to the negative electrode. Therefore, since Liu renders obvious a coating film formed from the decomposition of acrylamide, lithium acrylate, and acrylonitrile (see above), it is understood that the coating film inherently comprises carbon, nitrogen and lithium. Accordingly, the limitation regarding surface analysis of the negative electrode using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy is interpreted as being met.
Although Liu does not explicitly teach the first concentration ratio as calculated by Equation (1) or the second concentration ratio as calculated by Equation (2), the Examiner notes that the first concentration ratio depends on the atomic concentration (atom%) of carbon (i.e. XC) and nitrogen (i.e. XN), and the second concentration ratio depends on the atomic concentration (atom%) of lithium (i.e. XL) and nitrogen (i.e. XN).
To this end, Liu discloses that the monomer of Formula 1 (i.e. acrylonitrile) contains CN function groups which impart high adhesion, and that the mass proportion of Formula 1 within the binder is 5-75% [0058]. When the mass proportion is less than 5% the bonding strength is low, while if the mass proportion is greater than 75% the water solubility of the binder decreases [0058]. Additionally, Liu discloses that the monomer of Formula 2 (i.e. acrylamide) contains -CO-N function groups which impart high adhesion and flexibility to the binder, and that the mass ratio of monomers of Formula 2 is 1-35% [0065]. When the mass proportion is less than 1% the flexibility of the binder deteriorates, while if it’s greater than 35% the water solubility of the binder deteriorates [0065]. Furthermore, Liu discloses that the monomer in Formula 3 (i.e. lithium acrylate) contains COOM or COOH functional groups and is highly soluble [0070]. The mass ratio of Formula 3 is 10-55% [0070]. When the mass ratio is less than 10%, the binder cannot be dissolved in water, while if it exceeds 55%, the flexibility deteriorates [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the concentration of acrylonitrile, acrylamide and lithium acrylate within the binder, including contents which result in XC/XN which is 0.4 or more and 1.7 or less, and XL/XN which is 3.4 or more and 5.9 or less, with a reasonable expectation that such ratios of carbon, nitrogen, and lithium would results in a successful balance between adhesion, flexibility, and water solubility of the binder. See MPEP 2144.05, II.
Assuming, arguendo, that the claimed ratios of XC/XN and XL/XN also depend on the content of other components of the negative electrode (i.e. the negative electrode active material and the conductive additive), Liu discloses that the negative electrode can comprise silicon and graphite as the negative electrode material and a conductive carbon as a conductive agent [0108, 0117]. These materials are substantially similar to those used in the instant application [instant application: 0046, 0059, 0160-0161]. The mass fraction of active material : conductive agent : binder is 97 : 1.0 : 2.0 in a specific example [0117], thereby anticipating such contents with sufficient specificity. The contents of active material, conductive agent, and binder disclosed by Liu fall within the ranges indicated in the instant application as resulting in the claimed ratios XC/XN and XL/XN [instant specification: 0163]. Therefore, it is understood that by including 97% negative electrode active material, 1% conductive agent, and 2% binder, the resulting negative electrode inherently has a first concentration ratio XC/XN which is 0.4 or more and 1.7 or less, and a second concentration ratio XL/XN which is 3.4 or more and 5.9 or less as evidenced by the instant specification [0099, 0102, 0163]. See MPEP 2112.01, I-II.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the negative electrode active material layer further includes a negative electrode conductive agent, and the negative electrode conductive agent includes a carbon material [0108, 0117].
Regarding Claim 3, Liu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Liu further discloses that the secondary battery is a lithium ion secondary battery [0006-0007, 0046, 0108-0109].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/10/2026
Prosecution Insights