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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 04/07/2026 has been entered. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 31 and its dependent claims is overcome by the amendment and is now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive, because the arguments focus on the newly added limitations of the 04/07/2026 amendments, but as pointed out on page 11 of the Remarks, such new limitations are only directed to the optional dry-blend route. The dry-blend route (option b)) is not positively required by the instant independent claim when the paste route (option a)) is met by the prior art, since options a) and b) are connected by recitation of “or” which is interpreted on the record to be exclusive or – such that when a) is met, b) need not be met (or vice versa) for the overall claim to be satisfied. In the rejection of record, Zheng alone was used to satisfy option a), which sets the basis for the 35 USC 102 rejection made below an is appropriate in light of the instant amendments. Zheng in view of Matsui was only applied in a 35 USC 103 rejection in the previous Office action to promote compact prosecution in the event that the claim was narrowed to positively require option b); however, since option b) is in fact still optional, this rejection need not be maintained since option a) is satisfied by Zheng alone. Remarks at pages 11-12 admit that “Applicant respectfully submits that Zheng discloses dry mixing” but argue that “Zheng … contains no disclosure of pre-forming reactive composites with separate non-binder matrix materials”. Examiner notes that this and further remarks on page 12 are not commensurate in scope with the claims because no “pre-forming” is claimed, and the instant limitations of “formed by mixing … prior to preparing” in merely an optional limitation (only listed under option “b)”, and also preceding an “and/or” limitation). Therefore, arguments regarding any pre-forming step do not impact the rejection over Zheng of record and maintained below.
Claim Objections
Claim 49 is objected to because the claim is labeled “(Withdrawn)” but appears to instead be Canceled (since no text of claim 49 is present in the 04/07/2026 claim set).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) 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 31 recites “i. one or more reactive composites” and “ii. one or more binders” in lines 9 and 12, but it is unclear whether these are the same or different from “the ingredients including one or more reactive composites and one or more binders” as introduced in lines 4-5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 31-41 and 50-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (US 2018/0175366 A1, cited in the previous Office actions).
Regarding claim 31, Zheng teaches a method for making a dry film (dry process per Zheng abstract and [0056]; film making step per Zheng [0054]; exemplary mixed powder was pressed into a sheet or a free standing film, Zheng [0061]) or pasty film (can include binder and solvent, Zheng [0047-0049, 0057]) for an electrochemical device (method for producing electrodes for electrochemical devices, Zheng title), comprising the steps of:
i. preparing a process mixture by mixing a predetermined ratio of ingredients (electrode composite materials with percentage ranges – i.e. ingredients and their ratios – listed in Zheng abstract) in a mixer (mixing step can be in mixer per Zheng [0020, 0046, 0057]; high speed mixer in Zheng [0060-0062] Examples 1-3), the ingredients including one or more reactive composites (electrode composite is mixed, Zheng [0013, 0031]) and one or more binders (polymer binder, Zheng abstract; at least one per Zheng [0017-0018]); and
ii. forming the process mixture into a film wherein the film is a dry film (dry process electrodes disclosed per abstract; film making step by pressing the mixed materials into a sheet, includes pressing the mixed materials into a free standing film, [0054]; dry process electrode fabrication encompassed by Zheng invention per [0065, 0089-0091]) or pasty film wherein a background fluid of the pasty film is then removed to form a dry film (solvent is highly vaporizable such that no drying process is necessary to remove the solvent, Zheng [0049, 0090]), wherein the process mixture comprises:
i. one or more reactive composites (electrode composite is mixed, Zheng [0013, 0031]; see also the following citations meeting components within claimed reactive composite(s)), wherein the reactive composite comprises one or more reactive materials (active material options listed in Zheng [0014, 0015] for positive electrode and anode, respectively, where “at least one” of Zheng reads on “one or more”) and one or more materials other than a binder (carbon-based additive examples in Zheng [0035] such as carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, carbon fiber), and
ii. one or more binders (polymer binder, Zheng abstract; at least one per Zheng [0017-0018]), wherein:
the process mixture is a paste (selected solvent can have the capability to activate or modify the viscoelasticity of the selected binder to thicken the powder mixture, so that the binder improves its adhesion strength upon interacting with the solvent; Zheng [0049]).
