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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 12/19/2025 has been fully considered. Claims 4 is cancelled and claims 1-3 and 5-12 are pending.
The Examiner is presenting a new non-final rejection due to the interpretation of the weight ratio of the conductive material and the binder being incorrect.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westphal (WO 2021/098963 A1) in view of Bogenstahl et al (US 2020/0227722 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Westphal discloses a positive electrode for a lithium secondary battery (electrode being a cathode of lithium ion battery; pg. 8) comprising:
a current collector (electrode comprises a substrate comprising a conductive material; pg. 3);
a primer layer on one or both surfaces of the current collector (a primer layer disposed on both surfaces of the substrate; pg. 3); and
a positive electrode mixture layer disposed on an upper surface of the primer layer (an electrode material layer disposed on an upper surface of the primer layer; pg. 3) and comprising a positive electrode active material (pgs. 5-6), a conductive material (additive of a conductive carbon; pgs. 5-7) and a binder (second binder; pgs. 5-6);
wherein the positive electrode mixture layer has a density of from 3.0 to 4.0 g/cm3 (pg. 7);
wherein the primer layer comprises the conductive material and the binder (primer layer comprises carbon material and first binder; pg. 5), and
wherein the conductive material and the binder are included in a weight ratio (50-100 wt% of a carbon material and 0-50 wt% of first binder; pg. 5).
The amounts of carbon material to first binder would result in a weight ratio of carbon material to first binder that is 1:1 to 2:1. A weight ratio of 1:1 can be written as 10:10. The weight ratio of 1:1 or 10:10 is sufficiently close to the endpoint of 9:10 for the weight ratio of con
The only deficiency of Westphal is that Westphal discloses a weight ratio of carbon material to first binder of 1:1 or 10:10, while the present claims require a weight ratio of conductive material and binder of 9:10.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of a weight ratio of conductive material and binder of 9:10 and that taught by Westphal are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the weight ratio disclosed by Westphal and the amount disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to weight ratio of conductive material and binder of 9:10, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the weight ratio of conductive material and binder of 9:10 disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Westphal, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Westphal does not disclose the positive electrode comprising the positive electrode mixture layer having a fiberized binder.
However, Bogenstahl discloses a process comprising dry blending dry active material particles, dry conductive particles and dry binder particles to form a dry mixture (paragraph [0031]) and fibrilizing the dry mixture to form a network of web-like fibers (paragraph [0031]).
The fibrilizing of the dry binder particles will result in a fiberized binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode of Westphal to include the technique of fibrilization of a dry mixture of an electrode of Bogenstahl for the electrode material of Westphal because having a dry electrode film that has been fibrilized would provide a dry electrode film with one or more of improved film strength, improved cohesiveness, improved adhesiveness, improved electrical performance or reduced incidence of defects (paragraph [0032] of Bogenstahl).
Regarding claim 2, Westphal and Bogenstahl disclose the positive electrode of claim 1 as noted above and Westphal discloses the positive electrode comprising the positive electrode active material layer comprising an amount of positive electrode material (the electrode material comprising 60 to 100 wt% active material; pgs. 5-6), an amount of conductive material (0 to 10 wt% of additive; pgs. 5-6) and an amount of binder (0 to 30 wt% of second binder; pgs. 5-6) and wherein the additive is a conductive carbon (conductive material; pg. 7).
The amounts of the active material, additive and second binder overlaps the claimed ranges for the amounts of positive electrode active material, conductive material and binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to provide a cathode with high energy density and long cycle life. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Westphal and Bogenstahl disclose the positive electrode of claim 1 as noted above and Westphal discloses the positive electrode comprising the binder of the positive electrode mixture layer comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (the second binder comprising polytetrafluoroethylene; pg. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Westphal and Bogenstahl disclose the positive electrode of claim 1 as noted above and Westphal discloses the positive electrode comprising the binder in the primer being an acryl-based resin (the primer layer comprising the first binder comprising poly(acrylic acid); pg. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Westphal and Bogenstahl disclose the positive electrode of claim 1 as noted above and Westphal discloses the positive electrode comprising binder of the positive electrode mixture layer comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (the second binder comprising polytetrafluoroethylene; pg. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Westphal and Bogenstahl disclose the positive electrode of claim 1 as noted above and Westphal discloses the positive electrode comprising the binder of the positive electrode mixture layer comprising polytetrafluoroethylene (the second binder comprising polytetrafluoroethylene; pg. 6).
The second binder being polytetrafluoroethylene would result in a binder where polytetrafluoroethylene is 100 wt% of the total weight of the binder of the positive electrode mixture layer.
Regarding claim 9, Westphal and Bogenstahl disclose the positive electrode of claim 1 as noted above and Westphal discloses the positive electrode comprising an average thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer being in a range of 10 to 300 µm (the electrode material layer having a thickness of from 50 to 200 µm; pg. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Westphal and Bogenstahl disclose the positive electrode of claim 1 as noted above.
Westphal does not disclose the positive electrode comprising the fiberized binder including a network structure connecting the positive electrode active material and the conductive material.
However, Bogenstahl discloses a process comprising the fiberized binder including a network structure connecting the positive electrode active material and the conductive material (fibrilizing the dry mixture to form a network of web-like fibers; paragraph [0031]).
The fibrilizing of the dry binder particles will result in a fiberized binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode of Westphal to include the technique of fibrilization of a dry mixture of an electrode of Bogenstahl for the electrode material of Westphal because having a dry electrode film that has been fibrilized would provide a dry electrode film with one or more of improved film strength, improved cohesiveness, improved adhesiveness, improved electrical performance or reduced incidence of defects (paragraph [0032] of Bogenstahl).
Regarding claim 12, Westphal and Bogenstahl disclose the positive electrode of claim 1 as noted above.
Westphal does not disclose the positive electrode comprising the fiberized binder including a fibrous structure connecting the positive electrode active material and the conductive material.
However, Bogenstahl discloses a process comprising the fiberized binder including a fibrous structure connecting the positive electrode active material and the conductive material (fibrilizing the dry mixture to form a network of web-like fibers; paragraph [0031]).
The fibrilizing of the dry binder particles will result in a fiberized binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode of Westphal to include the technique of fibrilization of a dry mixture of an electrode of Bogenstahl for the electrode material of Westphal because having a dry electrode film that has been fibrilized would provide a dry electrode film with one or more of improved film strength, improved cohesiveness, improved adhesiveness, improved electrical performance or reduced incidence of defects (paragraph [0032] of Bogenstahl).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westphal (WO 2021/098963 A1) in view of Bogenstahl et al (US 2020/0227722 A1) in further view of Ho et al (US 2018/0083309 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Westphal discloses a lithium secondary battery (lithium ion battery) comprising a positive electrode (cathode; pg. 8) and wherein the Westphal and Bogenstahl disclose the positive electrode of claim 1 as noted above.
Westphal and Bogenstahl do not disclose a lithium secondary battery comprising a negative electrode and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode.
However, Ho discloses a lithium ion battery comprising an electrode assembly (paragraph [0028]) comprising a negative electrode (anode; paragraph [0028]) and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (the electrode assembly comprises a stacked structure of a separator disposed between the cathode and the anode; paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithium ion battery of Westphal and Bogenstahl to include the separator and anode of Ho on the cathode of the lithium ion battery of Westphal in order to provide a stacked structure of the electrode assembly of anode/separator/cathode because having a stacked structure where the separator is disposed between the anode and the cathode prevents contact between the anode and cathode and short circuit of the lithium ion battery (paragraph [0054] of Ho).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westphal (WO 2021/098963 A1) in view of Bogenstahl et al (US 2020/0227722 A1) in further view of Wang et al (US 2010/0291442 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Westphal and Bogenstahl disclose the positive electrode of claim 5 as noted above.
Westphal and Bogenstahl do not disclose the positive electrode comprising the acryl-based resin being methyl methacrylate
However, Wang discloses a primer for a battery electrode [0024] comprising an acryl-based resin being methyl methacrylate (a hydroxyl-containing polymer comprising vinyl alcohol-methyl methacrylate copolymer; paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positive electrode of Westphal and Bogenstahl to substitute the poly(acrylate) binder of Westphal for the methyl methacrylate of Wang because having a binder with hydroxyl groups, such as vinyl alcohol-methyl methacrylate copolymer, provides good adhesion to a conductive support (paragraph [0049] of Wang).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the claim objection has been fully considered and are persuasive.
The claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-9 of Westphal in view of Bogenstahl has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is noted above.
Applicants argue that Westphal does not disclose the primer layer comprising a weight ratio of the conductive material and the binder being 1:10 to 9:10.
This argument is persuasive as Westphal does not disclose the primer layer comprising a weight ratio of the conductive material and the binder being 1:10 to 9:10. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection has been noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1785