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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s supplemental amendment and arguments, filed 01/14/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 14–20 is/are amended; claim(s) 1 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; claim(s) 7 remains withdrawn; and claims 3–5 and 8–13 are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 09/18/25 has/have been withdrawn, but the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has/have been maintained, as established below. Additionally, Applicant’s amendment to claim 2 necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20160036056 A1) (Chung) in view of Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Tada et al. (US 20160064735 A1) (Tada), and Goh et al. (US 20160118691 A1) (Goh).
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a secondary battery (lithium battery, e.g., ¶ 0166 and exs.) comprising a negative electrode plate, a positive electrode plate, a separator disposed between the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate, and an electrolyte (e.g., ¶ 0110, 0167–0173), wherein, the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode current collector and a positive electrode film layer arranged on at least one surface of the positive electrode current collector (active layer atop collector, ¶ 0123), the positive electrode film layer comprising a positive electrode active material (¶ 0123 and 0172), the positive electrode active material comprising a lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese oxide (¶ 0172), the electrolyte comprises an electrolyte salt and a solvent (¶ 0169), the negative electrode plate comprises a negative current collector and a negative electrode film layer arranged on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (active layer atop collector, ¶ 0111),
the negative electrode film layer is prepared from a negative electrode slurry (e.g., Ex. 1, ¶ 0167), comprising a negative electrode active material (e.g., Si compound and graphite, ¶ 0167), a conductive agent (Ketjen black, ¶ 0167), a dispersant (polyethylene glycol (PEG) as part of binder, e.g., Prep. Ex. 4, ¶ 0157 and 0158; as PEG improves slurry dispersion (¶ 0084), such reasonably reads on a dispersant), and a negative electrode binder (e.g., from Preparation Exs. 1–4 (¶ 0148–0157), ¶ 0167).
Chung further discloses that the negative electrode binder comprises a polysaccharide that may comprise different functional groups (e.g., Chemical Formulae 3-1 and 3-6–-i.e., chitin and sodium alginate, respectively–-reproduced below; see also general Formulae 1 and 2, ¶ 0014) yet, while not appearing limited to the specific functional groups to achieve the desired interpenetrating-network polymer (IPN) as long as the base polysaccharide structure is preserved (e.g., ¶ 0014), fails to explicitly disclose a polymer composed of a building block represented by the recited formula (I).
PNG
media_image1.png
128
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
96
263
media_image2.png
Greyscale
AAPA teaches that formula (I)’s binder was acquired commercially from Zhejiang Casnovo Materials Co., Ltd (instant spec., ¶ 0119) and, thus, would have been available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention’s effective filing date. AAPA teaches that the instant binder is a polysaccharide functionalized with an amide alongside carboxyl groups (one of which is alkali-metal-bound) (i.e., polymer A of ¶ 0119 is represented by the instant formula (I)).
AAPA and Chung are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode binders.
As noted above, Chung demonstrates that polysaccharide-based negative electrode binders are well known in the art yet appears to afford no technical preference to a particular saccharide structure–-broadly disclosing that the polysaccharide may be functionalized with an amide alongside an alkali-metal-bound carboxy group (per formulae above)–-while AAPA teaches a similar polysaccharide with substantially similar functional groups, used for the same purpose as a negative electrode binder. Absent unexpected results from the recited structure, it would have been obvious to and readily envisaged by one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to routinely incorporate AAPA’s polysaccharide binder as Chung’s polysaccharide binder with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful polysaccharide binder and negative electrode (e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.) or (B.)).
Chung further discloses that the polymer binder may have a weight average molecular weight of preferably 10,000~1,000,000 g/mol because this range allows the interpenetrating polymer network (IPN) to form effectively (¶ 0068). This broad range, even when considering minor differences between weight average and number average weight, appears to significantly overlap the recited 400,000–1,200,000 g/mol such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming the IPN (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Chung further exemplarily discloses an 8 wt% binder (¶ 0167) yet, while not appearing limited to this amount to achieve the desired adherence, control of active-material expansion, and electrolytic stability (Chung, ¶ 0057), fails to explicitly disclose that a percentage mass content of the negative electrode binder is from 1% to 3.5%.
Tada, in teaching a negative electrode (Title), teaches that the electrode contains a binder such as a polysaccharide (e.g., CMC, ¶ 0065), where the saccharide-type binder constitutes preferably 1–4 wt% because when the added amount is too small, binding between active-material particles and between the active particles and the current collector becomes insufficient, whereas when the added amount is too large, the electrode’s electrical resistance becomes high, increasing the battery’s internal resistance (¶ 0065).
Tada is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery negative electrodes.
To balance providing sufficient active-material binding while preventing the electrode and battery’s resistance from increasing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate modified Chung’s binder at 1–4 wt% and arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the binder’s wt%, as taught by Tada (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Chung further exemplarily discloses a loading level of the negative electrode of 5.5 mg/cm2 (Chung, ¶ 0167)—i.e., 0.055 mg/mm2—yet, though not appearing limited to this range to achieve the desired effects, fails to explicitly disclose a coating weight of the negative electrode film layer of 130 mg/1540.25 mm2 to 190 mg/1540.25 mm2.
Goh, in teaching a battery (Title), teaches that the negative electrode’s loading level may be 10~20 mg/cm2 (¶ 0039)–-i.e., 0.10~0.20 mg/mm2–-and that, within this range, the electrode may exhibit a current density that improves battery capacity, rate properties, and lifespan, and manufacturing costs may be reduced (¶ 0038, 0039).
Goh is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery negative electrodes.
To balance reducing manufacturing costs while improving battery capacity, rate properties, and lifespan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Chung’s negative electrode (and, thus, film layer) with a coating weight of 0.10~0.20 mg/mm2 and arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the coating weight, as taught by Goh (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Chung further discloses that a compacted density of the negative electrode film layer is 1.5 g/cc (note active mass density after compression, ¶ 0167) which falls within 1.50–1.60 g/cm3.
Regarding claim 2, modified Chung discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Again, Chung discloses that the polymer binder may have a weight average molecular weight of preferably 10,000~1,000,000 g/mol because this range allows the interpenetrating polymer network (IPN) to form effectively (¶ 0068). This broad range, even when considering minor differences between weight average and number average weight, appears to significantly overlap the recited 700,000–900,000 g/mol such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of successfully forming the IPN (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding the binder’s mass content, again, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the binder’s content in consideration of binding ability and resistance, as taught by Tada (MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Additionally, Chung discloses that the negative electrode active material comprises at least graphite and silicon-based material (first and second graphite plus Si–Ti–Ni alloy, Chung, ¶ 0167).
Regarding claim 20, modified Chung discloses the negative electrode slurry according to claim 1, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises artificial graphite (second graphite of timrex SFG6, i.e., synthetic graphite, Chung, ¶ 0167).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20160036056 A1) (Chung) in view of Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Tada et al. (US 20160064735 A1) (Tada), and Goh et al. (US 20160118691 A1) (Goh), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Lee et al. (US 20200259162 A1) (Lee).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chung discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Chung further discusses the binder composition’s viscosity (e.g., ¶ 0150) but fails to explicitly articulate a viscosity of the full negative electrode slurry and, thus, a viscosity of 4,000–12,000 mPa•s.
The skilled artisan would recognize, though, that the slurry would necessarily possess a minimum viscosity due to the dispersed solid materials above, understanding that each material must necessarily be included at a concentration sufficient to perform its respective function without detracting from the other materials’ functions. The artisan would further recognize, however, that the viscosity should not be too high because such would necessarily excessively thicken the slurry and, thus, inhibit the slurry’s coating ability. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the viscosity (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Nonetheless, Lee, in teaching a negative electrode slurry (Title), teaches a viscosity of preferably 600–6000 cp (¶ 0062), i.e., 600–6000 mPa•s. Lee teaches that, within this range, there are no tube transfer issues or filter clogging issues that may be caused by the slurry, and the solids in the slurry are stably dispersed to obtain excellent storage stability (¶ 0063).
Lee is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode compositions.
To balance slurry clogging issues with suitable solid dispersibility for proper storage stability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, to incorporate Chung's negative electrode slurry with a viscosity of 600–6000 mPa•s and arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the viscosity, as taught by Lee (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20160036056 A1) (Chung) in view of Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Tada et al. (US 20160064735 A1) (Tada), and Goh et al. (US 20160118691 A1) (Goh), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 20160064737 A1) (Ogawa).