Examiner notes that limitations following “or” and “and/or” recitations are interpreted as optional alternative limitations which are not required to be met in order to satisfy the claim, so long as the other alternate options are met, which is the case with Zheng and the above claim (since “a)” is met, “b)” and its associated options are not required by the claim).
Regarding claim 32, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 31 above and teaches the paste further comprises one or more of the reactive materials (exemplary lithium titanates LiTi2O4 and Li7Ti5O12 as anode active material, Zheng [0034]) comprising a salt comprising a metal-containing cation and an anion (known common active material for the anode is metal salt of lithium, Zheng [0004]; above-cited anode active materials in [0034] are ionic including lithium cations and titanate ions) and/or, wherein the one or more other materials are one or more matrix materials and/or one or more conductive additives (conductive material additive within electrode composite per Zheng [0031]; conductive material additive carbon-based examples in Zheng [0035] include carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, carbon fibers). Examiner notes that “matrix materials” is not required by the claim since the recitation is followed by “and/or”, but the conductive additive materials of carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, carbon fibers in Zheng [0035] also do satisfy matrix materials per instant specification [0065], as noted in Claim Interpretation section above.
Examiner notes that claim 32 further limits “the paste” which corresponds to limitation “a)” within claim 31, such that the specifics of limitation “b)” of claim 31 – i.e., that “the metal of the metal-containing cation excludes lithium” – does not apply to the paste of “a)” nor claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 32 above and teaches wherein the one or more matrix materials (conductive material additive within electrode composite per Zheng [0031]; conductive material additive carbon-based examples in Zheng [0035] include carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, carbon fibers – as cited and explained above) is a material that serves as a mechanical support and/or available surface and/or a conduit (“conductive material additive” of Zheng [0035] reads on “electrical conduit” of instant specification [0065], which is interpreted to meet the claimed matrix material serving as a conduit per the Claim Interpretation section above; especially since Zheng [0068] teaches that direct contact between the conductive material and active material particles promotes greater electrical conduction inside the electrode), for enabling or promoting formation and/or dissolution of reactive materials (carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber of Zheng [0035] meet claimed matrix material structure and function per instant [0065] disclosure as explained in Claim Interpretation section above; promotes direct and more contact between the conductive material and active material particles per Zheng [0068]).
Regarding claim 34, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 32 above and teaches
wherein one or more of the reactive materials is an active material (active material, Zheng [0031]; positive electrode or anode active materials, Zheng [0033-0034]) … and/or
wherein some or all of the reactive materials (active material particles, Zheng [0021, 0068]) and/or … some or all of the conductive additives (conductive material additive can be metal particles, Zheng [0016, 0069]) and/or any combination thereof in the process mixture … are in the form of particles (“particles” cited above in Zheng [0016, 0021, 0068-0069]) …, and/or
wherein at least some of the one or more binders is fibrillizable and/or is fibrillized (known method cited in Zheng [0011] where the binder is fiberized forming a matrix to support other particles to form an electrode film; also, examiner notes that this is an optional limitation due to “and/or” language which need not be met to satisfy claim 34 since “ii” and “iii” above are met by Zheng).
Regarding claim 35, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 31 above and teaches the paste comprises less than 85% background fluid by mass and/or, wherein the paste comprises between 85% and 0.1% background fluid by mass (per Zheng [0058]: Small amounts of solvent may be added into the mixture during high speed mixing to thicken the powders; the working range for solvent added includes 10-50% solvent; the optimal range for solvent added is 20-40%, by weight of the total mixture – all of which fall within claims 0.1% to 85%) and/or, wherein the dry blend comprises substantially no liquids (Electrode composites can be made by a solvent free procedure, Zheng [0056), and/or, wherein the dry blend is made from a paste by removing the background fluid (solvent – if used – is vaporizable such that it vaporized from the powder mixture without an additional drying process, Zheng [0049, 0090]), and/or (the following limitations are interpreted as not required by the claim), wherein the reactive materials are dry reactive materials and/or the reactive composites are dry reactive composites and/or the binders are dry binders (powder mixture without solvent possible per Zheng [0011, 0049] Dry process electrodes are also disclosed per Zheng abstract).
Regarding claim 36, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 32 above and teaches wherein: the matrix materials are dry matrix materials and/or the conductive additives are dry conductive additives (Electrode composites can be made by a solvent free procedure, Zheng [0056]; dry process electrodes per Zheng abstract; solvent – if used – is vaporizable such that it vaporized from the powder mixture without an additional drying process, Zheng [0049, 0090]; the carbon-based additives in Zheng [0035] are known dry materials, which meet both conductive additives and matrix materials interpreted per instant specification [0065] as explained above).
Regarding claim 37, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 31 above and teaches the dry blend comprises substantially no processing additives or other intentionally added material (electrode composite can be solvent-free per Zheng [0056], including only active material, conductive material, and binder which meets “the process mixture is a dry blend”).
Regarding claim 38, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 32 above and teaches one or more of the conductive additives comprises carbon (carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, carbon fibers, high surface area carbon; Zheng [0035]) or an allotrope thereof (carbon black, acetylene black, coke, graphite; Zheng [0035]), a metal (metal particles, Zheng [0035]) and/or conductive additive is in the form of a conductive high aspect ratio particle (carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, carbon fibers; Zheng [0035]).
Regarding claim 39, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 31 above and teaches one or more of the reactive materials comprises a salt comprising a metal containing cation (lithium (Li) forms the Li+ cation within the lithium titanate examples of Zheng [0034]) and an anion (corresponding titanate polyanions, Zheng [0034]). (Examiner notes that since “b)” regarding “a salt comprising a metal-containing cation” is an optional limitation within claim 31, “a salt comprising a metal-containing cation” within claim 39 can be different than that of claim 31 and not subject to further “b)” limitation of “the metal of the metal-containing cation excludes lithium”.)
Regarding claim 40, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 32 above and teaches one or more of the matrix materials (conductive material additive carbon-based examples in Zheng [0035] meet the “matrix material” instant definition cited in Claim Interpretation section above) comprises carbon (carbon nanotube, carbon nanofiber, carbon fibers, high surface area carbon; Zheng [0035]) or an allotrope of carbon (carbon black, acetylene black, coke, graphite; Zheng [0035]).
Regarding claim 41, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 39 above and teaches the metal of the salt's metal containing cation comprises an alkali metal (lithium (Li) – which forms the Li+ cation in the ionic lithium titanate compounds listed in Zheng [0034] – is an alkali metal).
Regarding claim 50, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 39 above and teaches one or more of the reactive composites, are produced by separately mixing one or more matrix materials and one or more reactive materials in a mixer to form a dry reactive composite (Zheng example 2 in [0061]: An anode composite mixture was prepared first by mixing active materials (hard carbon), conductive additive (acetylene black) and binder (NBR) in rubber internal mixer (Banbury mixer). A homogeneously mixed electrode composite was formed. The anode electrode composite was further blended in a high speed mixer to form ready-for-press electrode powders.; Electrode composites can be made by a solvent free procedure per Zheng [0056], i.e. dry composite)
and/or, wherein one or more of the reactive composites are produced by separately mixing one or more matrix materials, one or more reactive materials and one or more background fluids and/or dispersants in a mixer … to form a wet reactive composite (per Zheng [0057]: Electrode composites can be made using a solvent-assistant procedure … A slurry in which active materials, conductive material additives, and binder is highly dispersed can be obtained … using the mixing device.; slurry reads on wet composite).
