DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-A/A or A/A 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Table 2 uses the same T1 and D1 variables for before rolling and after rolling. Based off of the information provided in the claims and the instant specification it appears that there is a typo and that the units for after rolling should be T2 and D2.
PNG
media_image1.png
403
911
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman,
11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in
which the form is filed determines what form ( e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/ AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely on line using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www .uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 4 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12002962B2, hereinafter Kang in view of
Yun (US20190074537A1) and Bogenstahl (US 2020/0227722 A1), received in the information disclosure statement on 6/9/2022). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because:
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a dry method of manufacturing a positive electrode for
a lithium secondary battery (claim 4), comprising: laminating a mixture film (claim 13) comprising a positive electrode active material, a conductive material and a binder (claim 4) on one or both surfaces of a current collector (claim 13).
Kang does not disclose 1) the ratio of conductive material to binder material in a weight ratio of 1:10 to 9:10. 2) during the lamination, the mixture film satisfies a compression ratio percentage of Equation 1: 30~Tp/T1x100~50 wherein, Tp indicates a pressing thickness of the mixture film in the lamination, and Tl indicates a thickness of the mixture film before the lamination.
In regards to 1) Yun discloses using a primer layer between a current collector and an active material and in an embodiment depicts it covering a single surface of the current collector [0011, fig. 1, Yun]. The primer layer of Yun contains a conductor (“conductive material”) and a binder in a ratio of 1:10 to 10:1 [0047, Yun]. A specific embodiment is disclosed in which the conductor (denka black) and binder (PVDF) are used in a ratio of 1:5 [0086, Yun]. Yun further discloses that the coating method may be used by any common method, including dry coating methods [0048, Yun].
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).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to use a primer with a ratio of conductive material to binder of 1:5 as this has been shown to provide a primer layer that balances bonding strength and conduction between the active material layer and current collector [0047, Yun].
In regards to 2) Bogenstahl teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode [0031, Bogenstahl] including calendaring a film to a desired thickness [0035, Bogenstahl] where a force is applied [0035, Bogenstahl]. The calendaring system decreases the film thickness to a desired thickness [0033, Bogenstahl]. Therefore Bogenstahl teaches that both the pressing thickness, in this case pressing force, and the initial film thickness are taught to be result-effective variables, controlling the final film thickness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize these parameters and in doing so optimize the compression ratio percentage to satisfy
equation 1; in order to control the final film thickness as taught by Bogenstahl, see M.P.E.P. §
2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 3, Kang does not disclose in the lamination, a rolling rate of the mixture
film is 20% or less, wherein the rolling rate is a ratio of a thickness of the mixture film after the
lamination to the thickness of the mixture film before the lamination ((T2-T1)/T1x100), and T2
indicates a thickness of the mixture film after the lamination. Bogenstahl teaches a process for
manufacturing a dry electrode [0031] including calendaring a film to a desired thickness [0035].
The calendaring system decreases the film thickness to a desired thickness [0033]. Therefore,
Bogenstahl teaches both the initial and final thicknesses are taught to be result-effective
variables, demonstrating the efficacy of the calendaring process. Therefore, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize these parameters
and in doing so optimize the rolling rate of the mixture film to be 20% or less; in order to
quantify the efficacy of the calendaring process taught by Bogenstahl, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 5, Kang teaches obtaining a powder mixture by dry mixing the positive
electrode active material, the conductive material and the binder (claim 4); and a forming the
mixture film by calendaring the powder mixture (claim 4).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westphal (US
2022/0399539 Al) in view of Yun (US20190074537A1) and Bogenstahl (US 2020/0227722 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Westphal teaches a dry method of manufacturing [0002] a positive
electrode for a lithium secondary battery [0054], comprising: laminating ([0020], by calendar rolls [0023]) a mixture film comprising a positive electrode active material ([0033], [0036]), a first conductive material [0043] and a first binder [0033] on one or both surfaces of a current collector (foil substrate [0017]).
Westphal does not disclose 1) the ratio of conductive material to binder material in a weight ratio of 1:10 to 9:10. 2) during the lamination, the mixture film satisfies a compression ratio percentage of Equation 1: 30~Tp/T1x100~50 wherein, Tp indicates a pressing thickness of the mixture film in the lamination, and Tl indicates a thickness of the mixture film before the lamination.
In regards to 1) Yun discloses using a primer layer between a current collector and an active material and in an embodiment depicts it covering a single surface of the current collector [0011, fig. 1, Yun]. The primer layer of Yun contains a conductor (“conductive material”) and a binder in a ratio of 1:10 to 10:1 [0047, Yun]. A specific embodiment is disclosed in which the conductor (denka black) and binder (PVDF) are used in a ratio of 1:5 [0086, Yun]. Yun further discloses that the coating method may be used by any common method, including dry coating methods [0048, Yun].
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).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to use a primer with a ratio of conductive material to binder of 1:5 as this has been shown to provide a primer layer that balances bonding strength and conduction between the active material layer and current collector [0047, Yun].
