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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/30/2025 has been entered.
The amendment overcomes the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 34, 36, 38, 40, and 51; the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of the 04/30/2025 Office action are now withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Per specification [0065] (cited from Pre-Grant Publication US 2022/0293952 A1, corresponding to the instant specification): “Matrix material” here may mean a material that may serve as a mechanical support and/or available surface and/or a conduit (e.g. an electrical conduit), for enabling or promoting formation and/or dissolution of reactive materials (e.g. active materials and/or precursor materials). Examples of matrix materials include, but are not limited to, carbon and/or allotropes of carbon. Examples include, but are not limited to ketjen black, graphite, hard carbon, nanotubes, nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, carbon nanobuds, activated carbon, reduced graphene oxide, celite, humic acid, diatomaceous earth, Ni, Cu, Fe, steel, brass, clays, bentonite, caolinite, Ni foam, Cu foam, Al foam, steel wool, Ni-plated metal, Fe-plated metal, microfibers, glass fiber, quartz fibers, basalt fibers, polyamide fibers, polyethylene fibers, polypropylene fibers and any combination thereof.
Therefore, the matrix material and functionality thereof as introduced in claim 33 is interpreted as to be met by exemplary nanotubes, nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, and the like per instant [0065].
Examiner further notes that the claim set contains many “and/or” limitations which are optional limitations such that the claim is satisfied when at least one of the alternatives in the “and/or” list is met. That is, in the following examination on the merits, “and/or” is interpreted as “or”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 31-41 and 50-56 is rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31, as amended, recites “the dry film has a thickness of at least 300 µm.” However, the instant Specification (citing to corresponding U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US 2022/0293952 A1) only gives support for:
Example 1 in [0144] and Example 2 in [0145] both disclose that a dry film was produced between two calendering cylinders, with a gap set to 50 μm. Such appears to only support a resultant dry film thickness of ~50 μm, which is less than 300 µm (does not support claimed “at least 300 µm).
Example 5 in [0148] discloses that a paste was fed into the gap between two calendering cylinders, where the gap was set to 1000 μm. Then, [0148] further discloses that most of the isopropanol (liquid) was removed, but 5% by mass was maintained, while the resultant film was passed between the calendering cylinders multiple times while decreasing the gap, “and comparing actual film thickness to target thickness (typical 300 μm) to determine termination of the process.”
While such may support a paste film thickness of greater than 300 μm (i.e., 1000 μm), it only yields a film which may be mostly (i.e., 95% by mass) “dry”, and only supports a “target” thickness thereof at the singular data point of 300 μm (not necessarily greater than 300 μm).
This is only one inventive example (and does not positively disclose actual resultant thickness and dryness of the film that was produced). This disclosure, therefore, does not fully support the claimed thickness range of at least 300 µm for the dry film as recited in amended claim 31.
Additionally, the added limitation at the end of claim 31 encompasses, for example, film thicknesses greater than 1000 μm, which is nowhere envisioned in the specification. For this reason and the reasons detailed above, there is no support for the limitation, such that the limitation contains new matter.
Claims 32-41 and 50-56 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependence on claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 31-41 and 50-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 2018/0175366 A1, cited in the 12/16/2024 and 04/30/2025 Office actions) in view of Matsui et al. (US 2014/0242474 A1, cited in the 04/30/2025 Office action) Mitchell et al. (US 2007/0122698 A1, cited in the 04/30/2025 Office action).
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); 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]); or
the process mixture is a dry blend (dry electrode process per Zheng abstract; powder mixture without solvent possible per Zheng [0049]; electrode composite can be solvent-free per Zheng [0056]) and one or more of the reactive materials comprises a salt comprising a metal-containing cation and an anion (known common active material for the anode is metal salt of lithium, Zheng [0004]) (Examiner also notes that “and/or” is interpreted as “or” such that limitation “b)” is not required in order to meet the claim since Zheng meets the alternative limitation of “a)” above).
