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
The amendment filed on 9 April 2026 has been entered. Claims 29 and 32 are currently amended, claims 38-47 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 29-37 are examined herein.
Applicant’s submission of a new abstract is acknowledged. The objection to the specification due to the length of the abstract is withdrawn.
The objections to claims 28 and 32 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
All previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiang et al (US 2014170524 A1, listed in IDS 09/27/2022).
Regarding claim 28, Chiang teaches a method for manufacturing a dense layer, the method comprising:
Supplying a substrate (current collector substrate 110) and a suspension of non-agglomerated nanoparticles of a material P (a suspension of particles of electrode materials such as active materials; the particles are nanoparticles, because Chiang teaches they can have an effective diameter of at less than about 0.05 µm, or 50 nm ([0043]). Chiang also teaches the nanoparticles of the suspension are non-agglomerated due to repulsive interparticle forces ([0049]));
Depositing a layer on said substrate using the suspension of non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P (Chiang teaches depositing a suspension of particles of electrode materials (i.e., material P) onto substrate 110 ([0036], [0043]));
Drying the deposited layer;
Densifying, at least partially at the same time as drying or during a temperature ramp, the dried layer by mechanical compression and/or heat treatment (Chiang further discloses that “After the particle suspension is loaded into the positive electroactive zone and/or the negative electroactive zone, chemical or heat treatments can cause these surface molecules to collapse or evaporate and promote densification,” thereby reading on the claimed limitation of drying the deposited layer; densifying, at least partially at the same time as drying or during a temperature ramp, the dried layer by mechanical compression and/or heat treatment,” wherein the satisfied claim limitations are underlined for emphasis.), the suspension of non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P comprising nanoparticles of the material P have a size distribution of a value of D50 (Chiang teaches the suspension of non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the electrode material has an effective diameter of 50 nm ([0043]), therefore the suspension satisfies D50 as defined in the instant spec (p8 para 3) as a nanometric size having at least one of the dimensions thereof less than or equal to 100nm)
Additionally, following the term “wherein:”, the shared technical features recite a list of alternative limitations. That is, selection of either of the options or a combination thereof would satisfy the limitations of the claim.
Chiang teaches wherein:
– the size distribution includes the non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P of a first size D1 between 20 nm and 50 nm and the non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P of a second size D2 of a size distribution value D50 that is at least five times less than that of D1
(Chiang also teaches the size distribution can be bimodal, in which the average particle size of the larger particle mode is at least 5 times larger than the average size of the smaller particle mode ([0046]). Therefore, Chiang’s teaching of the larger particle mode would naturally read on nanoparticles of the electrode material P of a first size D1 overlapping with the claimed range of 20 nm and 50 nm, and their teaching of the smaller particle mode would read on nanoparticles of the electrode material P of a second size D2 satisfying a size distribution value D50 of at least five times less than that of D1).
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 29-30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al (US 2014170524 A1, listed in IDS 09/27/2022) in view of Yebka et al (US 20150072230 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Chiang teaches the method of claim 28 but does not teach wherein the non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P of the first size D1 represent between 50 and 75% of a total mass of the non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P.
In the same field of endeavor, Yebka teaches increasing electrode energy density by decreasing electrode porosity ([0020] lines 1-6, plot 210 in Fig. 2) and also discloses that decreasing porosity can mitigate reductions in energy density associated with decreasing thickness and provide for thinner devices ([0078] lines 12-18). Yebka also teaches that using a multimodal particle distribution with a first particle size distribution with a larger maximum frequency particle size and a second particle size distribution with a smaller maximum frequency particle size can adjust the packing of the particles in a way that reduces the electrode porosity (Fig. 4 plot 410; [0026], [0084]), and provides an example wherein the fraction of constituents of the population of smaller particles is about 1/3 and the fraction of constituents of the population of larger particles is about 2/3 wherein the arrangement results in a saturated mixture that does not disturb the packing while filling the void fraction and reducing porosity (Fig. 4 plot 430, [0027]). They also teach that the particles of both populations can be nanoparticles ([0044]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have realized that the percentage of larger particles is a result-effective variable that can affect the porosity and stability of the electrode packing and would have found it obvious to rely on routine experimentation to adjust the mass percentage of the population of larger nanoparticles (corresponding to the non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the first size D1) based on the conditions taught by Yebka to achieve a desired energy density of the electrode, which would have led to the recited fraction of the non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P of the first size D1 of a total mass of the non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P.
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed fraction is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the method would possess utility using another proportion. Indeed, it has been held that mere proportional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 30, Chiang teaches the method of claim 29, and as previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 28, Chiang teaches the average particle size of the larger particle mode is at least 5 times larger than the average particle size of the smaller particle mode ([0046]) while also previously disclosing that the particle size corresponds to an effective diameter ([0043]); accordingly, the average particle size (diameter) of the smaller particle mode must be at least 5 times smaller than the average particle size of the larger particle mode. Therefore, Chiang’s teaching overlaps with the range claimed within the limitation “wherein a mean diameter of the non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P of the second size D2 is at least one twelfth of that of the non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P of the first size D1.
Regarding claim 33, Chiang teaches the method of claim 28 but does not explicitly teach wherein the suspension of non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P has a viscosity, measured at 20°C, of between 20 cP and 2000 cP.
In the same field of endeavor, Yebka teaches increasing electrode energy density by decreasing electrode porosity ([0020] lines 1-6, plot 210 in Fig. 2) and also discloses that decreasing porosity can mitigate reductions in energy density associated with decreasing thickness and provide for thinner devices ([0078] lines 12-18). Yebka also teaches that increasing viscosity reduces packing fraction of deposited particles ([0032] lines 4-13), which would be associated with increased porosity. Yebka proposes a model for fabricating an electrode that adjusts viscosity in response to an input value of an energy density ([0032] lines 21-25; Fig. 7). Given primary reference Chiang’s teaching that flow properties of the suspension can be adjusted to accommodate processing requirements ([0052]), a skilled artisan would have recognized viscosity of the suspension as a result-effective variable that affects packing fraction/porosity, which consequently affects a performance property such as energy density of the deposited electrode layer, and would have been motivated to adjust the viscosity of the mixture to optimize the energy density, leading to the claimed range as a result.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al (US 2014170524 A1, listed in IDS 09/27/2022) in view of Chung et al "Particle Size Polydispersity in Li-Ion Batteries" 2014 J. Electrochem. Soc. 161 A422.
Regarding claim 31, Chiang teaches the method of claim 28. Chiang also teaches the particle size distribution can be bi-modal to improve flow of the material during cell loading and increases solid volume fraction and packing density in the loaded cell ([0046]), but Chiang does not explicitly claim wherein: the suspension of non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P of the size D1 is obtained using a monodisperse suspension, and the suspension of non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P of size D2 is obtained using another monodisperse suspension.
In the same field of endeavor, Chung teaches that a narrow monodisperse particle size
distribution (standard deviation of the distribution is 0) as compared to a polydisperse distribution, results in a more evenly utilized surface of the active material (Fig. 11 vs Fig. 10; p8 left col para 2 to right col, para 1-2; p9 left col para 1). Therefore, a skilled artisan at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Chiang’s method to use a narrow monodisperse distribution for each of the suspension of non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P of the size D1 and the suspension of non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P of size D2 to maximize utilization of the active material within the deposited layer, as taught by Chung.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al (US 2014170524 A1, listed in IDS 09/27/2022) in view of Uejima et al (JP 4501247 B2).
Regarding claim 32, Chiang teaches the method of claim 28 but does not teach wherein depositing the thin layer is performed electrophoretically by: a dip-coating method, or an ink-jet printing method, or roll coating, or curtain coating, or doctor blade coating.
In the same field of endeavor, Uejima teaches a battery electrode manufacturing method (Figs. 1-2, reproduced below) wherein a current collector 10 is dipped into a solution of solution tank 2 in which active material is dispersed in a solvent, and an electrophoretic process is used to attach the active material to the surface of the current collector as an active material layer A ([0010], [0035]-[0037]). Uejima discloses the method is suitable for producing a thin layer with a tunable thickness that cannot be produced by conventional coating methods such as a comma coater or a die coater ([0046]). Therefore, the process corresponds to a process of depositing a thin layer performed electrophoretically by a dip-coating method, because the current collector substrate is dipped into a solution tank of the active material.
Figs. 1-2 of Uejima:
PNG
media_image1.png
538
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Uejima further teaches that their method solves the problem of easily manufacturing a battery electrode with a section where no active material layer is formed, such as where current collecting leads are attached (Machine translation: [0007]-[0008], [0005]; Fig. 6), and further, is suitable for producing a thin layer with a tunable thickness that cannot be produced by conventional coating methods such as a comma coater or a die coater ([0046]). A skilled artisan at the time of filing would have been motivated to improve Chiang’s method by incorporating Uejima’s electrophoretic means of dip-coating a layer of the suspension of non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P on the current collector substrate for the advantage of producing a thin layer of P with a tunable thickness while allowing for easy patterning of sections where no active material layer is formed.
Claims 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al (US 2014170524 A1, listed in IDS 09/27/2022).
Regarding claim 34, Chiang teaches the method of claim 28. Although Chiang does not specify material P within the embodiment that teaches the limitations of claim 28, they teach elsewhere in their disclosure examples of suitable active materials such as:
– oxides LiCoO2, LiNiO2 ([0062])
– phosphates LiFePO4([0105])
– lithiated form of chalcogenides: V2O5 ([0062])
– carbon nanotubes ([0062])
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have selected a species within the list based on Chiang’s direct suggestion of them as suitable materials, thereby teaching a claimed species.
Regarding claim 35, Chiang teaches the method of claim 28. Although Chiang does not specify wherein the non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P comprise nanoparticles composed of a core of the material P and a shell within the embodiment that teaches the limitations of claim 28, Chiang teaches elsewhere in the disclosure that the particles included in the anode or cathode can be configured to have a partial or full conductive coating and that it can include an ion-storing solid coated with a conductive coating material ([0086]-[0087]), wherein the active material can be an ion-storing solid ([0054]). Accordingly, the core would be the ion-storing solid that corresponds to material P, and the shell would be the conductive coating material. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have used non-agglomerated nanoparticles of the material P comprising nanoparticles composed of a core of the material P and a shell given Chiang’s teaching that directly suggests them as suitable materials.
Regarding claim 36, Chiang teaches the method of claim 35 and further teaches the shell is composed of an electrically conductive material. Specifically, Chiang teaches that in some embodiments, the conductive coating material has higher electron conductivity than the ion-storing solid that is the core ([0087]). Chiang also teaches an example using copper, an electrically conductive material, to increase the net conductivity of the semi-solid electrode and/or to facilitate charge transfer between energy storage particles and conductive additives ([0088]). A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have used a shell composed of an electrically conductive material given Chiang’s teaching that directly suggests it as suitable material and for the advantage of increasing net conductivity of the electrode.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al (US 2014170524 A1, listed in IDS 09/27/2022) in view of Zheng et al (US 20160049645 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Chiang teaches the method of claim 35 and that the shell can be a metal oxide ([0087]) but does not teach wherein the shell is composed of a lithium ion conductive material.
In the same field of endeavor, Zheng teaches electrode material formed of a core-shell structure wherein the core is a lithium transition metal oxide (Abstract) and the coating portion is formed of a second cathode material ([0011]), which can be a metal oxide such as Li2MnO3 ([0013]), that protects the bulk portion of the cathode material from reactions with the electrolyte to obtain a cathode material with high capacity, good thermal stability, and long cycling life ([0009], [0012]). Zheng further discloses that the coating material is preferably conductive to lithium ions and electrons to avoid a decrease of capacity, a rise of inner resistance, and negative impacts to the rate performance caused by the coating ([0043]). A skilled artisan at the time of filing would have been motivated to use Zheng’s coating material as the shell material for the nanoparticles of Chiang’s method to take advantage of a protective layer that has a high capacity, good thermal stability, and long cycling life without a rise in inner resistance caused by the coating layer. Accordingly, the shell is composed of a lithium ion conductive material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chiang does not anticipate the claimed invention insofar as it lacks process steps that include “drying the deposited layer” and “densifying, at least partially at the same time as drying or during a temperature ramp, the dried layer by mechanical compression and/or heat treatment”. Applicant characterizes Chiang as not requiring drying, instead teaching a semi-solid electrode that is a mixture of a liquid and solid phase. Although Applicant raises reasonable points, the arguments are not persuasive, primarily because it appears the claim limitations are being construed more narrowly than appears justified, given the full context.
“Drying” is here understood to be a process that involves removal of at least a portion of a liquid phase. It is also noted that the claim recites “densifying, at least partially at the same time as drying . . . the dried layer”. If the densification step is open to taking place while the drying is occurring, then it must be understood to be open to occurring while the removal of a portion of the liquid phase is taking place. That is to say, while liquid phase is still present. And since the “dried layer” is what is so densified, the dried layer is also understood as open to presence of a liquid phase that has, e.g. been reduced by an evaporation process, for consistency. In other words, a “dried layer” is considered to be a layer from which a least a portion of a liquid phase has been removed. Chiang’s disclosure in [0048], which teaches densification as a result of a heat treatment that produces evaporation of a component of the liquid phase (i.e. surfactant molecules), as cited in the rejection above, is considered to provide a teaching that corresponds to this.
Regarding the rejections of dependent claims over Chiang in view of varied secondary references (Yebka, Chung, Uejima, Zheng), Applicant argues that since Chiang teaches a semi-solid electrode, there would be no motivation to combine the teachings. This general argument applied to all such combinations is not persuasive, since it does not address the reasons for combination provided in each rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey Barton, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1307. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 AM – 6:00 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.
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.
/JEFFREY T BARTON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 5 August 2026
Prosecution Insights