DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/19/25, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1, 18, and 20 is/are amended; claim(s) 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14–16, and 19 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; and claim(s) 3–5, 7, 10, 13, 17, and 21–23 is/are canceled; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14, set forth in the Office Action mailed 09/24/25 has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 20, as well as the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of all pending claims, has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites that “step (i) is performed in the presence of a solvent selected from the group consisting of …” in lines 21 and 22. First, as step (i) begins with dry mixing (see “whereby the active material and the conducting diluent are dry mixed first” in line 9), it is unclear if this limitation now requires all of step (i) to employ a solvent or only the portion of step (i) after dry-mixing. Second, it is unclear if Applicant intends this solvent to be the same as or different than the “solvent” already added in step (i) (see “followed by adding a binder solution and a solvent” in lines 10 and 11).
P. 4, lines 4 and 5, describes that the cathode slurry is prepared by mixing the active material, conducting diluent, and binder in the presence of a solvent, where, per p. 5, lines 1–3, the solvent may be NMP, DMAC, or DMF. Further, p. 5, lines 23–25 (as well as working exs., pp. 9 and 10), detail that the first step in cathode slurry preparation involves dry mixing of the powder materials (active material and conducting diluent) followed by addition of solvent like NMP at different intervals to reduce viscosity. Thus, for this Office Action claim 20 will be interpreted to mean that step (i) requires a solvent to be added after dry mixing the active material and conducting diluent and that “a solvent selected from the group consisting of …” will be interpreted to limit the solvent added after dry mixing, as appears consistent with pp. 4 and 5 as well as examples.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (WO 2020184157 A1; EFD 03/11/19) (Horii) in view of Muroya et al. (WO 2017212594 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20190355969 A1) (Muroya), Park (KR 20180110757 A), Zhang et al. (US 20180254509 A1) (Zhang), TMAX Battery Equipments (Roll to Roll Reverse Comma Coater Transfer Coating System with Drying Oven for Electrodes; available 2017) (TMAX), and Gong et al. (CN 108539122 A) (Gong).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 20, Horii discloses a process for preparing a composite cathode for a lithium ion cell (see first slurry method, ¶ 0073–0078, FIG. 3a, and Ex. 1-1, ¶ 0092–0099) comprising the steps of i. forming a cathode slurry by mixing ingredients comprising an active material and at least one conducting diluent of acetylene black (mixing LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 with conductive carbon mixture containing acetylene black, ¶ 0096–0098).
As noted above, Horii exemplarily discloses LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 active material yet, while further disclosing utility with many active materials, including LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 (¶ 0027), fails to explicitly embody such.
Horii is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode manufacture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 with LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2, as suggested by Horii, with the reasonable expectation of employing a successful active material, as suggested by Horii (MPEP 2143 (B.) and 2144.06 (II)).
Horii appears to further exemplarily disclose mixing in a ball mill (¶ 0096) but further discloses utility with several possible mills, including a planetary mill (¶ 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely mix Horii’s cathode ingredients in a planetary mixer with the reasonable expectation of producing a successful cathode mixture, as suggested by Horii.
Further, Park teaches a method of positive-electrode manufacture (Abstract), where a planetary disperser-mixer is used to mix the ingredients (next-to-last ¶ of p. 4). Park teaches that this planetary mixer effectively mixes highly viscous materials or dispersed, dry microspheres via the dual blades’ simultaneous rotation and revolution, resulting in effective blending under shorter mixing times (Id.).
Park is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode production.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mix Horii’s ingredients with Park’s planetary mixer with the reasonable expectation of effectively blending the materials under shorter mixing times, as taught by Park.
Horii further appears to exemplarily disclose ~ 0.97 wt% of the acetylene black conducting diluent based on a total weight of the cathode slurry (via masses in ¶ 0096 and 0098) but further generally discloses a mass ratio of the active material:conductive carbon mixture of preferably 95–99:1–5 and, within the conductive carbon mixture, a ratio of oxidized carbon to another conductive carbon (e.g., acetylene black) of preferably 1.5–2.5:1.5–2.5 (¶ 0049), yielding a weight ratio of conducting diluent of preferably 0.38–3.13% relative to the active material. Further, Horii discloses that the ratio of binder:electrode material is preferably 1–30 wt% because this range provides proper active-layer strength without reducing discharge capacity (¶ 0076).
Although Horii fails to explicitly articulate 2–6 wt% conducting diluent based on a total weight of the slurry, the above ratio—even when accounting for the minor weight contribution from the binder in ¶ 0098—appears to significantly overlap the recited 2–6 wt% such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful cathode mixture with suitable conductivity (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Moreover, as implied above, the skilled artisan would recognize that the active material provides capacity; the conducting diluent such as acetylene black provides conductivity; and the binder bonds these materials together and to the current collector. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the conducting diluent’s wt% in the slurry (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Horii further discloses that a known binder such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or PTFE is employable (¶ 0076) but fails to explicitly disclose a binder of poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP).
Muroya, in teaching a battery (Title), teaches a positive-electrode binder of, e.g., PTFE, PVDF, or VDF-HFP-based fluorine rubber, i.e., PVDF-HFP (¶ 0053).
Muroya is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode binders.
As Muroya recognizes PVDF and PVDF-HFP as equivalent binders, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely substitute Horii’s PVDF with Muroya’s PVDF-HFP with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful binder in the cathode (MPEP 2143 (B.) and 2144.06 (II)).
As established above, modified Horii discloses dry mixing in the planetary mixer (via Horii/Park) but fails to specify the mixing conditions and, thus, a speed above 50 to 160 rpm and a disperser speed of 450–600 rpm.
Park further teaches a planetary disperser speed of 10–150 rpm and a dispersion of 500–3600 rpm (last ¶ of p. 4). Park teaches when the revolution is less than 10 rpm and the dispersion less than 500 rpm, the conductive material’s dispersibility decreases, whereas when the revolution exceeds 150 rpm and the dispersion exceeds 3600 rpm, denaturation due to excessive heat generation occurs (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Horii's planetary mixing must necessarily be performed under certain stirring conditions, and, as demonstrated by Park, to ensure conductive-material dispersibility without denaturing the materials, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing the speed and disperser speed, including within 150–160 rpm and 500–600 rpm, respectively (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Horii further discloses that the dry mixing is followed by an addition of a binder solution, which is succeeded by a solvent addition, wherein the solvent in step (i) is NMP, to reduce the viscosity of the cathode slurry (e.g., ¶ 0077/0078 and 0098/0099), but Horii appears to fail to explicitly disclose multiple solvent additions to reduce the viscosity—i.e., adding a separate portion of solvent at a third time, such that the solvent itself would be added at different time intervals reducing the viscosity of the slurry.
The skilled artisan, however, would understand Horii’s general viscosity-reduction step as illustrative, meaning that, absent secondary considerations, to reduce viscosity to the desired level, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to routinely repeat the solvent addition—and, thus, add the solvent at different time intervals such that the solvent would be added at least three times while continuing mixing—with the reasonable expectation of achieving a slurry with suitable viscosity. Moreover, such would amount to merely duplicating Horii’s method step and, thus, would seemingly require only routine skill in the art.
Although Horii, as detailed above, discloses adding the solvent to reduce viscosity, Horii fails to articulate a value of such viscosity and, thus, the recited 2000–15000 cps at a speed of 100 rpm.
The skilled artisan would recognize, though, that the slurry would necessarily possess a minimum viscosity due to the dispersed solid materials above, understanding that each material must necessarily be included at a concentration sufficient to perform its respective function without detracting from the other materials’ functions. The artisan would further recognize, as Horii demonstrates, that the viscosity should be reduced because making the slurry too thick would necessarily make the slurry harder to coat on the collector. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the viscosity (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Nonetheless, Zhang, in teaching a battery (Title), teaches controlling the cathode slurry’s viscosity to 1000–8000 cps at 100 rpm to achieve a coatable slurry (¶ 0064).
Zhang is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode production.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Horii's slurry must necessarily be controlled to some viscosity, and, as demonstrated by Zhang, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to control the viscosity to 1000–8000 cps at 100 rpm to form a coatable slurry. Such overlaps the recited 2000–15000 cps at 100 rpm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a suitably coatable cathode slurry (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Horii further discloses ii. coating the cathode slurry over an aluminum foil substrate and drying (¶ 0099) but, in being unconcerned with the specifics of such, fails to explicitly disclose coating in a coating machine via reverse comma principle at a speed of 0.2–0.8 m/min.
TMAX, in teaching a roll-to-roll reverse comma coating system for electrodes (Title), teaches that this machine, in including three-roll transfer coating, comma scraper metering, and a drying oven, provides convenient, accurate, consistent, and easy-to-use coating for various substrates for batteries (Abstract/Intro). TMAX teaches that the coating occurs at 0~0.5 m/min (see NO. 4 coating speed, bottom of p. 1).
TMAX is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode production.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Horii's coating and drying must necessarily be performed in some manner, and, as demonstrated by TMAX, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to coat Horii’s slurry in a coating machine via reverse comma principle at 0~0.5 m/min, followed by drying in the oven, with the reasonable expectation of successfully, accurately, and conveniently coating/drying the slurry, as taught by TMAX. Further, the 0~0.5 m/min overlaps the recited 0.2–0.8 m/min such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of employing a suitable coating speed (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
As established above, Horii discloses coating the slurry (¶ 0099) but, in being unconcerned with the environmental conditions under which such occurs, fails to explicitly disclose that the coating is at a relative humidity in a range of 2 to 15%.
Gong, in teaching a positive electrode (Title), teaches that residual alkali on the surface of nickel-rich positive electrode materials (such as NCA, ¶ 0006) easily absorb water, meaning improper control can make coating difficult by causing the slurry to gel, while the strong alkalinity, after absorbing moisture, can react with the Al collector, resulting in electrode cracking (¶ 0008). For this reason, Gong teaches that the relative humidity throughout electrode preparation is preferably ≤ 10% (¶ 0027).
Gong is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery positive electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform Horii’s electrode preparation—and, thus, necessarily the coating—under a relative humidity ≤ 10%, as taught by Gong, with the reasonable expectation of preventing moisture absorption in the active material that otherwise causes gelling and cracking, as taught by Gong. To achieve the lowest degrees of gelling and cracking, moreover, it would have been obvious to arrive at the instant range by routinely optimizing the relative humidity, including within 2–10% (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Horii further discloses iii. calendering of the cathode in a calendering machine (rolling, ¶ 0099) yet, while further disclosing that rolling may occur under heating conditions (¶ 0090), fails to articulate the temperature and, thus, above 60°C to 150°C.
Muroya further teaches roll-pressing the positive electrode at preferably 115–130°C because such higher temperature reduces variation in porosity when densifying the electrode (¶ 0143, 0144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Horii's calendaring must necessarily be performed under some conditions, and, as demonstrated by Muroya, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to calender at 115–130°C to reduce variation in porosity when densifying the electrode.
Although modified Horii fails to explicitly articulate the recited cathode peel strength and moisture content, these characteristics result from the recited method (as seen in the claim’s “whereby” language and the measurements of Applicant’s working exs. in instant spec.). As modified Horii discloses the recited method, then, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected modified Horii’s moisture content and peel strength to fall within or at least overlap the respectively recited ranges (MPEP 2112.01 (I)) such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within each overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful cathode (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on claim 8, i.e., the solvent is NMP (Horii’s ¶ 0098, 0099).
Regarding claim 6, modified Horii discloses the process as claimed in claim 1.
Horii further exemplifies other carbon materials such as graphite as well as the above-referenced acetylene black, i.e., the conducting diluent, as the another conductive carbon (¶ 0038, 0039) but fails to explicitly embody a combination of acetylene black and graphite.
As Horii recognizes acetylene black and graphite as equivalent conductive carbons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to routinely incorporate a mixture of acetylene black and graphite as the conducting diluent with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful, conductive mixture (e.g., MPEP 2143 (A.) and 2144.06 (I)).
Regarding claim 18, modified Horii discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, further comprising drying the cathode in a drying zone after coating (in TMAX’s drying oven (Intro, p. 1) by adopting TMAX’s coating machine).
However, in being unconcerned with the specific drying temperature, modified Horii fails to explicitly disclose drying at a temperature in a range from above 60°C to 150°C in the coating machine.
Muroya further teaches that the electrode drying temperature is typically somewhat high to shorten the drying for production efficiency, while controlling the temperature to be low suppresses convection flow in the slurry, which otherwise produces non-uniform pores (¶ 0142). In considering these effects, Muroya teaches a drying temperature of preferably ≤ 110°C (¶ 0142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that modified Horii's drying must necessarily be performed at some temperature, and, as demonstrated by Muroya, in considering production efficiency while suppressing non-uniform pore formation, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the drying temperature, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (WO 2020184157 A1) (Horii) in view of Muroya et al. (WO 2017212594 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20190355969 A1) (Muroya), Park (KR 20180110757 A), Zhang et al. (US 20180254509 A1) (Zhang), TMAX Battery Equipments (Roll to Roll Reverse Comma Coater Transfer Coating System with Drying Oven for Electrodes) (TMAX), and Gong et al. (CN 108539122 A) (Gong), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Shini USA (Everything You Need to Know About Desiccant Drying; available 2017) (Shini).
Regarding claim 2, modified Horii discloses the process as claimed in claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose drying the ingredients prior to mixing in the planetary mixing machine.
As discussed in claim 1, however, Gong teaches that residual alkali on the surface of nickel-rich positive electrode materials such as NCA easily absorb water, meaning improper control can cause issues such as slurry gelation and electrode cracking (¶ 0006, 0008). For a similar reason, Shini teaches drying hygroscopic materials before processing (p. 2).
Shini is analogous because they are reasonably pertinent to a problem the inventors would have faced, namely how to handle hygroscopic materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to dry Horii’s hygroscopic ingredients such as NCA before mixing, as suggested by Shini, with the reasonable expectation of preventing the slurry from gelling and the final electrode from cracking, as taught by Gong. Examiner further submits that it would have obvious to dry the other slurry ingredients, i.e., conducting diluent and binder, alongside the NCA to minimize the NCA’s moisture exposure.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (WO 2020184157 A1) (Horii) in view of Muroya et al. (WO 2017212594 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20190355969 A1) (Muroya), Park (KR 20180110757 A), Zhang et al. (US 20180254509 A1) (Zhang), TMAX Battery Equipments (Roll to Roll Reverse Comma Coater Transfer Coating System with Drying Oven for Electrodes) (TMAX), and Gong et al. (CN 108539122 A) (Gong), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20190010470 A) (Kim).
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 12, modified Horii discloses the process as claimed in claim 1.
Horii further discloses diluting the mixed solution containing the active material, conductive diluent, and binder with NMP to form a slurry (¶ 0099) yet, in appearing unconcerned with the specific concentrations of such materials in the slurry, fails to explicitly disclose weight percentages falling within the respective ranges.
Kim, in teaching a positive electrode slurry (Title), teaches a solid content of 50–80 wt% (¶ 0076), teaching that < 50 wt% makes it impossible to manufacture a thick electrode with a predetermined thickness as well as increases costs, whereas > 80 wt% makes it difficult to uniformly coat the slurry on the collector, which requires more equipment and raises costs (¶ 0076).
Kim is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely cathode production.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Horii’s slurry with a solid content of 50–80 wt%, as taught by Kim, with the reasonable expectation of allowing thick-electrode manufacturing and uniform slurry coating without raising costs, as taught by Kim. Moreover, to balance these three effects, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the solid content within 50–80 wt% (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
With the above 50–80 wt% solid content, then, modified Horii’s components’ concentrations would appear to overlap the following ranges based on 96 parts active material, 0.97 conducting diluent, and 2 parts binder from Horii’s ¶ 0096/0098:
(claim 9) an amount of the active material is in a range of 47 to 53 wt% based on a total weight of the cathode slurry (i.e., with 96 parts active material in Horii’s ¶ 0098 and Kim’s solid content, the active-material concentration would be 48~77 wt%);
(claim 12) an amount of the solvent is in a range of 38 to 44 wt% based on a total weight of the cathode slurry (i.e., a solvent concentration of 20–50 wt%).
Further, per similar calculations, the binder would range from 1 to 1.6 wt%, and although this range narrowly falls outside the recited 2–7 wt% (claim 11), a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed and prior art ranges fail to overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Because modified Horii discloses the recited cathode and preparation method, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected the disclosed and recited materials to exhibit the same properties (MPEP 2112.01 (I)). Thus, absent demonstrated criticality, the recited binder concentration appears obvious over Horii/Kim.
More importantly, though, as discussed in claim 1 (and implied from Horii’s disclosure of the ratios of the active material, conducting diluent, and binder), the skilled artisan would recognize that the active material provides capacity; the conducting diluent provides conductivity; and the binder provides adhesion between the active and conductive materials and the current collector. To balance these effects—all while accounting for proper solvent content for proper dispersibility and viscosity, as discussed above—then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing the concentrations of the active material, conducting diluent, and binder in the slurry (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 14–16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. (WO 2020184157 A1) (Horii) in view of Muroya et al. (WO 2017212594 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20190355969 A1) (Muroya), Park (KR 20180110757 A), Zhang et al. (US 20180254509 A1) (Zhang), TMAX Battery Equipments (Roll to Roll Reverse Comma Coater Transfer Coating System with Drying Oven for Electrodes) (TMAX), and Gong et al. (CN 108539122 A) (Gong), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ju (WO 03077348 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Horii discloses the process as claimed in claim 1.
Horii further discloses measuring the aluminum foil substrate’s thickness (¶ 0119) but fails to explicitly disclose the value of such, and, thus, a thickness of 15–25 μm.
The skilled artisan, however, would understand that the foil must be thick enough to sufficiently conduct electrons, but making the foil too thick would necessarily reduce relative active-material volume and, thus, energy density. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the substrate’s thickness (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Nonetheless, Ju, in teaching a battery (Title), teaches a positive electrode collector of, e.g., Al (Abstract) with a suitable thickness of 10–80 μm (p. 4, ¶ starting with “The positive electrode).
Ju is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery positive electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Horii’'s Al substrate must necessarily be incorporated with some thickness, and, as demonstrated by Ju, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a thickness of 10–80 μm. Moreover, to balance the above effects, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the thickness, including within the overlap (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Horii discloses the process as claimed in claim 1.
Horii further discloses measuring the cathode’s thickness (¶ 0119) but fails to specify the value of such and, thus, a thickness of 150–300 μm after coating and a thickness of 140–200 μm after calendaring.
Ju, in teaching a battery (Title), teaches that the positive electrode’s thickness pre-calendering (i.e., after coating) is 170~270 μm and is 110~165 μm after calendering (p. 16, second ¶).
Ju is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery positive electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Horii’'s cathode must necessarily be incorporated with some thickness before and after calendering, and, as demonstrated by Ju, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to employ a thickness of 170~270 μm pre-calendering (after coating) and 110~165 μm after calendering.
