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 .
Remarks
Claim 17 has been canceled. Claim 24 is newly added. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-15, and 18-23 are as previously presented. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-15, and 18-24 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejections below have been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-14, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok (KR 20140032624 A) and in view of Yongzhong (US 20140072873 A1) and Hu (US20160293943A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seok discloses an electrode comprising: a metal foil [line 219-222, line 225, line 269-273, line 277, line 391, Seok]; and a primer coating layer disposed on at least one surface of the metal foil [line 171-174, Seok discloses the use of a carbon coated slurry (reads on primer coating layer)], and an electrode having a structure comprising an electrode active material layer disposed on the current collector [line 173-174, line 209-214, line 403-408, Seok], and wherein the primer coating layer is between the metal foil and the electrode active material layer [abstract, line 170-180, Seok], wherein a surface of the primer coating layer has a flat surface uniformly planarized [Example 1 line 384-417 (thickness 20 µm), Comparative example 2, line 436-438, was planarized by rolling, Seok] and wherein a surface roughness (Ra) of the primer coating layer is 0.01 to 1 µm [line 153-155, Seok discloses having a surface roughness of 0.1-10 µm which overlaps with the claimed range; in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (see MPEP 2144.05)].
Seok is silent to 1) a binder layer with a second binder disposed on the primer coating layer and 2) the porosity of the primer coating layer.
In regards to 1) Yongzhong discloses an electrode with a primer coating layer (first primer layer) and further comprising a binder layer (second primer layer) disposed on the primer coating layer [abstract, 0006-0008, Yongzhong]. Wherein a second binder (Butvar B98, 9.8 wt%) content of the binder layer is greater than a first binder (Celvol 425, 6.0 wt%) content of the primer coating layer [0109-0111, Yongzhong].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Seok such that 1) the second (“binder”) layer can provide good adhesion and electrical conductivity between the first primer layer and electroactive layer [0027, Yongzhong]. 2) the content of the second binder is greater than the content of the first binder. Doing so would provide a known method for constructing a double layer primer for an electrode [0109-0113, Yongzhong]
In regards to 2), Hu discloses a non-porous composite (“primer”) coating layer comprised of fibers and a binder coated on a current collector [0046-0051, 0058, Hu].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Seok such that the primer coating layer was non-porous as taught by Hu because doing so would prevent the electrolyte from coming in contact with the current collector [0058-0059, 0074, Hu].
Regarding claim 2, Seok as modified above discloses the electrode, wherein the primer coating layer includes a carbon-based material and a binder [line 112-128, Seok].
Regarding claim 3, Seok as modified above discloses the electrode, wherein the at least one surface of the metal foil has irregularities [line 75-78, line 223, line 275-276, Seok] formed by rolling. Examiner would like to note that the use of a roller or device for rolling to form irregularities on the surface of the current collector is a product-by-process limitation. As such, "Even though product-by-process limitations are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (See MPEP 2113)
Regarding claim 5, Seok as modified above discloses the electrode, wherein the binder layer includes a carbon-based material [0062, Yongzhong] and a binder [0025, 0031-0042, 0050-0052, Yongzhong].
Regarding claim 6, Seok as modified above discloses the electrode, wherein a thickness of the binder layer is smaller than a thickness of the primer coating layer [example 6, 0128-0129, Yongzhong; first primer layer is 1.5 microns thick. The second primer layer (binder layer) is 2 microns thick].
Regarding claim 9, Seok discloses a method of manufacturing a current collector, the method comprising: preparing a metal foil [line 391, Seok]; forming a primer coating layer by coating a primer composition on at least one surface of the metal foil [line 389-392, Seok]; rolling [line 417-418, Seok] the metal foil having the primer coating layer formed thereon to thereby uniformly planarize [line 391 (thickness of 20 µm), Seok] a surface of the primer coating layer. [Example 1 lines 380-418, Comparative example 2, line 436-438, Seok], and then applying an electrode slurry containing an electrode active material on the current collector to thereby form an electrode active material layer [line 399-408, 436-438, Seok], wherein the primer coating layer is between the metal foil and the electrode active material layer [abstract, line 170-180, Seok], wherein a surface roughness (Ra) of the primer coating layer is 0.01 to 1 µm [line 153-155, Seok discloses having a surface roughness of 0.1-10 µm which overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05)].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim.
Seok is silent to the porosity of the primer coating layer.
However, Hu discloses a non-porous composite coating layer comprised of fibers and a binder coated on a current collector [0046-0051, 0058, Hu. The examiner is interpreting the composite coating layer to be equivalent to a primer coating layer].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Seok such that the primer coating layer was non-porous. Doing so would allow for one to prevent the electrolyte from coming in contact with the current collector [0058-0059, 0074, Hu].
Regarding claim 10, Seok as modified above discloses the method, wherein the primer composition includes a carbon-based material and a binder. [line 112-128, line 389-392].
Regarding claim 12, Seok as modified above is silent to the use of a binder layer being disposed on the primer coating layer.
However, Yongzhong discloses the electrode, a primer coating layer (first primer layer) and further comprising a binder layer (second primer layer) disposed on the primer coating layer [abstract, 0006-0008, Yongzhong].
Prior to the effective filling date, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a second primer or binding layer as disclosed by Yongzhong as the materials used to form the second primer layer may be chosen such that the second primer layer adheres well to both the first primer layer and an electroactive layer [abstract, Yongzhong]. Additionally, this second layer can provide good adhesion and electrical conductivity between the first primer layer and electroactive layer [0027, Yongzhong].
Regarding claim 13, Seok as modified above discloses the electrode, wherein the binder layer includes a carbon-based material [0062, Yongzhong] and a binder [0025, 0031-0042, 0050-0052, Yongzhong], and wherein a binder content of the binder layer is greater than a binder content of the primer coating layer [0038, Yongzhong; first primer layer comprises less than 30 wt% binder material (crosslinked polymeric material) and the second primer layer (binder layer) can be greater than 30 wt% binder material (crosslinked polymeric material)].
Regarding claim 14, Seok as modified above discloses the electrode, wherein a thickness of the binder layer is smaller than a thickness of the primer coating layer [example 6, 0128-0129, Yongzhong; first primer layer is 1.5 microns thick. The second primer layer (binder layer) is 2 microns thick].
Regarding claim 18, Seok as modified above discloses the electrode, wherein the primer coating layer further includes a first carbon-based material [line 114-139, Seok], wherein a weight ratio of the first carbon-based material to the first binder is 3: 7 to 7: 3 [line 132-133, Seok], wherein the binder layer further includes a second carbon-based material [0062, Yongzhong], and wherein a weight ratio of the second carbon-based material to the second binder is 0: 10 to 7: 3 [0062, Yongzhong].
Regarding claim 21, Seok as modified above discloses the primer coating layer is directly disposed on the at least one surface of the metal foil [line 26-29, 385-391, Seok].
Regarding claim 22, Seok as modified above discloses the method, wherein the rolling is performed before the rolling of the binder layer [line 436-440, Seok].
Regarding claim 23, Seok as modified is explicitly silent to the porosity of the primer coating layer being between 3-10%.
However, Hu teaches the value of a composite (“primer”) coating layer being either non-porous (pore size < 25nm; porosity = 0%) or porous (pore size 25-500nm; porosity > 0%) [0022, 0035, Hu]. Wherein having a non-porous composite coating layer prevents the electrolyte from entering the coating layer and forming dendrites [0059, Hu]. However, if a pore seize greater than 25 nm is present then the formation of lithium dendrite can still be prevented as a result of the tortuosity of the pores [0066, Hu].
