DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the February 19th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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
In response to the amendments received on February 19th, 2026:
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended to further limit fluoropolymer A and fluoropolymer B as presented in original Claim 2. The amendment provides sufficient antecedent basis for Claim 3; therefore, the rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the originally filed disclosure including original Claim 2. No new matter has been added.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) as further evidenced by Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180355206 A1). The rejections are withdrawn based on the amendment to Claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) as further evidenced by Lefebvre et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140158185 A1). The rejection is withdrawn based on the amendment to Claim 1.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Amin-Sanayei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170125815 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Amin-Sanayei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170125815 A1) as further evidenced by Raman et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170256367 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Amin-Sanayei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170125815 A1) as further evidenced by Zhong et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120040243 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) as further evidenced by Plee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20110297889 A1). The rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 19th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claims 1-13 in which are based on Claim 1 as amended. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Claims 14-20, applicant argues that one cannot include a step in a wet process to make it a dry process; and that making the process of Bonnet solvent-free would improperly change the principle of operation of the prior art (see pg. 9-11 of the “Remarks”).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2143.01).
“Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)” (see MPEP 716.01(c)).
In this case, the electrode manufacturing process of Bonnet et al. is modified to include a mixing step performed using a solvent-free process to obtain an intimate mixture, then mixing the active filler and the intimate mixture using a solvent-free mixing process to obtain an electrode formulation as taught by Amin-Sanayei et al.; and a reasonable motivation for performing the modification is provided in the rejection: a solvent-free process eliminates the need for solvent and the related equipment/process cost, significantly reducing the overall battery cost as taught by Amin-Sanayei et al. Further, the modification is deemed a further improvement of the prior art and would not deem the prior art inoperable nor incapable of forming an electrode as electrodes can be manufactured using both wet and dry processes as shown by the applied prior art. Applicant has the opportunity to provide objective evidence of inoperability in which must be factually supported by an affidavit/declaration.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) (“Bonnet et al.”)
Previously Cited Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180355206 A1) (“Bizet et al.”)
Previously Cited Lefebvre et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140158185 A1) (“Lefebvre et al.”)
Previously Cited Amin-Sanayei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170125815 A1) (“Amin-Sanayei et al.”)
Previously Cited Raman et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170256367 A1) (“Raman et al.”)
Previously Cited Zhong et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120040243 A1) (“Zhong et al.”)
Previously Cited Plee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20110297889 A1) (“Plee et al.”)
Mitchell et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7791860 B2) (“Mitchell et al.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Mitchell et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7791860 B2) as further evidenced by Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180355206 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bonnet et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery electrode comprising an electroactive layer containing active fillers such as mixed oxide fillers or carbon and/or graphite fillers (para. 2-3), electronically conductive fillers (conducting fillers such as carbon black), and a fluoropolymer functioning as a “tie-it” ensuring cohesion of the electroactive layer in which is functionally analogous to a binder (para. 67) as further evident by Bizet et al. (teaching a lithium-ion battery electrode comprising an active filler for an anode or cathode (para. 16, 19, 41), an electronically conductive filler (para. 2), and a fluoropolymer binder (para. 20)). Therefore, fluoropolymer and fluoropolymer binder will be used interchangeably hereinafter to describe the fluoropolymer of Bonnet at al.
Bonnet et al. teaches the fluoropolymer binder consisting of a mixture of KYNARFlex 2801 (a VF2(VDF)-HFP PVDF copolymer, para. 83) analogous to a non-functionalized fluoropolymer A and 2801-g-10 (KYNARFlex 2801 grafted with maleic anhydride, Table 1) analogous to a fluoropolymer B bearing at least one functionality (para. 85, 91, Table 2). As described, the fluoropolymers A and B can include KYNARFlex 2801 in which contains a VDF and HFP fluoromonomer (para. 83). Further, the grafting monomer of fluoropolymer B can include a carboxylic acid functional group analogous to monomer units bearing at least one carboxylic acid function (para. 41). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). One of ordinary skill in the would be motivated to select a carboxylic acid monomer as Bonnet et al. describes its suitability in a binder (tie) for providing a battery high specific capacitance and stability (para. 6).