Regarding claim 14, modified Chung discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Modified Chung further discloses the recited binder (via AAPA) but fails to explicitly articulate the negative electrode plate’s cohesive force and, thus, a cohesion of 33.5–80.1 N.
As the instant specification notes, however, the cohesion is the force inside the film layer between the active materials (¶ 0072), which results from the instant binder’s line-contact bonding (¶ 0049, 0053). Because Chung, as modified by AAPA and Tada, renders utility with the instant binder obvious at a weight content overlapping the recited molecular-weight and wt% ranges—as well as motivates the skilled artisan to optimize at least within the wt% range—the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected modified Chung’s negative electrode’s cohesion to fall within or overlap the recited 33.5–80.1 N/m (based on MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful negative electrode with suitable cohesion (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Nonetheless, Ogawa, in teaching a battery (Title), teaches that the negative electrode’s peeling strength, i.e., adhesion/cohesion between a negative current collector and negative active material layer (¶ 0006; see similar evaluation in instant spec., ¶ 0127–0131), is preferably 50–70 N/m because this range affords the battery high vibration resistance, which is suitable when using the battery in a vehicle (¶ 0037).
Ogawa is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate modified Chung’s negative electrode plate with a peeling strength and, thus, cohesion of 50–70 N (falling within 33.5–80.1 N), as taught by Ogawa, with the reasonable expectation of affording the battery high vibration resistance to make the battery suitable for use in a vehicle, as taught by Ogawa.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20160036056 A1) (Chung) in view of Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Tada et al. (US 20160064735 A1) (Tada), and Goh et al. (US 20160118691 A1) (Goh), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hibino et al. (WO 2020129481 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20210273256 A1) (Hibino).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Chung discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Modified Chung fails to explicitly articulate the thickness of either the active material layer or current collector and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose that a thickness of the negative electrode plate is from 113.54 μm to 172.4 μm or that a single layer thickness of the negative electrode film layer is from 52.8 μm to 82.2 μm.
The skilled artisan, however, would understand that the collector must be thick enough to sufficiently conduct electrons, but making the collector too thick would necessarily reduce relative active-material content and, thus, energy density. Similarly, the artisan would recognize that the active material layer, i.e., film layer, must be thick enough for suitable capacity, but making the layer too thick would necessarily increase the distance electrons and ions must travel and, thus, resistance. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing both the collector and active layers’ thicknesses and, thus, the film layer and (total) negative electrode plate’s thicknesses (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Nonetheless, Hibino, in teaching a lithium cell (Title), teaches that the negative active material layer is preferably 30–150 μm thick because, by increasing the layer’s thickness, it is possible to increase the active material’s areal capacity and the cell’s energy density, whereas, by reducing the layer’s thickness, it is possible to suppress deterioration of cell characteristics such as resistance that accompany repeated (dis)charging (¶ 0059). Hibino further teaches that the negative collector is preferably 8–15 μm thick (¶ 0059).
Hibino is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Chung's negative active layer, i.e., negative film, and negative collector must each necessarily be incorporated with some thickness, and, as demonstrated by Hibino, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the collector at 8–15 μm thick and the active layer at 30–150 μm thick as appropriate sizes in consideration of Hibino’s effects.
In incorporating these layers with their respective sizes, the active layer’s 30–150 μm overlaps the recited single-layer thickness of 52.8–82.2 μm, and the layers’ thicknesses yield a total negative electrode thickness of 38–165 μm, which overlaps the recited 113.54–172.4 μm. To balance the active material’s areal capacity, the battery’s energy density, and the battery’s resistance, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the active layer’s thickness, including the instant 52.8–82.2 μm, and, thus, optimize the total negative electrode thickness, as taught by Hibino (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20160036056 A1) (Chung) in view of Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Tada et al. (US 20160064735 A1) (Tada), and Goh et al. (US 20160118691 A1) (Goh), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kim et al. (US 20190372095 A1) (Kim).
Regarding claim 17, modified Chung discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Chung further discusses the binder composition’s solid content but fails to explicitly articulate the negative electrode slurry’s solid content and, thus, 40–60%.
Kim, in teaching a negative electrode (Title), teaches controlling the negative electrode slurry’s solid content to 40–50 wt% to improve workability while applying while improving the drying rate for removing water from the slurry (¶ 0085).