As such, prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that the porosity of the primer coating layer is a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05.II. From the perspective of minimizing the formation of lithium dendrites, one of ordinary skill within the arts may choose to use a non-porous or (low) porous “primer” coating layer. Using a “primer” coating layer with pores of a tortuosity nature or a “primer” coating layer that is non-porous is sufficient to prevent the formation of lithium dendrites [0059, 0066, Hu].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Seok such that the porosity of the primer coating layer was from 3-10%. By using a coating layer with low porosity, one may prevent the formation of lithium dendrites [0059, 0066, Hu].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 24, Seok as modified above discloses the electrode, wherein the surface roughness (Ra) of the primer coating layer is 0.1-10 µm [line 153-155, Seok]
Seok’s disclosed range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 to 0.5 µm
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (see MPEP 2144.05).
While not included in the rejection of claim 24, in an effort to expedite prosecution the examiner notes that Hu additionally teaches a surface roughness of their coating layer being +/- 0.2 µm [0025, 0058, Hu]. The range also overlaps with the applicants claimed range.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Seok as applied to claims 4 and 12 above, and further in view of Toshishige (JPH 1173947 A).
Regarding claim 7 and 15, modified Seok is silent to a pattern disposed on a part of the primer coating layer.
Toshishige however, discloses the electrode, wherein the binder layer includes a pattern disposed on a part of the primer coating layer [abstract, 0010, fig. 2, examiner is considering any shape, either amorphous or well defined, as constituting a pattern].
Prior to the effective filling date, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the adhesion layer patterns disclosed by Toshishige in modified Seok’s binder layer as this would allow for sufficient adhesion and electron exchange between the current collector and active material [abstract].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Seok as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang (WO 2017190642 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Seok discloses the method, wherein irregularities are formed on a surface [line 75-78, line 223, line 275-276, Seok discloses the use of etching to form irregularities on the surface].
However, modified Seok is silent to the use of rolling to form the irregularities.
Wang however, discloses the method to perform a rolling and texturing treatment on the surface of the current collector [lines 58-59, Wang].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the arts would recognize that rolling would be a viable method for surface roughening (forming irregularities) on a current collector in place of etching as roller roughening provides a high output and low cost method [line 60, Wang].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Seok as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Minami (US20070172733A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Seok discloses the method, wherein the porosity of the rolled primer coating layer is 3% or less [0046-0051, 0058, Hu].
Modified Seok is silent to the particles in the coating layer pressing into the metal foil so that the foil has irregularities.
However, Minami discloses a mixture layer comprised of a binder and active material being press-rolled into a current collector such that the active material is impeded in the current collector [abstract, 0022, Minami. The examiner is interpreting the impeding of active material into the current collector to read on forming irregularities on the surface of the current collector].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Seok such that the rollers pressed the active or conductive material within the primer layer into the current collector as disclosed by Minami. Doing so would allow for one to increase the contact area between the mixture layer and the current collector as well as improve adhesion [0022, Minami].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Seok as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Fuji (JP2013084622A).
Regarding claim 20, modified Seok discloses the method, wherein the rolling is performed before the rolling of the binder layer [line 436-440, Seok].
Modified Seok is silent to the pressure of the rolling or the change in density (rolling rate) of the primer layer (Fuji’s steps prior to second primer layer).
However, Fuji discloses a method where a coating film (primer layer before binder) containing a carbon-based active material and a binder [0045, Fuji]. Fuji’s layer is analogous to the primer layer of modified Seok because both are additional carbonaceous film in the battery. The coating film is compressed by roll pressing such that the volume of the coating layer is reduced by 30-70% [0018-0019, Fuji, which overlaps with the applicants claimed range]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim interpretation, taking lines 4-6 as a whole the limitations are clear to require the relationship {(G2-G1)/G1}*100% must fall within 50% to 90%.
Modified Seok is silent to the claimed relationship above. However Fuji teaches increasing discharge capacity by increasing density which is achieved by the roll pressing step ([0018-19]).
In Fuji’s example in [0018] the density is greater than 2g/cm3 (G2) and teaches compression by 30-70%. For example taking 2.3 g/cm3 as G2 gives 1.5 g/cm3 as G1 and a rate of 53% ({(2.3-1.5)/1.5} * 100% = 53%.) which falls in the claimed range demonstrating overlapping ranges and prima facie obviousness.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Seok to meet the rolling rate as disclosed by Fuji. Doing so would allow for one to improve the durability of the metal foil and discharge capacity per unit volume [0028, Fuji].
Fuji is explicitly silent to the rolling strength (force applied) but does recognize pressing force as a result effective variable wherein one would appreciate that too much pressure may damage the layer while not enough pressure may not provide adequate results, in this case the desired densification ([0019-21 and 0024]). It would have been obvious to balance achieving the desired densification with limiting layer damage barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional detail.
First, applicant argues the use of Hu with Seok and presented the following reason for their argument.
PNG
media_image1.png
193
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees with this as Hu teaches of an electrode that comprises metal (e.g. Cu, Li) foils (11) and covers them with a non-porous layer (15), doing so provides a benefit of preventing electrolyte from coming into contact with the metal surface [0058, 0074, Hu]. Applicant’s arguments of Hu’s intended us is not persuasive as Hu’s broader teachings inform one of how a non-porous coating layer may be used to prevent contact between the electrolyte and foil.
The examiner clarifies that Seok (primary) teaches the primer layer being disposed between metal foil and active material layer. But is silent to the porosity of the primer coating layer, as noted in the rejection of claim 1.
One of ordinary skill within the arts would find motivation to modify Seok such that their primer coating layer was non-porous. As Hu discloses a non-porous coating layer prevents the metal foil and electrolyte from coming into contact. In the conclusion section of prior office actions, the examiner introduced three journal articles disclosing this well-known problem in the art, in which metal electrodes undergo corrosive side reactions when exposed to electrolyte and higher voltages. The authors further noted that a protection/passivation layer may be placed on the metals surface preventing the electrolyte from coming into contact with the electrode. This protective/passivation layer results in minimal corrosion to the electrodes surface. Further demonstrating that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to arrive at the desired porosity to minimize these side reactions.
As such, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that by making the primer layer of Seok non-porous one would be able to prevent the electrolyte from contacting the metal surface. This would prevent the known problem in which metal electrodes experience corrosive reaction when exposed to electrolyte and higher voltages.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., enhanced/improved adhesion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Next applicant argues the following in regards to the applicability of comparative example 2 from Seok:
PNG
media_image2.png
328
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the examiner notes the following:
"Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments." see MPEP 2123.II
“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, and all teachings in the prior art must be considered to the extent that they are in analogous arts”, see MPEP 2143.01.II.
The examiner is required to consider the art for all it teaches not just preferred (or non-preferred) embodiments. As such the applicant’s argument is moot as the comparative example is still disclosed as a part of the broader disclosure.
Finally, applicant argues the following about the rolling procedure:
PNG
media_image3.png
405
663
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes for example 1 the primer layer is placed on the metal foil and then rolled (as required by claim 1), the active material layer is placed down and then rolled again (as noted by the applicant above) [0065-0070, Seok]. As such, example 1 possess the features of rolling occurring before and after the active material is applied. The examiner also notes that example 1 has the highest adhesion force. As such, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the example with the highest force had a rolling step occur before and after the active material layer was applied.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shu et. al, Electrochimica Acta 56 (2011) 3006–3014 (doi:10.1016/j.electacta.2011.01.004).
Zhang et. al, Journal of Power Sources 109 (2002) 458–464 (doi :10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00110-6)
Myung et.al, Electrochimica Acta 55 (2009) 288–297 (doi:10.1016/j.electacta.2009.08.051)
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 QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/Q.D.E./
Examiner, Art unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights