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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments filed on November 21, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on June 24, 2025 have been received and entered. Claim 1 was amended to recite the limitation “a single-layer or multi-layer porous film for use in electrode material as part of an energy storage device or system” and to incorporate the limitation from claim 7, which was cancelled. Claims 5, 6, 8, 10 and 23 were amended as well and claim 24 was added. Claims1-6, 8-10 and 12-24 are pending in this application.
Because of the amendments made to claims 5, 8 and 10, the 112b rejection for being indefinite applied to these claims on the past Non-Final Office Action is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrieu et al. (US 2001/0008735A1) in view of Sato et al. (US 9630152 B2) as applied for claim 1 and evidenced by Mizuno, N. (WO 2017094486 A1, see machine translation for citation).
The applicant argues that Andrieu, Sato and Mizuno fail to teach or suggest that a porous film for an electrode could or should be produced via unsupported extrusion [p. 10-13]. As acknowledged on the past Non-Final Office Action, Andrieu does not teach the feature “forming an extruded film precursor sheet by unsupported extrusion of the first base mixture without any supporting medium” [p. 6]. Sato teachings were related to a polyketone porous film which may be employed as a separator for a battery and its electrodes are formed by coating a support structure [col. 2; line 61-65, col. 6; line 32-34 and Example 22]. In addition Mizuno teachings were related to the preparation of a polyolefin microporous separator membrane [Abstract]. Because of the reasons above neither Sato or Mizuno were analogous to the preparation of a porous electrode by unsupported extrusion, therefore e failing to cure the teaching deficiencies of Andrieu.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10-13, filed on November 21, 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Because of the direct or indirect dependency of claims 2-6, 8-10 and 12-23 on claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections applied to these claims have been withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Andrieu et al. (US 20010008735 A1) in view of Pekala, R. (US 20020080553 A1).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 15, 16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrieu et al. (US 20010008735 A1) in view of Pekala, R. (US 20020080553 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Andrieu teaches a method of manufacturing an organic electrolyte electrochemical cell comprising at least one electrochemical couple made up of two electrodes, sandwiching a solid film of porous polymer, each electrode comprising a porous layer [0008].
The method first teaches an anode (1) porous layer (2) comprising a mixture (first base mixture) of a PVDF binder polymer, an electrochemically active material (graphite, coke, vitreous carbon, carbon black, or active carbon) and a solvent in which the binder polymer is soluble [0035, 0038-0039, 0051 and 0060]. It is further taught a cathode (4) porous layer (5), comprising a second mixture (second base mixture) of PVDF binder polymer, an insoluble additive (lithium-containing oxides of manganese, nickel and cobalt) and a solvent in which the binder polymer is soluble [0038-0039, 0052 and 0061]. In addition, it is taught a polymer solution (third base mixture) comprising a binder polymer (PVDF) and a solvent [0062-0063]. Since the taught solvents for the three “mixtures” are organic solvents selected from cyclohexanone, dichloromethane, dimethylformamide, hexamethylphosphoramide (HMPA); dimethylsulfoxide , trietylphosphate (TEP), N-methylpyrolidone (NMP) and mixtures thereof, the electrochemically active material for the anode and cathode mixtures (first and second base mixtures) respectively are generally insoluble on these organic solvents.
Andrieu does not teach the feature “b. forming an extruded film precursor sheet by unsupported extrusion of the first base mixture without any supporting medium, wherein the extruded film precursor sheet comprises at least a sublayer of the first base mixture, and wherein the polymeric binder of the first base mixture of the extruded film precursor sheet is configured to precipitate upon contact with a liquid-phase precipitant, and c. contacting the extruded film precursor sheet with the liquid-phase precipitant, wherein the solvent of the first base mixture of the extruded film precursor sheet is soluble in the liquid-phase precipitant, and wherein the polymeric binder of the first base mixture of the extruded film precursor sheet is at least partially insoluble in the liquid- phase precipitant such that the polymeric binder is precipitated upon contact with the liquid-phase precipitant to form the porous film”.
Pekala teaches on a third preferred embodiment method for prepare single or multiple electrode and separator layers to be employed in energy storage systems (same field of endeavor of Andrieu) [0003, 0022 and 0081]. Its process involves the employment of three extruders (10, 12 and 14) feeding an extrusion die (20) with a first electrode extrudate, a separator extrudate and a second electrode extrudate respectively [0071-0073 and Fig. 2]. The resultant a non-supported three- layer precursor film (30) (extruded film precursor), can be calendered to control its thickness and laminated on its upper and lower surfaces with a current collector (81 and 83) [0074-0076, Fig. 2 and 3]. The five layer cell structure (86) (laminated extruded film precursor) is passed through an extraction bath (42) where the solvent of the three- layer precursor film (30) (extruded film precursor) is removed [0077, 0078, Fig. 2 and 4]. The solvent for the extracting process could include isopropyl alcohol, diethyl ether and acetone, but is not limited to these candidates [0032]. From this extraction bath (42) step the feature “wherein the polymeric binder of the first base mixture of the extruded film precursor sheet is at least partially insoluble in the liquid-phase precipitant such that the polymeric binder is precipitated upon contact with the liquid-phase precipitant to form the porous film” can be reasonably inferred from Pekala Example 1 when the porous film is obtained after the extraction procedure [0035-0036].
Finally, the solvent free five layer cell structure (86) (laminated extruded film precursor) enters drying section (88) where the extraction solvent is volatilized and is directed to a controlled moisture environment (90) where the cell structure is cut to length, cut lengths are assembled into individual ultracapacitors, electrolyte is introduced, and other final assembly operations are carried out [0077, 0078 and Fig. 2]. Pekala teaches that its process can be performed separately or in various combinations [0081]. From this teaching a “single or multi-layer porous film for use in electrode material as part of an energy storage device or system” can be prepared. Pekala teaches that its method promotes an integral, coherent bond between adjacent electrode and separator layers and reduce the risk of delamination during extraction. It also provide intimate contact between the porous electrodes and the separator without collapsing porosity at adjacent layer interfaces [0022].
If the anode (1) porous layer (2) mixture taught by Andrieu above is employed on Pekala’s methodology to prepare a single layer electrode porous film, the claimed features would be met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for preparing a single-layer or multi-layer porous film for use in electrode material as part of an energy storage device or system of Andrieu to include the feature “b. forming an extruded film precursor sheet by unsupported extrusion of the first base mixture without any supporting medium, wherein the extruded film precursor sheet comprises at least a sublayer of the first base mixture, and wherein the polymeric binder of the first base mixture of the extruded film precursor sheet is configured to precipitate upon contact with a liquid-phase precipitant, and c. contacting the extruded film precursor sheet with the liquid-phase precipitant, wherein the solvent of the first base mixture of the extruded film precursor sheet is soluble in the liquid-phase precipitant, and wherein the polymeric binder of the first base mixture of the extruded film precursor sheet is at least partially insoluble in the liquid- phase precipitant such that the polymeric binder is precipitated upon contact with the liquid-phase precipitant to form the porous film”, because Pekala teaches a method that fulfills the claimed features and that its method promotes an integral, coherent bond between adjacent electrode and separator layers and reduce the risk of delamination during extraction. It also provide intimate contact between the porous electrodes and the separator without collapsing porosity at adjacent layer interfaces.
Regarding claim 2, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion “the second and third base mixture” features were taught by Andrieu. From Pekala teachings and Fig. 2-4, if the anode (1) mixture (first base mixture), the cathode (4) mixture (second base mixture) and the polymer solution (third base mixture) taught by Andrieu are employed on the extruders (10, 14 and 12) which feed the extrusion die (20) with a first electrode extrudate, a second electrode extrudate and a separator extrudate respectively [0071-0073], the remaining claimed features would be met.
Regarding claim 3, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 2. From the discussion of claim 2 (which depends on claim 1), the polymer solution (third base mixture) of Andrieu comprises a binder polymer (PVDF) and a solvent, therefore, is electrically non-conductive [0062-0063].
Regarding claim 4, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 2. From the discussion of claim 2 (which depends on claim 1), and specifically referring to Pekala Fig. 3, the separator (third base mixture) is between the first and second electrode layers (52 and 54) (first and second base mixture).
Regarding claim 5, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Andrieu further teaches that binder polymer for the anode (1) mixture (first base mixture) is selected from polyvinylidene fluoride; polyvinyl chloride; polymethylmethacrylate; cellulose acetate; a polysulfone, a polyether; a polyolefin; and from an alloy of polyvinylidene fluoride with a polymer selected from a polysulfone, polymethylmethacrylate, polyvinylpyrolidone, a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and ethane tetrafluoride, and a copolymer of vinylacetate and of vinylalcohol [0035].
Regarding claim 6, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Andrieu further teaches the base mixtures of the invention (first, second and third base mixtures) could be selected from: cyclohexanone, dichloromethane, dimethylacetamide (DMA), dimethylformamide (DMF), hexamethylphosphoramide (HMPA), dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), triethylphosphate (TEP), N-methylpyrolidone (NMP), and mixtures thereof [0037].
