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
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 17 were rejected in the Office Action from 02/24/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 1, 4, 17, and added claim 19. Claims 3 and 18 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-17 and 19 are currently pending in the application, of claims 6-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 17 and 19 are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant primarily argue that Zhang teaches that a liquid lubricant/solvent is required and teaches away from the possibility of dry mixing as described in paragraph [0009[.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because obviousness is based on the teachings of a reference as a whole, including its discussion of known techniques in the art. Paragraph [0009] expressly teaches that dry blending without lubricants was a known method for preparing the electrode materials. A reference is not limited to its preferred embodiment, and the acknowledgment of an alternative known process would have suggested its use to one of ordinary skill in the art. The fact that Zhang identifies disadvantages associated with the prior-art process does not amount to a teaching away, as Zhang merely notes tradeoffs such as elevated temperature and process complexity rather than stating that the dry process is inoperative or should not be used.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 4 recites the limitation “based on a thickness of 200µm”. Such is interpreted merely as a reference thickness for measuring tensile strength and thickness deviation 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 an improper dependency 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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]), comprising:
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 [0042]),
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).
As to the limitation “wherein the free-standing film comprises an electrode composition in which the active material, the conductive material, and the binder are dry-mixed without a solvent.”, although the preferred embodiment in Zhang employs a liquid lubricant to form a past prior to extrusion (paragraph [0015]), the reference expressly acknowledges in paragraph [0009] that, in the prior art, dry mixing the components at elevated temperatures within the addition of lubricants. Thus, the reference recognizes that dry mixing of electrode components without a liquid processing medium was a known technique in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the acknowledged dry-mixing process in preparing the electrode composition of the reference instead of the lubricant-assisted mixing process because the reference itself identifies both approaches as known techniques for preparing electrode materials. The selection of a known mixing technique over another represents the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions, yielding no more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the free-standing electrode film as described above in claim 1. Zhang teaches manufacturing a free-standing electrode film having uniform thickness through controlled extrusion (i.e., extruded and rolled into 100 microns thick) (paragraph [0054]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that every manufactured film necessarily exhibits some finite thickness variation due to manufacturing tolerances. It would have been obvious to optimize the manufacturing conditions of Zhang to obtain a small thickness deviation within the claimed range of grater than 0% to 0.5% or less, since such optimization merely represents achieving the expected degree of uniformity obtainable through routine process control. 0% to 0.5% encompasses essentially every well-controlled industrial film process. Zhang already teaches producing a uniform thickness with improved mechanical properties (paragraph [0042]), then optimizing manufacturing parameters to achieve a small thickness deviation within the claimed range would have been a routine experimentation.
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]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches the free-standing electrode film has a thickness of 150 µm (Example 10).
The only deficiency of the thickness is that Zhang disclose a 150 µm, while the present claims require greater than 150 µm to 500 µmm.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of greater than 150 µmm and that taught by Zhang are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the thickness of 150 µm disclosed by Zhang and the thickness disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the thickness of greater than 150 µm to 500 µm, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of amount of 150 µm to 500 µm disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Zhang, and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hong et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0191543). Hong teaches a thickness deviation of 0.03% (maximum of 0.04 µm) in electrode materials (paragraph [0059]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights