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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 17-18 were rejected in the Office Action from 10/21/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1-2 and cancelled claim 18.
Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are currently pending in the application, of claims 6-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 17 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 recites the limitation “the fiberizable polymer is included in an amount of 50 wt% or more based on the total weight of the binder”. However, newly amended claim 1, from which claim 17 ultimately depends on, recites “the binder consists of a fiberizable polymer”. Since the recitation exclude other materials from a fiberizable polymer, it must be only 100 wt% of a fiberzable polymer based on the total weight of the binder. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the fiberizable polymer is 100 wt% based on the total weight of the binder. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0280289 – cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1-2, Zhang teaches a free-standing film for dry electrode (i.e., self-supported electrode film) (paragraph [0007]), comprsing:
a binder (i.e., fibrillatable polymer) (paragraph [0030]),
an active material (i.e., active particles) (paragraph [0030]), and
a conductive material (i.e., conductive particles) (paragraph [0030]),
wherein the free-standing film has a tensile strength more than 1000 gf/cm2 (i.e., tensile strength above 0.01Kg/mm2) (paragraph [0041]),
wherein the binder consists of a fiberizable polymer such as PTFE (paragraph [0041]), and
wherein a weight ratio of the active material, the conductive material, and the binder is in a range of 80-85 wt% : 5-10 wt% : 5-10 wt% (paragraph [0041]).
As to the limitation “based on a thickness of 200µm”, such is interpreted merely as a reference thickness for measuring tensile strength and not required by the actual film. In other words, it appears that the 200µm is functioning as a reference condition for measurement, not as a structural thickness limitation. Therefore, the tensile strength value corresponds to the standardized 200µm thickness specimen and the actual claimed film is not limited to the recited thickness (NOTE: If Applicant intent to require the actual film thickness of 200µm, note that this would create a contradiction because further claim 5 requires a thickness range of 10-1000 µm and such would improperly broaden claim 1 as opposed to further limiting it.).
It is noted that Zhang differ in the exact same tensile strength range as recited in the instant claim however, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the tensile strength range of Zhang overlap the instant claimed tensile strength and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It has been held in the courts that 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the free-standing electrode film as described above in claim 1. There is no mention of a thickness deviation. In the absence of a teaching which required a thickness deviation there would not be reason or guidance to create one. In this case the prior art silence evidences the claimed limitation and it is interpreted that ̴Wang includes a 0% deviation which meets the requirements of “0.5% or less”.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the free-standing film having a thickness of 100µm (paragraph [0035], [0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches the binder is 100% a fiberizable polymer (i.e., there is only fiberizable polymer in the composition) (paragraph [0041])
Response to Arguments
In response to the amendments in the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter issue is withdrawn from the record.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Baker et al. (U.S. Patent 3,898,099). Baker teaches an electrode film comprising 0.1-3 wt% of PTFE combined with an active material (C2:L5-45).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723