Kim is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control Chung’s (total) negative electrode slurry’s solid content to 40–50 wt%, as taught by Kim, with the reasonable expectation of improving workability while applying while improving the drying rate for removing water from the slurry, as taught by Kim.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20160036056 A1) (Chung) in view of Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Tada et al. (US 20160064735 A1) (Tada), and Goh et al. (US 20160118691 A1) (Goh), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Shen et al. (US 20200067125 A1) (Shen).
Regarding claim 18, modified Chung discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Though modified Chung further discloses the Si- and graphite-based active materials (Chung, ¶ 0167), Chung is silent to either material’s particle size and, thus, fails to explicitly disclose the recited Dv10, Dv50, or Dv90.
Shen, in teaching a negative electrode (Title), wherein the active material may comprise common materials such as silicon and graphite (¶ 0035, 0036), teaches that a battery’s energy density and rate performance are closely related to the negative active material’s particle size and size distribution (¶ 0022). Shen teaches that smaller particles enjoy smaller ion-diffusion paths, which is more advantageous for high-rate charging, but also lower the electrode’s packing density, reducing energy density, whereas larger particles increase specific capacity and, thus, energy density (¶ 0022). In designing such a size distribution, Shen teaches a D10 of preferably 3–10 μm (¶ 0034), a D50 of preferably 5–14 μm (¶ 0033), and a D90 of preferably 15–40 μm (¶ 0032).
Shen is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode active material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Chung's active material must necessarily be incorporated with some size—and, by extension, size distribution—and, as demonstrated by Shen, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the active material with a particle distribution of a 3–10 μm D10, a 5–14 μm D50, and a 15–40 μm D90 as appropriate dimensions.
In incorporating Shen’s size distribution, such values overlap the recited 6.5–11.5 μm, 11.5–13.5 μm, and 25.0–50.0 μm, respectively, such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful active material with a suitable size distribution (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Moreover, to balance high-rate charging, packing density, specific capacity, and energy density, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the instant ranges by routinely optimizing each of D10, D50, and D90, as taught by Shen (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 20160036056 A1) (Chung) in view of Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Tada et al. (US 20160064735 A1) (Tada), and Goh et al. (US 20160118691 A1) (Goh), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Rho et al. (KR 20180092520 A) (Rho).
Regarding claim 19, modified Chung discloses the secondary battery according to claim 1.
Chung further discloses that the binder may also include carboxymethyl cellulose (Chung, e.g., ¶ 0067, 0121) but fails to explicitly disclose an embodiment of such.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate carboxymethyl cellulose into modified Chung’s binder composition with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful binder composition and electrode (MPEP 2143 (A.), 2144.06 (I)).
However, in being unconcerned with the specific properties of the carboxymethyl cellulose, modified Chung fails to explicitly disclose a sodium salt of such (Na-CMC), wherein the Na-CMC has a molecular weight of 50,000–100,000 g/mol and a degree of substitution of 0.55–0.95.
Rho, in teaching a negative electrode slurry (Title), wherein the slurry includes a Na-CMC thickener (e.g., ¶ 0020, 0021, 0059), teaches that the concentration of sodium ions in the slurry is tailored to provide optimal CMC dispersibility and adhesive strength (e.g., ¶ 0042, 0043, 0045). Rho further teaches that the cellulose’s molecular weight is 20,000–4,000,000 g/mol (¶ 0022), and the cellulose’s degree of substitution is 0.6–1.4 (¶ 0020) because these ranges allow the negative active material’s solid-content ratio to increase due to the slurry’s improved dispersibility and stabilized viscosity as well as the active and conductive materials’ even distribution, improving the battery’s capacity and rate characteristics (¶ 0051).
Rho is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ a sodium salt of CMC with Rho’s tailored Na+ concentration with the reasonable expectation of ensuring optimal CMC dispersibility and adhesive strength, as taught by Rho. It would have been further obvious to incorporate the Na-CMC with a molecular weight of 20,000–4,000,000 g/mol and a degree of substitution of 0.6–1.4 with the reasonable expectation of allowing the negative active material’s solid-content ratio to increase due to the slurry’s improved dispersibility and stabilized viscosity as well as the active and conductive materials’ even distribution, improving the battery’s capacity and rate characteristics, as further taught by Rho.
Thus, modified Chung would disclose that the dispersant comprises sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (though not referenced as such, per instant spec., ¶ 0056, Na-CMC is a dispersant), and the sodium carboxymethyl cellulose has a molecular weight of 20,000–4,000,000 g/mol, which overlaps the recited 50,000–100,000 g/mol, and a degree of substitution of 0.6–1.4, which overlaps the recited 0.55–0.95. Such overlap renders the respectively recited ranges obvious such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful Na-CMC dispersant with suitable properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Moreover, to balance the slurry’s improved dispersibility and viscosity with the active and conductive materials’ even distribution, it would have been further obvious to arrive at the instant ranges by routinely optimizing the molecular weight and degree of substitution, respectively, as taught by Rho (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 2 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant again argues that Chung fails to suggest the formula-(1) polymer because this polymer’s functional groups differ from Chung’s, and one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to arrive at the instant polymer and, by extension, employ such as a negative electrode binder. As previously explained, however, Examiner employed Chung merely to demonstrate that chemically similar, amide-functionalized polysaccharides such as chitosan and chitin were known as negative electrode binders before the instant application’s effective filing date. Examiner then noted that the instant polymer was acquired commercially and, thus, would have been available to one skilled in the art before the instant effective filing date as Applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA). Thus, absent evidence comparing the AAPA binder to Chung’s general polysaccharides (see MPEP 716.02(e)), Examiner respectfully maintains that the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to achieve a successful electrode binder when substituting Chung’s general, polysaccharide binder with AAPA’s specific polysaccharide (MPEP 2143 (B.)), making these arguments unpersuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of unexpectedly superior performance based on alleged criticality of the coating weight and compacted density, again, such appear critical only when tested alongside the MW and wt%’s best-performing values (700,000 g/mol and 2.5%, respectively, per Table 4) (see MPEP 716.02(d)).
Turning specifically to claim 2, it remains unclear if Applicant’s results are unexpectedly superior, at least across the claimed scope.
1) Amount of binder: claim 2 requires 2–3 mass% of the binder. Such is broad enough to encompass not only a mass content relative to the negative film layer but other ratios such as relative to the amount of active material or to the slurry (which, particularly if the latter, would necessarily affect the binder’s mass percentage in the film layer upon drying and evaporating the solvent such as DI water; see ¶ 0108–0114). It appears, however, that Applicant’s results stem from 2–3 mass% binder relative to the negative slurry (see Table 1 and ¶ 0111) and, thus, appears incommensurate with claim 2.
2) Criticality of binder mass content: the instant data do not measure directly below 2% or directly above 3%, so it is impossible to interpolate the performance and whether such would be expected (see, again, MPEP 716.02(d)). It is unclear if the 2.5% in Table 1 is just meant to be exemplary within the claimed range based on broader testing outside claim 1’s1–3.5% (see Table 2) or whether Applicant intends 2–3% itself to be critical.
3) Amount of conductive material: the results pertain to electrode cohesion, electrode resistance, and battery cycling/capacity retention (Tables 1 and 2). Per Table 2, as the binder content increases and decreases within claim 1’s 1–3.5%, cohesion changes directly proportionally, which would seem expected given a binder’s purpose of adhering electrode components. However, it appears unexpected that the resistance would decline significantly as binder content increases within 1–3.5% (Table 2) given such binders are known to be electrically insulating. Importantly, though, the skilled artisan would recognize that resistance also depends on the amount of conductive material in the electrode. Claim 2, meanwhile, allows essentially any content of conductive material from trace amounts to almost 99%. It is unclear if the improved resistance would occur when using conductive material at, e.g., 1 ppb.
4) Type of active material: claim 2 specifies an active material of graphite, soft carbon, hard carbon, carbon fiber, mesocarbon microbead, silicon-based material, tin-based material, and lithium titanate. The skilled artisan would understand, however, that these active materials exhibit different conductivities; e.g., graphite is highly conductive, whereas lithium titanate is semiconductive. Moreover, spec.’s ¶ 0053 explains that graphite is preferable due to its C–C bond as well as large number of epoxy, carbonyl, and hydroxyl surface groups that participate in Applicant’s line-contact bonding with the binder and, thus, contributes to the results. It is unclear if substantially similar results would occur when using, e.g., lithium titanate as when using graphite.
Thus, as it remains unclear whether the results are unexpectedly superior across the claims, this argument is unpersuasive.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/13/2026