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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/07/2026 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 10-15, and 18-24 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1 and 9.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rolled primer coating layer" in line 14 and 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the rolled primer coating layer" in line 9 and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The examiner notes that applicant switches between “primer coating layer” and “rolled primer coating layer”.
Applicant may consider either canceling or amending the claim limitation to overcome this rejection.
As a suggestion for amending claim 1 “wherein a surface of the primer coating layer has a flat surface uniformly planarized by rolling thereby forming a rolled primer coating layer, wherein the binder layer is patter-formed..."
As a suggestion for amending claim 9, “rolling the metal foil having the primer coating layer formed thereon to thereby uniformly planarize a surface of the primer coating layer thereby forming a rolled primer coating layer”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires “the binder layer is pattern-formed at both edge portions of the rolled primer coating layer” while claim 7 requires “the binder layer includes a pattern disposed on a part of the primer coating layer” which fails to further limit the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 requires “forming a binder layer by pattern-coating a binder composition at both edge portion of the rolled primer coating layer”. Claim 12 requires “forming a binder layer by coating a binder composition on the primer coating layer” which fails to further limit the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 requires “forming a binder layer by pattern-coating a binder composition at both edge portion of the rolled primer coating layer”. Claim 15 requires “the binder composition is pattern-coated on a part of the primer coating layer” which fails to further limit the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 requires “the primer coating layer is disposed on at least one surface of the metal foil”. Claim 21 requires “the primer coating layer is directly disposed on the at least one surface of the metal foil” which fails to further limit the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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), Yushin (US20170170515A1), and Toshishige (JPH 1173947 A).
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 by rolling [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)].
For clarity of the record, the teachings of Seok make it obvious to one that the surface of the primer coating layer should have a roughened surface prior to the addition of the electrode layer as this can increase the interfacial area of the electrode mixture layer and primer layer, thus improving adhesion [line 153-159, Seok]. Seok additionally teaches that the primer layer may be rolled prior to the addition of the electrode layer [line 403-408, Seok]. As such, the examiner notes that one would find it obvious to have the primer layer have a desired surface roughness after rolling the primer layer but prior to adding the electrode mixture.
Next, the examiner notes that the claimed limitations include “a flat surface uniformly planarized by rolling” and a “rolled primer coating layer”.
The examiner notes that the limitation “rolling” or “rolled” is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims 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.
Rolling the primer layer results in compression on the layer. As such, any form of compression (e.g. pressing, rolling, etc.) on the primer layer will result in the same structural features presented by a “rolled primer coating layer”.
Seok is silent to 1) a binder layer with a second binder disposed on the primer coating layer. 2) the porosity of the primer coating layer. 3) wherein the binder layer is pattern-formed at both edge portions of the rolled primer coating layer.
In regard 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 was disposed on the primer layer as this 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 regard to 2), Yushin discloses a Li/Na ion battery with provided with electrolyte compositions [0038, Yushin]. Yushin additionally teaches that one may incorporate functional coatings into various aspects of the battery [0052, Yushin]. They point to a suitable function of a coating (e.g. primer coating layer”) on a current collector to be the minimization of thermal stress at the current collector/electrode interface [0087, Yushin]. Metal foil current collectors are known to exhibit high thermal expansion and compression [0087, Yushin]. One is able to minimize or reduce the thermal stress experienced by the metal foil current collector by incorporating pores (0.1-30 vol%) into the (“primer”) coating layer [0087, Yushin].
The porosity range disclosed by Yushin (0.1-30%) overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 10% or less.
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).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill within the arts prior to the effective filing date would appreciate that a known problem within the arts is the corrosion of metallic current collectors upon exposure to the electrolyte [see conclusion section for relevant NPL]. As such, one would find it obvious to try and reduce the porosity of the (“primer”) coating layer as this would predictably allow one to reduce the flow of electrolyte that may come in contact with the current collector, see MPEP 2143.I.E.
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 10% or less. As this would be a matter of obvious-to-try as it reduces the surface area of the current collector that may be exposed to electrolytic corrosion reactions, see MPEP 2143.i.E. additionally, incorporating some porosity would provide one with the ability to decrease the thermal stress experienced by the current collector upon thermal expansion and contraction [0087, Yushin].
In regard to 3) Toshishige, discloses the electrode, wherein the binder layer includes a pattern (2a, 2b, 2c) disposed at both edge portions of a substrate (1) [abstract, 0010, fig. 2-4, Toshishige].
Toshishige depicts various patterns for a binder layer that one may incorporate between a current collector and electrode mixture. Wherein the patterns can be found at “both edge portions” (i.e. top and bottom, left and right, top and left, etc.).
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 primer layer) and active material layer [abstract, Toshishige].
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 7, Seok as modified above discloses the electrode, wherein the binder layer includes a pattern (2a/2b/2c) disposed on a part of the primer coating layer [as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1].
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. [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 the 1) the presence of a binder layer. 2) the porosity of the primer coating layer. 3) the binder layer being pattern-coating at both edge portion of the rolled primer coating layer.
In regard 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].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Seok such that a second (“binder”) layer was on top of the primer layer as this can provide good adhesion and electrical conductivity between the first primer layer and electroactive layer [0027, Yongzhong
In regard to 2), Yushin discloses a Li/Na ion battery with provided with electrolyte compositions [0038, Yushin]. Yushin additionally teaches that one may incorporate functional coatings into various aspects of the battery [0052, Yushin]. They point to a suitable function of a coating (e.g. primer coating layer”) on a current collector to be the minimization of thermal stress at the current collector/electrode interface [0087, Yushin]. Metal foil current collectors are known to exhibit high thermal expansion and compression [0087, Yushin]. One is able to minimize or reduce the thermal stress experienced by the metal foil current collector by incorporating pores (0.1-30 vol%) into the (“primer”) coating layer [0087, Yushin].
The porosity range disclosed by Yushin (0.1-30%) overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 10% or less.
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).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill within the arts prior to the effective filing date would appreciate that a known problem within the arts is the corrosion of metallic current collectors upon exposure to the electrolyte [see conclusion section for relevant NPL]. As such, one would find it obvious to try and reduce the porosity of the (“primer”) coating layer as this would predictably allow one to reduce the flow of electrolyte that may come in contact with the current collector, see MPEP 2143.I.E.
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 less than 10%. As this would be a matter of obvious-to-try as it reduces the surface area of the current collector that may be exposed to electrolytic corrosion reactions, see MPEP 2143.i.E. additionally, incorporating some porosity would provide one with the ability to decrease the thermal stress experienced by the current collector upon thermal expansion and contraction [0087, Yushin].
In regards to 3) Toshishige, discloses the electrode, wherein the binder layer includes a pattern (2a, 2b, 2c) disposed at both edge portions of the rolled primer coating layer [abstract, 0010, fig. 2-4, Toshishige].
Toshishige depicts various patterns for a binder layer that one may incorporate between the current collector and electrode mixture. Wherein the patterns can be found at “both edge portions” (i.e. top and bottom, left and right, top and left, etc.).
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 primer layer) and active material layer [abstract, Toshishige].
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 15, Seok as modified above discloses the electrode, wherein the binder layer includes a pattern (2a/2b/2c) disposed on a part of the primer coating layer [as discussed above in the rejection of claim 9].
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].
However, they are explicitly silent to rolling only occurring before forming the binder layer.
Yongzhong teaches of a current collector (22) topped by a first and second primer/binder layer (24 and 26) which then has an electrode active material layer (30) disposed on top [0030, fig. 1, Yongzhong]. They additionally note that the primer layers and electro active layers may be deposited and dried by any of a variety of methods such as roller coating, gravure coating, slot extrusion coating, curtain coating, and bead coating [0066-0067, Yongzhong].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to have rolling occur only before forming the binder layer such that the additional layers were manufactured by known methods such as slot extrusion, curtain coating, drying, etc. As these are known methods within the arts for manufacturing and producing electrode layers [0066-0067, Yongzhong].
Regarding claim 23, Seok as modified above teaches of a porosity of the primer coating layer being 10% or less [see rejection of claim 1].
Seok as modified above overlaps with the applicants claimed range of the porosity of the primer coating layer being between 3-10%
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).
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 Seol (cited in the conclusion section) teaches of a current collector in contact with a primer layer having a surface roughness of 0.085-0.300 µm and used to improve adhesion between a metal foil and a second layer [0045, Seol].
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 [087, Yushin].
The porosity range disclosed by Yushin (0.1-30%) overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 3% or less.
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).
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 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 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 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional detail.
Applicant first argues that Seok does not teach the claimed roughness in the claimed rolled, uniformly planarized state.
As noted in the rejection of claim 1, the limitation of “a flat surface uniformly planarized by rolling” and a “rolled primer coating layer” are product-by process limitations.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims 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.
Rolling the primer layer results in compression on the layer. As such, any form of compression (e.g. pressing, rolling, etc.) on the primer layer will result in the same structural features presented by a “rolled primer coating layer”.
The teachings of Seok would make it obvious to one of ordinary skill that the surface of the primer coating layer should have a roughened surface prior to the addition of the electrode layer as this can increase the interfacial area of the electrode mixture layer and primer layer, thus improving adhesion [line 153-159, Seok]. Seok additionally teaches that the primer layer may be rolled prior to the addition of the electrode layer [line 403-408, Seok]. As such, the examiner notes that one would find it obvious to have the primer layer have a desired surface roughness after rolling the primer layer but prior to adding the electrode mixture.
As such, the examiner maintains that the teachings of Seok would allow one to arrive at the argued limitations and that the cited numerical values doe overlap with the claimed range.
Applicant then argues the disclosed examples of Seok and points to their comparative example 2 performing worse than example 1. In example 1 rolling occurs after the addition of the primer and active material layer, while comparative example 2 has rolling occur after the addition of each layer. Applicant points to these disclosed embodiments as rational for why there is not a reason to select Seok’s roughness disclosure in the claimed pre-active-material, uniformly planarized rolled state.
The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive as Seok teaches that a primer layer with a roughened surface can be used to improve adhesion between the active material layer and current collector. As such one would look to explore the range taught by Seok for one that fits their desired adhesion needs. Additionally, the examiner notes that claim 1 only requires “a surface of the primer coating layer has a flat surface uniformly planarized by rolling”. This does not require for rolling to occur directly on the primer layer. For instance, the above limitation may be met if one were to roll the top layer of an electrode (e.g. active material layer) and if the primer layer has a uniformly planarized state post rolling.
Secondly, applicant argues that the art does not teach or suggest a binder layer pattern-formed at both edge portions of the rolled primer coating layer.
The examiner notes that the breath of the claimed limitation “wherein the binder layer is pattern-formed at both edge portions of the rolled primer coating layer” is met by Toshishige. They discloses an electrode, wherein the binder layer includes a pattern (2a, 2b, 2c) disposed at both edge portions of the rolled primer coating layer [abstract, 0010, fig. 2-4, Toshishige].
Toshishige depicts various patterns for a binder layer that one may incorporate between the current collector and electrode mixture. Wherein the patterns can be found at “both edge portions” (i.e. top and bottom, left and right, top and left, etc.).
The examiner’s stance is that it would be obvious to incorporate the adhesion layer patterns of Toshighige into modified Seok’s binder layer as this would allow for sufficient adhesion and electron exchange between the current collector (and primer layer) and active material layer.
Applicant’s arguments that the patterns of Toshishige do not read on the newly recited limitations as they require “ a particular spatial arrangement”. The examiner notes that the newly presented limitation does not recite a particular spatial requirement, only a broad “pattern-formed” requirement is present. As such any generic pattern reads on the claimed limitations. Applicant then argues that it would not be obvious to use the patterns of Toshishige to select the “specific bilateral edge placement” now required by claim 1. The examiner notes that claim 1 does not claim this limitation and as such is not a requirement.
Applicant argues that the random locations of the pattern disclosed by Toshishige would not lead one to arrive at including patterns at “both edge portions”. However, there is no specific requirement as to which/what edge portions are covered. As such, the patterns of Toshishige which span the entire surface will produce a pattern at “both edge portions”.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Hu have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Hu applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Next applicant argues Seok does not disclose the rolling sequence of claim 9 and instead teaches against adding the pre-active-material rolling step for the stated adhesion objective.
First, the examiner notes that a “stated adhesion objective” is not present in claim 9. As such, arguments related to an adhesion objective are not commensurate with the scope of claim 9. Applicant points to example 1 and comparative example 2 as evidence for why one would be discouraged about adding a roll-pressing step before application of the electrode mixture.
The examiner does not find this to be persuasive as applicant has only pointed to a single comparison of two examples and is applying it to broader scope. Comparative example 2 was still shown to have better adhesion than no rolling step at all (comparative example 1). Furthermore, adhesion can be influenced by multiple factors, including binder compositions, compression forces, drying process, etc. As such, the limited examples presented by Seok are not sufficient to suggest they teach away from rolling the primer layer as argued by the applicant.
"Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments." see MPEP 2123.II.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seol (US2018006289A1) as filed in IDS 07/28/23 teaches of a primer layer with a surface roughness of 85-300 nm to improve adhesion between a current collector and active material layer.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (filed 05/07/2026). Discloses impact on current collector degradation upon exposure to electrolyte.
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)
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
/STEWART A FRASER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights