DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 17/909,647 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20 and 22-24 are under examination. Claim 24 is still withdrawn from consideration.
Withdrawn Objections
The amendment(s) to the claim(s), specification, and/or drawing(s) filed 12/11/2025is acknowledged and the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The amendment(s) to the claim(s) filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged and the previous rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/11/2025 have been fully considered and were not found persuasive for the reasons set forth below. See updated claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20 and 22-23 rejections below.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant argues “Yushin describes a capacity loading of at least 2 mAh/cm²; however, Yushin is silent with regards to a C-rate.” (see e.g. page 9 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the amended claim recites a rate capability of at least 2.2 mAh/cm² at a C-rate of up to 1C. The phrase “up to 1C” encompasses operation at any C-rate less than or equal to 1C, including C-rates substantially below 1C. Yushin discloses an electrode having an area-specific capacity of 2–6 mAh/cm² (see e.g. paragraph [0063] of Yushin), which necessarily corresponds to operation at some charge/discharge rate that is not greater than 1C, absent any disclosure to the contrary. The fact that Yushin does not explicitly recite a C-rate does not demonstrate that the disclosed capacity loading cannot be achieved at C-rates up to 1C. Accordingly, the limitation is inherently met by Yushin.
Applicant argues “Yushin does not disclose or suggest an electrode having a rate capability (area specific capability) of at least 2.2 mAh/cm² at a C-rate of up to 1C.” (see e.g. page 10 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Yushin expressly discloses an electrode having a capacity loading of 2–6 mAh/cm² (see e.g. paragraph [0063] of Yushin), which overlaps with and encompasses the claimed minimum value of at least 2.2 mAh/cm². When a prior art reference discloses a range that falls within or overlaps a claimed range, the claimed range is anticipated unless applicant demonstrates criticality or a patentable distinction, which has not been shown. See MPEP 2131.03(I). The additional recitation of “up to 1C” does not impose a meaningful structural or operational distinction, as the claim does not require performance specifically at 1C.
Applicant argues “claim 1, as amended, is novel over Yushin because Yushin fails to disclose the claimed rate capability at up to 1C.” (see e.g. page 10 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees, novelty cannot be established by arguing the absence of an expressly stated parameter where the claimed limitation is inherently satisfied by the prior art disclosure. Area-specific capacity is a performance characteristic that necessarily arises from the disclosed electrode structure and composition. Yushin discloses the same type of electrode and the same area-specific capacity range now claimed. Applicant has not shown that Yushin’s electrode is incapable of operating at C-rates up to 1C. Therefore, the amended claim does not distinguish over Yushin.
Applicant argues “the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because Yushin does not disclose the claimed rate capability.” (see e.g. page 10 applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as discussed above, Yushin discloses an electrode having an area-specific capacity of 2–6 mAh/cm², which overlaps the claimed value and inherently encompasses operation at C-rates up to 1C. Accordingly, the asserted deficiency in Yushin does not exist. Because the claimed limitation is taught or inherently disclosed by the applied prior art, the Office has established a prima facie case of obviousness.
For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “neither Matsuzaki, Yang, nor Take cures the deficiencies of Yushin because none discloses the claimed rate capability.” (see e.g. page 10 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees, this argument is predicated on the incorrect assumption that Yushin fails to disclose the claimed rate capability. As explained above, Yushin’s disclosure of an overlapping area-specific capacity range inherently satisfies the claimed limitation. Therefore, the rejection does not rely on curing a deficiency in Yushin, and applicant’s argument does not rebut the established prima facie case.