The 170~270 μm falls within claim 15’s range, and the 110~160 μm overlaps claim 16’s range such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful cathode (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Moreover, the skilled artisan would recognize 1) that the active material layer must be thick enough for suitable capacity, but making the layer too thick would necessarily increase the distance electrons and ions must travel and, thus, resistance. The artisan would further realize 2) that the Al substrate must be thick enough to sufficiently conduct electrons, but making the foil too thick would necessarily reduce relative active-material volume and, thus, energy density. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the respectively recited ranges by routinely optimizing the active layer and Al substrate’s thicknesses and, thus, optimizing the total cathode’s thickness after calendering (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Horii et al. (WO 2020184157 A1) (Horii) in view of Muroya et al. (WO 2017212594 A1; citations to English equivalent US 20190355969 A1) (Muroya), Park (KR 20180110757 A), Zhang et al. (US 20180254509 A1) (Zhang), TMAX Battery Equipments (Roll to Roll Reverse Comma Coater Transfer Coating System with Drying Oven for Electrodes) (TMAX), and Gong et al. (CN 108539122 A) (Gong), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Naarmann et al. (DE 102004057365 A1) (Naarmann).
Regarding claim 19, modified Horii discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the calendering of the cathode is performed at a temperature of 115–130°C (per Muroya in claim 1), which falls within above 60°C to 150°C.
However, in being unconcerned with the speed of the calendering, modified Horii fails to explicitly disclose 3–5 m/min.
Naarman, in teaching electrode mixtures (Title), teaches, after laminating the active slurry on a collector, calendering at 4–5 m/min (¶ 0050, 0051).
Naarmann is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery electrode production.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Horii’s rolling must necessarily be performed at some speed, and, as demonstrated by Naarmann, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to calender at 4–5 m/min—falling within 3–5 m/min—as an appropriate speed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 20 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
112(b) Rejection of Claim 20:
Although Applicant asserts that claim 20 is now definite, Examiner respectfully observes that Applicant is yet to address the claim’s separate issue of whether or for what portion the solvent Markush group applies to step i)’s dry mixing, and, thus, this rejection is maintained.
103 Rejection:
Applicant argues that Horii fails to disclose or suggest claims 1 and 20’s LiNixCoyAlzO2 and that substituting LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 with LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 using the Horii’s process alone would not achieve Applicant’s cathode without undue experimentation, particularly in combination with Applicant’s allegedly unique combination of materials at their respective concentrations. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Horii explicitly recognizes LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 and LiNi0.8Co0.15Al0.05O2 as equivalent cathode active materials (¶ 0027) and, thus, as substitutable and compatible with Horii’s method. Examiner also observes no evidence in the instant specification that LiNixCoyAlzO2 would necessarily outperform analogues such as LiNi0.5Mn0.3Co0.2O2 as a result of the instant process, and, even if such evidence existed, it appears that such would be incommensurate with the data at least because claims 1 and 20 are to producing a cathode, whereas the CE and cycling results stem from incorporating the cathode into a lithium battery (Table 2). Similar reasoning applies for Applicant’s argument of the binder of PVDF-HFP versus PVDF, where Muroya teaches that PVDF and PVDF-HFP are equivalent cathode binders.
Applicant next argues that the 2–15% RH is critical to determining the cathode’s properties, especially for moisture-sensitive materials such as the claimed NCA cathode material. Again, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no evidence of record demonstrating such (see MPEP 716.02(c)/(d) for requirements for establishing criticality; note also, per MPEP 2145 (I), that Applicant’s arguments cannot substitute for evidence). Moreover, as established in the prior O.A., Gong recognizes that Ni-rich cathode materials such as NCA are moisture-sensitive (¶ 0006), which can cause slurry gelation and electrode cracking (¶ 0008), and, thus, teaches limiting RH to preferably ≤ 10% throughout electrode production (¶ 0027). Thus, it seems that such effects of controlling RH within the instant range would be expected from the prior art.
Applicant then argues that it would be nonobvious to adopt Park’s planetary-mill dry-mixing conditions because Park teaches away from Applicant’s speeds given that Park teaches that a dispersion speed < 500 rpm makes the conductive material’s dispersibility decrease. Examiner respectfully observes claim 1 allows 450–600 rpm dispersion speed, meaning that Park’s 500–3600 rpm overlaps the instant range at 500–600 rpm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely optimized within the overlap to ensure conductive-material dispersibility without denaturing the materials, as established above. Examiner further observes that no evidence of record demonstrates the mixing conditions’ criticality, and, based on Park, the artisan would have realized the importance of selecting a dispersion speed ≥ 500 rpm.
Applicant then argues that Horii/Park fails to disclose 2000–15000 cps viscosity at 100 rpm. Examiner resubmits that the skilled artisan would have routinely optimized this value by employing Horii’s viscosity-modification step of adding enough solvent to adjust the viscosity to the desired level. Nonetheless, as established above, Zhang further renders this range obvious by teaching controlling the slurry’s viscosity to 1000–8000 cps at 100 rpm to achieve a coatable slurry (¶ 0064).
Applicant next argues that Horii fails to articulate 2–6 wt% conducting diluent but then merely reiterates that Horii fails to disclose Applicant’s allegedly unique active material and concentration combinations. Again, Examiner respectfully echoes that no evidence of record demonstrates the criticality of any of the instant ranges, so it appears that the skilled artisan would have arrived at 2–6% by routinely optimizing the slurry’s components to maximize each component’s effect—i.e., active material for capacity/energy, conducting diluent for electrical conductivity, and binder to bond the materials together and to the collector.
Applicant then generally reasserts that Horii fails to disclose Applicant’s allegedly unique set of steps with allegedly unique combinations of materials and concentrations and that are allegedly all critical to Applicant’s process to achieve the instant peel strength and moisture content. Though Examiner agrees that Horii may not explicitly disclose all the recited steps in one embodiment, Horii, in combination with the secondary references, appears to disclose or render obvious every limitation, as seen above. Again, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no evidence in the specification demonstrating the criticality of any claimed range—or, similarly, any data comparing the specification’s results to the closest prior art’s (see MPEP 716.02(e))—and, thus, absent additional evidence, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that there would be no motivation to optimize any of the instant parameters such as disperser speed or time-interval variations of binder/solvent addition. However, Applicant seemingly provides no rationale for this assertion, making the argument conclusory and, by definition, unpersuasive.
Applicant then alleges that Horii merely teaches general dry and wet mixing of cathodes and, thus, teaches away from Applicant’s claimed order, speeds, viscosity, and humidity. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that 1) Horii embodies the general order (see first slurry manufacturing method, ¶ 0073–0078, fig. 3a, and Ex. 1-1 (¶ 0092–0099)), 2) Park renders obvious the disperser speeds, 3) Zhang renders obvious the viscosity, and 4) Gong renders obvious the humidity.
Applicant then argues that TMAX fails to teach RH of 2–15%, but TMAX was only used to teach the coating speed. As Gong motivates ≤ 10% RH throughout electrode preparation—and, thus, necessarily during coating—this argument is unpersuasive. Although Applicant alleges to have discovered via undue experimentation that 2–15% RH achieves coating speeds faster than TMAX’s 0.5 m/min, 1) claims 1 and 20 merely require 0.2–0.8 m/min coating, and 2) there is no evidence that the instant 0.2–0.8 m/min—or, specifically, > 0.5 m/min to 0.8 m/min—is critical.
Applicant then argues that Muroya fails to teach calendering with Applicant’s specific materials. Examiner respectfully notes that Muroya was only used to generally render obvious the calendering temperature because Horii, in view of the secondary references, discloses or renders obvious the remaining limitations. One cannot rebut obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on the references’ combination because obviousness hinges on whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious based on the prior art’s suggestions as a whole (MPEP 2145 (IV)).
Applicant next argues that the skilled artisan would not have expected modified Horii’s cathode’s peel strength and moisture content to fall within or encompass the instant ranges because the secondary references do not address all the instant features. Again, Examiner respectfully asserts that because Horii, as modified by the other references, discloses or renders obvious all process steps of claims 1 and 20, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected modified Horii’s cathode’s peel strength and moisture content to fall within or encompass the instant ranges (MPEP 2112.01 (I)). As Applicant is yet to rebut this assertion with evidence, this argument is unpersuasive (see, again, MPEP 2145 (I))).
Applicant finally applies the same reasoning to all dependent claims, but, as the above arguments are unpersuasive, the arguments regarding the dependent claims are equally unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/24/2026