Bonnet et al. teaches a binder composition comprising an analogous fluoropolymer A and fluoropolymer B. Fluoropolymer A refers to a non-functionalized fluoropolymer A in which an example of KYNARFlex 2801 is provided, while fluoropolymer B is a functionalized fluoropolymer in which an example of KYNARFlex 2801 grafted with maleic anhydride is provided (para. 83, 85, 91, Table 1-2). Bonnet et al. further describes fluoropolymer A comprising a vinylidene fluoride (VDF) homopolymer (para. 29) or KYNARFlex 2801 can be used as fluoropolymer A in which is a VDF and HFP copolymer (para. 80). Further, fluoropolymer B in which can be a functionalized fluoropolymer A can include a monomer of VDF or VDF and HFP monomer units (para. 80, 91, Table 1-2). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Bonnet et al. does not teach that fluoropolymer A and fluoropolymer B are in the form of a powder, and have a mean particle size of from 10 nm to 1 mm.
Mitchell et al. teaches a battery electrode ([0016]) comprising a fluoropolymer binder ([0014]) in which are in the form of a powder and the binder particles comprise a mean diameter (particle size) of about 450 microns ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluoropolymers (A and B) of Bonnet et al. be in the form of a powder and have a mean particle size of about 450 microns as taught by Mitchell et al., within the claimed range of 10 nm to 1 mm (equivalent to 0.01 microns to 1000 microns). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification as Mitchell et al. teaches that size reduction and classification may improve consistency and repeatability of the blended electrode mixture, providing high quality electrode films ([0037]). Further, Mitchell et al. recognizes that fluoropolymers have desirable advantages in electrode manufacturing processes, but their inability to dissolve in most solvents require large investments/costs and financially prohibits electrode manufacturers from taking advantage of said benefits ([0012]). Therefore, Mitchell et al. provides a solution by providing a dry electrode manufacturing method in which provides long lasting, durable, and inexpensive energy storage devices ([0013]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches the HFP content of a vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) copolymer of fluoropolymer A such as KYNARFlex 2801 of 11% (para. 80), within the claimed range of 6% to 55%. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the percentages provided by Bonnet et al. to represent a percent by weight rather than volume as the fluoropolymer is present in a solid powder form (para. 56). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 4, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches the HFP content of a vinylidene fluoride (VDF) and hexafluoropropylene (HFP) copolymer of fluoropolymer A such as KYNARFlex 2801 of 11% by weight (para. 80), within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 3% by weight. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the percentages provided by Bonnet et al. to represent a percent by weight rather than volume as the fluoropolymer is present in a solid powder form (para. 56). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 5, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches an electrode formed using a binder mixture comprising KYNARFlex 2801, a VDF-HFP PVDF copolymer (fluoropolymer A) with a HFP content of 11% (para. 80), within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 3% by weight. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It would be obvious to duplicate the components of the composition to include two or more copolymers of VDF and HFP such as KYNARFlex 2801 to further improve adhesion properties as KYNARFlex 2801 provides an improved peel force compared to Kynar 761 in which does not comprise a VDF HFP copolymer (para. 80-84, Table 2). Further, Bonnet teaches at least one modified fluoropolymer per fluoropolymer in which suggests more than one copolymer can be used in the fluoropolymer (para. 16). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 6, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Bonnet et al. teaches a binder composition comprising an analogous fluoropolymer A and fluoropolymer B. Bonnet et al. further describes fluoropolymer A comprising a vinylidene fluoride (VDF) homopolymer (para. 29). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 7, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Bonnet teaches fluoropolymer B as a grafted or functionalized fluoropolymer. Fluoropolymer B can include 2801-g-10 in which is grafted KYNARFlex 2801 (fluoropolymer A) (para. 80-84, Table 1). KYNARFlex 2801 contains VF2(VDF) and HFP monomer units (para 80, Table 1). Bonnet et al. further teaches grafting monomers in which can be used in the functionalized fluoropolymer B such as methyl acylate acids (acrylic/methacrylic monomer units) (para. 45). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 9, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches a weight content of a blend forming a composition functionally equivalent to a binder comprising a weight content of fluoropolymer A of 0 to 99%, within and overlapping the claimed range of 10% to 99% inclusive; and a weight content of modified fluoropolymer (fluoropolymer B) of 1 to 100% (para. 16), within and overlapping the claimed range of 1% to 90% inclusive. 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 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, I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 10, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches the active filler layer can include mixed lithium oxides in which comprises lithium metal (para. 67). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 11, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches the active as LiCoO2 (para. 88). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 12, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches conductive fillers such as carbon black (para. 59). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Regarding Claim 13, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches an example (Example 3) comprising 91% LiCoO2 (active filler), within the claimed range of 50% to 99%; 3% conducting carbon black (conductive filler), within the claimed range of 0.05% to 25%; 6% of PVDF (polymer binder) (para. 88), within the claimed range of 0.05% to 25%. Bonnet et al. further teaches an additive of a dispersant such as NMP in which is not present in the final formulation or present in a negligible amount as the sum of all of the percentages is 100% (para. 88). Therefore, all claim limitations are met. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Mitchell et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7791860 B2) as applied to Claim 1 above, as further evidenced by Lefebvre et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140158185 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Bonnet et al. is modified by Mitchell et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Bonnet teaches fluoropolymer B as a grafted or functionalized fluoropolymer A. Fluoropolymer B can include 2801-g-10 in which maleic anhydride is grafted onto KYNARFlex 2801, a VF2(VDF)-HFP copolymer (para 80-85). It is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the grafting technique to include grafting onto a backbone of the copolymer as further evident by Lefebvre et al. in which teaches grafting a fluoropolymer where functional groups are grafted onto a backbone of the polymer (para. 37). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Bonnet useful to develop a binder composition with improved adhesion (para. 94).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Amin-Sanayei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170125815 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Bonnet et al. teaches a process for manufacturing the lithium ion battery electrode comprising mixing the active filler (LiCoO2), the fluoropolymer binder (PVDF), and the electronically conductive filler (conducting carbon black powder) that can be applied to a metal substrate (aluminum foil) (para. 88). The electrode formulation is spread or deposited on the metal substrate to obtain a lithium-ion battery electrode (para. 88).
Bonnet et al. does not teach the mixing and depositing step formed by a solvent-free process. Bonnet et al. does not teach consolidating said electrode by a heat treatment and/or thermomechanical treatment.
Amin-Sanayei et al. teaches a solvent free-electrode fabrication method including a step of mixing the active filler (LCO), binder, electronically conductive filler (conductive carbon), to obtain an electrode formulation that can be applied to a metal substrate by a solvent-free process (para. 47, 56, 60); further, the electrode formulation (blend) is deposited directly on the metal substrate (electroconductive substrate) (para. 47). The electrode is pressed on consolidate by calendering and may be heated (para. 47). Dry electrode processing eliminates solvents and related equipment and process cost, significantly reducing overall battery cost (para. 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode manufacturing process of Bonnet et al. by Amin-Sanayei et al. to include a step of mixing the active filler, the binder and the electronically conductive filler to obtain an electrode formulation that can be applied to a metal support substrate by a solvent-free process; depositing said electrode formulation on the metal substrate by a solvent-free process so as to obtain a Li-ion battery electrode; and consolidating said electrode by a calendering and/or heating method (heat/thermomechanical treatment). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to eliminate equipment and process cost related to a need for solvent, significantly reducing the overall battery cost as taught by Amin-Sanayei et al.
Regarding Claim 15, Bonnet et al. is modified by Amin-Sanayei et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. Bonnet et al. teaches a preparation method of a negative electrode for a lithium-ion battery comprising mixing the binder, followed by adding the conductive filler and active filler, and stirring (para. 88).
Bonnet et al. does not teach the mixing step performed using a solvent-free process or by co-spraying, to obtain an intimate mixture, then mixing the active filler and the intimate mixture using a solvent-free mixing process to obtain an electrode formulation.
