DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/28/2026 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
It is noted that claim 73 incorporates the subject matter of claim 1 such that any statement applicable to claim 1 is simultaneously applicable to claim 73 (outside of prior art rejections).
Priority
2. The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Claim 1 recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
161
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The range of “at least 90 wt.% of a dry active material” within claim 1 is not supported by the provisional application. The range has the intrinsic uppermost limit of 98.5 wt% [assuming only components of single dry electrode film are dry active material + dry binder and minimal amount of dry binder (1.5 wt%) recited is utilized]. The ranges recited in the provisional do not extend to this value. It is noted that the ranges taught include 70-98 wt%; 70-92 wt%; 70-96 wt% (P56). In the elected embodiment of the anode, these ranges are 80-98 wt%, 80-98 wt%, and 94-97 wt% (P57). The range presented in the claim reads on, for example, 98.5 wt% dry active material, which is not supported by these original ranges.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and all dependent claims are not accorded the provisional date of the priority application. Accordingly, the effectively filed date of the claims of the instant application is 11/8/2018 (that of the instant, non-provisional application).
It is noted that new claim 75 finds support in the provisional with respect to the weight% of dry active material being 90-98 wt%. Should the range recited in claim 75 replace the range recited in claim 1, then this issue with respect to support within priority relative to claim 1 would be withdrawn.
Applicant previously alleged the effectively filed date of all claims as amended are that of the provisional. It is noted the Examiner can also not find at least claims 14 and 19 within the provisional.
Applicant alleges claim 19 is within P56. P56 supports that there may be about 1-5 wt% of a porous carbon material in the non-elected embodiment of the cathode electrode film; the provisional does not support the broader construct claimed of a single dry electrode film of claim 1 that can be an anode or cathode, and that the porous material can be any porous material (i.e., carbon not specified in the claim). The single species teaching does not provide an adequate basis for the genera claimed.
With respect to claim 14, this is not found within the provisional that the Examiner can find.
Claim Analysis
3. An applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s). See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP 2111.01, Section IV.
The Applicant has provided their own definitions to the following phrases (P95-99 of the PGPUB): voltage, self-supporting, solvent-free, “wet” electrode and wet process
Accordingly, these explicit definitions will control the interpretations of these phrases, respectively, as the phrase is used in the claim.
Claim Objections
4. The objections to claims 1 and 33 are withdrawn in view of the corrections provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 4, 6-8, 13-19, 33, 72; claim 4; and claim 73 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the arguments presented and reconsideration of the subject matter in view of the arguments.
At least with respect to the provisional application (for purposes of determining the oldest effectively filed date of the limitation), P25 defines material loading as “mass of electrode film per unit area of electrode film” and active material loading “as mass of active material per unit area of electrode film.” P63 states that the electrode film may provide material loading, or active material loading in the amounts claimed or a range of values therebetween that includes the range of the claim of 15-100 mg/cm2. Applicant notes (page 9 of response filed):
PNG
media_image2.png
121
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the feature is considered support by the provisional (P25, 63), and is examined to have the meaning above as noted by Applicant (i.e., “a material loading” means “a mass of electrode film per unit area of electrode film”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Each of the prior Rejection 1, Rejection 2, and Rejection 3 from the prior Office Action are withdrawn in view of the argued meaning of “a material loading” of 15-100 mg/cm2 which is interpreted consistent with the instant application disclosure (and provisional application – see P25) and as explicitly noted by Applicant as having the meaning of “a mass of electrode film per unit area of electrode film.” The prior art relied upon to Zhamu et al. (US 2017/0207484) instead teaches the electrode active material loading versus the claimed material loading of the entire film. Accordingly, these rejections are withdrawn on this basis.
7. Rejection A: Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 13, 15-17, 33, 72-73, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (US 2013/0157141) in view of Ko et al. (US 2017/0005335), and the rejection is further evidenced by or optionally made in view of any of the following references individually or collectively:
Walsh et al., “Dry-Processed Binder-Free Holey Graphene Electrodes for Supercapacitors with Ultrahigh Areal Loadings,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 29478-29485 (copy previously provided);
Mitchell et al. (US 2006/0143884) – “Densification of Compressible Layers During Electrode Lamination” (title), Issued as US Patent 7,384,433 to assignee Maxwell Technologies, Inc.;
The Continuity Data Map for the family of this application is also shown below in part and relied upon;
Duong et al., “Dry Electrode Coating Technology, Maxwell Technologies, Inc., In Proceedings of the 48th Power Sources Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 11-14 June 2018; Volume 3, pp. 34-37; and/or
Ludwig et al., “Solvent-Free Manufacturing of Electrodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Scientific Reports, 6: 23150, DOI: 10.1038/srep23150, Published 17 March 2016 (copy provided).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Zhong teaches a single dry electrode film (abstract; title; P16, 84, 105, Fig. 1a; entire disclosure relied upon), comprising:
50-99% activated carbon (“a dry active material”) (the taught range overlapping with the claimed ranges of “at least 90 wt% of a dry active material” – claim 1 and “90-98 wt.% of the dry active material – claim 75) (P23, 34); and
1-50 % fibrillizable fluoropolymer (“a dry binder comprising a fibrillized binder”) (the taught range overlapping with the claimed range of “1.5-4 wt% of a dry binder comprising a fibrillized binder”) (P23, 34, 69);
wherein the single dry electrode film is self-supporting (i.e., “free-standing”) (P21, 23, 111) and is free of solvent-residue (P18, 22, 69, 71, 105; Fig. 1a; entire disclosure directed to solvent-free, dry processing), and
wherein the single dry electrode film comprises a thickness of between 10 µm and 2 mm (=2,000 µm) (overlapping with the claimed range of “110-2,000 µm”) (P21).
Zhong is silent as to “a material loading1” of the single dry electrode film (i.e., “the single dry electrode film comprises a material loading of 15-100 mg/cm2” – claim 1; further narrowed to 20-100 mg/cm2 in claim 4). A material loading is the mass of electrode film per unit area of the electrode film.
In the same field of endeavor of providing an electrode film (intended as an anode for a lithium ion battery – not presented in the scope of the independent claim but noted for completeness), Ko teaches analogous art in the same field of endeavor of a negative electrode (note that anode is an equivalent term for negative electrode) for a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract; P35-36), wherein the negative electrode may have a loading level of 10-40 mg/cm2, for example, 15-30 mg/cm2 (P16, 54). The taught ranges overlap with that claimed ranges (i.e., “15-100 mg/cm2” – claim 1; “20-100 mg/cm2” – claim 4), thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the ranges. Ko teaches the reason for the taught, suitable loading level (P54):
“As the negative electrode has a higher loading level, current density becomes higher and thus causes a side effect of increasing overall resistance of a battery. The high resistance leads to deteriorating performance of the battery during charge and discharge and accordingly, brings about overall performance deterioration of the battery and a high expansion ratio. According to one embodiment, a low loading level within the range may be realized by minimizing or reducing porosity of a negative active material layer.”
