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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/1/25. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not entirely persuasive. Claims 1-6 are pending and remain rejected in view of the prior art. This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 6/30/25 has been acknowledged.
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 Longi, 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 online 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 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,594,712. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both require a method of producing an electrode wherein solid/liquid/gas phases form a pendular state or a funicular state and the electrode has a depressed portion from pressing with a convex die.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,080,870. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both require a method of producing an electrode wherein solid/liquid/gas phases form a pendular state or a funicular state and the electrode has a depressed portion from pressing with a convex die.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,327,855. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both require a method of producing an electrode wherein solid/liquid/gas phases form a pendular state or a funicular state and the electrode has a depressed portion from pressing with a convex die.
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.
Claims 1-6 are 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “after forming the depressed portion, separately drying the second film to form an active material layer”, which does not distinctly claim the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what element the second film is separate from when the drying step occurs.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda et al., JP 2015-138619 A.
Fukuda teaches a method for manufacturing a negative electrode comprising a step of applying a negative electrode active material mixture paste containing negative electrode active material particles, a binder, and a solvent on at least one surface of a negative electrode current collector; A drying step of evaporating a solvent contained in the paste to form a negative electrode active material mixture layer, a solvent supply step of supplying a solvent to the formed negative electrode active material mixture layer, and forming a concavo-convex structure formation preparation layer; A concavo-convex structure transferring step of pressing a mold having a concavo-convex pattern against the formed concavo-convex structure forming preparation layer, and transferring the concavo-convex pattern to the concavo-convex structure forming preparation layer; And a negative electrode active material mixture layer completion step of evaporating a solvent contained in the layer to complete the negative electrode active material mixture layer, and a method for producing a negative electrode of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0013-0015].
Fukuda does not explicitly teach the negative electrode active material mixture layer (formed after the drying step of evaporating a solvent contained in the paste) has a solid phase, a liquid phase and a gas phase that form a pendular state or a funicular state in a whole of the layer. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention because one of skill would have reasonably found the negative electrode active material mixture layer of Fukuda, after the drying step, to have a pendular state or a funicular state as the evaporated/vaporized solvent forms the gas phase of the pendular state or the funicular state.
Fukuda teaches: [0035] The negative electrode active material particles include, for example, any of silicon, silicon alloys and tin. [0036] The binder includes, for example, any of styrene-butadiene copolymer (SBR), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyacrylic acid (PAA), polyamide, and polyimide. [0037] The solvent is, for example, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) or water. [0044] As a method of applying the negative electrode active material mixture paste 3, a reverse coating method, a die coating method, a doctor blade method, a screen printing method, a gravure printing method, a flexographic printing method, a dispensing method, an inkjet method, or the like can be used. [0047] As a method of evaporating the solvent, a heater heating method, an infrared heating method, an induction heating method, a hot air drying method, a vacuum drying method or the like can be used. [0070] By temporarily supplying an appropriate amount of solvent to the negative electrode active material mixture layer 4 formed as a dry film (see FIG. 2E), the solvent content in the negative electrode active material mixture layer 4 results in fluidity generated in the negative electrode active material mixture layer 4 so as to enable shape processing while uniformly controlling.
Regarding claims 2-4, it is preferable that the solvent content rate contained in the concavo-convex structure formation preparation layer 5 (second film) is 1% by weight or more and 40% by weight or less [0075-0076]. Regarding claim 5, see [0108-0114]. Regarding claim 6, see the Figures of Fukuda
*
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., US 10,243,199 in view of Nakashima et al., WO 2021/025072 A1.
Kim teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode which includes the steps of: a coating step in which electrode active material slurry containing an electrode active material, a binder and a solvent is applied to at least one surface of an electrode current collector (substrate with first film thereon); a drying step in which the electrode current collector coated with the electrode active material slurry is introduced continuously to a drying system to dry the coated electrode active material slurry (forms second film); and a rolling step in which the dried electrode active material slurry is rolled, wherein the coating step includes applying the electrode active material slurry in a loading amount of 500 mg/cm2 to 1500 mg/cm2, and the method further comprises a pattern forming step carried out simultaneously with the drying step and forming a plurality of longitudinal patterns on the surface of the coated electrode active material slurry (abstract). The electrode active material may be a positive electrode active material or a negative electrode active material. The electrode current collector may be a positive electrode current collector or negative electrode current collector.
Kim does not explicitly teach the electrode film has a solid phase, a liquid phase and a gas phase that form a pendular state or a funicular state. However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed because one of skill would have reasonably found the electrode film to have a pendular state or a funicular state.
Kim teaches the positive active material may include lithium-containing oxides, preferably lithium-containing transition metal oxides. Kim teaches he negative electrode active material is capable of lithium ion intercalation/deintercalation and particular examples thereof include lithium metal, a carbonaceous material, metal compound, and a combination thereof. See column 3, line 60 through column 4, line 36. Kim teaches the binder may be any one selected from the group consisting of polyvinylidene fluoride, hexafluoropropylene (HFP), polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-co-HFP), polyvinylidene fluoride-trichloroethylene, polymethyl methacrylate, polybutyl acrylate, polyacrylonitrile, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl acetate, polyethylene-co-vinyl acetate, polyethylene oxide, polyarylate, cellulose acetate, cellulose acetate butyrate, cellulose acetate propionate, cyanoethyl pullulan, cyanoethyl polyvinyl alcohol, cyanoethyl cellulose, cyanoethyl sucrose, pullulan, carboxymethyl cellulose, acrylonitrile-styrene-butadiene copolymer and polyamide, or a combination of two or more of them. Kim teaches the solvent may include any one selected from the group consisting of acetone, tetrahydrofuran, methylene chloride, chloroform, dimethyl formamide, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), cyclohexane and water, or a mixture of two or more of them.
