DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/5/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/26/26 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 3/6/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 4-20 are currently pending. Claims 2, 3, 21, and 22 are cancelled. Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The previously stated 112, 1st paragraph rejection of claims 21 and 22 is withdrawn. The amended claim 1 does overcome the previously stated 102 and 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1, 4-9, and 20 are rejected under the following new 103 rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi et al (US 2021/0098770) in view of Kim et al (US 2020/0168895).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 20, Yudi et al discloses a lithium ion battery (secondary battery) comprising a first electrode “102” (anode), a second electrode “104” (cathode / electrode), and an electrolyte solution;
wherein the second electrode comprises:
a current collector (electrode current collector); and
an electrode film “114” (electrode layer) located on the current collector,
wherein the electrode film comprises an electrode composition in which a cathode active material, a conductive carbon additive (conductive material), and a binder comprising a fibrillizable binder consisting of PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) are dry-mixed; wherein the binder particles (first binder fiber) may be about 10 um or about 50 um (diameter of first binder fiber); wherein the electrode film is formed at a high shear of 3800 rpm which forms the first binder fiber of PTFE;
wherein a content of the binder is 1% by weight to 5% by weight based on a total weight of the electrode composition;
wherein the cathode active material comprises at least one of lithium cobalt oxide and lithium manganese oxide;
wherein the electrode composition is manufactured into a freestanding film, and the freestanding film is attached onto the current collector;
wherein the processing time and/or feed rate generally will have an effect on the final particle size ([0036]-[0043],[0051]-[0053],[0071]).
However, Yudi et al does not expressly teach a second binder fiber extending from the first binder fiber (claim 1).
Kim et al discloses an electrode mixture including a first binder (first binder fiber) and a second binder (second binder fiber), wherein the second binder forms a network in a form of short fibers, and the first binder are physically connected to the network which inherently results in the second binder extending from the first binder, wherein the second binder may be polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), wherein the PTFE is mixed at 50 rpm for about 10 minutes which inherently form a second binder fiber having smaller diameter ([0050]-[0052],[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yudi electrode film to include a second binder fiber extending from the first binder fiber such that a network is formed by fiberization of the second binder, thereby forming an integral body that may be in the form of a film rolled with a regular thickness as well as further improving the bonding of the electrode active material and conductive material ([0054],[0070]).
However, Yudi et al as modified by Kim et al does not expressly teach a diameter of the second binder fiber is 0.01 um or more and 2.0 um or less (claim 1).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Yudi/Kim binder to include a diameter of the second binder fiber is 0.01 um or more and 2.0 um or less because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The diameter of the second binder fiber is a result effect variable of optimizing the processability of the manufacturing of the electrode ([0053]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claim diameter of the second binder fiber.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi et al in view of Kim et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (US 2021/0376328).
However, Yudi et al as modified by Kim et al does not expressly teach an electrode for secondary battery that has a contact angle deviation of 0.01 degrees or more and 5.0 degrees of less (claim 5).
Wang et al discloses a contact angle of an anode mixture layer (electrode), wherein each sample is measured at least three times, at least three pieces of data which differ from each other by less than 5° (contact angle deviation) are selected ([0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Yudi/Kim electrode film to include a contact angle deviation of 5.0 degrees of less in order to provide an interface of the electrode layer that has few defects and has good stability during charging and discharging, thereby ensuring good cycle performance ([0118]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi et al in view of Kim et al as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2019/0280289).
However, Yudi et al as modified by Kim et al does not expressly teach a freestanding film that has a tensile strength of 13 kgf/cm2 or more and 30 kgf/cm2 or less (claim 9).
Zhang et al discloses an electrode film (freestanding film) that has a tensile strength of 0.03 kg/mm2 (30 kgf/cm2) ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Yudi/Kim electrode film to include a freestanding film that has a tensile strength of 30 kgf/cm2 in order to improve the ease of processing or manufacturing the paste into electrodes ([0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-9, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/23/2026
