DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 4-22 are currently pending. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled. Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. New claims 21 and 22 have been added. The amended claim 1 does overcome the previously stated 102 and 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, claims 1, 4-9, and 20-22 are rejected under the following new 112, 102, and 103 rejections. This action is made FINAL as necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitations “the second fiber extends from the first fiber” and “the second fiber is coupled to and extending from the first fiber” are not supported by the specification. The only support appears to be from the schematic diagram shown in Fig. 1 which may not be an accurate representation of the present invention which is construed as a mixture of a first fiber and a second fiber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 6-9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mizuno et al (US 2018/0090762).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6-9, and 20, Mizuno et al discloses a lithium ion battery (secondary battery) comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode, and an electrolyte solution; wherein the positive electrode comprises: a current collector “40” (electrode current collector); and a positive electrode layer “10” located on the current collector, wherein the positive electrode layer “10” comprises an electrode composition in which an active material ”14”, a conductive aid “16” (conductive material), and a binder comprising: a binding agent, long fibers “13B” (B-1)(first fiber), and short fibers “13A” (A-1)(second fiber) are mixed; wherein a diameter of the long fibers is larger than a diameter of the short fibers, wherein the diameter of the long fibers (B-1) is 13 um and the diameter of the short fibers (A-1) is 0.3 um; wherein a content of the binder is 3% by weight based on a total weight of the electrode composition; wherein examples of the binding agent include polytetrafluoroethylene; wherein the active material comprises at least one of lithium cobalt oxide, lithium nickel oxide, and lithium manganese oxide; wherein the positive electrode layer (free standing film) inherently has a tensile strength of 13 kgf/cm2 or more and 30 kgf/cm2 ([0041],[0042],[0093],[0098],[0104],[0193], [0199],[0218], Table 1, Example 1, and Figs. 1 and 2). Examiner’s note: It is noted that claims 1 and 8 are being construed as product-by-process and that the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In that, it is further noted that the product in the instant claim is the same as or obvious over the product of the prior art. Therefore, the claim is anticipated by Mizuno et al. However, if the claim is not anticipated, the claim is obvious as it has been held similar products claimed in product-by-process limitations are obvious (In re Brown 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessman 180 USPQ 324, See MPEP 2113: Product-by-Process claims).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno et al (US 2018/0090762) in view of Wang et al (US 2021/0376328). The Mizuno reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Mizuno 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 Mizuno positive electrode 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 Mizuno et al (US 2018/0090762) in view of Zhang et al (US 2019/0280289). The Mizuno reference is applied to claim 1 for reasons stated above.
However, Mizuno 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 Mizuno positive electrode 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 20-22 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
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 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 3/4/2026