One of skill would have found it obvious that the slurry of Kim containing the disclosed active material particles, binder and solvent would have formed a pendular state or a funicular state when subjected to a drying process. Kim teaches the drying step includes allowing the solvent contained in the electrode active material slurry to evaporate (gas phase). When the electrode is a positive electrode, the drying step may be carried out at 80-100° C. When the electrode is a negative electrode, the drying step may be carried out at 50-65° C. Nakashima teaches it was known in the art that an electrode active material mixture is more desirably in a pendular state or a funicular state [0138]. Note the pending claims recite “separately drying” that has been rejected as indefinite. Furthermore, Kim teaches, at Figure 1, a drying system 300 wherein the system includes a pattern forming unit 310. As can be seen in the Figure, the coated collector is dried when it enters the drying system 300 (before reaching the pattern forming unit 310) and is then dried after passing by the pattern forming unit 310 (before exiting the drying system 300).
Regarding claims 2-4, Kim teaches a mixture containing 97.9 wt % of Li(Ni1/3/Mn1/3Co1/3)O2 as a positive electrode active material, 0.5 wt % of carbon black (conductive material) and 1.6 wt % of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF, binder) was mixed in N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) as a solvent to provide positive electrode active material slurry. Herein, the amount of NMP was controlled to be 77.9 wt % in the positive electrode active material slurry. Kim teaches a mixture containing 1 wt % of carbon black, 95.6 wt % of artificial graphite as a negative electrode active material, 2.3 wt % of styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) binder and 1.1 wt % of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) was mixed in NMP as a solvent to provide negative electrode active material slurry. Herein, the amount of NMP was controlled to be 51 wt % in the negative electrode active material slurry. See the Example of Kim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive. The prior 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1-6 have been withdrawn as Applicant’s arguments were persuasive and the claims have been amended to overcome the indefiniteness rejections.
Double Patenting Rejections
Applicant argues the rejections should be withdrawn at least because the reference claims are not directed to a step of “preparing a slurry by mixing an active material particles, a binder and a dispersion medium” as recited by the present claims. Applicant argues, instead, each of the references’ claims is directed to preparing moisture powder, the majority of which is in a pendular state or a funicular state. Applicant submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art reading the references claims would have appreciated that the recited preparation of a “moisture powder” has a distinct state of presence (state of packing” and does not recite or suggest preparing a slurry. Applicant points to [0018-0022]. However, no evidence has been provided to support the assertion the “slurry” is not a “moisture powder”. The cited paragraphs do not define a “slurry”. The presently claimed invention requires the second film to form a pendular state or a funicular state. Both the “slurry” and the “moisture powder” comprise an active material particle, a binder (binder resin) and a dispersion medium (solvent).
35 USC 112
All prior 35 USC 112 rejections of record have been withdrawn. However, claims 1-6 remain rejected under 35 USC 112 under a new grounds of rejection.
35 USC 103 in view of Fukuda
Applicant argues Fukuda does not teach or suggest a method wherein “in the whole of the second film, a solid phase, a liquid phase and a gas phase form a pendular state or a funicular state”. Examiner disagrees. Fukuda at least suggests the dried slurry layer has a pendular state or a funicular state. As defined in [0018]-[0023] of the present specification, the funicular state or pendular state includes a solid phase, a liquid phase and a gas phase. Fukuda teaches a method for manufacturing a negative electrode comprising a step of applying a negative electrode active material mixture paste (slurry) containing negative electrode active material particles, a binder, and a solvent on at least one surface of a negative electrode current collector (substrate with first film thereon); A drying step of evaporating a solvent (vaporized solvent creates a gas phase) contained in the paste to form a negative electrode active material mixture layer (second film). Furthermore, the claimed invention recites “the method comprising” and, thus, does not exclude “spraying a solvent” to the surface of the second film prior to pressing a convex die against a surface of the second film.
35 USC 103 over Kim in view of Nakashima
Applicant argues Kim does not teach or suggest a method comprising a first step of “drying the first film” and a second step of “separately drying the second film to form an active layer”. Applicant argues Kim teaches a pattern forming step carried out simultaneously with the drying step. Examiner disagrees. Note the pending claims recite “separately drying” that has been rejected as indefinite. Furthermore, Kim teaches, at Figure 1, a drying system 300 wherein the system includes a pattern forming unit 310. As can be seen in the Figure, the coated collector is dried when it enters the drying system 300 (before reaching the pattern forming unit 310) and is then dried after passing by the pattern forming unit 310 (before exiting the drying system 300).
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 TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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.
/TRACY M DOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725