Ko further teaches that by providing a rechargeable lithium battery including the negative electrode with the features defined including loading level and porosity, that cell expansion may be prevented or reduced by minimizing or reducing pores in an electrode and uniformly or substantially uniformly distributing the pores (P15-20). Ko teaches that the provided, dried active material layer is compressed to manufacture a loading level of 20 mg/cm2 (P92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the single dry electrode film of Zhong with the above taught suitable loading level range(s) of Ko, overlapping with those claimed and thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for said ranges, in in order to provide an electrode film that achieves a desired current density while balancing the side effects of increased resistance (P54), and to achieve the advantageous, predictable result of preventing or reducing cell expansion by reducing pores in an electrode and uniformly or substantially uniformly distributing the pores (P15-20).
Evidential or Optional Teaching References
It is the position of the Examiner that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be immediately apprised of how to achieve a desired material loading by way of providing a desired mass of material in a given area and/or calendaring/laminating the electrode film; however, Applicant contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of how to achieve this with a reasonable expectation of success and that the unexpected results are the fact that these electrode films “could even be created.” For this reason, the following references are cited as evidence and also optionally relied upon as teaching references:
Walsh et al., “Dry-Processed Binder-Free Holey Graphene Electrodes for Supercapacitors with Ultrahigh Areal Loadings,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 29478-29485
Walsh teaches analogous art of a dry-processed, single dry electrode film comprising holey graphene (“dry active material”) that is free-standing, and free of solvent residue (entire disclosure relied upon; specifically see p. 29479-29481). Walsh teaches that the area mass loading of the single, dry electrode films is manipulated based on the starting electrode mass (i.e., how much material is first provided), as well as the pressure applied to these masses, with wide areal mass loading range of ~1-30 mg/cm2 achieved per electrode (p.29481).
Accordingly, Walsh as an evidential reference provides evidence that dry electrode films having an areal mass loading range of ~1-30 mg/cm2 achieved per electrode (p.29481) are achievable, and demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to achieve a dry film with an areal mass range overlapping with that claimed by manipulating the starting electrode mass, as well as the pressure applied to these masses.
Alternatively (Walsh as a teaching reference), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the known technique taught by Walsh with respect to manipulating areal mass loading of a dry electrode film by way of the amount of starting material utilized and/or pressure applied, to the dry electrode film of Zhong to achieve the desired areal mass loading ranges taught by Ko.
Mitchell - (US 2006/0143884) – “Densification of Compressible Layers During Electrode Lamination” (title), Issued US Patent 7,384,433 to Assignee Maxwell Technologies, Inc.
Mitchell teaches analogous art of a dry-processed, single dry electrode film (P14, 44) including a fibrillized mixture of dry active electrode material, a dry fibrillized polymer (“a binder”), and an optional conduction promoter (P18), wherein the film is provided with overlapping proportions (i.e., 85-93 wt% carbon as a dry active material; 3-8 wt% polymer – P44), wherein because no solvents or liquids are used in the formation of the electrode film using the dry fibrillizaton technique, the resulting electrode film is self-supporting and free of any impurities (P44). Mitchell further teaches that because the film is self-supporting it is readily adaptable for use in a calendar (P44-45). Mitchell teaches the laminator devices utilized pressure, heat, and/or gap settings so as to achieve sufficient densification of the film (P53).
Accordingly, Mitchell as an evidential references provides evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been apprised with a reasonable expectation of success as to how to provide a dry electrode film having similar/same constituents and features, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of how to manipulate the densification of the film via
A laminator device by way of altering the pressure, heat, and/or gap settings thereof (P53).
Alternatively, (Mitchell as a teaching reference), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the known technique taught by Mitchell with respect to achieving sufficient densification of the film (P53) of using a laminator and selecting appropriate settings of pressure, heat, and/or gap settings to the dry electrode film of Zhong to achieve the suitable mass loading ranges taught by Ko.
Duong et al., “Dry Electrode Coating Technology, Maxwell Technologies, Inc., pages 34-37, 2018
Duong provides evidence that using Maxwell’s proprietary dry coating electrode technology (i.e., at least Mitchell reference above; see also the family of cases shown below) results in an electrode loading of 27 mg/cm2:
PNG
media_image3.png
221
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
184
373
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
154
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
102
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Maxwell’s “proprietary dry electrode coating process” is a huge family of US applications with published or effective filing dates all before at least 2006 and including the above Mitchell et al. (US 2006/0143884) as described:
PNG
media_image7.png
883
860
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the evidence offered in Duong is that using Maxwell’s proprietary “proprietary dry electrode coating process” allows for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve an electrode film with an electrode loading of 27 mg/cm2 (a value within the ranges recited in claims 1 and 4). This militates against Applicant’s argument that such electrode materials are not capable of being created prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Ludwig et al., “Solvent-Free Manufacturing of Electrodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Scientific Reports, 6: 23150, DOI: 10.1038/srep23150, Published 17 March 2016
Ludwig teaches solvent-free electrode manufacturing and provides evidence that it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that a hot roller may be used to control the electrode thickness and density of the electrode (page2; Fig. 1), reproduced below, including the area density as illustrated below:
PNG
media_image8.png
558
835
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, as a evidential reference Ludwig teaches that it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art how to manipulate a dry-processed electrode to have a desired thickness and (area) density as illustrated above via use of a hot roller.
Alternatively, (Ludwig as a teaching reference), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the known technique taught by Ludwig with respect to manipulating thickness and density of the film (page 2) by way of using a hot roller to the dry electrode film of Zhong to achieve the suitable mass loading ranges taught by Ko.
Additional Comments on Ranges Taught by Zhong
It is also noted that at P137, additional ranges for the dry active material (graphite) and dry, fibrillized binder are taught as 80-96% and 4-10%, respectively, and at P138, additional ranges for the dry active material (lithiated metal oxide) and fibrillizable binder are taught at 50-96% and 0.5 to 50%, respectively. See also P84 teaching the ranges of 80-90% activated carbon and 3-15% binder, and that for a particular application, different particles and different combinations may be used “and that the determination of such would be within the scope of those skilled in the art” (P136).
Regarding the taught and claimed ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP § 2144.05). Additionally, the courts have held:
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05.
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382
Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions. In re Hoeschele,406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
A change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent.” Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874).