Regarding claim 8, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, Andrieu teaches that the electroactive agent present on the anode (1) mixture (first base mixture) can be graphite [0051].
Regarding claim 10, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, isopropyl alcohol can be employed as the extraction solvent (liquid-phase precipitant).
Regarding claim 15, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, Pekala teachings included the non-supported three- layer precursor film (30) (extruded film precursor) pass through calender rolls to control its thickness [0074].
Regarding claim 16, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion the claimed feature is met.
Regarding claim 21, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 16. From claim 1 discussion (on which claim 16 depends), since a single or a multiple electrode assembly could be manufactured by the modified method of Andrieu in view of Pekala, the claimed feature is met.
Regarding claim 22, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 21. From claim 1 discussion (on which claim 21 depends) “at least two layers of the porous film” could be manufactured by the modified method of Andrieu in view of Pekala, since the operations can be performed separately or in various combinations [Pekala 0081].
Regarding claim 23, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 22. From claim 1 discussion (on which claim 22 depends) the claimed features would be met.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrieu et al. (US 20010008735 A1) in view of Pekala, R. (US 20020080553 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Babinec et al. (US 8697290 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the method according to claim 1, except “wherein the first base mixture further comprises a conductive agent, wherein the conductive agent comprises or consists of conductive carbon”.
Babinec teaches a porous composite negative electrode layer (analogous to the first base mixture) that can be obtained combining an electroactive, conductive additive and binder material, where the conductive material could be carbon black [col. 20; line 11-17]. The inclusion of a conductive material, such as carbon black, improves the electrochemical stability, reversible storage capacity, and rate capability of an electrochemical embodiment [col. 20; line 15-16].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Andrieu and Pekala to incorporate the feature “wherein the first base mixture further comprises a conductive agent, wherein the conductive agent comprises or consists of conductive carbon”, because Babinec teaches that the inclusion of a conductive agent consisting of conductive carbon, such as carbon black, could improve the electrochemical stability, reversible storage capacity, and rate capability of an electrochemical embodiment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrieu et al. (US 20010008735 A1) in view of Pekala, R. (US 20020080553 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kozuki et al. (JP 2010160939 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 12, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the method according to claim 1, except “wherein after step b and before step c the extruded film precursor sheet is coated by a pre-precipitant on one or both sides, the polymeric binder of the first base mixture being insoluble in the pre-precipitant”.
Kozuki teaches a separator microporous film formation process followed by a coating step on one or both sides of the separator by a liquid containing an organic polymer compound and a water-soluble organic solvent for dissolving the organic polymer compound (pre-precipitant). The coating (pre-precipitant) is subjected to a process to coagulate only the surface of the coating layer, prior to convey the coated separator film into a coagulation bath (analogous to step c of claim 1). In the provided examples the polymers (binders) employed for forming the separator microporous film were not soluble in the pre-precipitant [0021, 0024, 0050-0055]. Despite that Kozuki does not teach all the limitations of claim 1, its methodology can be considered to be on the same field of endeavor of the modified method of Andrieu in view of Pekala. The employment of a pre-precipitant step provides a large microporous structure which provides means for gas and liquid transport. Also, it could improve the electrolyte solution holding on the structure and the heat resistance properties, among other [0017-0018].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Andrieu and Pekala to include the feature “wherein after step b and before step c the extruded film precursor sheet is coated by a pre-precipitant on one or both sides, the polymeric binder of the first base mixture being insoluble in the pre-precipitant”, because Kozuki teaches that it could improve the permeability, electrolyte solution holding and heat resistance of the film, among other properties.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrieu et al. (US 20010008735 A1) in view of Pekala, R. (US 20020080553 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Honmoto et al. (US 20180071774 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the method according to claim 1, except for the method “further comprising: washing the porous film in a washing solution, wherein the washing solution is selected from the group consisting of water, at least one alcohol, or a mixture thereof”.
Honmoto teaches a washing step of a composite film, which can be manufactured by extrusion, after an solidification process (phase separation) in a washing solution; water [0085, 0086, 0089, 0105 and Fig. 1]. Even when the Honmoto does not disclose all the limitations recited on claim 1, its methodology is on the same field of endeavor of the modified method of Andrieu in view of Pekala. It is taught that in the water washing process, the solvents contained in the composite film are removed [0089].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Andrieu and Pekala to include the feature “further comprising: washing the porous film in a washing solution, wherein the washing solution is selected from the group consisting of water, at least one alcohol, or a mixture thereof”, because Honmoto teaches that in a water washing step the solvents contained in the composite film are removed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrieu et al. (US 20010008735 A1) in view of Pekala, R. (US 20020080553 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Emanuel et al. (US 6524742 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the method according to claim 1, except “drying the porous film in a drying apparatus with recirculating air or an inert gas”.
Emanuel teaches method to form a freestanding microporous polymer sheets (30) (single-layer or multi-layer porous film analogous) which can be wound or stacked in a package filled with an electrolyte to function as electrodes in an energy storage device (86), such as a battery [Abstract]. Emanuel method is on the same field of endeavor of Andrieu and Pekala. After a solvent extraction (precipitation step) of a prepared electrode mixture, it is dried in a forced air oven (recirculating air or convection oven) [col. 5; line 15-18]. This feature is employed on the drying step to volatilize the extraction solvent from the microporous polymer sheet [col. 22; line 4].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Andrieu and Pekala to include the feature “drying the porous film in a drying apparatus with recirculating air or an inert gas”, because Emanuel teaches that it is employed to volatilize the extraction solvent from the microporous polymer sheet.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrieu et al. (US 20010008735 A1) in view of Pekala, R. (US 20020080553 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Song et al. (US 20180043656 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 16, except “wherein the porous film has a substantially constant thickness between 50 µm and 1000 µm”.
Song teaches an oriented multilayer porous film comprising at least one layer comprising, among other possibilities, PVDF and graphite [0016, 0021, 0100, 0119]. The oriented multilayer porous film of Song can be made by coextrusion methods and it can be applied to energy storage systems [Abstract]. From the general teachings of Song its oriented multilayer porous film is on the same field of endeavor of the modified method of Andrieu in view of Pekala. Son teaches that its oriented porous film may have a plurality of layers and a thickness of 50-500 µm [0169].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the thickness range disclosed by Song because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrieu et al. (US 20010008735 A1) in view of Pekala, R. (US 20020080553 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Lee et al. (US 7014948 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the method according to claim 16. From claim 1 discussion (on which claim 16 depends) it is possible to obtain a “porous film comprising a first film layer, a second film layer and a separating layer arranged between the first and the second film layer” if the available three extruders (10, 12 and 14) are employed to prepare such “porous film”.
Andrieu and Pekala does not teach “wherein the first film layer and the second film layer have a thickness between 20 µm and 500 µm, and wherein the separating layer has a thickness between 5 µm and 50 µm”.
Lee teaches a multicomponent composite film formed by a support layer film coated on both sides by a gellable polymer layer employable on an electrochemical element [Abstract, col. 9; line 6-50 and col. 10; line 6-52] (which can be on the same field of endeavor of the triple layer porous film obtainable by the modified method of Andrieu and Pekala). The support layer film is preferably made by unsupported extrusion, and it can be made with the same polymer employed for the gellable polymer (polysulfone and polyvinylidene fluoride, which are part of the polymeric binder candidates taught by Andrieu), accordingly, the support layer film could represent the separator film and the gellable polymer the first and second film. It is taught that the thickness of the support layer film ranges from 1 to 50 µm, the thickness of the gellable polymer layer after coating preferably ranges from 0.01 to 25 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the thickness ranges disclosed by Lee because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Andrieu, Pekala and Lee teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 18. From claim 1 discussion (on which claim 18 depends), if the second extruder (12) employ the anode (1) “first base mixture” without the electroactive agent, the claimed feature would be met.
Regarding claim 20, Andrieu, Pekala and Lee teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 18. From claim 1 discussion (on which claim 18 depends), if the first and third extruder (10 and 14) employ the anode (1) “first base mixture” without the electroactive agent, the claimed feature would be met.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrieu et al. (US 20010008735 A1) in view of Pekala, R. (US 20020080553 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Song et al. (US 20180043656 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Andrieu and Pekala teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein the porous film has a thickness between 50 µm and 1000 µm”.
Song teaches an oriented multilayer porous film comprising at least one layer comprising, among other possibilities, PVDF and graphite [0016, 0021, 0100, 0119]. The oriented multilayer porous film of Song can be made by coextrusion methods and it can be applied to energy storage systems [Abstract]. From the general teachings of Song its oriented multilayer porous film is on the same field of endeavor of the modified method of Andrieu in view of Pekala. Son teaches that its oriented porous film may have a plurality of layers and a thickness of 50-500 µm [0169].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the thickness range disclosed by Song because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 02/04/2026