Applicant argues “the examples demonstrate superior rate capability and charge capacity due to the channels.” (see e.g. page 11 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the claims do not recite superior performance, improved retention, or comparative rate capability relative to the prior art. Statements in the specification and examples cannot be imported into the claims to create limitations not expressly recited therein. Moreover, the presence of channels was already recited in the previously rejected claims, and applicant has not amended the structural features of the channels in a manner that would distinguish over Yushin. Alleged advantages that are not commensurate in scope with the claims are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
For the reasons set forth above the arguments are not found persuasive. See updated claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20 and 22-23 rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 11, 13, 20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yushin et al. (US-20180151884-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yushin discloses an electrode for an electrochemical device (see e.g. "an anode… for a metal-ion battery" in Abstract and FIG. 2) comprising:
an electrode body (see e.g. FIG. 4) having a first surface (see e.g. part number 403 in FIG. 4) and second surface opposite the first surface (see e.g. part number 406 in FIG. 4),
wherein the second surface of the electrode body is affixed to a current collector (see e.g. part numbers 404b and 406 in FIG. 4; in this figure the second surface (406) is affixed to the current collector (404b)),
wherein the electrode body comprises a plurality of channels and wherein at least a portion of the channels extend from the first surface to the second surface of the electrode body (see e.g. FIG. 13 and FIG. 4; within this figure it is clear there are pathways between the particles (part number 403) that stretch from the first surface (403) to the second surface of the electrode body (406)), and
wherein the electrode body has an average thickness (distance from the first surface to the second surface of the electrode body) of 50 to 100 microns (see e.g. "50-100 micron thick electrodes" in paragraph [0159]),
wherein the electrode has a rate capability (area specific capability) of 2-6 mAh/cm2 (see e.g. "the capacity loading is moderate or moderate-high (e.g. 2-6 mAh/cm2)" in paragraph [0063]).
Yushin discloses an average thickness of 50 to 100 microns which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 70 microns; Yushin also discloses an area-specific capacity range of 2–6 mAh/cm² which overlaps with and encompasses the claimed minimum value of at least 2.2 mAh/cm². Yushin further discloses an anode that has no compositional or structural distinction to the anode claimed in the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range and sufficient specificity is shown, the prior art anticipates the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03 (II).
Yushin does not explicitly recite a C-rate at which the disclosed capacity loading is measured. However, Yushin discloses an electrode structure and composition that have no compositional or structural distinction from the electrode claimed in the instant application. Area-specific capacity is a property that necessarily results from the disclosed electrode structure when the electrode is charged and discharged at a finite current. In the absence of any disclosure that Yushin’s electrode operates exclusively at C-rates greater than 1C, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed capacity loading is achieved at C-rates that include values up to 1C. Accordingly, the claimed rate capability is inherent in the electrode disclosed by Yushin. When the prior art structure is the same as the claimed structure, and the claimed property necessarily flows from that structure, the property is inherent even if not expressly disclosed. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrochemical device is an energy storage device (see e.g. "an example metal-ion (e.g., Li-ion) battery" in paragraph [0039]). Regarding Claim 6, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that a portion of the plurality of channels are interconnected (see e.g. FIG. 13; channels between particles are interconnected).
Regarding Claim 7, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the plurality of channels is present in an amount of 0.01 vol% to 20 vol% (see e.g. "the volume fraction of such pores in the electrode may range from around 0.01% to around 20% of the electrode volume." in paragraph [0169]).
Yushin discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed in the instant application. Yushin discloses an electrode that has no compositional or structural differences to the electrode claimed in the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps the claimed range and sufficient specificity is shown then the prior art anticipates the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03 (II).
Regarding Claim 8, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode body further comprises pores (see e.g. "porous fibers may be uniformly distributed within the electrode" in paragraph [0159]) wherein the pores have a porosity volume of 10 vol. % to 97 vol. % (see e.g. "the pore fraction in such porous fibers may range from around 10 vol. % to around 97 vol. %" in paragraph [0159]).
Yushin discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed in the instant application. Yushin discloses the same electrode that is claimed in the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range and sufficient specificity is shown then the prior art anticipates the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03 (II).
Regarding Claim 9, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode body further comprises a solid binder (see e.g. "the active material coating may comprise a first binder and the interlayer may comprise a second binder" in paragraph [0015] and "(e.g. polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)" in paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the binder comprises a conducting polymer (see e.g. "(e.g. polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)" in paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 13, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode body further comprises a conductive additive (see e.g. "conductive additives" in paragraph [0165]).
Regarding Claim 20, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the current collector is a metal current collector (see e.g. "the current collector may be a copper alloy" in paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 22, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode has a rate capability (area specific capability) of 2-6 mAh/cm2 (see e.g. "the capacity loading is moderate or moderate-high (e.g., 2-6 mAh/cm2)" in paragraph [0063]).
Yushin discloses a range within the range claimed by the instant application, thereby anticipating the claimed ranges. In the case where the prior art teaches a range within the claimed range, the claim is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
Yushin does not explicitly recite a C-rate at which the disclosed capacity loading is measured. However, Yushin discloses an electrode structure and composition that have no compositional or structural distinction from the electrode claimed in the instant application. Area-specific capacity is a property that necessarily results from the disclosed electrode structure when the electrode is charged and discharged at a finite current. In the absence of any disclosure that Yushin’s electrode operates exclusively at C-rates greater than 1C, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed capacity loading is achieved at C-rates that include values up to 1C. Accordingly, the claimed rate capability is inherent in the electrode disclosed by Yushin. When the prior art structure is the same as the claimed structure, and the claimed property necessarily flows from that structure, the property is inherent even if not expressly disclosed. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 23, Yushin discloses a cell having a positive electrode (see e.g. "a positive cathode 103" in paragraph [0039] and part number 103 in FIG. 1) and a negative electrode (see e.g. " a negative anode 102" in paragraph [0039] and part number 102 in FIG. 1) and an electrolyte in ionic communication with the positive and negative electrodes (see e.g. " an electrolyte (not shown) impregnating the separator 104" in paragraph [0039]; the separator (104) is in between the negative electrode (102) and positive electrode (103) an electrolyte impregnating the separator in between would have to have ionic communication with both electrodes as ions flow during operation), wherein at least one of the positive and negative electrodes comprises an electrode according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US-20180151884-A1) as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 4, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the channels have a length of the channels may be in the range of 20% of the electrode thickness to 100% of the electrode thickness (see e.g. "In an example, a suitable length of such pores may be in the range from about 20% of the electrode thickness to around 100% of the electrode thickness (e.g., from 50% to 100%)" in paragraph [0169]). Yushin previously discloses that the electrode is 50-100 µm thick (see claim 1 rejection above), therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the channels can also be between 50-100 µmin length).
Yushin discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that a portion of the plurality of channels are isolated from each other (see e.g. FIG. 14A). In FIG. 14A Yushin discloses a random layering of particles as well as patterned channels, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that multiple patterned channels would be a plurality of channels isolated from each other.
Regarding Claim 18, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode body comprises an electrolyte (see e.g. "an electrolyte (not shown) impregnating the separator 104" in paragraph [0039] and FIG. 1). The separator (104) is in between the negative electrode (102) and positive electrode (103); it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the electrolyte impregnating the cell would necessarily be present within the pores/channels of the electrode body, since electrolyte infiltration into pores and channels is an inherent and well-understood result of fabricating and operating porous/channel-containing electrodes.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US-20180151884-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuzaki (US-20170104215-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin does not disclose that the electrode body has an average thickness of at least about 200 µm, from about 200 µm to about 500 µm, or from about 200 µm to about 400 µm.
Matsuzaki, however, in the same field of endeavor, high energy electrodes with controlled microstructures, discloses an electrode body that has an average thickness of 4 to 200 µm (see e.g. "the thickness of the compressed mixture layer is typically approximately from 4 to 200 μm" in paragraph [0075] of Matsuzaki).
Matsuzaki discloses a range that overlaps with the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Matsuzaki also teaches that this type of electrode is excellent in speed absorption of an electrolytic solution and in amount of retention and application of this electrode to secondary batteries allows for high power density of the batteries to be achieved and can be manufactured at low cost with high productivity (see e.g. paragraph [0145] of Matsuzaki). Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode body of Yushin et al. such that the electrode body has an average thickness of 4 to 200 µm as taught by Matsuzaki in order to have an electrode in a secondary battery that allows for high power density to be achieved and for this battery to be manufactured at a low cost but still have a high productivity as suggest by Matsuzaki.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US-20180151884-A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US-20150125747-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection above).
Yushin does not disclose that the binder comprises polyacrylic acid and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) in a weight ratio from 1:4 to 4:1.