Zheng fails to explicitly teach the optional limitation wherein: the metal of the metal-containing cation excludes lithium. Examiner notes that “and/or” is interpreted as “or” such that limitation “b)” including the “metal-containing cation” is not required in order to meet the claim since Zheng meets the alternative limitation of “a)” above which does not recite metal-containing cation. However, to promote compact prosecution, this limitation is addressed below:
Matsui is analogous in the art of electrochemical energy storage devices and their electrode active materials (Matsui abstract). Matsui teaches that at least one of the first and second active materials is a metal salt having a polyatomic anion and a metal ion (Matsui abstract) and teaches the metal cations selected from Groups 3 to 15 in the periodic table if used in the first active material, (Matsui [0025]) or at least one selected from alkali metal and alkaline earth metal cations if used in the second active material (Matsui [0026]). As the second metal ion, to carry out the oxidation-reduction reaction involving reversible release and acceptance of the second polyatomic anion, Matsui gives the example of the magnesium metal cation Mg2+ opposite the BF4 – polyanion in the Mg(BF4)2 salt (Matsui [0062]). Matsui [0063-0069] teach that utilizing the magnesium metal cation within this salt of the second active material is beneficial to achieve: excellent reaction reversibility, easy handling and production, charge and discharge with larger current, and a broad stable potential window of electrolytes useable therewith.
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify an active material within Zheng to include Mg(BF4)2 salt, having the magnesium metal cation Mg2+ and the BF4 – polyanion, as taught by Matsui with the motivation of achieving the benefit listed above per Matsui [0063-0069].
Zheng further fails to teach the additional limitation of: and/or the dry film has a thickness of at least 300 µm. Since this is another “and/or” recitation, this limitation is not interpreted as being required by the claim. However, to promote compact prosecution, this limitation is addressed below:
Mitchell is analogous in the art of methods for making dry-particle films for energy storage devices (title and abstract) and teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode for use in an energy storage device product comprises the steps of supplying dry carbon particles; supplying dry binder; dry mixing the dry carbon particles and dry binder; and dry fibrillizing the dry binder to create a matrix within which to support the dry carbon particles as a dry material (Mitchell [0051]), which is similar to the method taught by Zheng. Mitchell [0051] further teaches further including a step of compacting the dry material by passing through a compacting apparatus such as a roll-mill, in order to produce a self-supporting dry film, and that such self-supporting dry film can exhibit a thickness of about 10 μm to 2 mm. Mitchell teaches in [0136] that particular dry particle formulations can affect characteristics of dry films formed by roll-mill, and that for example, thickness of the films formed by a roll-mill ranging between about 10 μm to 2 mm, and that this ability to provide a sufficiently self-supporting film in one pass beneficially eliminates the need for numerous folding steps and multiple compacting/calendering steps to still impart desired tensile strength needed for subsequent handling and processing. Mitchell [0136] further teaches that their inventive self-supporting films, i.e. those described as having thickness from 10 μm to 2 mm, are more economically suited for large scale commercial manufacture.
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the dry film of Zheng to have thickness in the range of that taught by Mitchell, which is produced via a similar process, with the motivation of achieving desirable self-supporting characteristics such that the film has desired tensile strength for subsequent handling and processing, as well as economic suitability for large-scale manufacturing, as taught by Mitchell. Mitchell teaches such dry film having a thickness of about 10 μm to 2 mm, which overlaps the claimed range of “a thickness of at least 300 µm” (i.e., the upper end of 2mm of Mitchell equals 2000μm, which is well above 300µm by nearly an order of magnitude). Further, per MPEP 2144.04 IV A, changes in size/proportion are within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art (such that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions, the claim is not patentably distinct from the prior art).
Thus, all limitations of the instant claim 31 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 32, modified 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.
Further, Matsui (as cited in regards to claim 31 above and applied to modify Zheng), teaches the active material including Mg(BF4)2 salt, having the magnesium metal cation Mg2+ and the BF4 – polyanion, and yielding benefits per Matsui [0063-0069] as cited above. Matsui teaches in [0163] that such is mixed into a paste, applied to a foil, and dried to form a working electrode including Mg(BF4)2.
Regarding claim 33, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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]).
Regarding claim 56, modified 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, as applied above in the modification of Zheng per the rejection of claim 31 above, teaches 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.