In regards to 2) Bogenstahl teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode [0031] including calendaring a film to a desired thickness [0035] where a force is applied [0035]. The calendaring system decreases the film thickness to a desired thickness [0033]. Therefore Bogenstahl teaches that both the pressing thickness, in this case pressing force, and the initial film thickness are taught to be result-effective variables, controlling the final film thickness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to
optimize these parameters and in doing so optimize the compression ratio percentage to satisfy equation 1; in order to control the final film thickness as taught by Bogenstahl, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 2, Westphal does not disclose in the lamination, a density increase rate (%) of the mixture film satisfies Equation 2: 8~(D2-D1)/D1x100~15 wherein D1 indicates a density of the mixture film before the lamination, and D2 indicates a density of the mixture film after the lamination. Westphal teaches achieving an optimal electrode material layer density by calendaring the layer [0050], and preferred values for the obtained density [0050]. Therefore, Westphal teaches the initial and obtained densities are result-effective variables, demonstrating the efficacy of the calendaring process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize these parameters and in doing so optimize the density increase rate of the mixture film to satisfy equation 2; in order to quantify the efficacy of the calendaring process as taught by Westphal, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. II.
Regarding claim 3, Westphal does not disclose in the lamination, a rolling rate of the
mixture film is 20% or less, wherein the rolling rate is a ratio of a thickness of the mixture film after the lamination to the thickness of the mixture film before the lamination ((T1-T2)/T1x100), and T2 indicates a thickness of the mixture film after the lamination. Bogenstahl teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode [0031] including calendaring a film to a desired thickness [0035]. The calendaring system decreases the film thickness to a desired thickness [0033]. Therefore, Bogenstahl teaches both the initial and final thicknesses are taught to be result-effective variables, demonstrating the efficacy of the calendaring process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize these parameters and in doing so optimize the rolling rate of the mixture film to be 20% or less; in order to quantify the efficacy of the calendaring process taught by Bogenstahl, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 4, Westphal further teaches before the lamination, forming a primer
layer [0023] comprising the conductive material and the binder [0030] on the one or both surfaces of the current collector (foil substrate [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Westphal further teaches forming the mixture film by calendaring
[0023]. Westphal does not disclose obtaining a powder mixture by dry mixing the positive electrode active material, the conductive material and the binder. However, Bogenstahl teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode including dry blending dry active material particles, dry conductive particles and dry binder particles to form a dry mixture before calendaring [0031]; in order to improve characteristics such as film strength, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, and electrical performance [0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to include a dry blending step before calendaring wherein a powder mixture is obtained by dry mixing the positive electrode active material, the conductive material and the binder in order to improve characteristics such as film strength, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, and electrical performance, as taught by Bogenstahl
[0031-32].
Regarding claim 6, Westphal does not disclose the obtaining of the powder mixture
comprises obtaining a mixture by mixing the positive electrode active material, the conductive material and the binder; forming a bulk mixture in the form of a lump by fiberizing the binder by applying shear stress to the mixture; and obtaining the powder mixture by pulverizing the bulk mixture. However, Bogenstahl teaches a process for manufacturing a dry electrode by dry blending dry active material particles, dry conductive particles and dry binder particles to form a dry mixture, blending, and fibrilizing by applying high shear forces with a jet-mill before compacting and calendaring [0031]; in order to improve characteristics such as film strength, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, and electrical performance [0032]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to obtain the powder mixture by mixing the positive electrode active material, the conductive material and the binder; forming a bulk mixture in the form of a lump by fiberizing the binder by applying shear stress to the mixture; and obtaining the powder mixture by pulverizing the bulk mixture; in order to improve
characteristics such as film strength, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, and electrical performance, as taught by Bogenstahl [0031-32].
Regarding claim 7, Westphal further teaches the lamination is performed by a press roll [0047].
Regarding claim 8, Westphal further teaches a temperature of the press roll [0046].
Westphal does not disclose the temperature of the press roll ranges from 40 to 200 °C on average. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the temperature of the press roll. Westphal teaches the use of temperature to attach the electrode material [0049] by rolling with calendar rolls or a counter-pressure roll [0046]. In this case, the temperature of the roll is result-effective, attaching the electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize the press roll temperature to range from 40 to 200 degrees Celsius on average; in order to attach the electrode as taught by Westphal, see M.P.E.P. § 2144.05 II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.
Applicant does not argue the validity of the Double Patenting rejection; this rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 is sufficient for allowability, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As a result of the amendment to claim 1 the examiner has introduced Yun who teaches that the ratio of the conductor (“conductive material”) to binding agent (“binder”) may be from 1:10 to 10:1 and provides a specific embodiment where the ratio of conductor (denka black) to binder (polyvinylidene fluoride) is 1:5. The broader teachings [0047] of Yun’s range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range while the specific embodiment [0086] teaches of a ratio within the applicant’s claimed range.
Yun additionally notes that the lower the conductor content the greater the internal resistance (as also noted by the applicant), however, if the content of the conductor is too great then the binding agent content is too low and one is unable to obtain sufficient binding strength. As such, Yun’s teaching would allow one of ordinary skill within the arts to understand that when making a primer layer there exists a balance between improved adhesion and improved internal resistance and one of ordinary skill within the arts may choose whichever they see fit.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
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 at 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724