Yang, however, in the same field of endeavor, electrodes for high power batteries, discloses a binder that comprises polyacrylic acid and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) in a weight ratio of 7:3 (see e.g. "the content of the binder was controlled such that the styrene-butadiene rubber and the polyacrylic acid were present in a weight ratio of 7:3." in paragraph [0089] of Yang).
Yang discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Yang also teaches that this binder can improve the durability of an anode and enhance the life characteristics of an electrochemical device (see e.g. paragraph [0002] of Yang). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the binder of Yushin et al. such that it comprises polyacrylic acid and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) in a weight ratio of 7:3 as taught by Yang et al. in order to improve the durability of the anode and enhance the life characteristics of the electrochemical device as suggested by Yang.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US-20180151884-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Take et al. (US-20110165449-A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin does not disclose that the electrode further comprises an electroactive material comprising lithium.
Take, however, in the same field of endeavor, high power batteries, discloses an electroactive material comprising lithium (see e.g. "85 parts by weight of lithium cobalt oxide (“Cellseed C-10” manufactured by Nippon Chemical Industrial Co., Ltd.) as a positive electrode active material," in paragraph [0115] of Take).
Take also teaches that the lithium ion secondary battery with this electroactive material has excellent initial rate characteristics and oxidation resistance and is less susceptible to deterioration of the output characteristics even after it is exposed to high temperatures in a charging state for a long period of time (see e.g. paragraph [0170] of Take). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electroactive material of Yushin et al. such that it comprises lithium as taught by Take et al. in order to have a lithium ion secondary battery with excellent initial rate characteristics and oxidation resistance and a battery that is less susceptible to deterioration of the output characteristics even after it is exposed to high temperatures in a charging state for a long period of time as suggested by Take. Regarding Claim 16, Yushin in view of Take disclose the electrode of claim 15 (see claim 15 rejection above).
Yushin does not disclose that the electroactive material is present in an amount of from 50% to 96% by weight or from 60% to 85% by weight of the electrode body.
Take, however, discloses that the electroactive material is present in an amount of 85% by weight of the electrode body (see e.g. "85 parts by weight of lithium cobalt oxide (“Cellseed C-10” manufactured by Nippon Chemical Industrial Co., Ltd.) as a positive electrode active material," in paragraph [0115] of Take).
Take discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Take also teaches that the lithium ion secondary battery with this electroactive material has excellent initial rate characteristics and oxidation resistance and is less susceptible to deterioration of the output characteristics even after it is exposed to high temperatures in a charging state for a long period of time (see e.g. paragraph [0170] of Take). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electroactive material of Yushin et al. such that it comprises an amount of 85% weight of the electrode body as taught by Take et al. in order to have a lithium ion secondary battery with excellent initial rate characteristics and oxidation resistance and a battery that is less susceptible to deterioration of the output characteristics even after it is exposed to high temperatures in a charging state for a long period of time as suggested by Take.
Regarding Claim 17, Yushin discloses the electrode of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Yushin further discloses that the electrode further comprises a binder (see e.g. “the active material coating may comprise a first binder” in paragraph [0015]) and a conductive additive (see e.g. “conductive additives” in paragraph [0057]).
Yushin does not disclose that the electroactive material, the binder, and conductive additive are present in a weight ratio 60-95:2.5-10:2.5-30.
Take, however, discloses that the electroactive material, the binder, and conductive additive are present in a weight ratio 85:5:10 (see e.g. paragraph [0115] of Take).
Take discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Take further teaches that the lithium ion secondary battery with this electrode has excellent initial rate characteristics and oxidation resistance and is less susceptible to deterioration of the output characteristics even after it is exposed to high temperatures in a charging state for a long period of time (see e.g. paragraph [0170] of Take). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode of Yushin et al. such that it comprises an electroactive material, binder, and conductive additive in a weight ratio 85:5:10 as taught by Take et al. in order to have a lithium ion secondary battery with excellent initial rate characteristics and oxidation resistance and a battery that is less susceptible to deterioration of the output characteristics even after it is exposed to high temperatures in a charging state for a long period of time as suggested by Take.
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723