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 modified 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the interpretation of “matrix materials” and arguments pertaining thereto on Remarks pages 9 and 13: examiner accurately cited (in the 04/30/2025 rejection of record, and in the rejection above within the present Office action) where the instant specification (of corresponding US Pre-Grant Publication US 2022/0293952 A1) at [0065] which defined “matrix materials” as a material that may serve as a mechanical support and/or available surface and/or a conduit (e.g. an electrical conduit) … A matrix material may be electrically conductive … Examples include nanotubes, nanofibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers. Examiner notes that arguments insisting on matrix materials necessarily serving as a mechanical support are not necessitated by the instant claims themselves nor in light of the specification, since instant [0065] stated that “an electrical conduit” and specifically “carbon nanofibers” indeed meet “matrix materials”. Therefore, in line with this interpretation in light of the specification, Zheng’s teaching at [0035] of the conductive material additive which can comprise carbon nanofiber (i.e., serving as an electrical conduit and sufficiently satisfying instant [0065] definition) satisfies the claimed “matrix material”. Furthermore, examiner notes that Zheng [0068] specifically teaches that direct contact between the conductive material and active material particles promotes greater electrical conduction inside the electrode, thus providing further context teaching toward how the said conductive material additive serves as an electrical conduit.
Regarding the amended claim requiring “reactive composite” and arguments pertaining thereto on Remarks pages 9-10: Applicant argues that reactive composite implies a pre-formed mixture; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim only positively recites the reactive composite must include at least one reactive material and at least one material other than a binder, such that the overall mixture of Zheng (including active material and conductive additive) as applied within the rejection of record and above does meet the claimed composite. There is no requirement yet within the instant claim requiring any step of pre-mixing or otherwise separately forming the reactive composite, only that such is present within the overall process mixture.
Regarding the limitation of the metal-containing cation excluding lithium, the combination of the Matsui reference, and arguments pertaining thereto on Remarks page 10: the rejection of record (04/30/2025 at page 10) as well as the 35 USC 103 rejection maintained above does explain the motivation for combining the Matsui teaching of the metal-containing cation (of magnesium, thus excluding lithium) in order to achieve excellent reaction reversibility, easy handling and production, charge and discharge with larger current, and a broad stable potential window of electrolytes useable therewith. Therefore, selecting the metal cation other than lithium was indeed rendered an obvious modification to Zheng based on this teaching by Matsui.
Regarding the claimed thickness, the combination of the Mitchell reference, and arguments pertaining thereto on Remarks pages 10-11: as explained in argument response (e) directly below, the instant specification fails to support the claimed thickness range of at least 300 µm regarding the dry film, and thus the arguments toward criticality of this range are not persuasive. Mitchell does provide support (see above rejection, and 04/30/2025 rejection at pages 10-11) that such an overlapping thickness range is known in the prior art and is suitable for a similar dry film, such that modifying Zheng to exhibit such thickness is indeed obvious, absent persuasive arguments to the contrary, and would achieve the self-supporting capability taught toward by Mitchell.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(a) rejection (maintained above in the present Office action) and arguments pertaining thereto on Remarks pages 11-12: examiner notes that instant specification (of corresponding US Pre-Grant Publication US 2022/0293952 A1) at [0088] does not disclose a thickness range of 100 to 1000 µm. Similarly, instant [0087] does not define the dry film as having less than about 10% liquid by mass. Instead, instant [0058] defines that the paste may comprise less than 5%, or 10%, background fluid (but [0058] also discloses that the paste may comprise greater than 5%, or 10%, background fluid, depending on the embodiment; see [0058] at page 6 versus page 5), and instant [0037] instead defined that dry means preferably less than 5% by weight liquid and/or dispersant. Contrastingly, inventive Example 5 at instant [0148] discloses “spraying with isopropanol to maintain 5% isopropanol by mass”, which is equivalent to 5% and not “less than 5%” (i.e., more consistent with the paste of instant [0058] than the “dry” definition of instant [0037]. Accordingly, instant [0148] noting the gap between two calendering cylinders set to 1000 µm, and comparing the actual resultant film thickness to a target thickness of 300 µm, still does not support the range of “a thickness of at least 300 µm” for “the dry film” in the last limitation of claim 31.
Regarding the traversal of all 35 USC 103 of the 04/30/2025 Office action, relying on Zheng in view of Matsui and Mitchell, the arguments presented on Remarks pages 14-28 are not persuasive for at least the reasons explained above.
Conclusion
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