Regarding claim 51, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 50 above and teaches wherein some or all of the mixing is carried out (mixing step can be performed by any suitable process or apparatus, Zheng [0046]):
i. by … milling (two roll milling and ball-milling, Zheng [0046]), grinding (mixture grinding, Zheng [0046]), shearing (high-shear mixing, Zheng [0046]), … tumbling (tumbling mixing, Zheng [0046]), fluidizing (fluidized-bed blending, Zheng [0046]) and/or stirring (mixing by a screw-driven mass mixer, Zheng [0046]); and/or
ii. by dispersing … one or more binders … in one or more dispersants to create a dispersion (mixing step can further comprise the step of providing a solvent and mixing the solvent with the binder, [0047]; solvent can have the capability to activate or modify the viscoelasticity of the selected binder to thicken the powder mixture, [0049]) and then fully removing the dispersant to create a mixed powder (solvent also needs to be highly vaporizable such that no follow on drying process is necessary to remove the solvent afterwards, Zheng [0049]; the residue solvent in the electrode is minimal to non-existent, Zheng [0092]) …; or
iii. substantially in the absence of any dispersant to create a mixed powder (mixed powder example 2 in Zheng [0061] does not explicitly contain solvent, as opposed to example 1 in Zheng [0060]).
Regarding claim 52, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 51 above and teaches
i. the dispersant is a solvent (solvent, Zheng [0047-0049]) … ; and/or
ii. some or all of the dispersant is removed by evaporation (solvent also needs to be highly vaporizable such that no follow on drying process is necessary to remove the solvent afterwards, Zheng [0049]), … , compression (If solvent has been used some of it may be removed by the compression, Zheng [0052]), … ; and/or
iii. the process mixture is sheared during the mixing (mixing process can comprise high-shear mixing, Zheng [0046]).
Regarding claim 53, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 31 above and teaches further comprising the step of applying the film to a final substrate (step of laminating the sheet or film includes lamination on to a current collector to form the electrode, Zheng [0054]; sheet or film is calendered onto a treated/or non-treated current collector to form the electrode, Zheng [0059]).
Regarding claim 54, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 53 above and teaches the film is applied to the final substrate by mechanical compression (Zheng abstract: The electrode composite is mixed and then compressed the electrode composite into an electrode composite sheet. The electrode composite sheet is applied to a current collector with pressure to form an electrode).
Regarding claim 55, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 54 above and teaches the mechanical compression and/or the shearing is carried out by calendering (the electrode layer may be roll-pressed or “calendered”, Zheng [0009]; film is calendered onto a treated/or non-treated current collector to form the electrode, Zheng [0059]) … and/or, wherein some or all of the process mixture, the film and/or any of the components thereof are heated and/or cooled before, during and/or after applying the film to the final substrate (electrode film is laminated onto current collector to form the electrode at raised temperature, Zheng [0060-0062]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 2018/0175366 A1, cited in the previous Office actions) as applied to claim 31 above, in view of Mitchell et al. (US 2007/0122698 A1, cited in previous Office actions).
Regarding claim 56, Zheng teaches the limitations of claim 31 above but fails to explicitly teach wherein the shearing during mixing, film formation and/or film application fully or partially fibrillizes some or all of the one or more fibrillizable binders.
Zheng does teach in [0011] that it is known in the art that when powders are dry mixed and subjected to an extensive mixing, where the binder is fiberized forming a matrix to support other particles to form an electrode film which solves some problems associated with wet processing.
Mitchell is analogous in the art of methods for making dry-particle films for energy storage devices (title and abstract) and teaches toward dry fibrillizing the dry binder to create a matrix within which to support the dry carbon particles as a dry material and that this step of dry fibrillizing may comprise application of sufficiently high-shear such as by a jet-mill (Mitchell [0051]).
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the binder and its processing within Zheng to include a fibrilizable binder which is fibrilized specifically by sufficiently high-shear via jet-milling (reads on “shearing during mixing”), as taught by Mitchell, with the motivation of forming a desirable structural matrix for the other dry mixture component, which is a shared inventive goal of Zheng [0011] and Mitchell [0051] as cited above.
Thus, the instant claim 56 is rendered obvious.
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 Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights