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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments have been entered. Amendments do not overcome the 103-rejection set forth in non-final Rejection filed 02/24/2026, but new grounds of rejections have been set forth below as necessitated by amendments.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20140079872-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Uchida’ in view of ‘A review of non-contact micro- and nano-printing technologies’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Ru’
Regarding Claim 1,
Uchida teaches an electrode for a lithium-ion battery (Uchida, “lithium ion secondary battery having electrodes”, ), comprising: a current collector foil; binder particle groups; and an active material layer (Uchida, “binder on a collector for a positive electrode”, see [0003]), wherein the binder particle groups are attached to a surface of the current collector foil (Uchida, “binder coating liquid including the second binder on a surface of the collector”. See [0010]); the active material layer is arranged on the surface of the current collector foil; the active material layer contains active material particle groups (Uchida, “mix particles including the positive electrode active material or the negative electrode active material and the first binder on the binder-coated sections and the uncoated sections and forming the mix layer on the collector.”, see [0010]); and the binder particle groups are scattered within an interface between the active material layer and the current collector foil (Uchida, see fig. 6).
Uchida teaches wherein a fraction of an area to which the binder particle groups are attached in an area of the current collector foil is 11.4% to 19.3 % (Uchida, “The exposed surface area ratio of the collector in the pattern coating process may be within a range of 10% to 85%.”, see [0030]) (The examiner notes that the exposed area is 10% to 85 then the attached area is 90% to 15%).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 90% to 15% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 11.4% to 19.3%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Uchida does not teach attaching groups by electrostatic force.
Ru teaches attaching groups by electrostatic force (Ru, “Electrohydrodynamic printing (e-jet printing) employs an electric field-induced flow through microcapillary nozzles to deliver the ink onto a substrate”, see 2.2 Electrohydrodynamic printing)
Ru teaches that this method can have up to submicron precision, low contact, have a simple set up, and can be used to print polymers which would make up a binder (Ru, see Table 1: Electrohydrodynamic printing)
Modified Uchida and Ru are analogous as they both relate to the field of electronics, batteries, and manufacturing methods.
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 placement of the binder as taught in modified Uchida with the electrostatic technique taught in Ru, in order to improve the precision, and set up during manufacturing
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20140079872-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Uchida’ in view of ‘A review of non-contact micro- and nano-printing technologies’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Ru’ in view of (US-20200235424-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Mochizuki’
Regarding Claim 3,
Modified Uchida does not teach wherein D50 of the binder particle groups is smaller than D50 of the active material particle groups.
Mochizuki teaches wherein the D50 of the binder particle groups is smaller than D50 of the active material particle groups (Mochizuki, “The average particle size of the negative electrode active material is preferably 0.1 to 60 μm.”, see [0179])(Mochizuki, “The binder particles (D) having an average particle size of 1 nm to 10 μm.”, see [0187]) (The examiner notes that the binder can be small than the active material, for example binder at 1nm and active material at 0.1um)
Mochizuki also teaches the binder particle is that size in order to improve contact with the interface between particles in the active material (Mochizuki, “The average particle size of the binder particles (D) is 1 nm to 10 μm, and in order to further improve contact a solid interface at least between particles of the active material in the active material layer,”, see [0215])
Modified Uchida and Mochizuki are analogous as they both come from the same field of lithium-ion battery materials.
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 binder as taught in Modified Uchida to be a particle smaller than the active material, in order to improve the contact of the interface between the binder and the active material.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20140079872-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Uchida’ in view of ‘A review of non-contact micro- and nano-printing technologies’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Ru’, in view of ‘Graphene Oxide Sieving Membrane for Improved Cycle Life in High-Efficiency Redox-Mediated Li–O2 batteries’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Park’
Regarding Claim 4,
Modified Uchida teaches electrode according to claim 1, wherein a basis weight of the binder particle groups is 0.1080mg/cm^2
However, Uchida does not teach a basis weight of 0.010 mg/cm2 to 0.017 mg/cm2 (Uchida, “The content of the SBR in the coating liquid is of two types, namely, …0.1080 mg/cm2”, see [0089]).
Park teaches a basis weight of 0.01 mg/cm^2 (Park, “layer was obtained with GO mass loading of 0.01 mg cm−2”, see Results and Discussion) (The examiner notes that ‘basis weight’ and ‘mass loading’ are synonymous)
Park teaches that this low basis weight demonstrated a very low resistance and contributed to an improved rate performance (Park, “Such a low resistance of the membrane with 0.01 mg cm−2 of GO loading also contributed to the excellent rate performance,”, see Results and Discussion)
Modified Uchida and Park are analogous as they both are of the same field of batteries and battery materials
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 basis weight of the material as taught in Modified Uchida with the low basis weight as taught in Park in order to lower the resistance of the binder in the battery and improve the overall performance.
Claim 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20140079872-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Uchida’, in view of ‘A review of non-contact micro- and nano-printing technologies’ hereinafter referred to as ‘Ru’, in view of (US-20070003836-A1), hereinafter referred to as ‘Suzuki’
Regarding Claim 5,
Uchida teaches a method of manufacturing an electrode for a lithium-ion battery (Uchida, “A method for manufacturing a lithium-ion secondary battery having electrodes”, Abstract), the method comprising steps of: (a) preparing a current collector foil (Uchida, “The manufacturing method includes: performing pattern coating of a binder”, see [0010]) ; (b) coating a surface of the current collector foil with binder particle groups (Uchida, “binder coating liquid including the second binder on a surface of the collector to regularly form binder-coated sections and uncoated sections”, see [0010]); and (c) forming an active material layer by coating the surface of the current collector foil with active material particle groups after the step (b) (Uchida, “and feeding a powder of mix particles including the positive electrode active material or the negative electrode active material”, see [0010]).
Uchida teaches wherein a fraction of an area to which the binder particle groups are attached in an area of the current collector foil is 11.4% to 19.3 % (Uchida, “The exposed surface area ratio of the collector in the pattern coating process may be within a range of 10% to 85%.”, see [0030]) (The examiner notes that the exposed area is 11.4% to 19.3% then the attached area is 90% to 15%).
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 90% to 15% broadly overlaps the claimed range of 11.4% to 19.3%. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Uchida does not teach attaching groups by electrostatic force.
Ru teaches attaching groups by electrostatic force (Ru, “Electrohydrodynamic printing (e-jet printing) employs an electric field-induced flow through microcapillary nozzles to deliver the ink onto a substrate”, see 2.2 Electrohydrodynamic printing)
Ru teaches that this method can have up to submicron precision, low contact, have a simple set up, and can be used to print polymers which would make up a binder (Ru, see Table 1: Electrohydrodynamic printing)
Modified Uchida and Ru are analogous as they both relate to the field of electronics, batteries, and manufacturing methods.
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 placement of the binder as taught in modified Uchida with the electrostatic technique taught in Ru, in order to improve the precision, and set up during manufacturing
Uchida does not teach that the coating is by a dry method.
Suzuki teaches a dry method for coating (Suzuki, “When used as the main component of fine particles for producing the active material-containing layer for electrode by means of the dry method”, see [0051])
Suzuki also teaches that the dry method can be safer, allow for higher particle density, and prevent agglomeration or uneven distribution (Suzuki, “The dry method is a method to form an electrode without using a solvent, which has the following advantages; i.e., 1) since no solvent is required, the dry method is safe; 2) since the particles only are extended being applied with pressure without using a solvent, the electrode (porous layer) can be easily built up in a high density; and 3) since no solvent is used, in the drying process of the liquid film formed of the coating liquid for forming an electrode having been applied on the collector, there occurs no agglomeration or uneven distribution of the particle”, see [0195])
Uchida and Suzuki are analogous as they are of the same field of battery material.
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 method of application as taught in Uchida to the dry method as taught in Suzuki in order to allow for higher particle density, prevent agglomeration, and prevent uneven distribution.
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Uchida teaches The method according to claim 5, wherein the step (c) includes performing coating with the active material particle groups by a dry method (Suzuki, “When used as the main component of fine particles for producing the active material-containing layer for electrode by means of the dry method”, see [0051]).
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Uchida does not teach wherein the active material layer further comprises a conductive material in an amount of 0.1 parts by mass to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the active material particle groups.
Suzuki teaches wherein the active material layer further comprises a conductive material in an amount of 0.1 parts by mass to 10 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the active material particle groups (Suzuki, “The composite particle P10 for electrode was constituted of an electrode active material for the anode (85% by mass), a conductive additive (5% by mass) and a binder (10% by mass).”, see [0231]).
Suzuki teaches that the conductive additive imparts conductivity to the electrode mixture (Suzuki, “particle P2 consisting of the conductive additive for imparting the conductivity and the particle P3 c”, see [0195])
Uchida and Suzuki are analogous as they are both of the same field of electrode manufacturing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mixture as taught in Uchida to add conductive particles as taught in Suzuki in order to increase the conductivity of the mixture.
Regarding Claim 9,
Modified Uchida teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the active material layer further comprises composite particles formed of the active material particles having attached on surfaces a binder material (Uchida, “a powder component including at least an active material and a binder is deposited thereupon, and the deposited layer of the binder solution and powder component on the collector is heated and pressurized by rollers.”, see [0007]).
Uchida does not teach a conductive material.
Suzuki teaches a conductive material (Suzuki, “The composite particle P10 for electrode was constituted of an electrode active material for the anode (85% by mass), a conductive additive (5% by mass) and a binder (10% by mass).”, see [0231]).
Suzuki teaches that the conductive additive imparts conductivity to the electrode mixture (Suzuki, “particle P2 consisting of the conductive additive for imparting the conductivity and the particle P3 c”, see [0195])
Uchida and Suzuki are analogous as they are both of the same field of electrode manufacturing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mixture as taught in Uchida to add conductive particles as taught in Suzuki in order to increase the conductivity of the mixture.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 05/21/2026 have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
On pg. 4, the applicant states,
“Thus, Uchida does not teach or suggest either the "binder particle groups" as presently claimed or the "dry method" as presently claimed. Further, cited references Ru, Mochizuki, Park and Suzuki do not cure the deficiencies of Uchida in this regard.”
18. However, this is not convincing. Uchida teaches the binder particle groups as described by claim 1. As the applicant highlights, Fig. 6 demonstrates a binder particle group B1. The applicant claims that this isn’t a particle group. The examiner disagrees. The examiner below highlights the instant applications’ Fig. 1 and Uchida’s figures 6. As can be seen in the figures the structure of the binding layer is the same. The binder taught in Uchida is made of particles and therefore when they make up a particle group (Uchida, “The binder used for the mix particles may be of the same type as the binder used for the binder coating liquid, or of a different type. For example, amorphous coat graphite can be used as a negative electrode active material. For example, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) can be used as the binder. The powder 51 of mix particles is obtained by compounding”, see [0063]). The examiner notes that there is no limitation in Claim 1 which requires that the layer be dry. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Uchida fits for claim 1. Further, Suzuki is used to reject claim 5 and other claims which teach the dry method as a limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
528
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On pg. 6, the applicant states,
“Applicant submits that a person having ordinary skill in the art reading the cited references would find no particular reason to apply an electrohydrodynamic printing technique of delivering ink onto a substrate (Ru section 2.2) to prepare a lithium ion battery that may be manufactured by 3D printing (Ru section 2.1.4) or a lithium ion battery as taught by Uchida.
Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art reading the cited references would not have sought to modify Uchida with Ru as alleged.
However, this is not convincing. The applicant claims that POSITA would not have a motivation to combine due to Uchida being a battery and Ru being a printing technology review. They argue that because Ru only makes a single reference to batteries that a POSITA would not find a motivation to combine. The examiner disagrees, as the whether the art is analogous or pertinent to the POSITA is not a matter of times mentioned. Ru mentions batteries explicitly (Ru, “Lithium-ion batteries have been 3D printed for energy storage [114]. 3D inkjet printing has also been used to fabricate 3D micro-capacitors ”, Introductions). This, along with other electronic and material technology, suggests that they are of the same field of electro-materials-- the same field as the present invention. Alternatively, Ru teaches a solution which is reasonably pertinent to the problem at hand to POSITA. Ru teaches that polymers and metal materials can be printed (Ru, see Table 1: Electrohydrodynamic printing). A POSITA would recognize that polymers are generally applicable to battery configurations and, considering the Ru teaches high precision printing, would find reasonable that the techniques of Ru would be pertinent to the art at hand (see MPEP 2141.01(a)). Therefore, it would be obvious to combine.
On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“Thus, Applicant submits that that area ratio in the pattern coating process of Uchida cannot be used to infer that Uchida discloses "the binder particle groups are...attached to a surface of the current collector foil in a fraction of 11.4% to 19.3% of the surface" (claim 1) or "coating 11.4% to 19.3% of a surface of the current collector foil with binder particle groups by a dry method" (claim 5) as presently recited.”
However, this is not convincing. The applicant argues that the area as taught in Uchida is not applicable because the instant application is a dry method, while Uchida is a wet method. Uchida teaches that the binder, after it is applied, is dried. Uchida mentions that in some cases the amount of water is negligible (Uchida, “ while increasing the adhesivity, by drying with the radiator 4 to obtain a dry state. When the thickness of the coated sections is small (for example, about 1.5 μm), drying with the radiator 4 can be omitted. This is because the amount of water is small and, therefore, the water can be evaporated in the subsequent powder molding.”, see [0062]). Therefore, it is clear that whether it is dry or wet, the amount of area change after drying would be negligible. Further, Uchida provides an explicit motivation for this coverage area that a POSITA would understand would apply whether the method was wet or dry (Uchida, “Therefore, by setting the exposed surface area ratio of the collector in the pattern coating process to a range of 10% to 85%, it is possible to obtain both the peel strength of the electrode sheet which is equal to or higher than those of the conventional electrodes”, see [0032]). When combined with Suzuki, one of ordinary skill in the art would still find the area coverage to be advantageous. Therefore, a POSITA would be motivated to combine.
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 SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached on (571) 272-8760. 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.
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.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OLATUNJI A GODO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights