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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-196822, filed on 12/03/2021.
Response to Amendment
Amendments have been entered. Amendments do not overcome the 103-rejection set forth in Final Rejection filed 11/04/2025, 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 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
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 02/04/2026 have been entered. Arguments are fully considered.
On pg.5, the applicant argues:
“A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that that Uchida further teaches as follows…’It is further preferred that the exposed surface area ratio of the collector in the pattern coating be 50% to 70%. The low-temperature resistance in this case can be reduced by 30%...’ Further, the specification disclosure establishes that the claim fracture yields unexpectedly superior results in terms of peels strength. ”
However, this is not convincing. The prior art still teaches the range but does not teach away from the wider range, but only concerns a different range for variation of degree to a predictable extent (see MPEP 2144.05 (III)(A)). The examiner also points to Uchida figure 7, which shows, despite the optimum range there is the same temperature resistance across a variety of temperatures. Further, the results as demonstrated are not unexpected. The peel strength seems to increase linearly as the area fraction gets higher. It does not demonstrate an unexpected result, such as the peel strength getting weaker outside of the claimed range. Therefore, the range as claimed would have been obvious in view of the prior art.
On pg. 6, the applicant argues:
“Further, in Uchida, the exposed surface area ratio of the collector in the pattern coating process is defined as, ‘ ratio of the surface are occupied by the uncoated sections of the surface area occupied by the binder-coated sections applied with the binder coating liquid and the uncoated sections’…In Contrast, Applicant’s specification establishes that the claimed fraction of an area refers to an area to which the binder particle groups are attached in an area of the current collector foil’”
However, this is not convincing. The examiner, upon consideration of Uchida, finds that these definitions appear to be analogous. Uchida states, “in the case where the exposed surface area is 0% (the entire surface is applied with the binder solution).” [0031]. This lower bound suggest the same definition as the instant application, as 0% is defined as 0% of the surface exposed, which would in turn, make 100% full exposed. The examiner has interpreted ‘In the invention, the exposed surface area ratio of the collector in the pattern coating process means a ratio of the surface area occupied by the uncoated sections to the surface area occupied by the binder-coated sections applied with the binder coating liquid and the uncoated sections’ as (the exposed area / the area of coated+uncoated *100). Here ‘ratio’ seems to imply the fraction when calculating a percent. This would be analogous to surface exposed as in the instant application as it can be simplified to (exposed/ total surface*100). The applicant further argues that they are not analogous as one is prior to drying, not the one after drying or dried such as the instant application. However, Uchida demonstrates that the area would remain largely the same. This is because Uchida teaches that the binder on the surface largely remains the same even after pressurization, “Even when the deposited layer of the active material K and the binder B2 is pressurized by the pressurizing rollers, the binder B1 remains as a thin film in a large portion between the collector Z and the active material K. Since the binder B1 is by itself an insulator, the formed conductive path D1 is restricted to tiny remaining exposed portion.” See [0080]. B1 is the binder bound to the collector and remains unchanged by the pressurization. This would suggest that at exposures higher than 10%, the pressurization would push the active material K onto the surface and create more pathways when dry (Uchida, see [0079])(Uchida, see Fig. 5) (Instant Application, see Fig. 4). Therefore, the amount of exposed area would still be advantageous and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
On pg. 7, the applicant argues:
“The applicant further submits that the cited references—either alone or in combination—do not teach or suggest the subject matter of new dependent claims 8 and 9.”
However, this is not convincing. The Examiner has found that Uchida in combination with Suzuki teach the features as claimed, as seen above.
Conclusion
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
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752