“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
Thus, in addition to the taught ranges of Zhong establishing a prima facie case of obvious for each of the claimed ranges, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective exists and which is fully commensurate in scope with the claim, it would have been an entirely obvious expedient to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to discover where in the disclosed set of ranges is the optimum range by routine experimentation for the desired end product (e.g., an electrode within a capacitor, battery, fuel cell, etc.) and the corresponding selected specific active material. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Zhong teaches wherein the dry active material comprises an anode active material (P136-142; see also claims 96-105 of Zhong).
Regarding claim 7, Zhong teaches wherein the anode active material comprises a carbon active material (P136-142; see also claims 96-105 of Zhong).
Regarding claim 8, Zhong teaches wherein the carbon active material comprises graphite (P136-142; see also claims 96-105 of Zhong).
Regarding claim 13, Zhong teaches wherein the dry binder comprises at least one of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (see claim 114 of Zhong; see P84).
Regarding claim 15, Zhong teaches wherein the single dry electrode film comprises
1-50 % fibrillizable fluoropolymer (“dry binder comprising a fibrillized binder”) (the taught range overlapping with the claimed range of “1.5-3 wt% of the dry binder”) (P23, 34).
Regarding claim 16, Zhong teaches wherein the single dry electrode film further comprising a conductive additive (P23).
Regarding claim 17, Zhong teaches wherein the single dry electrode film comprises at between 0-30 wt% conductive carbon (overlapping with the claimed range of “1-3 wt% of the conductive additive”) (P23), thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
In addition to the taught range of Zhong establishing a prima facie case of obvious for the claimed range, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective exists and which is fully commensurate in scope with the claim, it would have been an entirely obvious expedient to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to discover where in the disclosed set of ranges is the optimum range by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 33, Zhong teaches wherein the thickness is between 10 µm and 2 mm (=2,000 µm) (overlapping with the claimed range of “155-2,000 µm”) (P21).
Regarding claim 72, Zhong teaches wherein the single dry electrode film comprises
50-99% activated carbon (“the dry active material”) (the taught range overlapping with the claimed range of “94-98 wt.% of the dry active material”) (P23, 24).
Regarding claim 73, Zhong teaches an energy storage device (P136), comprising an electrode, wherein the electrode comprises:
a current collector (P21, 136); and
the single dry electrode film of claim 1 (see claims 96-116 of Zhong; see P70-71,136-142).
It is noted that both the described capacitor and battery embodiments read on the claimed “energy storage device,” and the described capacitor electrodes, anode, and cathode constructs also all read on the claimed “electrode.”
Regarding claim 75, Zhong teaches wherein the single dry electrode film comprises
50-99% activated carbon (“the dry active material”) (the taught range overlapping with the claimed range of “90-98 wt.% of the dry active material”) (P23, 24).
8. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references of Rejection A as applied to at least claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0131626).
Regarding claim 14, Zhong teaches wherein the dry binder may comprise polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and that the choice of binder is dictated by its melting point, metal adhesion, electrochemical and solvent stability in the subsequently used electrolyte, with the invention of Zhong “not being limited by the disclosed and suggested binders” (P106).
Zhong fails to explicitly teach the use of PTFE, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) in a ratio of 2:1:1 by weight. In the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches analogous art of a dry electrode film (P31) that includes 96 wt% graphite (“dry active material”) and dry binder, and teaches that the dry binder can comprise various suitable ratios of polymeric components, and teaches the specific embodiment of PTFE, CMC, and PVDF having a weight percent of 2 wt%, PTFE, 1 wt% CMC, and 1 wt% PVDF (P64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known, suitable binder compositions and ratios, suitable for use in a dry electrode film and select the known composition of 2:1:1 PTFE: CMC: PVDF for the binder of Zhong as taught by Wang in order to provide a binder suitable to for use therewith given Zhong teaches the selection of the binder is selected for its melting point, metal adhesion, electrochemical and solvent stability in the subsequently used electrolyte, with the invention of Zhong “not being limited by the disclosed and suggested binders” (P106), the selection of PTFE: CMC: PVDF providing a binder composition that meets these needs for a given final construct (e.g., battery, capacitor, etc.).
9. Claim 14 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references of Rejection A as applied to at least claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2017/0288209).
Regarding claim 14, Zhong teaches wherein the dry binder may comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and that the choice of binder is dictated by its melting point, metal adhesion, electrochemical and solvent stability in the subsequently used electrolyte, with the invention of Zhong “not being limited by the disclosed and suggested binders” (P106).
Zhong fails to explicitly teach the use of PTFE, carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) in a ratio of 2:1:1 by weight. In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches analogous art of electrode films that include an active material and binder in similar or same amounts, and the binder may be PVDF, PTFE, CMC, or combinations thereof (P60).
Therefore, the selection of these three binders for use as the dry binder of Zhong is considered prima facie obvious given the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); MPEP § 2144.07).
Zhong as modified by Liu fails to explicitly disclose the weight ratio of said components relative to one another when used in combination; however, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective exists that is fully commensurate in scope with the claim, determining workable or optimum amounts of these components in order to provide an overall binder with the desired properties as taught at P106 of Zhong is considered routine experimentation.
10. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references of Rejection A as applied to at least claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2017/0200943).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Zhong teaches wherein the single dry electrode film further comprises 0 to 10% carbon black or conductive carbon (P137-138). Zhong does not explicitly teach said conductive additive is a porous conductive additive; however, the use of porous conductive additive in the claimed construct is a well-known feature as taught by Kawakami (P76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select as the conductive additive of Zhong that of a porous conductive carbon as taught by Kawakami given the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); MPEP § 2144.07), thereby also providing the additional, predictable results of an entity that is both electrically conductive and capable of increasing the materials ability to retain electrolyte (if used in a final construct with electrolyte).
11. Rejection B: Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 13, 15-17, 72, 73, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US 2005/0186473) in view of Ko et al. (US 2017/0005335), and the rejection is further evidenced by or optionally made in view of any of the following references individually or collectively with the exception of Duong which is solely relied upon as an evidential reference:
Walsh et al., “Dry-Processed Binder-Free Holey Graphene Electrodes for Supercapacitors with Ultrahigh Areal Loadings,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 29478-29485 (copy previously provided);
Mitchell et al. (US 2006/0143884) – “Densification of Compressible Layers During Electrode Lamination” (title), Issued as US Patent 7,384,433 to assignee Maxwell Technologies, Inc.;
The Continuity Data Map for the family of this application is also shown below in part and relied upon; it is within the same family as the Mitchell '473 primary reference above;
Duong et al., “Dry Electrode Coating Technology, Maxwell Technologies, Inc., In Proceedings of the 48th Power Sources Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 11-14 June 2018; Volume 3, pp. 34-37; and/or
Ludwig et al., “Solvent-Free Manufacturing of Electrodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Scientific Reports, 6: 23150, DOI: 10.1038/srep23150, Published 17 March 2016 (copy provided).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-7, 13, 15-17, Mitchell '473 teaches a single dry electrode film 104 (Fig. 1; P37), comprising:
a dry active material (including activated carbon) (P37); and
a dry binder comprising a fibrillized binder (including PTFE) (P35-37);
conductive carbon in the amount of 2-10 wt% (P35),
wherein the single dry electrode film is 150 μm in thickness (P32) (anticipating the claimed range of “a thickness of 110-2,000 μm”),
wherein the single dry electrode film comprises 85-90% by weight or 85-93% by weight activated carbon (claimed range: “at least about 90 wt.% of the dry active material”),
wherein the single dry electrode film comprises 5-8% by weight, or 3-8% by weight binder (claimed range: “1.5-4 wt.% of the dry binder”),
wherein the single dry electrode film is substantially free of solvent residue (P37: no liquid or solvent is used such that the electrode film is free of impurities which can degrade lifetime and performance of the electrode”).
Mitchell is silent as to a material loading of the single dry electrode film (i.e., “the single dry electrode film comprises a material loading of 15-100 mg/cm2” – claim 1; further narrowed to 20-100 mg/cm2 in claim 4). A material loading is the mass of electrode film per unit area of the electrode film.
In the same field of endeavor of providing an electrode film (intended as an anode for a lithium ion battery – not presented in the scope of the independent claim but noted for completeness), Ko teaches analogous art in the same field of endeavor of a negative electrode (note that anode is an equivalent term for negative electrode) for a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract; P35-36), wherein the negative electrode may have a loading level of 10-40 mg/cm2, for example, 15-30 mg/cm2 (P16, 54). The taught ranges overlap with that claimed ranges (i.e., “15-100 mg/cm2” – claim 1; “20-100 mg/cm2” – claim 4), thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the ranges. Ko teaches the reason for the taught, suitable loading level (P54):
“As the negative electrode has a higher loading level, current density becomes higher and thus causes a side effect of increasing overall resistance of a battery. The high resistance leads to deteriorating performance of the battery during charge and discharge and accordingly, brings about overall performance deterioration of the battery and a high expansion ratio. According to one embodiment, a low loading level within the range may be realized by minimizing or reducing porosity of a negative active material layer.”
Ko further teaches that by providing a rechargeable lithium battery including the negative electrode with the features defined including loading level and porosity, that cell expansion may be prevented or reduced by minimizing or reducing pores in an electrode and uniformly or substantially uniformly distributing the pores (P15-20). Ko teaches that the provided, dried active material layer is compressed to manufacture a loading level of 20 mg/cm2 (P92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the single dry electrode film of Mitchell with the above taught suitable loading level range(s) of Ko, overlapping with those claimed and thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for said ranges, in in order to provide an electrode film that achieves a desired current density while balancing the side effects of increased resistance (P54), and to achieve the advantageous, predictable result of preventing or reducing cell expansion by reducing pores in an electrode and uniformly or substantially uniformly distributing the pores (P15-20).
Evidential or Optional Teaching References
It is the position of the Examiner that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be immediately apprised of how to achieve a desired material loading by way of providing a desired mass of material in a given area and/or calendaring/laminating the electrode film; however, Applicant contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of how to achieve this with a reasonable expectation of success and that the unexpected results are the fact that these electrode films “could even be created.” For this reason, the following references are cited as evidence and also optionally relied upon as teaching references:
Walsh et al., “Dry-Processed Binder-Free Holey Graphene Electrodes for Supercapacitors with Ultrahigh Areal Loadings,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 29478-29485
Walsh teaches analogous art of a dry-processed, single dry electrode film comprising holey graphene (“dry active material”) that is free-standing, and free of solvent residue (entire disclosure relied upon; specifically see p. 29479-29481). Walsh teaches that the area mass loading of the single, dry electrode films is manipulated based on the starting electrode mass (i.e., how much material is first provided), as well as the pressure applied to these masses, with wide areal mass loading range of ~1-30 mg/cm2 achieved per electrode (p.29481).
Accordingly, Walsh as an evidential reference provides evidence that dry electrode films having an areal mass loading range of ~1-30 mg/cm2 achieved per electrode (p.29481) are achievable, and demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to achieve a dry film with an areal mass range overlapping with that claimed by manipulating the starting electrode mass, as well as the pressure applied to these masses.
Alternatively (Walsh as a teaching reference), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the known technique taught by Walsh with respect to manipulating areal mass loading of a dry electrode film by way of the amount of starting material utilized and/or pressure applied, to the dry electrode film of Mitchell to achieve the desired areal mass loading ranges taught by Ko.
Mitchell - (US 2006/0143884) – “Densification of Compressible Layers During Electrode Lamination” (title), Issued US Patent 7,384,433 to Assignee Maxwell Technologies, Inc.
Mitchell '884 teaches analogous art of a dry-processed, single dry electrode film (P14, 44) including a fibrillized mixture of dry active electrode material, a dry fibrillized polymer (“a binder”), and an optional conduction promoter (P18), wherein the film is provided with overlapping proportions (i.e., 85-93 wt% carbon as a dry active material; 3-8 wt% polymer – P44), wherein because no solvents or liquids are used in the formation of the electrode film using the dry fibrilliizaton technique, the resulting electrode film is self-supporting and free of any impurities (P44). Mitchell further teaches that because the film is self-supporting it is readily adaptable for use in a calendar (P44-45). Mitchell teaches the laminator devices utilized pressure, heat, and/or gap settings so as to achieve sufficient densification of the film (P53).
Accordingly, Mitchell '884 as an evidential references provides evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been apprised with a reasonable expectation of success as to how to provide a dry electrode film having similar/same constituents and features, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of how to manipulate the densification of the film via a laminator device by way of altering the pressure, heat, and/or gap settings thereof (P53).
Alternatively, (Mitchell '884 as a teaching reference), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the known technique taught by Mitchell '884 with respect to achieving sufficient densification of the film (P53) of using a laminator and selecting appropriate settings of pressure, heat, and/or gap settings to the dry electrode film of Mitchell '473 to achieve the suitable mass loading ranges taught by Ko.
