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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 9/29/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2 are amended and Claims 9-11 are new.
Support for the amendments can be found in paragraphs 0012, 0045-0052, and 0069 of the instant specification.
Claims 1-11 are pending, of which Claims 5-8 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
In Claim 10, “pitch” is interpreted in line with the explanation provided in paragraph 0069 of the instant specification: “the smallest unit in which the concave part and the convex part are repeated.”
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) 1-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara (US 20180219249 A1) in view of Kim (US 20180337396 A1, cited in the 4/18/2023 IDS), Park (KR 20140070751 A, machine translation provided), Lee (US 20220285665 A1), and Miyahisa (US 20090325045 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugihara teaches a method of producing an electrode having a positive or negative current collector and an electrode active material layer (Abstract). The method comprises a step of preparing a moisture powder in which an active material, binder, and solvent are mixed to form wet granulated/agglomerated particles and a step of supplying the prepared moisture powder directly to an electrode current collector (Abstract).
Sugihara does not disclose that at least 50% of the particles have the properties of: a solid phase, a liquid phase, and a gas phase form a pendular or funicular state; and a layer of the solvent is not observed on an outer surface of the agglomerated particles in electron microscope observation or that a gas phase is left in the coating film.
However, it has been held that, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). (See MPEP 2112).
In this case, Sugihara teaches that the active material can comprise graphite for a negative electrode active material (0059) or LiNi1/3Co1/3Mn1/3O2 (0064) for a positive electrode active material, which are the same as the active materials disclosed in paragraph 0028 of the instant specification. The binder can comprise polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) (0022), which are the same as the binders disclosed in paragraph 0029 of the instant specification, and the solvent can be N-methyl-2-pyrolidone (NMP) (0026), which is the same as the solvent disclosed in paragraph 0028 of the instant specification.
Although Sugihara does not teach a specific embodiment with the disclosed active materials, binders, and solvent, Sugihara teaches them as part of a list of possible elements for an electrode and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Sugihara also teaches that the solid content of the particles can range from 65 mass% to 95 mass% (solvent is present in 5 mass% to 35 mass%) (0031, 0032). This range overlaps the solid component range disclosed in paragraph 0033 of the instant specification (2 to 15 wt%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Finally, Sugihara teaches produces the moisture powder through a granulation step (0016-0018) which would be the same as the wet granulation process disclosed in paragraph 0031 of the instant specification.
Modified Sugihara teaches a moisture powder comprising the same active materials, binders, and solvent as the disclosed invention. The solvent content in the moisture is the same as the disclosed invention and the process of producing the moisture powder is the same as the disclosed invention. Therefore, it would be expected that the moisture powder also comprises the same properties as the disclosed invention, namely at least 50% of the particles have the properties of: a solid phase, a liquid phase, and a gas phase form a pendular or funicular state; and a layer of the solvent is not observed on an outer surface of the agglomerated particles in electron microscope observation; and a gas phase is present when applied to the current collector.
Modified Sugihara does not teach a step in which a concave/convex shape is formed on a surface part of the coating film with a predetermined pattern and a certain pitch, a step in which a coating material containing at least one type of inorganic compound is applied to the coating film on which the concave/convex shape is formed, and a step in which the coating film formed on the electrode current collector and the coating material are dried, and an electrode having an electrode active material layer made of the coating film and a coating component made of the coating material disposed in a concave part of the concave/convex shape on the active material is formed.
Kim teaches a method for forming an electrode (Title). The method teaches that craters (concave shape with predetermined pattern and a certain pitch) can be formed on a first layer of active material and that a second active material layer comprising at least one type of inorganic compound (0047, 0050) can be coated onto the first layer (coating material containing at least one type of inorganic compound is applied to the coating film with the concave/convex shape) (0015). At least some of the second active material layer would be disposed in the crater/concave shape. Having a second active material layer allows for batteries with both high capacity and high-power layers (0005, 0023) and forming craters on the first layer allows for improved bonding between the layers (0021).
Sugihara and Kim are considered analogous to the claimed invention, namely methods for forming electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Sugihara by including the crater forming step and second active material of Kim in order to allow for batteries with high capacity, high power layers, and improved bonding between layers. Examiner notes that Sugihara teaches a step of adhering a separator on the negative electrode active material layer. The separator is adhered using a binder (Sugihara: 0021) and the second active material layer of modified Sugihara still comprises a binder (Kim: 0048, 0051), meaning that the modification would not affect the subsequent separator adhesion step. Furthermore, the method for producing a positive electrode does not involve a separator (Sugihara: 0064).
The first and second active material layers can be viewed as an overall electrode active material layer meaning that modified Sugihara teaches an electrode active material layer made of the coating component made of the coating material disposed in a concave part of the concave/convex shape on the active material layer.
Modified Sugihara teaches that the concave/convex shape is formed by laser ablation (Kim: 0063) rather than passing the electrode current collector and the coating film formed on the electrode current collector through a gap between a concavity/convexity transfer roller having a concave portion and a convex portion on a surface of the concavity/convexity transfer roller and a backup roller opposing the concavity/convexity transfer roller.
Park teaches a method of forming a pattern (Fig. 1) in a current collector using a roll-to-roll method (0047). The pattern can have a porous shape (0048; Fig. 2 – top right image), which can be viewed the same as craters. The roll-to-roll method is environmentally friendly and has a simple process (0047).
Although the method of Park is used to form patterns/shapes in a current collector rather than a coating film, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Park is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely methods for forming electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Sugihara to form the craters using the roll-to-roll process of Park in order to provide a simpler and environmentally friendly process as applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Although Park does not disclose all the components of the roll-to-roll process (0047 – it is unclear if the roll-shaped film board is a concavity/convexity transfer roller), the process results in a concave/convex shape through the use of rollers, meaning that the process would implicitly teach passing the electrode (current collector and coating film) through a gap between a concavity/convexity transfer roller having a concave portion and a convex portion on a surface of the roller and a backup roller opposing the concavity/convexity transfer roller.
However, in the case where the method of Park does not teach the concavity/convexity transfer roller and backup roller, Lee teaches a method of imparting a pattern into an electrode substrate coated onto a current collector (0005) using a pair of rollers where one roller has a structure with surface unevenness (Fig. 2 – part 131) and one roller has a structure without surface unevenness (Fig. 2 – part 132) (0012). The roller with the unevenness pattern is used to impart the pattern onto the electrode substrate (and can be viewed as a concavity-convexity transfer roller) while the second roller is used to support the electrode substrate (and can be viewed as a backup roller) (0074).
Although the rollers of Lee are used to form repeated mountains and valleys (0024) rather than craters/porous shapes, it would be within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the protrusions of the rollers based on the desired shape.
Although the rollers of Lee are used to form the pattern on an uncoated surface of the electrode, Miyahisa teaches that rollers can be used to form patterns on coated parts of an electrode plate as well (Abstract, 0038, Fig. 5).
Lee and Miyahisa are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely methods for forming electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Sugihara to use the rollers of Lee to form the concave/convex shapes during the roll-to-roll method as Lee and Miyahisa teaches rollers as a known method of forming concave/convex shapes in an electrode active material layer. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a method of forming an electrode with a known method of forming concave/convex shapes in an electrode active material layer (See MPEP 2143 A).
Miyahisa teaches a method of forming grooves in surfaces of an active material layer formed on an electrode plate (0014). The electrode plate is passed through a pair of rollers having a plurality of line projections on their surfaces (0014). Thus, one of the pair of rollers can be viewed as a concavity/convexity transfer roller and the other roller can be viewed as a backup roller.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Sugihara teaches the method of Claim 1. Modified Sugihara does disclose how much surface area the craters/concave shapes are responsible for.
Kim teaches that the craters can occupy 1-50% of the surface area of the first layer (0014). Assuming the shape of the craters are hemispheres (0013: semi-spherical shape), a crater with a radius r would have a surface of 2πr2, which is 100% more than a flat area with a radius of r (the surface area of said flat area is πr2). Thus, the crater forming step resulting in craters occupying 1-50% of the surface area would result in a 1-50% increase in surface area compared to no crater forming step. This overlaps the claimed range of 5% or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of modified Sugihara to have the craters occupy 1-50% of the surface area of the first layer as Kim teaches it as a known amount for improving bonding between layers (0014, 0021, 0022).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Sugihara teaches the method of Claim 1. Modified Sugihara does not teach the composition for the second active material layer (coating material comprising an inorganic compound).
Kim teaches that the second active material layer can comprise titanium oxide (titania), which is an inorganic compound (0047, 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inorganic material of modified Nagashima to be titanium oxide/titania as Kim teaches it as a known material for the second active material layer and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Sugihara teaches the method of Claim 1. Modified Sugihara does not teach that the second active material layer (coating material) contains at least one type of active material as the inorganic compound, and that the active material contains at least one metal element of silicon and tin as a constituent element.
Kim teaches that the second active material layer (coating material) can comprise at least one type of active material as the inorganic compound, and that the active material contains at least one metal element of silicon and tin as a constituent element (0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second active material layer of modified Sugihara to comprise the silicon or tin-containing active materials taught by Kim as Kim teaches them as suitable active materials for the second active material layer and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sugihara teaches the method of Claim 1. Modified Sugihara does not disclose the height difference between a concave part and a convex part of the concave/convex shape.
Kim teaches that the craters may have a depth of 2-60 µm (0012). The depth of the crater can be viewed as a height difference between a concave part (crater parts) and a convex part (non-crater parts) of the concave/convex shape. This would overlap the claimed range of 10 µm or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the craters of modified Sugihara to have a depth of 2-60 µm as Kim teaches that range as an appropriate depth range for a crater in an electrode. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a electrode active material layer with craters of appropriate depth (See MPEP 2143 A).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Sugihara teaches the method of Claim 1. Modified Sugihara does not disclose the pitch between the concave portion and the convex portion of the concavity/convexity transfer roller.
Lee teaches that the average distance between adjacent mountains (convex parts) of a roller can range from 0.5 to 10 mm (0024). This can be considered the pitch of the roller and would overlap the claimed range of 1 to 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pitch between the concave portion and the convex portion of the concavity/convexity transfer roller of modified Sugihara to be 0.5 to 10 mm as Lee teaches that range as an appropriate pitch range for a roller. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a roller with an appropriate pitch between the concave portions and the convex portions (See MPEP 2143 A).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugihara, Kim, Park, Lee, and Miyahisa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishiguchi (US 20210151739 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Sugihara teaches the method of Claim 1. Modified Sugihara does not disclose the linear pressure of the concavity/convexity transfer roller.
Nishiguchi teaches that a roll press (0015 – a pair of cylindrical rollers) can exert a linear pressure on an electrode active material composition between 35 and 3500 N/cm (0033). This overlaps the claimed range of 15 N/cm to 75 N/cm.
Nishiguchi is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely methods of making electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the linear pressure of the rollers of modified Sugihara to be within the range taught by Nishiguchi as it is a suitable linear pressure for a pair of rollers used to make an electrode. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a pair of rollers with a suitable linear pressure (See MPEP 2143 A).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have routinely selected the overlapping portions of the disclosed pressure ranges as selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752