Amin-Sanayei et al. teaches a solvent free-electrode fabrication method as dry electrode processing eliminates solvents and related equipment and process cost, significantly reducing overall battery cost (para. 41). Amin-Sanayei et al. teaches mixing dry active powder electrode forming materials using a solvent free process to obtain the electrode blend or formulation (para. 41-47). The binder is mixed with conductive carbon (conductive filler) using a solvent free mixing process (para. 56-57). The carbon/binder mixture (forming an intimate mixture) is mixed with the cathode active material (active filler) to obtain the electrode formulation (para. 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode manufacturing process of Bonnet et al. to include a mixing step performed using a solvent-free process to obtain an intimate mixture, then mixing the active filler and the intimate mixture using a solvent-free mixing process to obtain an electrode formulation as taught by Amin-Sanayei et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to include a solvent-free process to eliminate the need for solvent and the related equipment/process cost, significantly reducing the overall battery cost as taught by Amin-Sanayei et al. It would be obvious to perform the mixing step in two separate steps to promote uniform mixing and prevent agglomeration of particles.
Regarding Claim 16, Bonnet et al. is modified by Amin-Sanayei et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. As applied to Claim 14, Bonnet et al. is modified by Amin-Sanayei et al. to include the mixing step as claimed.
Bonnet et al. does not teach the mixing step carried out as claimed.
Amin-Sanayei et al. further teaches the mixing performed using a centrifugal planetary mixer providing uniformly and intimately mixed carbon particles (para. 57) and promoting uniform distribution of carbon into the carbon/binder composite structure (para. 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode manufacturing process of Bonnet et al. to include the mixing step performed using a centrifugal planetary mixer as taught by Amin-Sanayei et al. to provide uniform dispersion of the materials of the electrode formulation as described above.
Regarding Claim 17, Bonnet et al. is modified by Amin-Sanayei et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. As applied to Claim 14, Bonnet et al. is modified by Amin-Sanayei et al. to include the solvent-free process carried out by depositing the electrode formulation on the metal substrate by calendering (para. 47). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to include a solvent-free process to eliminate the need for solvent and the related equipment/process cost, significantly reducing the overall battery cost as taught by Amin-Sanayei et al. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Amin-Sanayei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170125815 A1) as further evidenced by Raman et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170256367 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Bonnet et al. is modified by Amin-Sanayei et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. As applied to Claim 14, Bonnet et al. is modified by Amin-Sanayei et al. to include a solvent-free process in which the blended electrode formulation or film (self-supporting film) has been premixed (para. 64) forming a first step; and a second step wherein the self-supporting film is assembled with the metal substrate by calendering, a process in which comprises heat combined with pressure (para. 38).
Bonnet et al. does not teach mixing using a thermomechanical process.
Amin-Sanayei et al. teaches calendering (thermomechanical process, para. 38) the obtained electrode formulation (para. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode manufacturing process of Bonnet et al. to include a step of calendering the premixed electrode formulation as taught by Amin-Sanayei et al. to effectively apply the electrode to the metal substrate. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to calender the premixed electrode formulation in an additional step prior to applying the electrode to the metal substrate to promote the formation of the electrode film for application the metal substrate as further evident by Raman et al. (Claims 10-12).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) in view of Amin-Sanayei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170125815 A1) as further evidenced by Zhong et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120040243 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Bonnet et al. is modified by Amin-Sanayei et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 14 above. As applied to Claim 14, Bonnet et al. is modified by Amin-Sanayei et al. to teach a consolidation of said electrode carried out by calendering in which includes a heat and pressure process (38). Further, it is well known in the field of endeavor for a calendering step to include passing through a calender with heated rolls as further evident by Zhong et al. (para. 23).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20050069778 A1) as further evidenced by Plee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20110297889 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Bonnet et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Bonnet et al. teaches the secondary lithium-ion battery including the described binder composition as the positive electrode (cathode) or negative electrode (anode) (para. 67). Further, although omitted from Bonnet et al.’s disclosure, it is well known in the field of endeavor for a secondary lithium-ion battery to include a separator, anode, and cathode in which are essential to battery operation and performance as further evident by Plee et al. (para. 2, 99).
Conclusion
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729