Duong et al., “Dry Electrode Coating Technology, Maxwell Technologies, Inc., pages 34-37, 2018
Duong provides evidence that using Maxwell’s proprietary dry coating electrode technology (i.e., at least Mitchell reference above; see also the family of cases shown below) results in an electrode loading of 27 mg/cm2:
PNG
media_image3.png
221
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
184
373
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
154
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
102
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Maxwell’s “proprietary dry electrode coating process” is a huge family of US applications with published or effective filing dates all before at least 2006 and including both of the above Mitchell references (i.e., Mitchell et al. (US 2005/0186473) and Mitchell et al. (US 2006/0143884)):
PNG
media_image9.png
877
860
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the evidence offered in Duong is that using Maxwell’s proprietary “proprietary dry electrode coating process” allows for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve an electrode film with an electrode loading of 27 mg/cm2 (a value within the ranges recited in claims 1 and 4). This militates against Applicant’s argument that such electrode materials are not capable of being created prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Ludwig et al., “Solvent-Free Manufacturing of Electrodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Scientific Reports, 6: 23150, DOI: 10.1038/srep23150, Published 17 March 2016
Ludwig teaches solvent-free electrode manufacturing and provides evidence that it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that a hot roller may be used to control the electrode thickness and density of the electrode (page2; Fig. 1), reproduced below, including the area density as illustrated below:
PNG
media_image8.png
558
835
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, as a evidential reference Ludwig teaches that it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art how to manipulate a dry-processed electrode to have a desired thickness and (area) density as illustrated above via use of a hot roller.
Alternatively, (Ludwig as a teaching reference), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the known technique taught by Ludwig with respect to manipulating thickness and density of the film (page 2) by way of using a hot roller to the dry electrode film of Mitchell to achieve the suitable mass loading ranges taught by Ko.
Regarding claim 72, Mitchell teaches the amount of activated carbon may be 85-93% (P35), thereby rendering the claimed range prima facie obvious given the closeness of the taught range to the claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 73, Mitchell teaches an energy storage device comprising an electrode, the electrode comprising: a current collector 102; and the single dry electrode film of claim 1 (entirely incorporated into the instant rejection of record).
Regarding claim 75, Mitchell teaches the amount of activated carbon may be 85-93% (P35), thereby rendering the claimed range prima facie obvious given the closeness of the taught range to the claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
12. Rejection C: Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 13, 14-15, 72-73, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2019/0131626) in view of Ko et al. (US 2017/0005335), and the rejection is further evidenced by or optionally made in view of any of the following references individually or collectively with the exception of Duong which is solely relied upon as an evidential reference:
Walsh et al., “Dry-Processed Binder-Free Holey Graphene Electrodes for Supercapacitors with Ultrahigh Areal Loadings,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 29478-29485 (copy previously provided);
Mitchell et al. (US 2006/0143884) – “Densification of Compressible Layers During Electrode Lamination” (title), Issued as US Patent 7,384,433 to assignee Maxwell Technologies, Inc.;
The Continuity Data Map for the family of this application is also shown below and relied upon;
Duong et al., “Dry Electrode Coating Technology, Maxwell Technologies, Inc., In Proceedings of the 48th Power Sources Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 11-14 June 2018; Volume 3, pp. 34-37; and/or
Ludwig et al., “Solvent-Free Manufacturing of Electrodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Scientific Reports, 6: 23150, DOI: 10.1038/srep23150, Published 17 March 2016 (copy provided).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-8, 13-15, 72, and 75 Wang teaches a single dry electrode film (P31), comprising:
96% graphite (anticipating the range claimed of “at least 90 wt% of a dry active material”) (P95); and
2% PTFE, 1% CMC, and 1% PVDF, cumulatively 4 wt. % dry binder (the individual and cumulative values each anticipating the range claimed of “at most 4 wt% of a dry binder”), wherein the binder can be fibrillizable (P50);
wherein the single dry electrode film is free-standing (P51) and is free of solvent-residue (P78; achieved by dry processing), and
wherein the single dry electrode film may comprises a thickness of “about 200 microns, “about 250 microns” (anticipating the range of 110-2,000 µm).
Wang is silent as to “a material loading2” of the single dry electrode film (i.e., “the single dry electrode film comprises a material loading of 15-100 mg/cm2” – claim 1; further narrowed to 20-100 mg/cm2 in claim 4). A material loading is the mass of electrode film per unit area of the electrode film.
In the same field of endeavor of providing an electrode film (intended as an anode for a lithium ion battery – not presented in the scope of the independent claim but noted for completeness), Ko teaches analogous art in the same field of endeavor of a negative electrode (note that anode is an equivalent term for negative electrode) for a rechargeable lithium battery (abstract; P35-36), wherein the negative electrode may have a loading level of 10-40 mg/cm2, for example, 15-30 mg/cm2 (P16, 54). The taught ranges overlap with that claimed ranges (i.e., “15-100 mg/cm2” – claim 1; “20-100 mg/cm2” – claim 4), thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the ranges. Ko teaches the reason for the taught, suitable loading level (P54):
“As the negative electrode has a higher loading level, current density becomes higher and thus causes a side effect of increasing overall resistance of a battery. The high resistance leads to deteriorating performance of the battery during charge and discharge and accordingly, brings about overall performance deterioration of the battery and a high expansion ratio. According to one embodiment, a low loading level within the range may be realized by minimizing or reducing porosity of a negative active material layer.”
Ko further teaches that by providing a rechargeable lithium battery including the negative electrode with the features defined including loading level and porosity, that cell expansion may be prevented or reduced by minimizing or reducing pores in an electrode and uniformly or substantially uniformly distributing the pores (P15-20). Ko teaches that the provided, dried active material layer is compressed to manufacture a loading level of 20 mg/cm2 (P92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the single dry electrode film of Wang with the above taught suitable loading level range(s) of Ko, overlapping with those claimed and thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for said ranges, in in order to provide an electrode film that achieves a desired current density while balancing the side effects of increased resistance (P54), and to achieve the advantageous, predictable result of preventing or reducing cell expansion by reducing pores in an electrode and uniformly or substantially uniformly distributing the pores (P15-20).
Evidential or Optional Teaching References
It is the position of the Examiner that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be immediately apprised of how to achieve a desired material loading by way of providing a desired mass of material in a given area and/or calendaring/laminating the electrode film; however, Applicant contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of how to achieve this with a reasonable expectation of success and that the unexpected results are the fact that these electrode films “could even be created.” For this reason, the following references are cited as evidence and also optionally relied upon as teaching references:
Walsh et al., “Dry-Processed Binder-Free Holey Graphene Electrodes for Supercapacitors with Ultrahigh Areal Loadings,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 29478-29485
Walsh teaches analogous art of a dry-processed, single dry electrode film comprising holey graphene (“dry active material”) that is free-standing, and free of solvent residue (entire disclosure relied upon; specifically see p. 29479-29481). Walsh teaches that the area mass loading of the single, dry electrode films is manipulated based on the starting electrode mass (i.e., how much material is first provided), as well as the pressure applied to these masses, with wide areal mass loading range of ~1-30 mg/cm2 achieved per electrode (p.29481).
Accordingly, Walsh as an evidential reference provides evidence that dry electrode films having an areal mass loading range of ~1-30 mg/cm2 achieved per electrode (p.29481) are achievable, and demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to achieve a dry film with an areal mass range overlapping with that claimed by manipulating the starting electrode mass, as well as the pressure applied to these masses.
Alternatively (Walsh as a teaching reference), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the known technique taught by Walsh with respect to manipulating areal mass loading of a dry electrode film by way of the amount of starting material utilized and/or pressure applied, to the dry electrode film of Wang to achieve the desired areal mass loading ranges taught by Ko.
Mitchell - (US 2006/0143884) – “Densification of Compressible Layers During Electrode Lamination” (title), Issued US Patent 7,384,433 to Assignee Maxwell Technologies, Inc.
Mitchell teaches analogous art of a dry-processed, single dry electrode film (P14, 44) including a fibrillized mixture of dry active electrode material, a dry fibrillized polymer (“a binder”), and an optional conduction promoter (P18), wherein the film is provided with overlapping proportions (i.e., 85-93 wt% carbon as a dry active material; 3-8 wt% polymer – P44), wherein because no solvents or liquids are used in the formation of the electrode film using the dry fibrilliizaton technique, the resulting electrode film is self-supporting and free of any impurities (P44). Mitchell further teaches that because the film is self-supporting it is readily adaptable for use in a calendar (P44-45). Mitchell teaches the laminator devices utilized pressure, heat, and/or gap settings so as to achieve sufficient densification of the film (P53).
Accordingly, Mitchell as an evidential references provides evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been apprised with a reasonable expectation of success as to how to provide a dry electrode film having similar/same constituents and features, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of how to manipulate the densification of the film via
a laminator device by way of altering the pressure, heat, and/or gap settings thereof (P53).
Alternatively, (Mitchell as a teaching reference), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the known technique taught by Mitchell with respect to achieving sufficient densification of the film (P53) of using a laminator and selecting appropriate settings of pressure, heat, and/or gap settings to the dry electrode film of Wang to achieve the suitable mass loading ranges taught by Ko.
Duong et al., “Dry Electrode Coating Technology, Maxwell Technologies, Inc., pages 34-37, 2018
Duong provides evidence that using Maxwell’s proprietary dry coating electrode technology (i.e., at least Mitchell reference above; see also the family of cases shown below) results in an electrode loading of 27 mg/cm2:
PNG
media_image3.png
221
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
184
373
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
154
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
102
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Maxwell’s “proprietary dry electrode coating process” is a huge family of US applications with published or effective filing dates all before at least 2006 and including the above Mitchell et al. (US 2006/0143884) as described:
PNG
media_image7.png
883
860
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the evidence offered in Duong is that using Maxwell’s proprietary “proprietary dry electrode coating process” allows for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve an electrode film with an electrode loading of 27 mg/cm2 (a value within the ranges recited in claims 1 and 4). This militates against Applicant’s argument that such electrode materials are not capable of being created prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Ludwig et al., “Solvent-Free Manufacturing of Electrodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Scientific Reports, 6: 23150, DOI: 10.1038/srep23150, Published 17 March 2016
Ludwig teaches solvent-free electrode manufacturing and provides evidence that it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that a hot roller may be used to control the electrode thickness and density of the electrode (page2; Fig. 1), reproduced below, including the area density as illustrated below:
PNG
media_image8.png
558
835
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, as a evidential reference Ludwig teaches that it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art how to manipulate a dry-processed electrode to have a desired thickness and (area) density as illustrated above via use of a hot roller.
Alternatively, (Ludwig as a teaching reference), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the known technique taught by Ludwig with respect to manipulating thickness and density of the film (page 2) by way of using a hot roller to the dry electrode film of Wang to achieve the suitable mass loading ranges taught by Ko.
Regarding claim 73, Wang teaches an energy storage device comprising an electrode, wherein the electrode comprises a current collector and the single dry electrode film of claim 1 (P22-23, P45-52; entire disclosure relied upon).
Date of Duong reference:
13. Duong et al., “Dry Electrode Coating Technology, Maxwell Technologies, Inc., In Proceedings of the 48th Power Sources Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 11-14 June 2018; Volume 3, pp. 34-37 is cited above. The document does not have the date or year printed on it; however, as evidence of its date, please see citation 28 of Bouguern et al., “Engineering Dry Electrode Manufacturing for Sustainable Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Batteries, 2024, 10, 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries140010039 (copy provided), published 22 Jan. 2024:
PNG
media_image10.png
53
691
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 have been fully considered. Any arguments pertaining to maintained rejections or positions are reproduced below. Any pertinent arguments relevant to the updated rejections of record are also addressed:
1) With Respect to the Priority Application, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image11.png
255
646
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
80
641
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In response: This argument is persuasive. P57, for example, teaches “…an anode film may comprise at least one active material, a binder, an optionally a conductive additive. …In some embodiments, an anode electrode film can include about 80 weight% to 98 weight% of the at least one active material…” This supports the position that the weight percentages claimed are relative to the collective sum of components within the electrode film.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image13.png
307
651
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In response: The range of “at least 90 wt.% of a dry active material” within claim 1 is not supported by the provisional application. The range has the intrinsic uppermost limit of 98.5 wt% [assuming only components of single dry electrode film are dry active material + dry binder and minimal amount of dry binder (1.5 wt%) recited is utilized]. The ranges recited in the provisional do not extend to this value. It is noted that the ranges taught include 70-98 wt%; 70-92 wt%; 70-96 wt% (P56). In the elected embodiment of the anode, these ranges are 80-98 wt%, 80-98 wt%, and 94-97 wt% (P57). The range presented in the claim reads on, for example, 98.5 wt% dry active material, which is not supported by these original ranges.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and all dependent claims are not accorded the provisional date of the priority application. Accordingly, the effectively filed date of the claims of the instant application is 11/8/2018 (that of the instant, non-provisional application).
It is noted that new claim 75 finds support in the provisional with respect to the weight% of dry active material being 90-98 wt%. Should the range recited in claim 75 replace the range recited in claim 1, then this issue with respect to support within priority relative to at least claim 1 would be withdrawn.
2) With Respect to the prior art used in the updated rejections of record
With respect to the use of Walsh as an evidential or teaching reference:
PNG
media_image14.png
327
641
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
75
644
media_image15.png
Greyscale
In response: Walsh teaches analogous art of a dry-processed, single dry electrode film comprising holey graphene (“dry active material”) that is free-standing, and free of solvent residue (entire disclosure relied upon; specifically see p. 29479-29481). Walsh teaches that the area mass loading of the single, dry electrode films is manipulated based on the starting electrode mass (i.e., how much material is first provided), as well as the pressure applied to these masses, with wide areal mass loading range of ~1-30 mg/cm2 achieved per electrode (p.29481).
Accordingly, Walsh as an evidential reference provides evidence that dry electrode films having an areal mass loading range of ~1-30 mg/cm2 achieved per electrode (p.29481) are achievable, and demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to achieve a dry film with an areal mass range overlapping with that claimed by manipulating the starting electrode mass, as well as the pressure applied to these masses.
It is entirely unclear to the Examiner how this does not teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to manipulate areal mass loading of a single dry electrode film. It is not clear how applying the known technique of manipulating starting electrode mass or the application of pressure to said mass/film to achieve a desired areal density “destroys the primary intended purpose of Zhong.” The material make-up of Zhong’s electrode film is not proposed to be altered in any format (the Examiner is not proposing to remove the binder of Zhong). It is also entirely unclear why there would not be a reasonable expectation of success in applying this known technique of manipulating the starting mass of material of Zhong (e.g., binder, conductive material, and active material) and/or pressures applied to the obtained film as taught by Wang would not result in success.
Applicant repeats the argument for unexpected results:
PNG
media_image16.png
396
675
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
305
640
media_image17.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
378
654
media_image18.png
Greyscale
In response: As previously noted and not addressed by Applicant, the Examiner is not clear where Applicant is obtaining the requirement that unexpected results must be compared to the actual disclosure of “a single and unmodified reference” as emphasized above. Clarification is requested as to this allegation.
Nonetheless, the “creation” of electrode film of claim 1 is not a new or unexpected result. A single dry electrode film with taught values and/or overlapping ranges as that claimed for a dry active material and a dry binder comprising fibrillized binder are taught in each of the primary references, as is a teaching that the electrode films are free-standing, free of residue, and having a thickness value or range claimed. The only deficiency for each primary reference relevant to the claim is with respect to “material loading feature,” and as previously noted (emphasis added):
Electrode material loading is an incredibly easy feature to manipulate in the constructs of any of Zhong, Mitchell, or Wang- either the feature is already present (not necessarily intrinsic- no such rejection is made, it is just a possibility given all other claim limitations are met), or all that would be required to manipulate this feature is to provide the construct as taught by these references (i.e., a single dry electrode film that is free-standing, free of solvent, has the component(s) in the ranges claimed) and either provide enough of said active material in a given area to meet the desired active material loading desired, and/or compress the material to meet the desired area loading desired.
To this end, an entire body of evidential references, optionally applied as teaching references, is applied in each of the updated Rejections A-C to demonstrate the factual basis of the Examiner’s position above, reproduced below:
Walsh et al., “Dry-Processed Binder-Free Holey Graphene Electrodes for Supercapacitors with Ultrahigh Areal Loadings,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 29478-29485
Walsh teaches analogous art of a dry-processed, single dry electrode film comprising holey graphene (“dry active material”) that is free-standing, and free of solvent residue (entire disclosure relied upon; specifically see p. 29479-29481). Walsh teaches that the area mass loading of the single, dry electrode films is manipulated based on the starting electrode mass (i.e., how much material is first provided), as well as the pressure applied to these masses, with wide areal mass loading range of ~1-30 mg/cm2 achieved per electrode (p.29481).
Accordingly, Walsh as an evidential reference provides evidence that dry electrode films having an areal mass loading range of ~1-30 mg/cm2 achieved per electrode (p.29481) are achievable, and demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to achieve a dry film with an areal mass range overlapping with that claimed by manipulating the starting electrode mass, as well as the pressure applied to these masses.
Mitchell - (US 2006/0143884) – “Densification of Compressible Layers During Electrode Lamination” (title), Issued US Patent 7,384,433 to Assignee Maxwell Technologies, Inc.
Mitchell teaches analogous art of a dry-processed, single dry electrode film (P14, 44) including a fibrillized mixture of dry active electrode material, a dry fibrillized polymer (“a binder”), and an optional conduction promoter (P18), wherein the film is provided with overlapping proportions (i.e., 85-93 wt% carbon as a dry active material; 3-8 wt% polymer – P44), wherein because no solvents or liquids are used in the formation of the electrode film using the dry fibrilliizaton technique, the resulting electrode film is self-supporting and free of any impurities (P44). Mitchell further teaches that because the film is self-supporting it is readily adaptable for use in a calendar (P44-45). Mitchell teaches the laminator devices utilized pressure, heat, and/or gap settings so as to achieve sufficient densification of the film (P53).
Accordingly, Mitchell as an evidential references provides evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been apprised with a reasonable expectation of success as to how to provide a dry electrode film having similar/same constituents and features, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of how to manipulate the densification of the film via
A laminator device by way of altering the pressure, heat, and/or gap settings thereof (P53).
Duong et al., “Dry Electrode Coating Technology, Maxwell Technologies, Inc., pages 34-37, 2018
Duong provides evidence that using Maxwell’s proprietary dry coating electrode technology (i.e., at least Mitchell reference above; see also the family of cases shown below) results in an electrode loading of 27 mg/cm2:
PNG
media_image3.png
221
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
184
373
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
154
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
102
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Maxwell’s “proprietary dry electrode coating process” is a huge family of US applications with published or effective filing dates all before at least 2006 and including each of the above Mitchell references used in the rejections above:
PNG
media_image9.png
877
860
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the evidence offered in Duong is that using Maxwell’s proprietary “proprietary dry electrode coating process” allows for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve an electrode film with an electrode loading of 27 mg/cm2 (a value within the ranges recited in claims 1 and 4). This militates against Applicant’s argument that such electrode materials are not capable of being created prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Ludwig et al., “Solvent-Free Manufacturing of Electrodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries,” Scientific Reports, 6: 23150, DOI: 10.1038/srep23150, Published 17 March 2016
Ludwig teaches solvent-free electrode manufacturing and provides evidence that it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art that a hot roller may be used to control the electrode thickness and density of the electrode (page2; Fig. 1), reproduced below, including the area density as illustrated below:
PNG
media_image8.png
558
835
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, as a evidential reference Ludwig teaches that it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art how to manipulate a dry-processed electrode to have a desired thickness and (area) density as illustrated above via use of a hot roller.
Therefore, it is concluded that the argument that such dry electrode films “were able to in fact be created” as a “new or unexpected result” is not persuasive in view of the body of evidence cited above demonstrating the opposite.
Applicant also does not address the following analysis with respect to the allegation of new or unexpected results as previously provided:
As to the arguments for new or unexpected results for the specific range(s) claimed, if this was a successful showing of new/unexpected results, then this would bring a forth a new matter issue because the ranges recited in the claim are not original ranges to the application for which support is alleged. To this end, and as only one non-limiting, example, the thickness range in the claim is 110-2,000 µm and is not an originally taught range. While the general range of 30 microns to 2,000 microns (P39 of the provisional) is taught and supports the range of 110-2,000 microns (or any other random end points Applicant wants to select and claim in this range), Applicant cannot then persuasively argue unexpected results regarding a new, narrower range than that which was originally claimed/taught because Applicant would be alleging that the newly claimed range is a different invention than the originally disclosed range since the newly claimed range has properties unique from the originally disclosed range. In other words, an amended range having new end points within an original range is not new matter by itself; however, a successful showing of unexpected results regarding a narrower range than was originally claimed/taught would bring forth a new matter issue, as it would show that the newly claimed range is a different invention than the originally disclosed range. See MPEP 2163(I)(B) and case law discussion below. Specifically, unexpected results establishes that a small range is a different invention than the broad range such that as In re Wertheim (citation below) points out, if the broad and narrow ranges are different inventions the broad range does not describe the narrow range. With respect to the above, the following case law is applicable to this position:
In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (1976). “Where it is clear, for instance, that the broad described range pertains to a different invention than the narrower (and subsumed) claimed range, then the broader range does not describe the narrower range. In re Baird, 348 F.2d 974, 52 CCPA 1747, 146 USPQ 579 (1965); In re Draeger, 150 F.2d 572, 32 CCPA 1217, 66 USPQ 247 (1945).
Accordingly, arguendo, even if unexpected results were established for the ranges presented, then the claims would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph for this reason.
The argument for unexpected results was also addressed in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 7/20/2023 (see pages 11-14), as well as the prior Office Action. Each of the primary references under 35 U.S.C. 103 teaches all of the claimed subject matter except the electrode material loading range recited. The electrode material loading range is met by the taught range of Ko as detailed above, and the body of optional evidential and/or teaching references demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art could have easily achieved and manipulated this feature with known processes from the prior art by way of the starting amount of material utilized and/or compression applied and/or lamination utilized, etc.
The Examiner has reviewed the evidence offered in the specification which states that a battery incorporating a dry electrode was better than one including a wet cathode and a wet anode (P102). The entire analysis and examples in the instant application PGPUB appear to revolve around the comparison of dry electrodes versus wet electrodes, not a specified range of any kind. The prior art applied against the claims all teach dry electrodes such that any alleged “better” results would naturally be present in the dry electrodes of these prior art references.
To rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946) ("Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies."); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937). See MPEP 2144.04, Section III-A. See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results. Note that to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Furthermore with respect to any future allegation of unexpected results, the following is noted.
The "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." (MPEP 7160.02(d)) (Examiner emphasis).
The showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
See also the following case law (MPEP 716.02(d)):
In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium);
In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.); and
In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972) (Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.")
The objective evidence offered within the instant application examples is limited to specific species of materials (e.g., graphite or NMC622 versus the genus of “a dry active material” as one non-limiting example). In the case law of In re Grasselli cited above, the evidence of experiments limited to sodium were considered insufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because the claims were directed to catalysts containing an alkali metal (sodium being a species of the genus alkali metal of which there are only six alkali metals). Accordingly, there is no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions encompassed by the genera presented (e.g., “a dry active material,” “a dry binder,” etc.) would behave in the same manner as the tested composition, especially given the vast number of possible active materials given the electrode can be an electrode for a battery, capacitor, fuel cell, electrolysis cell, etc.
The evidence offered and cited by Applicant includes Example 1, wherein the electrode material loading involves two data points, does not span the ranges presented in claim 1, and does not include data outside the range. As noted above, unexpected results must be shown to occur over the entire claimed range, and furthermore, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Lastly, the objective evidence should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
Accordingly, at the present time, there is no adequate basis to believe there is any unexpected result for the claimed construct as a whole or a specific range recited therein. The argument for unexpected results is not persuasive.
Additional Examiner Comments:
In a prior response, Applicant argued that because a given dependent claim was not rejected under a primary reference, the rejection was overcome. It is noted that all dependent claims may not be addressed for each and every main rejection of the multitude set forth against the claims. For example, all claims are addressed within the Rejection A rejection, whereas Rejection B does not address each dependent claim where an additional teaching reference is needed; however, that is not to say that the same prior art applied to a given dependent claim cannot be applied to the limitation if moved to the independent claim.
Applicant should practice compact prosecution with respect to the prior art cited and review it in the general scope of how it could be applied in conjunction with any primary reference cited in this Office Action, wherein the purpose of the multiple rejections is to demonstrate the body of prior art available against the claimed construct in order that Applicant can make appropriate amendments to avoid at least three known primary references.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Han et al. (US 2016/0172679) teaches the following:
[0065] The positive electrode has a relatively high loading level and may maintain a stable and flexible electrode. The loading level indicates total amounts of the positive active material, the binder and the conductive active material to area of the positive active material layer (total amounts of the positive active material, the binder and the conductive active material/area of the positive active material layer) and it is well known in the related art. Specifically, the positive electrode may have a loading level on its both sides of about 45 mg/cm.sup.2 to about 65 mg/cm.sup.2, and more specifically about 50 mg/cm.sup.2 to about 60 mg/cm.sup.2. In other words, when the positive electrode is manufactured into a thick film within the loading level range, a stable and flexible electrode may be secured, achieving a rechargeable lithium battery having high-capacity and excellent cycle-life characteristics.
Lee et al. (US 2018/0123120) teaches loading level of negative electrode film is 6-65 mg/cm2 (P10, 42).
Duong et al. (US 2015/0303481) is a published reference one year before any filing date of the instant application such that it is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that cannot be overcome (sharing common inventor(s)) and appears to teach all the subject matter claimed with the exception of the material loading feature.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BARROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 P25 of the provisional defines a material loading as “mass of electrode film per unit area of electrode film” Applicant notes on page 9 of response presently filed that this is the definition being used for the phrase.
2 P25 of the provisional defines a material loading as “mass of electrode film per unit area of electrode film” Applicant notes on page 9 of response presently filed that this is the definition being used for the phrase.
Prosecution Insights